Barstool Sports and the persistence of traditional masculinity in sports culture – NBC News

Posted on by

When the news broke Sept. 10 that a lawsuit had been filed against NFL star receiver Antonio Brown accusing him of rape, Barstool Sports, like many other websites, published an article about it. But it was the comments on that article that told the real story.

Two comments alone I hate this guy but I think this is all BS and some chick is trying to get paid and Most obvious extortion attempt Ive ever seen racked up hundreds of likes on the sports and culture blog geared toward young men. A majority of replies to the article on Twitter elicited jokes about rape or crude remarks and captured a perspective popular with Barstool Sports' readers.

That was a direct and deliberate contrast to the ascendance of political correctness.

The current Congress is the most diverse in U.S. history, and American women have won more attention for sexual harassment issues in the years following the birth of the #MeToo movement. But Barstool Sports has found a base hungry for its politically incorrect content all the while also creating a steady stream of controversy.

Just last month, Barstool Sports' founder and president, David Portnoy, made headlines when he threatened to fire employees on the spot for discussing unionization. Last week, the company announced it was moving some of its videos that violate Instagrams terms of service to an app favored by the so-called alt-right.

Rather than being an errant blip amid an increasingly woke generation, Barstool Sports seems to exist as a parallel culture.

Not only has it been parallel, I think a conservative, reactionary response to women increasing prominence and equality is institutionalized by a place like Barstool Sports, said Soyaya Chemaly, a womens rights activist and the author of Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Womens Anger. I dont have any sense that #MeToo or even Trumps election was ever going to make a dent in that culture.

Conservative ideology appears to be a core part of Barstool Sports especially its portrayal of gender roles, with hypermasculine, sports-loving men and hypersexualized, submissive women. The sites reinforcement of conservative American values is what makes its content stand out from its competitors, Marie Hardin, the dean of Penn States Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications, said.

In many ways, Barstool has resisted some of the more progressive discourse around sports. And I think theres a niche for that, she said. Theres a market there and theyre able to capture that.

Portnoy founded Barstool Sports as a weekly New England sports-centric newspaper in 2003. From its beginning, the brand labeled itself as an outlet by the common man, for the common man and has, in recent years, ramped up its chauvinistic coverage of pop culture, memes and women. (See: Barstool Smokeshows, a subset of Barstool Sports thats dedicated to posting hypersexualized photos of women.)

The company appears to be moving away from sports coverage and focusing more on manliness. (See: Saturdays are for the boys, a tweet from one of its contributors that went viral and became the companys catchphrase to describe drunken debauchery.)

I think Barstool is a nostalgic callback to the idea that the more offensive you are, the more free youre being, and its also a kind of cultural preservation project for bros."

Lisa Nakamura

I think Barstool is a nostalgic callback to the idea that the more offensive you are, the more free youre being, and its also a kind of cultural preservation project for bros, said Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who studies the intersection of digital media and race, gender and sexuality.

Barstool Sports, Nakamura said, strikes a chord with its primary target audience young white men because it casts them as the persecuted ones of mainstream, politically correct culture. Men who feel disadvantaged by the world around them see the platform as a safe space where freedom of speech means voicing unpopular and sometimes offensive opinions without consequence.

We will not bow down to the winds of PC culture whichever way they may blow, Portnoy said in an email to NBC News. If that makes us perceived as counter culture then so be it. Id say we represent the silent majority. There is always a line that cant be crossed. Anything that is said or written from a place of hate will never be acceptable behavior at Barstool.

The niche for a conservative callback culture built around sports seems to be growing. In the past two years, in the midst of the #MeToo movement, Barstool Sports has almost doubled its Twitter following, according to Social Blade analytics, and now has almost 1.8 million followers. Over the past month, its account has gained about 1,700 followers a day.

See the original post:

Barstool Sports and the persistence of traditional masculinity in sports culture - NBC News

Jordan Peterson Checks into Rehab Following Wife’s Cancer Scare: ‘He Looks Like a Lost Puppy’ – Newsweek

Posted on by

Dr Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist who grew to international fame following his stand against political correctness and refusal to use gender pronouns, has been checked into a rehabilitation facility in New York, his daughter has confirmed.

In an eight-minute video released on her YouTube and social media channels, Mikhaila Peterson said her 57-year-old father was checked into the clinic after experiencing "horrific" physical withdrawal symptoms from trying to take himself off of the drug Clonazepam.

Peterson, who has previously been open about his relationship with depression, was prescribed the drug following his wife's diagnosis of a terminal cancer in April this year. Her illness also caused Peterson to suspend the speaking tour for his internationally best-selling book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, in addition to delaying publication of his forthcoming title.

Tammy, Peterson's wife of thirty years, has since made a "miraculous" recovery following numerous operations, surgical complications and months in and out of different hospitals, Mikhaila said, which has since triggered Peterson's desire to wean himself off the drug.

However, he was "like a lost puppy" and seriously needed the help of medical experts, she added.

"I've never seen my dad like this," Mikhaila said. "He's having a miserable time of it. It breaks my heart."

The 27-year-old, who has been one of the most active proponents of the controversial Carnivore Diet, along with her father, said that he was recovering and should be able to return to his career shortly.

"The situation is really sad. He looks like a lost puppy. But it will only last while he gets this horrible medication out his system and then he will be good to go again," Mikhaila said.

She also shared a video of Peterson from a recent visit to the rehabilitation facility where he appeared to be in good spirits and can be seen pushing his granddaughter, Elizabeth Scarlett, in a stroller.

The news of Peterson's admission into rehab comes shortly after the latest commotion surrounding the University of Toronto professor who has become no stranger to controversy since his rise to fame in 2016. Filmmakers who directed the documentary The Rise of Jordan Peterson said earlier this week that a Toronto cinema have cancelled a week-long screening of their film.

Director Patricia Marcoccia told Canada's The National Post that the film was scheduled for a theatrical run at the Carlton Cinema, but stated that the theater later cancelled the screening because some employees were uncomfortable with it.

Read more

Peterson's reputation as controversial traces back to his early, self-published YouTube videos that were titled "Professor against political correctness." He also refused to comply with Canadian law which would require him to address transgender students by the pronoun of their choice, stating that no time in British Common Law history has the legal code mandated what we must say, as opposed to simply what we must not say.

Critics have argued that this stance is "transphobic" however Peterson has maintained that the issue is not related to transgender rights, but to protecting legal precedents that keep authoritarian governments at bay.

He has since spoken in over 100 cities, often to sold-out arenas, and has over two-million YouTube subscribers.

Go here to see the original:

Jordan Peterson Checks into Rehab Following Wife's Cancer Scare: 'He Looks Like a Lost Puppy' - Newsweek

California, Have Our Consciences Been Seared? – Christianheadlines.com

Posted on by

California, Have Our Consciences Been Seared?

Most might agree that California is slipping into an ocean of political correctness ... from forced vaccines and protection of criminals to the handcuffing of law enforcement officers to homelessness and financial woes. Are there answers? I believe there are, but it begins with the difficult process of self-examination and taking personal responsibility.

I respect the offices of government. Im assuming that most are sincere in their efforts, but we can besincerely wrong.Clearly, our consciences have been seared. For example:

Sadly, it takes tragedieslike the ones we are seeingto motivate most Christians. There is hope. Colonial America was at a low point when the Great Awakening cleansed the land, as was England when George Whitefields fiery sermons burned the chaff.

I believe that a great move of God must begin in the pulpits and prayer rooms. As a father of five, I understand the desire to move to protect our families, but God often calls us to fight instead of flee.As California goes, so goes the nation. Its not a matter of if, but when.There is a time and a place for action. In the same way that theFederalist Papersurged and influenced citizens to get involved and ratify the new United States Constitution, we must speak the truth in love. The silent pulpit is not Gods pulpit, and the passive pew is powerless.The day of the silent pastor must end. Are we pleasing God or men?Are we cowards or watchmen?

The game has changedCalifornia changed its rules pertaining to voter ballots before the 2018 election. Its called ballot harvesting. Now anyone can collect absentee or mail-in voter ballots and turn them in. This is how many of our politicians were elected in 2018 in California. Millions of dollars were given to people to canvas the streets and collect votes. Can you imagine the number of illegal votes? It staggers the mind.While Christians turned on Netflix, grabbed a beer, and went to sleep, the opposition was working overtime.We need to refocus our efforts and match their workload. Granted, the answer is not in politics, but silence has been our downfall. The silent Christian spoke volumes and lost ground while they were sleeping.

Additionally, we need to stop being so negative and critical. Yes, we have huge issues at hand, but we are called to be joy-filled Christians and are to be thankful for everything that God has given us. Despite circumstances, most of us live like royalty compared to other areas throughout the world. How many reading this need to repent and be filled again with love and compassion?

We must once again callSacred Assemblies(see Joel 1-2). Instead of banquets and fundraisers, while they have their purpose, we must return to prayer and seek God for revival and renewal. This is how we fight our battles. Gods call is not to Hollywood, Sacramento, or the media but to us. To paraphrase 2 Chronicles 7:14, If My people turn back to Me, I will heal and restore their land. Our hope is not in 2020 but in a sovereign God who rewards those who seek and obey.

There are times to encourage, but there are also times to contend for what is rightthat time is now. Let it not be said of us today: And there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD (c.f. Judges 2:10).

Photo courtesy:Pixabay

More:

California, Have Our Consciences Been Seared? - Christianheadlines.com

HAMMER: Using Children To Advance Your Political Agenda Isnt Just Wrong. Its Evil. – The Daily Wire

Posted on by

Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate "activist" alarmist Greta Thunberg is all the rage right now. Thunberg, who has indubitably benefited from no shortage of formal public communication training, speaks with the moral certitude and dripping condescension so characteristic of the broader pagan cult that is "climate change" alarmism. Oppose the proposed totalitarian, socialist "remedies" for such a purported pandemic and one is called a "climate denier" at best or a depraved madman at worst. While evidence is thus far lacking, the circumstantial totality suggests the real possibility that, much like the well-organized Left during the Kavanaugh confirmation imbroglio, there may be a "well-orchestrated and well-funded P.R. campaign" here whose over-arching goal is the shaming of free market-oriented dissenters into submission at the pagan altar of enviro-statism.

The notion that policymakers ought to consider proposing policy due to the fraught and hysterical pleas of a 16-year-old is, naturally, insane. And the use of Thunberg herself who apparently began suffering from depression as a child as the leading global enviro-statist prop is, as Amanda Prestigiacomo put it, downright unethical.

My Daily Wire colleague Matt Walsh is correct that the deification of Thunberg amounts to child abuse. Indeed, the use of Thunberg as an emotionally compelling prop for zealous socialists foaming at the mouth for any excuse to enact anti-capitalistic policy ought to harken us all back to the last time leftists glommed onto malleable teenagers for use as political props: The aftermath of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Then, as now, the Left cynically decided that the easiest means by which to accomplish its ends was via the public trotting out of minors as spokespersons to emotionally manipulate a gullible public.

But such a tendentious use of minors for the promotion and advancement of a political agenda is not just wrong. It is affirmatively evil.

One can tell a lot about a society by how it treats children. In the United States, the eradication of mass legalized child labor via the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act represents that rare FDR/New Deal-era policy achievement about which even conservatives can be proud. Contrast that with the ubiquitous child labor that still exists in much of the Third World, and one sees a paradigmatic example of what sets apart the more advanced from the more barbaric civilizations. The darker world of child sex trafficking is, of course, far more harrowing still.

The innocence of children is something that every proper society ought to cherish and nourish. Tim Lott described well this sort of innocence for The Guardian in 2013: "Innocence goes deeper than ignorance. It is some mysterious operation of the imagination, the part that can enter into mental universes from which one is soon to be forever excluded." Societies that aim to maintain the pristine nature of childhood with its lack of adult responsibility, simplicity, carefree nature, and purity all remaining intact are societies that ought to be lauded. Societies that disabuse children of their innocence and foist upon children the responsibilities and sundry pitfalls of adulthood are societies that ought to be chastised. Even Hollywood, with its longstanding lionization of the child actor, is worthy of no small amount of scorn.

By all means, teenagers ought to be encouraged to think deeply about issues of global importance. They ought to be encouraged to educate themselves on current events and begin the slow, lifelong process of discovering the nature of truth. But to cynically prop up a teenager as an avatar for a political movement so as to better emotionally manipulate the masses as to the correctness of your political position is no act of valiance. It is an act of cowardice, an act of innocence deprival, an act of evil.

Read more:

HAMMER: Using Children To Advance Your Political Agenda Isnt Just Wrong. Its Evil. - The Daily Wire

Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro Defends Deforestation: ‘The Amazon Is Not Being Devastated’ – HuffPost

Posted on by

NEW YORK Far-right Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro blamed the international media and environmental organizations for spreading lies about the fires that are ravaging the Amazon rainforest during a nationalist speech that opened the 2019 United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday morning.

The Amazon is not being devastated, Bolsonaro said,contradicting recent media reports and even scientific data from his own government.

Bolsonaro, a former military officer who has praised Brazils previous military dictatorship, is facing international scrutiny for his handling of the record outbreak of fires in the Amazon, his gutting of environmental enforcement agencies and his rolling back of forest protections, and his denial of climate change the central focus of this years annual U.N. summit.

He has faced protests throughout the week from environmental groups, Brazilian activists and indigenous tribal leaders, who have warned that Bolsonaros policies threaten both the Amazon and the indigenous peoples who live there.

But as was largely expected, the Brazilian leader used his first United Nations address to turn that scorn back on an international community that, he said, is threatening Brazils most sacred value: Our sovereignty.

The speech, in which Bolsonaro warned that the United Nations should not become a globalist organization, reserved praise for only one of his foreign counterparts: United States President Donald Trump, with whom Bolsonaro has formed a strong alliance based on climate denial and theories that climate change is a globalist conspiracy.

Lucas Jackson / ReutersBrazil's President Jair Bolsonaro addresses the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York City.

Bolsonaro, 64, blamed radical extreme environmentalism for exploiting the indigenous policy agenda to further the economic interests of foreign countries. To counter indigenous leaders vocal criticism of his administration, he read a letter of support from a group of tribal farmers, who slammed the lies disseminated and propagated by international media who still view Brazil as a colony. International nonprofit groups, Bolsonaro said, want indigenous Brazilians to remain cavemen. (Bolsonaro has previously said that indigenous Brazilians have no culture and that it was a shame they werent exterminated.)

Despite his repeated calls to put business over ideology, Bolsonaro steeped his speech in Cold War-era tropes. He defended booting more than 8,000 Cuban doctors, many of whom serviced remote indigenous villages, from the country shortly after taking office, and he blamed legions of Cuban agents for instituting the cruelty of socialism in crisis-struck Venezuela.

There can be no political freedom without economic freedom, Bolsonaro said.

Bolsonaros advisers, including anti-globalist Foreign Minister Ernesto Araujo, reportedly consulted former Trump adviser Steve Bannon a conspiracy theorist, rabid white nationalist and former editor of the right-wing website Breitbart in writing the speech. The result was a nationalistic rant that hit all of Bolsonaros favorite notes even beyond the environment.

He railed against gender ideology a central tenet of his anti-LGBTQ views saying that it has invaded the human soul in an effort to expel God. He delivered a passionate rebuke of the political correctness that has apparently taken over the world.

He cited Brazils high crime rates in touting his efforts to ramp up Brazils deadly war on drugs, saying that the number of recorded homicides has declined this year.

Brazil today is a safer and more hospitable country, he said. But even as Bolsonaro noted the killings of more than 400 police officers, he made no mention of police brutality incidentsthat have plagued many Brazilian cities, including Rio de Janeiro, where protests have erupted after police shot and killed an 8-year-old girl last week.

Bolsonaros speech proved that all the claims that indigenous peoples of Brazil have been making are true, Dinaman Tuxa, the executive coordinator of the Association of Indigenous People of Brazil, or APIB, said during a press conference where indigenous leaders responded to Bolsonaros speech. The Brazilian president, Tuxa said, is promoting the genocide of indigenous people.

Other indigenous leaders also turned Bolsonaros claims of sovereignty and colonial motivations back on him.

The Amazon does not belong to any of us, but to all of us. The animals, the land, the soil, the air all the spirits there they belong to the entire world, said Sonia Guajajara, the national coordinator for APIB, which represents more than 300 indigenous tribes in Brazil. And thats why Bolsonaro needs to be accused of a crime against humanity.

Bolsonaro, Guajajara said, is a colonialist who disrespects democracy.

During the address, Bolsonaro also glommed onto Trumps religious freedom initiative and thanked Israel for the support received to fight recent disasters in my country.

As expected, Bolsonaros speech at the United Nations has doubled down on division, on nationalism and on ecocide, Brazils Climate Observatory, a nonprofit network, said in a statement after the speech. The President has once again embarrassed Brazil abroad by giving up the countrys long-standing leadership on the environment for the sake of ideology.

Bolsonaros speech opened the assembly, as is tradition for Brazilian leaders. Trump immediately followed, launching into a similar tirade against so-called globalists at the worlds largest annual gathering of international leaders.Trump, too, blasted the media and academia for waging a supposed all-out assault on free society.

The future does not belong to the globalist, Trump said. The future belongs to patriots.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.

Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

Read the original here:

Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro Defends Deforestation: 'The Amazon Is Not Being Devastated' - HuffPost

Serb Hall removes presidential portraits, Ald. Bob Donovan fires off "PC culture run amok" statement – Milwaukee Record

Posted on by

UPDATE: Nothing to see here, folks! Serb Hall says the missing portraits have nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with weddings.

Today in Everyones Angry And No One Wins news, Milwaukees venerable Serb Hall is ruffling feathers with its recent decision to remove some Very Important presidential portraits from its hallowed walls. Will Serb Hall survive? Will Milwaukee survive? Will political correctness continue to kill our nation? LETS FIND OUT.

Over the summer, an unidentified individual or group complained that seven presidential portraits in Serb Hallcommissioned in the 1980s, and representing both Democrats and Republicans dating back to Dwight D. Eisenhowerwere all white men. Which, if you follow presidential history, has been a thing 44 out of 45 times. (Lets get to further chipping away at that ratio, shall we?) Why wasnt President Obama included? Because the portraits represented presidents who had visited Serb Hall. Obama, it seems, never walked through Serb Halls doors and enjoyed its fish fry. Even so, Serb Hall removed the portraits during a summer repainting job. Oh well. The end.

Except not, of course. According to WISN12, former Milwaukee County Board Supervisor Kathy Arciszewski isnt pleased with the decision. Politically correct isnt always correct, she told the station. To me, to have to take them down, to apologize for our history is a mistake. And, according to an on-brand crotchety/colorful statement from crotchety/colorful Ald. Bob Donovan, its all just another sign that political correctness is killing our nation.

Says the not-seeking-reelection-in-2020 alderman:

Shame on Serb Hall for turning their back on decades of American HistoryStatement from Alderman Bob DonovanSeptember 18, 2019

The news that Serb Hall has removed the portraits of U.S. Presidents from its Hall of Presidents to me is Exhibit A of how political correctness is killing our nation.

The portraitsshowing Democrat and Republican Presidents who have spoken at Serb Hall dating back to President Dwight D. Eisenhowerwere recently removed after complaints that they did not show President Obama and thus were not diverse enough.

The display has proudly shown Presidents who have spoken at Serb Hall and NOT Presidents who have not spoken there. I sincerely think people have lost their common sense, for Gods sake!

It is outrageous to me that Serb Hall has caved in on this issue, and equally outrageous how absolutely stupid people have become.

I have an idea: How about we pressure Serb Hall to reconsider the name of their facility and demand that it be renamed The Peoples Hall?!

For the life of me I cannot believe the lengths to which people will go to be politically correct, and I honestly fear for what the future will bring.

See you soon for a fish fry at The Peoples Hall!

We disagree with Donovan 99% of the time, but boy oh boy will we miss clearly-written-in-the-middle-of-the-night statements like that.

In other Everyones Angry And No One Wins news, Shorewood wants to ban all holiday decorations on public property. In other Bob Donavan/Peoples news, remember when he designed his own Peoples Flag?

View post:

Serb Hall removes presidential portraits, Ald. Bob Donovan fires off "PC culture run amok" statement - Milwaukee Record

What ‘cancel culture’ and its critics get wrong – The Week

Posted on by

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

The problem with "cancel culture" has nothing to do with the act of cancelation.

That's something those behind the trend and those standing against it need to recognize. The effort to excommunicate from public life insufficiently "woke" (morally progressive) journalists, writers, comedians, and other prominent figures, including trying to get them fired, is likely to backfire. But not because the act of social and cultural cancelation itself is illegitimate or egregious.

All cultures "cancel" certain actions and opinions, and often the people associated with them. Ruling certain actions (and even thoughts) morally out of bounds is, in fact, a good part of what cultures do. Even liberal ones. Cultures are repositories of and communal enforcement mechanisms for upholding moral norms, and they do this by valorizing certain moral views and directing opprobrium at others. Doing so reinforces what "we" believe, thereby fostering social cohesion and helping to set moral standards and expectations for the political community as a whole.

In most cases, we tacitly acknowledge this and consider it perfectly uncontroversial. A neo-Nazi who made a point of publicly defending Hitler's Final Solution would be treated as a pariah, and hardly anyone would rise to his defense. Likewise with Stalinists, members of the Ku Klux Klan, child molesters, and practitioners of (even voluntary) incest and cannibalism. Nearly all of us consider these acts and belief systems evil and have no doubts about the wisdom and justice of excluding those who uphold them.

Which means that nearly all of us practice and approve of "cancel culture" an awful lot of the time.

But then what is it about the specific form of cancelation practiced by progressive activists over the past several years that raises so many hackles? If it isn't the act of canceling itself that's the problem, what is?

The answer is that critics of cancel culture are reacting to its partisan character. I'm using the term partisan in the precise sense, to mean an expression of the views of "a part" of the political community, as opposed to the views of the whole. The kind of cancelation I described above about Nazis, Stalinists, violent racists, child molesters, and practitioners of incest and cannibalism is affirmed, once again, by nearly everyone on nearly every side of every dispute that divides us as a society. It is transpartisan, an expression of the convictions of almost everyone. It is, for the most part, beyond dispute.

But today's "cancel culture" isn't like that. On the contrary, it's precisely the lack of an overwhelming consensus in favor of ruling morally out of bounds certain views and actions especially about race, gender, and sexual orientation that provokes the activists to demand that transgressors against these nascent norms be cast out. The activists have leapt ahead of public opinion, in other words, and are attempting to shape it using tactics derived from street politics and amplified by social media.

This gets the normal cultural mechanism backwards. More standard forms of cancelation take place because people accept received norms of right and wrong, good and bad, noble and base, beautiful and ugly, pure and impure, sacred and profane, and then enforce them communally in the present, usually with little conscious reflection. It's just "what we do." Some actions and beliefs are simply considered to be unacceptable.

That doesn't mean these norms are static. Like everything human, they change over time. And at moments of significant social and moral turbulence like during and immediately after crusades for the civil rights of women, blacks, and gays and lesbians they can shift rapidly, as ideals about equality and freedom collide with the reality of them being denied in the world. When this happens, norms about what's acceptable to say and laugh at in public can change dramatically in a relatively short time, as can convictions about who and what should be subject to cancelation.

What's happening now with "cancel culture" is different. A small number of online progressives have appointed themselves a moral vanguard, upholding and attempting to enforce, through the methods of a digital mob, a form of puritanical egalitarianism that is affirmed only by a few. Any writer, entertainer, or other public personality who diverges from this moral standard by demonstrating insufficient sensitivity and deference to the feelings of members of certain protected classes will find himself canceled. The progressives have thereby skipped the step of broad-based persuasion and jumped right to the end point of attempting to enforce a new public moral norm.

It's this dynamic a small minority of ideological activists ganging up on an individual, attempting to compel media companies, book publishers, television shows, movie studios, and corporations into casting the individual into outer darkness that has prompted columnist Peggy Noonan and others to liken cancel culture to the totalitarianism of China's cultural revolution. In many ways, comparing the experience of being (metaphorically) canceled in the 21st-century United States to a social and political upheaval that may have (literally) killed more than a million people is ludicrous and offensive. But it is valid in at least three narrow respects: both attempt to achieve their moral and political ends by way of public bullying, accusation, and humiliation; both demand public expressions of remorse and contrition by those deemed guilty by the mob; and both ultimately aim to force a thoroughgoing revaluation of public values through their strong-arm tactics.

Will it work? We have reason to doubt it and even to suspect that the moral browbeating is contributing to the very political backlash the activists are reacting against.

To see this, it's instructive to turn to the political realm. Unlike authors and entertainers, who are dependent on niche audiences and the support of powerful business interests that can be swayed by the fear of bad publicity, politicians respond to public opinion more broadly and directly. And there we can see the real limits of the push to cancel moral transgressors. For one thing, Donald Trump is in the White House, having run a campaign fueled in part by fury at the moral finger-wagging of "political correctness." For another, Democrat Ralph Northam is still governor of Virginia seven months after a photo purporting to show him wearing blackface in his medical school yearbook was made public. Polls at the time the story broke revealed that white voters were more likely than blacks to favor him resigning over the controversy showing, perhaps, that views on the episode were more conflicted than activists would allow. It may be that, while most people now realize that wearing blackface is bad, they also doubt it's an offense worth cancelation, at least when it took place decades ago (at a time when the act was much less widely considered harmful) and the guilty party apologizes for it sincerely. It will be instructive to see if a series of recently publicized photos and videos of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wearing blackface end up having a greater impact.

Encouraging moral change is a tricky business. Push too slowly and injustices will remain entrenched. But push too aggressively, and without adequate leverage in public opinion, and people will get their backs up, dig in their heels, and begin resisting just because they don't like being told what to say, think, and feel.

That is why the "cancel culture" is a problem not because it cancels certain people and ideas, but because of how it seeks to do so.

Link:

What 'cancel culture' and its critics get wrong - The Week

‘The Good Place’ Comes to Boston: Creator Michael H. Schur ’97 and Actor William Jackson Harper Talk Representation in Comedy | Arts – Harvard Crimson

Posted on by

Its not every day that a popular sitcom references John Rawls and Ariana Grande in the same episode. Yet The Good Place regularly alternates between registers academic and pop cultural. Created by Michael H. Schur 97 and starring Kristen Bell, William Jackson Harper, and Ted Danson, the show will air its fourth and final season premiere on Sept. 26 on NBC.

Looking ahead to the upcoming premiere, Schur and Harper stopped by WBUR CitySpace in Boston for a discussion of the shows philosophy moderated by Colby College philosophy professor, Lydia Moland. Backstage at CitySpace before the Sept. 17 event, The Harvard Crimson sat down with Schur and Harper for a conversation on representation, dense philosophical rants, and controversial comedy.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The Harvard Crimson: Michael, many of the shows youve created seem to take the form of ensemble comedies, or are set in workplace conditions. What is particularly interesting to you about that environment?

Michael H. Schur: About a workplace setting? I mean, a couple things. My first job was on "The Office," and that was kind of the ultimate workplace show. And that's how I learned to write[...] There's something very American about setting a show in an office because it's a place that feels universal. Everybody has to go to one, or most people do, at some level. And also, I'm a white man from suburban Connecticut, and I have a white wife and two white children, and there's nothing interesting to say about my family life at all. There just isn't. There have been so many TV shows about every version of my family So a workplace, like a police precinct, or a local government office, or essentially, what amounts to the afterlife, means anyone can be there. You can get people from everywhere. They can look however you want them to look, and the possibilities are greater for me personally, because there's nothing interesting about my life.

THC: Its interesting that you bring up diversity, because its such a pertinent question in comedy at the moment. The Good Place is an exemplar for diversity, from race to sexuality. Has that been at the foundation of the show since its inception? Has it taken on a new light recently?

MHS: That idea of that being important has been around in my life for a lot longer than this show, but there were a couple of important things to me about the beginning of the show. Because we were saying, This is just a sample of good people on earth, people who won the good job award for being good, we had a bunch of rules in the beginning. In the casting of the main characters, I was like, there's gonna be one person from North America, one person from South Asia, one person from East Asia, one person from Africa. That was a rule now. There was a little bit of a trick because the Buddhist monk from Tibet turned out to be a Filipino dirtbag from Jacksonville. But still the main premise held. But then also in the background, the people milling around We broke down very roughly the demographics of the world. 40 percent of the people you see walking around in fact are actually East Asian, or Asian, including South Asian. Because if you lumped all of the people on earth into a room and picked them at random, that's what you would get, right? So we did stuff like that, because it was important to me, that it not seem like anyone had an advantage. It's like a "Moneyball" universe where anyone can achieve. It's just about your actions and not about what your starting block level was, right? So we did that.

In the pilot, Eleanor says, "Who was right about all this?" And Michael says, "The Jews were five percent right, the Muslims are five percent right, the Christians, right, everyone's like, five percent right. Right?" So we were trying to signal like that. This is a system that's mathematical, that has nothing to do with people's beliefs or anything on Earth, except for your actions, because anything else starts to get religious or cultural. And I really wanted this to be purely ethical You couldn't do this show if you had four people from, you know, suburban Massachusetts.

THC: Will, what extent of creative freedom did Michael give you with the character of Chidi?

William Jackson Harper: [jokingly] None. You know, I feel like we're all allowed in the show to get pretty weird and make really odd choices You never really felt straitjacketed. But I think just because the narrative is so specific and so tight you know, I think that myself, as well as the other actors on the show we really wanted to get it right. We really wanted to just see if we can, you know, fulfill our mission. But you know, also, it's just that there's not a lot of room to just sort of, go for it. Because there's things that are very tightly plotted that we have to do, we have to make sure play later, and[...] Our job is to be in that world as fully as we can, rather than just like...

MHS: Freelance.

WJH: Yeah, freelance. Just making up stuff.

MHS: It would've been funny to see you guys try to improvise.

WJH: There's no way. You know what I mean? Like, I have no idea what I'm talking about most of the time. So if I start improvising, you'll know very quickly.

MHS: Just do a tight, 10-minute Hume.

THC: Right, there are so many philosophical rants on the show. How did you prepare for those rants?

WJH: Actually, you know, it's weird, I usually would take the language and just [organize] it by ideas. There's the way that it's printed out in a screenplay format, and I would just basically take the ideas[...] I'm trying to get across, and put those on a line by itself.

MHS: Did you actually retype it? I didn't know that.

WJH: Especially when I had something particularly dense, I would have to do that just so I could map out the ideas more clearly, individually for me for myself, so I could actually play with them and play the scene a little bit more effectively, rather than just trying to get it out, you know, by rote.

MHS: I know people who have hand-written their lines out. Yeah, there's something about having a tactile connection to actually writing the language.

WJH: Yeah. I know a lot of actors that do that, actually. But for me, I needed to get the ideas put together. And that helped me pretend to have some kind of grasp what I'm saying.

MHS: It's cool, man.

THC: Do you think that being so immersed in this dense philosophical material has had any effect on your personal life? Do either of you think it has made you become more civically engaged?

MHS: People really want to know that. We get asked that a lot.

WJH: [jokingly] Yeah, um, I'm still trash. But I do. Its funny that you say civically engaged, because I think that I'm actually a little bit more engaged civically and politically than I have been before.

MHS: Really?

WJH: Yeah. You know, there's a platform that this show has provided me, but on top of that, the ideas do sort of work their way in a little bit. Especially the climate we live in now, it seems like there's a sort of iteration of an antihero type I find it irksome, and I feel like I need to resist that in some way. And so I found myself in positions where I'm going to protests and, you know, making calls and doing that sort of thing that I never did before.

MHS: I wonder if you hadn't been on the show, if the culture would have done that to you, by itself.

WJH: Maybe, but you know, I think the show does put a lot of those ideas front of mind now.

THC: The Good Place occupies such an interesting place in the pop culture landscape right now because it interrogates how to be an ethical person. Political correctness is an important conversation that's happening in comedy at the moment. For instance, Shane Gillis recently got fired from Saturday Night Live for his remarks about Chinese people. Last spring, the Lampoon was censured for publishing a sexualized image of Anne Frank. What is your approach when it comes to writing about or performing potentially sensitive matters? Is that something that you think about a lot when you're writing?

MHS: The people that I make TV shows with and I have a policy that has been reduced to the simple idea: No assholes. That's the idea. Dont hire assholes. Its remarkably effective[...] And as a result of that policy, it's a pretty fun place to work, right? It's pretty loose and pretty nice. Everyone treats each other with kindness and respect and dignity, at a level that we shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back for treating people with respect and graciousness and dignity. That should be a baseline of how humans interact with each other There's the backlash from, you know, the cancel culture, the mob is coming for you. It's like, you're being an asshole. Look[...] If you're the only guy in the world, who can fly a spaceship and land it on the asteroid and drill a hole in the asteroid and put a nuclear bomb and blow it up to save Earth, you can say whatever you want about Asian people, because we don't have a choice, right? But if you're one of three new people who's joining a 46-year-old sketch show, and you do that, then you're an asshole, and go away. We don't need you.

There's this weird mentality when people do stupid things that are offensive, and then what happens is first, they say, Well, that's what comedy is, and comedy needs to be combative, and it needs to push boundaries. It's like, all right, settle down. You made a joke. That dude made a joke that was old and tired and offensive 50 years ago. The idea that thats somehow cool and edgy and groundbreaking that's the same shit that people have been doing for decades and decades and decades. And so, that argument doesn't work.

And then the other argument is, "Well, can you say anything? You can't say anything nowadays!" No, you can. You can say whatever you want, as long as you don't treat people horribly disrespectfully, in a way that's reductive and stupid and asshole-ish. I'm just so sick of the backlash. He did the bad thing. And then people are like, Yeah, that's bad. And then he gets offended, and other people defend him and get offended. Don't defend that guy. Defend good people. There's a lot of good people who don't do shit like that. I'm cursing a lot, but I just don't understand it... The idea that there's some purity in being able to say whatever you want or that you're stifling creativity no, you're not. That's not creative. That thing that he said is so boring. It's so boring. Everything he did is so boring. It's been boring and offensive and old for hundreds of years, so forgive me if I don't think that you're a revolutionary Lenny Bruce genius for saying the same shit that people have been saying forever.

THC: [to Harper] Anything to add?

WJH: Not really. I think to piggyback on what you're saying, it's like, A) it's lazy. B), It's never funny. It's never funny. It's one of those things where, as a black dude, someone will make a joke that throws black people under the bus, and then I don't laugh at it. It's like, Oh, you're offended. No, I'm not. I'm actually not offended. The joke was bad. I'm a little bored and disappointed. That's annoying. You know, it's because I guess for me, a lot of those things are less hurtful and more just like it's more like a mosquito that keeps buzzing by your ear. Like, "Oh, stop it." Stop.

MHS: Let someone who's had a new thought in the last 180 years walk in and join the conversation.

WJH: You completely lose the element of surprise when you go to that sort of boiler-plate, offensive stuff. You know, it's because it's not surprising. These are the things that everyone's, you know, racist grandparents have said a million times over. Its boring.

Staff writer Kaylee S. Kim can be reached at kaylee.kim@thecrimson.com.

Staff writer Caroline A. Tsai can be reached at caroline.tsai@thecrimson.com.

Original post:

'The Good Place' Comes to Boston: Creator Michael H. Schur '97 and Actor William Jackson Harper Talk Representation in Comedy | Arts - Harvard Crimson

Ashes to ashes and dust to dust – BioEdge

Posted on by

An artist's rendering of the future Recompose facility / Recompose website

The first person to be legally cremated in the United Kingdom was 71-year-old Mrs Jeannette C. Pickersgill, a well-known figure in literary and scientific circles. That was in 1885. There were two more cremations in that year, for a total of 3 out of 597,357 deaths. Now about 77% of all the dead are cremated in the UK. Cremation took off like wildfire.

A new method of disposing of human remains is getting some publicity at the moment: composting. Earlier this year Washington became the first state to allow people to be turned into compost and used in vegetable patches, amongst other uses.

The technology is simple but ingenious. A Seattle company, Recompose, manufactures hexagonal composting pods. The body is heaped with alfalfa, straw and wood chips. Oxygen is pumped in to promote decomposition. Over the span of about 30 days, the body is fully transformed, creating soil which can then be used to grow new life, says Recompose. The process creates about a cubic yard of fluffy compost which can taken home by relatives to help grow a tree or a garden. Thats the equivalent of about four large wheelbarrows.

The company believes that there is a spiritual dimension to composting: By allowing organic processes to transform our bodies and those of our loved ones into a useful soil amendment, we help to strengthen our relationship to the natural cycles while enriching the earth.

Not everyone is happy with Washingtons new law. Itsthe stupidest thing I ever heard of, said Dennis Murphy, of Hennessey Funeral Home & Crematory in Spokane. Historian George Weigel was scathing in his analysis of the idea: Anyone paying attention to the churnings of American politics knows that the coastal strip of the Pacific Northwest, between Eugene, Oregon, and the northern suburbs of Seattle, is an asylum of political correctness, fuelled by what a cultural anthropologist might call substitute religions.

It's different from cremation, insisted another commenter: With human-composting, the goal is to use the human body, that is to say, to instrumentalize the body, treating it as if it possesses no more intrinsic worth than fertilizer. The states Catholic bishops issued a statement: disposing of human remains in such manner fails to show enough respect for the body of the deceased.

But Katrina Spade, the architect who is the boss of Recompose, says that composting has a much lower carbon footprint than either cremation or conventional burial. I think one of the things for me, she says, in addition to that carbon savings, is just having a way to create usable soil. Something that you can go grow a tree with and have sort of thisritual around that feels meaningful.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

The rest is here:

Ashes to ashes and dust to dust - BioEdge

If Cancel Culture Was Real, We Would Have Canceled Bill Maher By Now – Wear Your Voice

Posted on by

Guest Writer x Sep 23, 2019

CW: Mentions of racism, sexual assault, fatphobia, and Islamophobia

By Reina Sultan

I am relieved that I live in a world where powerful people face consequences commensurate with the harm they cause, often after being called out on social media.

Scarlett Johansson, famous tree, has been canceled after whitewashing characters, defending Woody Allen, and trying to play a trans man in a movie. Her punishment: a standalone film in the MCU. How will she recover? Thank God were through with Lena Dunham and her white feminism. I couldnt bear it if she was adapting the story of a Syrian refugee woman for film. After admitting to being guilty of sexual misconduct, Louis C.K. is playing several sold-out shows. I am simply giddy that justice has finally been served. Stanfords star rapist, Brock Turner, is free after only three months in jail. Cancel culture wins again!

That amount of sarcasm frankly exhausted me more than the people on Twitter constantly decrying cancel culture and mourning its many, many victims.

The fact of the matter is that cancel culture doesnt exist. The same people who lamented the surge of political correctness have moved their target to so-called cancel culture. This group wants free reign to mock or harm LGBTQ+ people, Muslims, indigenous folks, sexual assault survivors, and everyone else without consequence. Thats why they take aim at any perceived loss of freedom of expression, no matter how evident it is that that freedom was never lost in the first place. Marginalized people on Twitter expressing pain caused by powerfuloften famous folks are not depriving problematic people of opportunities, fame, or money. Social media has just given historically silenced people a platform on which to discuss the abuse weve suffered at the hands of powerful people.

Even with the ability to rapidly and widely share a persons wrongdoing, it is immensely rare for anyone with real power or resources to face consequences more damaging than embarrassment. Often, they dont even have to acknowledge causing harm.

Bill Maher is a frequent victim of cancel culture. It seems as though every time I open Twitter I am inundated with yet another instance of him being offensive, rude, disparaging, or vicious toward entire communities. If canceling people was so effective, why is Bill Maher still being paid for his bad opinions and tired jokes?

He has repeatedly been Islamophobic, upholding dangerous stereotypes about Muslims and the religion of Islam in general. Bill Maher spends significant time on his show espousing the idea that Islam is at its core antithetical to the Western way of life. Heand some of his guests believe wholeheartedly that Muslims in the U.S. are perpetuating some kind of grand Clash of Civilizations. A passionate atheist, Maher claims that he despises all religions equally, yet Ive never heard him describe Christianity as the only religion that acts like the mafiathat will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing. That particular quote is from 2014, so Im not quite sure this canceling thing is as effective as its critics would have us believe.

In 2017, he said the n-word on his show as part of a joke in his interview with Senator Ben Sasse. At that point, I actually had some hope that the world was finally recognizing Bill Maher for who he was. American Muslims had known for years that he was a bigot, but maybe this very public misstep would cause HBO to take action against him. Twitter was up in arms and #FireBillMaher was popping up all over my feed. Had HBOlike mefinally had enough? It turns out they thought his comment was completely inexcusable, but would be taking no further action against Maher apart from not airing the segment any longer. But the court of public opinion had surely helped him see the error of his ways. Right?

Earlier this month, Bill Maher took aim at fat people. Being Islamophobic and racist wasnt enough, so he thought he might as well add fatphobia to his list of offenses. In this recent tirade, Maher claims that fat-shaming needs to make a comeback. A comeback? Fat-shaming never left. In fact, its harmful effects span from bullying to full-on medical neglect. Both can be deadly. Rather than doing a segment on the dangers of medical fatphobiaa documented and scary phenomenonMaher uses his platform to further dehumanize a marginalized group of people who are already subject to constant harassment from the wellness industry, diet culture enthusiasts, everyday people around them, and social media trolls.

The fat-shaming incident had just blown over when Maher came out to criticize Democrats for rehashing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaughs illustrious career as an alleged sexual assaulter. He makes light of the accusations against Kavanaugh, boiling it down to a funny thing boys do at that age. His guests argue whether or not someone in the public eye should have to answer for every ill-advised thing they did in the past. In this debate, Maher continues to point out that Kavanaugh was just a teenager when he allegedly attacked Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. This boys will be boys rhetoric is largely used to excuse menmostly whitefrom their guilt in upholding and perpetuating rape culture, as Maher is doing now.

Despite all of this, Bill Maher still has a very successful show on HBO and a platform on which to continue spreading his offensive views. Millions tune into his show weekly and watch as he legitimizes the idea that you can be a so-called liberal and also hold extremely dangerous views without consequences. If canceling people actually worked, Bill Maher wouldnt still be rich, famous, or successful. But cancel culture is a myth and its only a matter of time until Im forced to listen to another one of Mahers offensive and terrible bits.

Reina Sultan (she/her) is a Lebanese-American Muslim woman working on gender and conflict issues at her nine to five. A California native, she enjoys the beach, the sun, and complaining about the weather in D.C., where she now lives. Reina is passionate about smashing the patriarchy and eating the rich. Her work can also be found in Huffington Post, Rewire.News, and Rantt. Following @SultanReina on Twitter will provide you with endless hot takes and photos of Reinas extremely cute cats.

Every single dollar matters to usespecially now when media is under constant threat. Your support is essential and your generosity is why Wear Your Voice keeps going! You are a part of the resistance that is neededuplifting Black and brown feminists through your pledges is the direct community support that allows us to make more space for marginalized voices. For as little as $1 every month you can be a part of this journey with us. This platform is our way of making necessary and positive change, and together we can keep growing.

Read the original:

If Cancel Culture Was Real, We Would Have Canceled Bill Maher By Now - Wear Your Voice

Shane Gillis and the problem of ‘pushing boundaries’ – The Week

Posted on by

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Saturday Night Live has fired one of its newest cast members before he even had a chance to film his first episode on the legendary television show. On Monday, SNL announced it was letting go Shane Gillis, a 31-year-old stand-up comedian, after racist and homophobic slurs Gillis had made in the past began circulating on the internet. A spokesperson for SNL called Gillis' remarks "offensive, hurtful, and unacceptable" and claimed NBC had been unaware of their existence when it hired Gillis.

In his own statement shortly after, Gillis accepted the show's decision before offering "to apologize to anyone who's actually offended by anything I've said." While that non-apology seems fairly routine these days, Gillis' example highlights the persistent problem of allowing offensiveness to pass as comedy, a habit with especially dark consequences in the age of Trump. And even though he lost his job, Gillis' hiring, however brief, also points to SNL's continual failure to adequately diversify its cast and the disastrous implications of not doing so.

That latter point was cruelly underscored by what should have received more attention when NBC revealed that the three new cast members included Bowen Yang, the show's first Chinese-American performer. But that historic development was quickly overshadowed by the Gillis controversy, a sort of twisted mirroring of how SNL has often sidelined its non-white actors.

In his statement responding to SNL's decision, Gillis defended himself as a "comedian who pushes boundaries," a notion as laughable as it is unoriginal. Comedy thrives on saying something new, so it seems significant how many comedians are retreading the same tired lines when their jokes land them in the hot seat. From Ricky Gervais to Kevin Hart to Dave Chappelle, the comedy world has recently abounded with male performers all arguing that their humor isn't offensive, but instead transgressive. But what exactly is new or noteworthy about comedy that depends on longstanding bigotries and overworked prejudices? What is so brave or heroic about telling some of the oldest jokes in the book?

No doubt, comedy often works best when it skewers society's sanctimonies and punctures its pieties. And good comedy can often be cruel. But it matters where that cruelty is directed and who is being made uncomfortable. Comedy that punches down isn't just easy. It's also dangerous.

That danger has been starkly exposed in recent years. As Tauriq Moosa pointed out in the Guardian back in 2017, neo-Nazis have seized on humor as one of the best ways to spread their hateful ideology. The alt-right, with its internet memes and satire, understands that comedy can work to both normalize unacceptable ideas and also muddle the intent behind them. Offended by Twitter gifs showing Jews being shoved into ovens? You just didn't get the joke, man! By decrying the "political correctness" that has supposedly spoiled all the fun of contemporary life, alt-right extremists have worked to mainstream odious and violent ideas in part by distracting Americans with talk of "snowflakes" and of a culture that is all-too-easily offended.

Shane Gillis is no alt-right messenger, of course. But his brand of "offense comedy" helps smooth the entry of more hate disguised as humor into American life.

It also doesn't push any boundaries, as he's claimed, but instead redraws some of the nation's deepest divisions. In diminishing Asians, or LGBTQ persons, or Jews some of the people most vulnerable in our current moment Gillis and comedians like him are only abetting the very real discrimination faced by those same groups. When Gillis or other comics complain they are suffering from the forces of political correctness, such as former SNL performer Rob Schneider tweeting that Gillis had been "subject to the intolerable inquisition," they are doing the bigots' bidding, recasting themselves as the real victims rather than those whom they offend or harm. You can draw a straight line from comedians griping they can't make fun of immigrants or gays to poll results that show a majority of Americans believe white people are "under attack." This aggrieved identity fueled Trump's rise to power. It now undergirds his meanest efforts.

As Adam Serwer has argued in The Atlantic, cruelty is the point of the Trump presidency. But the cruelty of this moment can become even harder to recognize when some of its clearest expressions are written off as harmless jokes. That's why SNL had to fire Gillis and why it also must do better in bringing more diverse voices to its stage. If comedy is built on observation, it matters greatly who is doing the observing and what is being observed. In 2019, the failure to recognize that basic truth of comedy is finally no laughing matter.

Read more:

Shane Gillis and the problem of 'pushing boundaries' - The Week

If You are Not Against Trump, You are for Him – Patheos

Posted on by

Stalin once remarked that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. Our brains tend to zone out when deluged with information. Trumps outrages are so numerous that it is hard to take them in. You get numb. So I will simply point to one tiny example of the ugliness of this pathetic little bully:

It is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor incident in his long career of bullying. But it gives us the measure of this puny little man. His puniness is everywhere: his jealousy because she is rightly nominated for a Nobel while he never will be; his repulsive use of his office as the most powerful man on earth to sneer at a 16 year old girl; and, of course, his eagerness to gin up a mob to do the same while adoring him like the toadies they are. As with every tweet, his cult fawn over his courage in beating up somebody infinitely less powerful than he, because he is the channel through which all their hatred, bitterness, resentment, and urge for vengeance is channelled.

It is that last point I want to address here. Trump is Trump and, barring a miracle, will not change. What has changedradically and for the worseis his audience of conservative Christian defenders. For as I have warned for years, the great danger of supporting this man was seduction. As Jesus said:

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Mt 10:28).

There is only one person who can do that: you. God does not send us to hell. We send ourselves there. Jesus did not die to save us from his Father. He died to save us from sin. The gates of hell are barred from the inside.

The promise of the Christian Right was that they would hold his feet to the fire and bend him to their will. He was (they lied) a baby Christian and would learn righteousness under their wise guidance. Yes, and men of Gondor will never be corrupted by the Ring.

Instead, what has happened in spades is that conservative Christians have turned into Nazgul in their slavery to his every lie and cruelty. There is nothing they will not defend and there is very little left that they do not eagerly approve. Case in point: mockery of a child with autism.

It is eviland seducedto join this vile bully not only in mocking a child, but in making fun of her looks:

It is even more repellent to declare that anybody who disapproves of this ugly bullying has no sense of humor.

(Important Republican Rite Rule:When white conservative feels are hurt by the truth, however gently stated, the cry is for civility or the need for a sense of humor.When brown, poor, autistic, gay, mentally ill or right wing culture war enemies are obviously and wantonly insulted, the cry is political correctness.)

A reading from the Book of Proverbs:

Like a madman who throws firebrands,arrows, and death,is the man who deceives his neighborand says, I am only joking! (Pr 26:1819).

Speaking of insulting her for autism, FOX reliably aired goon Michael Knowles to do that by calling her mentally ill.

Well, you know those secular conservatives. They play hardball. Yeah, about that:

Knowles was raised in the Catholic faith by his family, but had fallen away during his adolescence; while at Yale he experienced a reversion to the Church, spurred at first by ontological arguments.

Yet another prolife faithful conservative Republican Rite convert willing to spit on the dignity of the human person while hiding behind the unborn in the service of the god-king.

FOX apologized for Knowles and promised to never book him because he is a nobody. What they did not do was apologize for Laura Ingraham comparing an autistic girl to The Children of the Corn. Nor, I warrant, will we hear a peep from Raymond Arroyo for her disgusting mockery of autism. That fell to her brother:

And then, of course, there was the reliably disgusting convicted felon and adulterer Dinesh DSouza:

Thunberg, meanwhile, was a class act, expertly trolling the Bully-in-Chief:

Now, before anybody speaks: stop. Is your first impulse to denouncewithout qualification, excuse, deflection or denialthis ugly attack by immensely powerful bullies on a good-hearted child with autism who is doing her best to promote the common good?

Or do you feel an ungovernable impulse to excuse, deny, and even pile on? Do you want to rush past this ugly, ugly display of viciousness to a kid so that you can shout, NO! THEM!

Perhaps you tremble at the opportunity to call her a stooge or puppet (unlike the Holy Martyrs of Covington you passionately defended, still used to this day by the Right Wing Lie Machine).

Maybe you want to shriek something about how kids should not be allowed have political opinions in the public square (a conviction that utterly vanishes every time the pro-life movement marches on Washington).

Maybe you want to blast past the insults directed at her age, her looks, her autism, her alleged mental illness by some of the most powerful and vicious bullies in the world to wring your hands and cynically lie that you care about her and are oh-so-concerned about those who are exploiting her.

Maybe you long to just say, Screw PC! I love comparing her to Nazis and making fun of her looks and her autism! I wont be intimidated by you Bergoglio liberals! MAGA!

Or perhaps you want to play the Wounded Card and ask why I am making a so-called blanket condemnation of all conservatives.

If you object to blanket accusations when I have mentioned no names except the Right Wing Lie Machine perps and the little bully boy they serve, then consider the possibility that you suffer from a guilty conscience. The solution is simple if you feel personally condemned by me: stop wearing the shoes you claim dont fit you.

Heres the deal: I dont know you, gentle reader. What I condemn here is a behavior, not you. If you feel condemned, dont blame me. Ive never met you and dont know you. But if you feel guilty because you support Trump with your silence, or excuses, or denials, or lies, or flat out defiance of the gospel and common decency, then good. You should. And then you should repent and believe in Jesus Christ by the only real means he accepts: obeying him.

Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.

Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it. (Mt 7:2127).

Read more:

If You are Not Against Trump, You are for Him - Patheos

Trump Takes Center Stage at U.N. Summit – Foreign Policy

Posted on by

Welcome toU.N. Brief,Foreign Policysspecial pop-up newsletter with reporting and analysis from the 74th U.N. General Assembly in New York. All week, were bringing you daily news, analysis, infographics, and profiles of some of the most influential attendees.

Whats on tap for today: European leaders back U.S. claims that Iran attacked Saudi Arabia, Trump gives his third speech to the U.N. General Assembly, the Trump administration takes its anti-abortion campaign to Turtle Bay, new efforts in Congress to quell Chinas rising clout in the U.N., and more.

If you would like to receive this in your inbox, subscribe here.

How Will Trumps UNGA Speech Measure Up?

Today marks the opening of the annual General Assembly debate, drawing more than 190 world leaders and ministers in their finest national costumes to a week of speeches, bilats, and press conferences. The event opens with addresses by U.N. Secretary-General Antnio Guterres and new General Assembly President Tijjani Muhammad-Bande.

It will be headlined by a quartet of nationalist strongmen, starting with Brazils President Jair Bolsanaro, who is likely to mount a defense of his policies in the Amazon rainforest, and U.S. President Donald Trump, who is likely to use his speech to blast Iran, and reiterate his America First message. They will be followed by Egyptian President Abdel el-Sisi, the former Egyptian intelligence chief who came to power in June 2014 after a coup ousted the former president. Trump has praised Sisi as a great president and his own favorite dictator. And then to the stage comes Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan.

Will Trumps speech make waves? In 2017, Trump threatened all-out war with the Rocket Man in North Korea. In 2018, he drew laughter from the audience when he boasted of how strong he had made America. In 2019, there just might be a return to normalcy, some experts say. Trump needs to bring new U.N. allies to his corner to advance his agendas on Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. This might mean a more tempered and toned-down speech than weve seen before.

It seems to me that the president is a little more circumspect about what tools he has at his disposal and what he needs allies to do and what he wants to do unilaterally, said Jon Alterman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Straying from the script. Trump has already strayed from the script by attending the U.N. Climate Action summit on Monday. Trump, a climate-science skeptic who withdrew the United States from the 2015 Paris climate agreement after entering office, had planned to skip the summit.

Alterman said now that Iran is testing Trumps hardline approach, his most promising option could be to marshall more support at the United Nations to manage Irans aggression. Iran is a hard problem, but frankly its precisely the kind of problem that the United Nations was created to address. The president has an opportunity, especially in his bilateral meetings to begin addressing them, he said.

In the 2006 U.N. General Assembly, which foreign leader in his speech called President George W. Bush the devil and said the place where Bush stood to give his U.N. speech smells of sulfur still today?

A) North Koreas Kim Jong IlB) The Gambias Yahya JammehC) Venezuelas Hugo ChvezD) Irans Mahmoud AhmadinejadE) Zimbabwes Robert Mugabe

Scroll down for the answer.

The other big wigs speaking today. The Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan; the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh bin Hamad Al Thani; Jordans King Abdullah II; South Korean President Moon Jae-in; and French President Emmanuel Macron will speak during the first half of the day. Canadas Justin Trudeau (facing a political scandal); Polands President Andrzej Duda; and Japans Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will speak during the afternoon session. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, making his first (and possibly last?) appearance at the general debate, is listed as the 21st and final speaker.

Overshadowed. It will be hard for any of them to top 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, who delivered a blistering speech to world leaders at the U.N. climate action summit on Monday to a captivated and quiet audience. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, she said. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you.

What Else Is on Trumps Schedule?

A bilateral meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson

A bilateral meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

A luncheon hosted by U.N. Secretary General Antnio Guterres

A meeting with the president of the U.N. General Assembly, Mara Fernanda Espinosa

A bilateral meeting with Iraqi President Barham Salih

An evening diplomatic reception at the Lotte New York Palace Hotel.

Trump Gets a Break on Iran

The leaders of Britain, France and Germany stepped off the fence and issued a joint statement on Monday accusing Iran of carrying out the Sept. 14 strikes against Saudi oil facilities. The United States and Saudi Arabia blame Iran for the strike, despite Yemens Iran-backed rebel Houthis claiming responsibility. The Europeans had previously dismissed the Houthi claim, but had been reluctant to blame Iran, saying for days that they needed to await the conclusion of investigations by Iran and the United Nations. It is clear to us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack. There is no other plausible explanation, the statement read.

Irans FM responds. Speaking at a breakfast at Tehrans U.N. mission, Irans Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told a group of reporters that Iran had played no role in the attacks. If Iran were behind this attack nothing would have been left of this refinery, he said. Why do you look for suspects? The Yeminis have taken the responsibility for it and they have every reason to attack, to retaliate and at least they retaliate against a refinery without killing a single person. In contrast, Zarif said, the U.S.-backed Saudi Arabian military coalition has wreaked untold suffering in Yemen during its war on Houthi separatists. If we want to start a blame game, there is a lot of blame to go around, he said.

Boris bungles? Trump on Monday reacted positively to the idea of a new Iran deal, a prospect raised by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Whatever your objections to the old nuclear deal with Iran, its time now to move forward and do a new deal, Johnson told Sky News. I respect Boris a lot and I am not surprised at all that he was the first one to come out and say that, Trump said.

Johnsons statement seemed to mark a major reversal by Britain, which has supported the 2015 deal, along with the other signatories including France, Germany, China, and Russia. A U.K. government spokesperson Reuters that Johnson still supports the 2015 deal.

Report: Trump Has Erased Joe Bidens Legacy

The Trump administration has been chipping away at one of former Vice President Joe Bidens most important, if little-known, foreign-policy achievements. The 1999 Helms-Biden Act resulted in the payment of nearly $1 billion in unpaid arrears to the United Nations, and restored Washingtons standing at Turtle Bay. In January, the Trump administration will have driven U.S. debt to the U.N. back over the $1 billion mark for the first time in more than 20 years.

Read the whole story here.

How Has U.S. Opinion Changed?

U.S. public opinion of the United Nations has risen and fallen over time. Since 2003 a majority of Americans still think the U.N. is underperforming, but that trend appears to be reversing starting in 2018.

Washingtons Anti-Abortion Crusade Comes to Turtle Bay

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar opened his day of diplomacy at the United Nations by asserting that there is no international right to an abortion. The remarks came at the start of a U.N. Universal Health Care Summit, where world leaders issued a declaration promoting greater access to health care for billions and advocating greater access to sexual reproductive health. Earlier this month, Trump officials were frustrated in their effort to remove any reference to sexual or reproductive health and rights from a declaration agreed today by world leaders.

Today, Azar took aim at the declarations inclusion of such ambiguous language, saying it can undermine the critical role of the family and promote practices like abortion and be misinterpreted by U.N. agencies that provide reprodutive health services. Azar also took aim at sexual education programs, saying that we only support sex education that appreciates the protective role of the family in this education and does not condone harmful sexual risks for young people.

A conservative coalition. Azar and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have rallied a coalition of some 18 other countriesBahrain, Belarus, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemento issue a similar anti-abortion message.

Guterres trolls Trump. U.N. Secretary-General Antnio Guterres slapped back in his own address to delegations at the U.N. health care summit. The political declaration in front of us is the most comprehensive agreement ever reached on global healtha vision of Universal Health Coverage by 2030, Guterres. The political declaration also states the need to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care-services and reproductive rights.

Profile: The Trump of the Tropics Takes the Stage

Brazilian President Bolsonaro will resume his governments privilege as the first head of state to address world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly today. But he will also take on the role of global villain, as he fends off criticism he is not doing enough to stop a surge in Amazon wildfires. The fires have made Bolsonaro the first world leader to face calls for sanctions as a result of his environmental policies.

While hes expected to cut short his visit to UNGA due to health complications, Bolsonaro is eager to use his debut UNGA address to defend his record. I am 100% certain that the president will go to New York, said Regos Barros, a spokesperson for Bolsonaro. He is pouring his heart into his speech to present our country, its potential, as well as to clarify all these issues relating to Brazil and the environment.

The far-right former army captain won election in Oct. 2018 amid a groundswell of anti-establishment support in Brazil. Bolsonaro, often compared to Trump, has in the past made insulting comments about women and the LGBT community, and extolled the era in which Brazil was a military dictatorship from 1964 to 1985.

Like Trump, Bolsonaro has decried political correctness and drawn controversy over his economic and environmental policies. Hes locked horns with Western leaders and even top U.N. diplomats who have criticized him for his handling of domestic issues. U.N. human rights chief Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile, reportedly said she feels bad for Brazil under Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro has accused Bachelet of unfairly meddling in internal Brazilian matters after she brought up police killings and violence against indigenous communities in Brazil. Also like Trump, he has a penchant for elevating family members to positions of power, raising eyebrows by floating the idea of appointing his son as ambassador to Washington.

The comparisons dont stop there: Bolsanaros Brazil is also emerging as one of the U.N.s major debtor nations, second only to the United States. One of the reasons is that Brazils economic rise ramped up its share of U.N. dues, but its economy began shrinking in 2015 and 2016. As of May, Brazil owed the U.N. over $400 million, especially for peacekeeping, as well as about $140 million in back dues for the U.N. administrative budget.

Brazil has come close to losing its vote in the General Assembly over the last few years, but has been able to narrowly avoid this fate, said Wassim Mir, a former British diplomat who co-authored a study wrote about about Brazils financial woes at the U.N. Losing its General Assembly vote would be a massive embarrassment, he said, but he expects Brazil will pony up just enough to avoid losing its vote.

China is taking an aggressive stance at the U.N. to seize as much authority as others will allow We cant be asleep at the wheel, as the host country and largest donor to the United Nations. Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Young and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) announced a new bill on Monday directing the U.S. intelligence community to study Chinas growing influence in the United Nations and other international organizations. Its been a top concern for senior U.S. diplomats, who worry China could use its clout at the U.N. to reshape international norms and institutions. But as the Trump administration pares back its commitments and investments in the United Nations, China seems more than happy to fill the vacuum.

A Snippet of U.N. History

The world described by George H. W. Bush in his address to the U.N. General Assembly on the new world order in 1991 seems unrecognizable today, as does the Republican Party he led at the end of the Cold War. The two Koreas had just joined the United Nations. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were newly independent, taking up their seats in the General Assembly hall for the first time. The Soviet Union had just participated in an unprecedented military coalition that had driven the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, out of Kuwait, in the first Persian Gulf War.

But perhaps even more remarkable was the difference in tone that Americas first post-Cold War leader struck in addressing world leaders. In contrast to President Donald Trump, who has promoted an America First doctrine, Bush appealed for greater international cooperation, touting free markets and the free flow of goods and ideas as essential to raising economic standards around the world. He touted the importance of reaching agreement on a new trade deal, the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. If talks on the trade deal failed, he warned, a new wave of protectionism could destroy our hopes for a better future.

A stare is worth a thousand words. Dont miss young climate activist Greta Thunbergs reaction to seeing Trump walk by at the climate summit.

If there were a Nobel Prize for Braggadocio. Seated beside Pakistans Prime Minister Imran Khan, President Trump said he believes he would win a Nobel Prize for a lot of things, if they gave it out fairly, which they dont. Well, they gave one to Obama, immediately upon his ascent to the presidency and he had no idea why he got it. You know what? That was the only thing I agreed with him on.

Will Erdogans Brawling Bodyguards Behave?

President Recep Tayyip Erdoans traveling security detail has earned itself a bit of a reputation. In May, 2017, Erdogans security detail and his supporters attacked a group of anti-government protesters outside the Turkish embassy in Washington. Police had to intervene to restrain the pro-government group, while Erdoan, having just arrived with his entourage at the embassy, watched on. There is no excuse for this thuggish behavior, the late Sen.John McCain said at the time.

Here at Turtle Bay, U.N. security guards have their own raw memories of a battle with Erdogans bodyguards. In Sept. 2011, the security detail for the then-prime minister got into a violent brawl with the U.N. security detail, injuring at least two U.N. guards, including one who was taken to the hospital. One U.N. security official told Foreign Policy the incident still brings back sour memories in the United Nations, particularly since then-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon apologized to Erdogan for a blow-up that, by most accounts, Turkish guards started.

There are dozens of events on the sidelines of UNGA this week if you get tired of the marathon of official UNGA speeches and want a change of scenery. Here are some of the events:

Sept 24: The Concordia Summit: This has become one of the biggest events on the sidelines of UNGA in recent years. Headline speakers today will include USAID chief Mark Green and Democratic Republic of Congos President Felix Tshisekedi.

Sept. 25: Champions for Gender Equality: U.N. Women and the Council of Women World Leaders is hosting this event featuring Executive Director for U.N. Women Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka and Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovi, the President of Croatia.

Sept. 25: The Bloomberg Global Business Forum. Headline speakers include Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi; former U.S. President Bill Clinton; Colombian President Ivan Duque Marquez; JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon; EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, and a batch of other business leaders and diplomats.

Sept. 27: The Council on Foreign Relations will host Iraqi President Barham Salih for a conversation on the future of Iraq and its relationship with the United States.

C) Venezuelas Hugo Chvez.

Chvez, the left-wing populist, railed against Bush and what he called a pattern of imperialism and exploitation by the United States. Yesterday, the devil came here, Chvez said, referring to Bushs appearance the day before. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.

For more on these stories and many others, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to newsletters@foreignpolicy.com.

Here is the original post:

Trump Takes Center Stage at U.N. Summit - Foreign Policy

Appeals Court reinstates lawsuit challenging U. Michigan Bias Response Team – legal Insurrection

Posted on by

In May 2018, we reported on a lawsuit filed by a group called Speech First, challenging the speech codes and Bias Response Teams at the University of Michigan,Lawsuit: U. Michigan speech code and Bias Response Team profoundly chill free speech and open discourse:

If you have not heard of Bias Response Teams, then you havent been around campus in the last decade.

These teams, often referred to at BRTs, are the equivalent of SWAT teams standing by to enforce campus speech and conduct codes. All of the problems we have documented with campus sexual assault kangaroo courts apply equally to BRTs the teams enforce often vague standards highly dependent on how a complainant feels, there is an opaque process with little due process, and the results often track accepted campus political correctness rather than a search for the truth. Yet the punishments can cause lasting damage.

You can view U. Michigans bias reporting websitehere, and reporting formhere. U. Michigan also hasan infographicdescribing the process.

In the Complaint(pdf.), which sought injunctive relief, Speech First alleged that the Bias Response Teams and related speech codes violated the First Amendment, taking issue with the vagueness of the disciplinary code:

31. The effect of these amorphous prohibitions on bullying, harassment, and bias-motivated misconduct is to profoundly chill free speech and open discourse at the University.

32. A student who voices a controversial or unpopular opinionor who seeks to use humor, parody, or satire when discussing sensitive topicscould face severe punishment up to and including expulsion if even one other student perceives that speech to be demeaning or bothersome. Put differently, students must be certain before speaking that their words will not be perceived as offensive by even the most sensitive student on campus.

33. Many students will inevitably choose not to speakor to speak less forcefully about controversial topicsrather than face the risk of disciplinary proceedings and punishment if another student takes offense at their words and files a complaint alleging violations of the Statements ban on bullying, harassment, and bias-motivated misconduct.

The Complaint also detailed the role of the BRT:

34. The University has further supplemented the bullying/harassment provisions of the Statement with a Bias Response Team (BRT).

35. The BRT is comprised of University administrators and law enforcement. It also may include students and community representatives who serve the U-M community. The BRT is tasked with managing the response and management of bias incidents.

36. Like the definitions of harassment and bullying in the Statement, the University has adopted an extremely vague, open-ended, and subjective definition of bias that can encompass a wide array of conduct, including speech and expression protected by the First Amendment.

37. The University defines bias as a pre-formed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons who possess common physical characteristics, such as skincolor; or cultural experiences, such as religion or national origin. Such bias, according to the University, often stems from fear, misunderstanding, hatred, and stereotypes, and may be intentional or unintentional.

38. The Universitys definitions of bias encompass countless instances of protected speech and expression on all manner of topics. Under the plain text of these definitions, a student may be deemed to have acted with bias if, for example, she gives a speech sharply criticizing the Catholic Church and its adherents for not allowing women to become priests; this student has expressed a negative opinion or attitude about a certain group of people based on their cultural experience of religion.

* * *

64. The BRT has a profound chilling effect on speech and expression at the University.

65. Based on a vague and highly subjective definition of bias, any student who offers an opinion that may be deemed by another student to be hurtful to his or her feelings risks an investigation from the Universitys disciplinary apparatus and the potential for punishment ranging from restorative justice and individual education to formal disciplinary action. The inevitable result is that many students will be deterred from speaking at all, especially on controversial topics that another student may find hurtful or offensive.

66. The mere existence of the BRT mechanism chills protected expression even apart from any punishments that may result at the end of the process. The University has created and promoted a system in which students can file anonymous reports of bias under an amorphous definition based on anything that harms their feelings, which will then lead a team of University officials to spring into action to investigate. Students voicing controversial or unpopular opinions, or seeking to engage in humor, satire, or parody, may credibly fear that the BRT will be summoned in response to their speech and that they will be forced to defend themselves against accusations of bias. The prospect of facing such an investigation will inevitably lead many students to refrain from speaking altogether, to articulate their views less forcefully, or to steer clear of controversial topics. This chilling of protected speech and expression will exist regardless of whether a student is ultimately exonerated at the end of the BRT process.

The Department of Justice filed a in support of the injunction sought by Speech First. In itsStatement of Interest(pdf.) supporting the request for a preliminary injunction, DOJ argued:

In the United Statesview, Plaintiff Speech First, Inc., has established that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the University of Michigans Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (Statement) and Bias Response Policy are facially unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The District Court, however, denied the preliminary injunction, finding that Speech First had no standing to sue as it did not allege a sufficiently concrete harm:

This action reflects a conflict faced by many public universities in their attempt to balance the First Amendment rights of students and the need to provide a safe learning environment free from discrimination and harassment. Speech First, Inc., an organization that seeks to preserve the civil rights of students at colleges and universities, filed this action on behalf of three unidentified students at the University of Michigan (University) who claim their rights to free speech have been chilled by the Universitys disciplinary code prohibiting harassment, bullying, and bias-related conduct. Speech First also challenges the Universitys Bias Response Team, which it claims is tasked with investigating and punishing students for bias conduct.

* * *

Speech First establishes a concrete and objective threat of harm in connection with the Statements prohibited conduct. Speech First alleges, and Defendants do not deny, that students engaged in bullying and harassing behavior can be and have been punished through OSCR proceedings. Speech First, however, fails to demonstrate that the BRT poses anything but a subjective chill on students free speech rights.

* * *

In fact, the record evidence reflects that the BRT neither investigates reports of bias nor has the authority to mete out any form of punishment for bias or bias conduct. It is not a disciplinary body and cannot punish or sanction anyone. On those occasions where the BRT contacts the person whose conduct is the subject of a report (which occurs in a minority of cases), the persons response or willingness to become involved in discussions is voluntary. This is stated on the homepage of the BRTs website: The BRT cannot impose discipline and no one is required to participate in any aspect of the BRTs work. See https://deanofstudents.umich.edu/bias-incidents. As the webpage also states: if you wish, the person alleged to be responsible for the incident may be contacted and invited to voluntarily meet with a member of the BRT. Such a meeting cannot be compelled, however. Id., emphasis added.

* * *

The evidence in the present matter similarly reflects no threatsdirect, subtle, or impliedfrom the BRT. As indicated, the BRT website expressly states that it lacks the authority to impose discipline and that no one is required to participate in any aspect of its work and cannot be compelled to meet. Speech First presents no evidence of any communication from the BRT to an individual reported to have engaged in bias or biased conduct conveying something differentmore specifically, pressure or an intimation that some form of punishment or adverse action will follow the failure to accede the BRTs requests.

The evidence does not even reflect an instance where the BRT criticized the speech of an individual who is reported to have engaged in biased conduct. But even if the record reflected that the BRT had criticized an individuals speech, there would be no First Amendment violation in the absence of some actual or threatened imposition of governmental power or sanction. Penthouse Intl, 939F.2d at 1015. The Court agrees with defense counsels assertion at the motion hearing that a university should be able to address a student when his or her speech may offend or hurt other students without running afoul of the First Amendment.

* * *

In short, Speech First fails to demonstrate that the BRT poses a concrete or objective threat of harm to the First Amendment rights of University students. The Court therefore holds that Speech First fails to demonstrate the injury-in-fact necessary to establish Article III standing with respect to its challenge to the BRT.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has just reversed the District Court and reinstated the lawsuit, directing the District Court to proceed with an preliminary injunction hearing. The Appeals Court did not itself grant the relief, leaving that to the District Court.

From the Sixth Circuit Opinion:

Universities have historically been fierce guardians of intellectual debate and free speech, providing an environment where students can voice ideas and opinions without fear of repercussion. According to Speech First, the University of Michigan has not lived up to this historic ideal. Instead, Speech First contends that the University of Michigan has stifled student speech through its policy prohibiting bullying and harassing behavior and its Bias Response Team initiative. Speech First claims that the policy and initiative violate the First Amendment, sweeping in protected speech through overbroad and vague prohibitions.

Shortly after filing its complaint, Speech First moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the policy and use of the initiative. The district court declined to issue the preliminary injunction, based in part on its findings that Speech First lacked standing to challenge the Bias Response Team initiative and that the claims challenging the policy were moot. We disagree. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, we vacate the district courts denial of injunctive relief and remand the case for the district court to consider the merits of Speech Firsts motion for a preliminary injunction.

* * *

The district court concluded that Speech First was not likely to succeed on the merits of its claim against the Response Team because Speech First lacked standing to assert that claim. We disagree. Speech First does not allege that the University has violated Speech Firsts constitutional rights. Rather, Speech First asserts that the University violated the rights of its members who attend the University and, therefore, that it has associational standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of those members.

Speech First has standing to challenge the Response Team here because its members face an objective chill based on the functions of the Response Team. Speech First recognizes that the Response Team lacks any formal disciplinary power and that bias incidents are not directly punishable under the Statement, but maintains that the Response Team acts by way of implicit threat of punishment and intimidation to quell speech. We agree.

The Appeals Court rejected the claim that the case was moot because U. Michigan had made some changes after the lawsuit was filed:

In sum, the University has not put forth enough evidence to satisfy its burden to show that its voluntary cessation makes it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189. Therefore, Speech Firsts claim challenging the definitions of bullying and harassing behavior is not moot.

The Appeals Court remanded for further proceedings:

In assessing Speech Firsts likelihood of success on the merits, the district court did not address the merits beyond what was necessary for determining mootness and standing. Although we find that the district court was incorrect in its determination of Speech Firsts standing to challenge the Response Team and whether the challenge to the definitions of bullying and harassing was moot, we will not resolve the ultimate question of Speech Firsts likelihood of success on the merits. Instead, we remand this case for the district court to consider in the first instance Speech Firsts likelihood of success in light of our findings here. Further, although we review the district courts findings on the likelihood of success de novo, we grant the district court substantial deference in its weighing of the preliminary injunction factors. Therefore, we decline Speech Firsts invitation to instruct the district court to issue the preliminary injunction, especially in light of the district courts findings that the other three preliminary injunction considerations weigh against granting the preliminary injunction. For a similar reason, we also decline the dissents suggestion that we affirm the district courts decision. Even if the other three factors weigh against a preliminary injunction, the district court may still grant one if it determines that, in light of our holding, Speech First does have a strong likelihood of success.

Nicole Neily, President of Speech First, issued the following statement:

We are gratified that the court of appeals restored our case against the University of Michigan and ordered it to proceed in the district court. We continue to believe that the Universitys policies, including the ones it tried to abandon after we filed suit, are blatant violations of the First Amendment. We look forward to vindicating our members rights as this litigation progresses.

Speech First lives to fight another day. But its clear the District Court is hostile to the case on the merits, so it will be an uphill fight. Expect Speech First to seek to expand the evidentiary record to address the concerns raised by the District Court in the first decision.

As for Bias Response Teams, they continue to be a source of fear and intimidation, manipulated and abused to stifle non-liberal speech onca campuses.

Link:

Appeals Court reinstates lawsuit challenging U. Michigan Bias Response Team - legal Insurrection

Bitcoin’s $780 Price Recovery Makes Friday’s Close Pivotal – CoinDesk

Posted on by

View

Bitcoins $780 recovery from an 18-day low has neutralized the bearish setup, but a strong follow-through is now needed to put the bulls back in charge.

The leading cryptocurrency by market value picked up a bid around $9,600 the lowest level since Sept. 1 in the Asian trading hours on Thursday and rose to a high of $10,380 on Bitstamp in the U.S. trading hours.

That quick recovery saved the day for the bulls, as the cryptocurrency was looking weak below key support at $9,855, as discussed yesterday.

Notably, the price bounce from $9,600 to $10,380 has taken the shape of a candlestick pattern named bullish hammer, as seen in the chart below.

A bullish hammer comprises a long lower shadow, a small body and little or no upper shadow. It occurs when an asset erases a big early drop to end the day on a positive note at or near the days high.

On Thursday, BTC fell to $9,600 only to rise all the way back to $10,380 before printing a UTC close at $10,271 up 1.18 percent on the day.

A hammer is widely considered an early warning of an impending rally. However, traders usually wait for a strong follow-through preferably a UTC close above the hammer candles high before hitting the market with fresh bids.

The focus, therefore, is on todays UTC close. Acceptance above the hammer candles high of $10,380 will likely invite stronger buying pressure and yield a rise to $11,000.

As of writing, BTC is changing hands at $10,140 on Bitstamp, having clocked a high of $10,308 earlier today.

BTC has created a bull flag a continuation pattern on the hourly chart. A breakout, if confirmed, would imply a resumption of the rally from $9,600 and create room for a rally to $10,950 (target as per the measured move method).

The probability of BTC printing a convincing close well above $10,380 would rise if the flag ends with a bullish breakout.

While a close above $10,380 is expected to bode well for BTC, a full bull revival needs an upside break of a three-month contracting triangle seen in the chart below.

The upper and lower edges of the triangle are currently located at $10,822 and $9,450, respectively.

A close above $10,822, if confirmed, would imply a resumption of the rally from lows near $4,000 seen on April 2.

The lower edge may come into play if the cryptocurrency closes below $10,000 today, taking the shine off the bullish hammer candle.

Disclosure:The author holds no cryptocurrency assetsat the time of writing.

Bitcoinimage via Shutterstock;charts byTrading View

View post:

Bitcoin's $780 Price Recovery Makes Friday's Close Pivotal - CoinDesk

Bitcoin Bought at $1800 With Binances Unstable Stablecoin – BeInCrypto

Posted on by

Bitcoin experienced double-digit losses today with a rapid descent that saw the leading cryptocurrency briefly fall below the $8,000 price point. The sudden sell-off led to a cascading effect on the BTC/BUSD pair on Binance which saw BTC flash crash to $1800.

Recently Binance released a stablecoin Binance USD (BUSD) which has been trading on the exchange for a few weeks now. The stablecoin, backed by both Binance and Paxful, is currently suffering from low liquidity, though, and experienced a flash crash on its BTC trading pair.

Buy Cryptocurrency

Back next

You buy :

In dollars :

To email :

At around 20:00 UTC, the BTC/BUSD trading pair suffered a major sudden crash and someone ended up purchasing BTC for $1800. The books were too thin to account for Bitcoins double-digit losses today.

Currently, the BTC/BUSD pair has a very low trading volume compared to other stablecoin-BTC pairs, only trading around $600,000 in the last 24H. Still, it seems that Binance had no stops in place to stop this flash crash to $1,800 which was likely amplified by trading bots.

Some exchanges have in the past experienced flash crashes, but such events on BTC trading pairs for major exchanges are rare even against less liquid stablecoins. This is what makes the drop on BTC/BUSD all the more surprising.

Binances Coin (BNB) has not been spared from Bitcoins sudden drop either. The exchanges token is currently trading at around $16.66 and is down some 15%. This slow bleed has spiraled into a complete crash. Just a week ago, BNB was trading for close to $23.

As of now, Binance has not made any official statement on the flash crash or whether it will look into the situation. The BTC/BUSD trading pair has since recovered and is trading at $8,710 at the time of writing.

Do you believe Binance should have mechanisms in place to try to better prevent these kinds of flash crashes? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Images are courtesy of Shutterstock, Binance.

As a trusted news outlet in the blockchain and cryptocurrency industry, BeInCryptoalways strives for the highest journalistic standards and adheres to a strict setof editorial policies. BeInCrypto is an independent website with authors and managementthat may personally invest in cryptocurrencies or blockchain startups.

Continued here:

Bitcoin Bought at $1800 With Binances Unstable Stablecoin - BeInCrypto

UK police to auction $662,000 worth of seized Bitcoin with no minimum bids – The Next Web

Posted on by

UK police are set to auction around $662,000 (500,000) worth of criminally-seized Bitcoin BTC this week, a reported first for the nation.

Announced earlier this month, Irish auction house Wilsons Auctions has set no reserves, and will sell it all to the highest bidder. The firm is managing the auctions onbehalf of UK authorities.

Police reportedly seized the stash from a criminal who had illegally sold personal data and provided hacking services in exchange for cryptocurrency. Other assets to be auctioned include Ethereum, Ripple (XRP), and other unnamed tokens.

Lots ranging from 0.25 to 2 BTC will be sold across two days, with higher set amounts for other tokens. Wednesdays sales will be online-only, with Thursdays open to both online and physical bidders, and will include other seized items such as cars, luxury watches, as well as other jewellery.

Those looking to take part must provide a copy of their passport or driving license, as well as proof of address so these auctions may not be appropriate for those looking to keep their Bitcoin usage on the down low.

While it does appear these are the first auctions of criminally-seized cryptocurrency on behalf of the UK police, Wilsons Auctions sold 315 seized BTC ($3.1 million) on behalf of Belgiums government in March this year.

On the other side of the Atlantic, US police have been selling confiscated Bitcoin since 2014, following the dismantling of online drug marketplace Silk Road.

More recently, the USauctionedroughly 3,600 BTCin January last year, worth almost $30 million at the time. Months later, it sold another 600 BTC ($4 million).

Despite the irony of buying Bitcoin almost directly from a government, these auctions may be of particular interest to those looking to get into cryptocurrency for a significant discount.

Want more Hard Fork? Join us in Amsterdam on October 15-17 to discuss blockchain and cryptocurrency with leading experts.

Published September 23, 2019 11:48 UTC

View original post here:

UK police to auction $662,000 worth of seized Bitcoin with no minimum bids - The Next Web

Bitcoin Price Dips to $9.6K as Bear Cross Looms – CoinDesk

Posted on by

View

Bitcoin (BTC) slipped to an 18-day low today, as a key indicator threatens to turn bearish for the first time in a year.

The top cryptocurrency fell by $500 in 10 minutes just after 03:00 UTC to hit a low of $9,600 on Bitstamp. That level was last seen on Sept. 1.

The drop was expected as BTC was on slippery ground following last weeks failed breakout. Volatility also fellto multi-month lows on Wednesday, indicating scope for an explosive price move.

Prices have bounced back a little in the last few hours, but the bearish mood is still intact with the cryptocurrency currently changing hands around $9,850, representing a 3 percent loss on a 24-hour basis.

The spread between the 50- and 100-day moving averages (MAs) of bitcoins price has narrowed sharply and the two averages will likely soon produce a bearish crossover, as seen in the chart below.

A bearish crossover occurs when a short-term MA drops below a long-term MA. At time of writing, the 50- and 100-day averages are located at $10,504 and $10,492 and the former looks set to cross below the latter in the next couple of days.

If confirmed, the event would mark the first bear cross of the 50- and 100-day MAs since Sept. 16, 2018.

Technical analysis theory considers the bearish cross of long-term MAs as an advance warning of an impending price crash. They are, however, based on historical data and tend to lag price. Hence, bearish crossovers have limited predictive powers at best and often end up trapping sellers on the wrong side of the market.

For instance, the 50-day MA fell below the 100-day MA on Aug. 29, 2016, when BTC was trading near $570. The cryptocurrency remained flatlined in the next couple of days before rising above $600 on Sept. 4.

More importantly, the $570 price seen on Aug. 29 was never put to test throughout the meteoric rise to a record high of $20,000 reached in December 2017.

Observers may argue that last Septembers bearish crossover was followed by a sharp sell-off to levels below $5,000 in November. However, back then, the cryptocurrency was in a bear market. Also, prices remained sidelined above $6,000 for at least six weeks following the confirmation of the bear cross before dropping in November.

Currently, BTC appears to be in a bull market, having charted higher lows and higher highs in the second quarter. Hence, the latest bearish cross may not be a cause for worry for the bulls especially considering BTC is still stuck in a three-month-long narrowing of its price range.

The upper edge of the contracting triangle is currently located at $10,857 while the lower edge is seen at $9,450.

A high-volume UTC close above $10,857 would confirm the breakout and imply a resumption of the rally from lows near $4,000 in April and could yield a break above the 2019 high of $13,880. That said, a more reliable indicator of bullish revival would be a weekly close above $12,000.

A triangle breakdown, if confirmed, would suggest a bearish reversal and could fuel a price drop to the 200-day moving average (MA), currently located $8,139.

The 14-day relative strength index (RSI) is currently reporting bearish conditions with a below-50 reading. Further, the weekly moving average convergence divergence (MACD) histogram is hovering in bearish territory below zero.

Meanwhile, the 4-hour chart shows a failed breakout followed by a bearish lower high and a drop below key support of $9,855 earlier today.

So, the stage looks set for the test of $9,450 the lower edge of the contracting triangle. The immediate bearish case would weaken if prices rise above $10,458 (Sept. 13 high).

Disclosure:The author holds no cryptocurrency assetsat the time of writing.

Bitcoinimage via Shutterstock;charts byTrading View

See the original post here:

Bitcoin Price Dips to $9.6K as Bear Cross Looms - CoinDesk

Bitcoin May Be Building for Move as Price Volatility Nears 5-Month Low – CoinDesk

Posted on by

View

Bitcoins volatility has hit its lowest level in over four months a price squeeze that may force a significant move either way.

BTCs bull run stalled at highs above $13,800 on June 26 and prices have created lower highs and higher lows ever since.

Notably, the trading range has narrowed sharply over the last two weeks, with bitcoin consolidating between $9,850 and 10,950, as per Bitstamp data.

As a result, the Bollinger bands volatility indicators placed 2 standard deviations above and below the prices 20-day moving average have narrowed sharply.

More importantly, Bollinger bandwidth, an indicator used to gauge market volatility, has dropped to 0.11 the lowest reading since May. 3, as seen in the chart below.

The volatility level has dropped steadily from 0.62 to lows near 0.10 in the 2.5-months.

In the past, BTC has witnessed big moves following drops to or below 0.10 (marked by arrows).

For instance, the bandwidth dropped to 0.06 a week before BTC broke into a bull market with a high-volume move to $5,000 on April 2. It also fell to 0.10 on May 2 a day before BTC jumped above $5,600, marking an upside break of a three-week-long consolidation. And, in the days leading up to last Novembers sell-off below $6,000, volatility dropped to 0.05.

If history is a guide, then BTC could soon witness a big move on either side. Technical analysis theory also states than an extended period of low volatility is often followed by a big move.

While the record high hash rate (miner confidence) is calling a bullish move, the technical charts are beginning to favor the bears.

As of writing, BTC is changing hands at $10,170 on Bitstamp, representing little change on a 24-hour basis.

Bitcoin jumped 2.6 percent on Sept. 12, confirming an upside break of a falling wedge pattern. The bullish breakout, however, failed to draw bids and the cryptocurrency has ended up creating another lower high at $10,458 (Sept. 13 high).

With the failed breakout, the bearish view put forward by Sept. 6s big red engulfing candle has gained credence.

BTC risks falling back to the Sept. 11 low of $9,855 in the short-term. A violation there would open the doors for $9,320 (Aug. 29 low).

A few observers are calling for a deeper drop to levels below $8,000. That possibility cannot be ruled out as the cryptocurrency is looking heavy on the longer duration charts.

The back-to-back inside bar candlestick patterns on the monthly chart (above left) indicate buyer exhaustion following a stellar rally from $4,000 to $13,880.

A bearish inside bar reversal would be confirmed if prices close (UTC) below $9,049 the low of the first inside bar created in July on Sept. 30.

Further, a negative reading on the weekly moving average convergence divergence (MACD) indicates scope for a deeper pullback.

The bearish case would weaken if prices rise above $10,956 (Aug. 20 high), invalidating the lower highs setup on the daily chart.

That said, a weekly close (Sunday, UTC) above $12,000 is needed for bull revival, as discussed last month.

Disclosure:The author holds no cryptocurrency assetsat the time of writing.

Bitcoinimage via Shutterstock;charts byTrading View

Read more here:

Bitcoin May Be Building for Move as Price Volatility Nears 5-Month Low - CoinDesk

Analysts Rule Out Bitcoin Drop to $4,000 Despite Bearish Signs; Heres Why – newsBTC

Posted on by

Bitcoins price action has proven to be quite bearish as of late after it failed to hold above its key support level around $10,000. The drop below this level has led BTC to a key support level in the $9,000 region, and a failure to hold above this support level could lead to a massive movement lower.

Analysts are ruling out a full retrace down to $4,000, however, and are noting that there could be a near-term bullish scenario if BTC is able to hold above $9,400.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading down over 3% at its current price of $9,600, which marks a notable retrace from its daily highs of just under $10,000.

Because Bitcoin has been unable to find any sustainable upwards momentum within the five figure price region, bears have been able to gain the upper hand over the cryptocurrencys bulls, which appear to have lost much of their strength as BTC once again revisits its historical support region in the lower-$9,000 region.

A failure to hold strong above this support level will likely lead to a bout of capitulation that sends the crypto reeling significantly lower, but analysts are noting that there is a bullish near-term scenario that could bolster BTCs bulls.

The Cryptomist, a popular crypto analyst on Twitter, spoke about this possibility in a recent tweet, explaining that a strong bounce from $9,400 could spark some bullish momentum.

$Btc Hmm looking again there may be a bullish scenario? Long bottom wick too 9.4k region, with candle close on support of falling wedge RSI. Then breakout to cover 11.8k gap? Will know between this & last post, which is valid, from btc next move, he explained in a recent tweet.

Assuming that $9,400 does not hold as a strong level of support and thatBitcoin faces a significant influx of selling pressure, some analysts have noted that BTC could erase a significant amount of the gains it incurred throughout the first half of 2019.

Despite this, Mayne, another popular crypto analyst on Twitter, spoke about this possibility in a recent tweet, explaining that he believes it is highly unlikely.

$BTC Seeing a lot of $4k charts today. I dont like to speak in absolutes but I dont see us dropping that low. Were in an uptrend and have been consolidating for 90 days. Just because its a descending triangle doesnt mean we fully retrace the move, market conditions matter, he noted.

How Bitcoin reacts to its key near-term support levels in the coming hours and days will prove to be critical for determining its near-term trend.

Read more here:

Analysts Rule Out Bitcoin Drop to $4,000 Despite Bearish Signs; Heres Why - newsBTC