Vende Globe: Painfully Slow Progress – Scuttlebutt Sailing News

Posted on by

(February 22, 2017; Day 109) Progress has remained painfully slow for Kiwi skipper Conrad Colman today as he sails into a wide high pressure ridge which stands between him and the favorable westerly breezes which should finally allow the jury rigged Foresight Natural Energy to sail more directly towards the French coast and the finish line of the Vende Globe off Les Sables dOlonne.

In the past 24 hours finishing at 1400hrs this Wednesday afternoon, Colman had made just 61.4 nautical miles, a crawling average of 2.4kts as he fights northwards in the southwest of the Bay of Biscay. He is expected to emerge into a northwesterly breeze in the early hours of Thursday morning, the wind strengthening and backing to the west tomorrow, when Colman should be able to make more meaningful speeds towards the finish.

With 215 miles to the finish line, the 33 year old New Zealander has sailed more than 500 miles since he set his jury rig on February 16th. He is now expected to finish his Vende Globe to a heros welcome on Saturday.

Didac Costa is due on the finish line between eight and nine tomorrow morning (Thursday), the fifth solo skipper to finish the race over a six day period. Among the VIPs who have travelled from his native Barcelona to welcome Costa are the Fundaci Navegaci Ocenica Barcelonas CEO Xos Carlos Fernndez and Javier Vilaronga, the Director of their Ocean Base. Costas boat, the former Kingfisher is finishing her fifth round the world race.

At 1700hrs UTC this evening Costa was less than 100 miles from the finish line, making nine knots and was expected to complete his first solo non stop race around the world in a fading Wly breeze with around 10kts on the line, smooth seas and possibly some light rain.

Costas early inspiration to race in the Vende Globe was the pioneering Spanish sailor Jos Luis de Ugarte who completed the 1992-93 race in 134 days at the age of 64 on Euskadi Europ 93BBK. Until yesterday when Rich Wilson crossed the finish line, the late Ugarte was the oldest solo skipper to complete the Vende Globe. The redoubtable Ugartes boat was leaking in the final days of the race, with so much water in it that he had to dive inside the boat to find out what the problem was.

In fact, the second oldest seems likely to be Pieter Heerema (17th place), the Dutch solo racer who is now expected on Monday. He was 65 when he started the race. Heerema faces a tough final weekend at sea on his No Way Back. He is struggling with very limited electrics and will touch two successive low pressure systems giving him 35kts of wind over Saturday and Sunday.

Likely to pass the unfortunate Colman during the final 100 miles of their race, Romain Attanasio seems set to take 15th place and by comparison, has a relatively straight run to the finish line. His estimated finish time is Friday morning, around 24 hours after Costa.

Final Results (Top 10 of 29) 1. Banque Populaire VIII, Armel Le Clach (FRA), Finished, 74d 03h 35m 46s (1/19/17) 2. Hugo Boss, Alex Thomson (GBR), Finished, 74d 19h 35m 15s (1/20/17) 3. Matre CoQ, Jrmie Beyou (FRA), Finished, 78d 06h 38m 40s (1/23/17) 4. StMichel-Virbac, Jean-Pierre Dick (FRA), Finished, 80d 01h 45m 45s (1/25/17) 5. Queguiner Leucemie Espoir, Yann Elies, (FRA), Finished, 80d 03h 11m 09s (1/25/17) 6. Finistre Mer Vent, Jean Le Cam (FRA), Finished, 80d 06h 41m 54s (1/25/17) 7. Bureau Valle, Louis Burton (FRA), Finished, 87d 21h 45m 49s (2/2/17) 8. Spirit of Hungary, Nndor Fa (HUN), Finished, 93d 22h 52m 09s (2/8/17) 9. CommeUnSeulHomme, Eric Bellion (FRA), Finished, 99d 04h 56m (2/13/17) 10. La Mie Cline, Arnaud Boissire (FRA), Finished, 102d 20h 24m 09s (2/17/17)

Race details Tracker Ranking Facebook VendeeGlobe TV

Background: The eighth Vende Globe, which began November 6 from Les Sables dOlonn, France, is the only non-stop solo round the world race without assistance. Twenty-nine skippers representing four continents and ten nations set sail on IMOCA 60s in pursuit of the record time set by Franois Gabart in the 2012-13 race of 78 days, 2 hours and 16 minutes.

For the first time in the history of the event, seven skippers will set sail on IMOCA 60s fitted with foils: six new boats (Banque Populaire VIII, Edmond de Rothschild, Hugo Boss, No Way Back, Safran, and StMichel-Virbac) and one older generation boat (Maitre Coq). The foils allow the boat to reduce displacement for speed gains in certain conditions. It will be a test to see if the gains can topple the traditional daggerboard configuration during the long and demanding race.

Retirements (11): November 12, Day 7 Tanguy de Lamotte, Initiatives Coeur, masthead crane failure November 19, Day 14 Bertrand de Broc, MACSF, UFO collision November 22, Day 17 Vincent Riou, PRB, UFO collision November 24, Day 19 Morgan Lagravire, Safran, UFO collision December 4, Day 29 Kojiro Shiraishi, Spirit of Yukoh, dismasted December 6, Day 31 Kito de Pavant, Bastide Otio, UFO collision December 7, Day 32 Sbastien Josse, Edmond de Rothschild, foil damage December 18, Day 43 Thomas Ruyant, Le Souffle du Nord, UFO collision December 24, Day 49 Stphane Le Diraison, Compagnie du Lit Boulogne Billancourt, dismasted December 24, Day 49 Paul Meilhat, SMA, keel ram failure January 1, Day 57 Enda OCoineen, Kilcullen Voyager-Team Ireland, dismasted

Source: Vendee Globe

Here is the original post:

Vende Globe: Painfully Slow Progress - Scuttlebutt Sailing News

Innovation awards recognize progress in retinal imaging, 3D visualization and crowd-sourcing applications – Healthcare IT News

Posted on by

ORLANDO Microsoft presented awards for innovation at the Microsoft Global Health Forum. The awards were created to recognize organizations and technology solution partners that are achieving innovation excellence. The winners were named Feb. 22 in a ceremony at the Orlando County Convention Center during HIMSS17.

The following groups were recognized.

CoxHealth and IRIS Intelligent Retinal Imaging Systems for incorporating diabetic retinopathy exams into their primary care locations using the IRIS diabetic retinopathy diagnostic solution. The program increased exam rates from 32 percent to 72 percent and made it possible to identify hundreds of patients with sight threatening disease. IRIS technology quickly detects potential abnormalitiesindicating location, size and type of pathology and presenting the results via a web-based platform to a highly-skilled human screener in the IRIS network.

The Vision Center at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles and SADA Systems were honored for developing a crowd-sourced training system to combat eye diseases.

Family Physicians Group and HealthGrid were recognized for developing a mobile patient engagement platform that helps care managers improve their management of patients care plans. The solution has made it possible for Family Physicians Group to have a consistent schedule for interacting with patients and drives significant return to its practice.

The Intervention Centre, Oslo University HospitalandSopra Steria were recognized for developing a mixed reality environment with Microsoft HoloLens that made it possible for surgeons at Oslo University Hospital to visualize 3D models of an organ during the planning stages of a surgery to help them improve the outcome.

The Cardiac High Acuity Monitoring Program (CHAMP) at Childrens Mercy Kansas City was recognized for connecting families to their medical teams using real-time analysis of vital statistics and videos. Since 2014, CHAMP has reduced interstage mortality at Childrens Mercy from 20 percent to zero.

This article is part of our ongoing coverage of HIMSS17. VisitDestination HIMSS17for previews, reporting live from the show floor and after the conference.

Like Healthcare IT News onFacebookandLinkedIn

Link:

Innovation awards recognize progress in retinal imaging, 3D visualization and crowd-sourcing applications - Healthcare IT News

World in Progress: Standing up for Human Rights – Deutsche Welle

Posted on by

Deutsche Welle
World in Progress: Standing up for Human Rights
Deutsche Welle
Human rights under attack across the world, says Amnesty International's new report / In Turkey, protests against more purges in the education system / Refugees in South Africa: The promised land of the south?
Amnesty International Annual Report 2016/17 | Amnesty InternationalAmnesty International

all 126 news articles »

See the original post:

World in Progress: Standing up for Human Rights - Deutsche Welle

Roselva Ungar: Reform and progress – Santa Clarita Valley Signal

Posted on by

There must be a typo, or perhaps Terri Lovell has been drinking some foxy Kool Aid to confuse liberalism with autocracy (Liberal Oppression, published Feb. 17 in The Signal).

It is autocrats who believe in, to quote Lovells words, absolute power and taking away individual rights.

For liberals, in her words, the goal is to centralize all power under their control and use innocent children and young adults to expand their own power by teaching them to hate freedom and despise traditional values.

I find this assigning autocratic purposes to liberals very puzzling. It was liberal thinkers who wrote our Constitution and established this nations liberal traditions.

Liberalism, by definition according to Webster, is free, not literal or strict, not narrow or bigoted. It is broad-minded, favoring a democratic or republican form of government as distinguished from monarchies and aristocracies.

It favors reform and progress, trending toward democracy and general freedom for the individual, freedom of thought and action, absence of narrowness or prejudice in thinking.

The word itself comes from liberty or freedom.

I know many liberal-thinking people; I, myself, am one. We tend to be open-minded and freedom-loving. In politics we want power to serve the peoples needs and to be controlled democratically.

As an educator, I want students to think critically, to understand civic responsibility, fairness, and to be open to new ideas.

I find it Orwellian to confuse liberalism with autocracy and truth with fiction.

View original post here:

Roselva Ungar: Reform and progress - Santa Clarita Valley Signal

Buddhism and Transhumanism – Lankaweb

Posted on by

According to some versions of Buddhist apocrypha, the condition of our species mankind varied tremendously across vast ages. We live in an age of decadence and finitude wherein life is short and mankind is inexorably menaced by pain and death. Under these conditions, The Compassionate Buddhas bearing a salvific message appear before us and preach the sublime doctrine of total liberation from the forces of Karma and endless reincarnation.

All is not gloom and doom however because of the cyclicity of nature and its processes there were periods in the grand history of the Cosmos when our kind Homo sapiens were long-lived giants leading a salubrious existence with pain and suffering a distant shadow. Such beings, perforce, were unreceptive to the noble message of salvation and total release from the bondage of Karma hence The Buddhas did not appear to solace a grieving cohort of mankind and the healing truth lay in abeyance for long periods.

The great question to be answered is whether such periods of existential joy can be recaptured by the clever use of the science and learning now available for the advancement of our species when heavens and hells are forgotten and Planet Earth albeit briefly becomes the New Elysium.

The Transhumanists led by such stalwarts as Ray Kurzweil and Noah Harari believe that Homo sapiens can be made Homo deus by the clever use of the science and technology currently available if this goal is assiduously pursued. They pose the question What is it to be God-like? They find and most will agree that immortality, bliss and the power to do things at will are key attributes of divinity.

These seemingly divine attributes can be made part of the equipage of Homo sapiens with a sufficiently advanced science and the collective will to make the best of what we know and have. Heavens and Hells become paltry and negligible when divinity becomes commonplace.

Most futurologists believe that the life-span of Homo sapiens can be indefinitely extended and our knowledge base made God-like so that we can have what we wish. The issue of bliss is tricky because conventional Gods are debarred from the Four Fs and spend their idle days contemplating a non-functional navel.

Transhumanists believe that Homo deus can do much better with a form of active divinity based on a study of virtual worlds and computer simulations. In brief, death and the terrors of the associated afterlife can be actively expunged while all that is good and gracious can be made the norm.

If such a beatific scenario is a possibility our best efforts must be attuned to its realization religions must fade away and the torture-chambers called hells that disfigure all religions will become emblematic of a false spirituality that sees the suffering of others as a kind of sounding board for the boastfully virtuous.

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site. All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.

Original post:

Buddhism and Transhumanism - Lankaweb

When did Britain stop being a nation of hedonists? – The Guardian

Posted on by

The 90s saw a huge surge in drinking, but alcohol consumption has been in steady decline since 2002. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

The behaviour of this nation, its relentless heeding of expert advice, the stiff downward curve of its self-harming habits, must be the cause of intense frustration to the hell-in-a-handcart lobby. It has long been observable that the youth of today act the way the youth of two decades ago used to be told to act, when they arrived at the GP with astomach ulcer and an anxiety disorder. They go to the gym, they have personal bests, they count their steps, they walk up stairs. They spend less on alcohol and more on coffee. Their behaviour is so different, so pronounced, that it has affected the entire cohort known as adults. The family-spending data from the Office of National Statistics reported last week that average weekly spend on alcohol, cigarettes and narcotics had fallen below 12 for the first time.

Generation X has of late cast itself as the buffer of decency between the righteous self-interest of the baby boomers and the fragile solipsism of the millennials. But the really salient development, incremental in its arrival but sudden in its obviousness, is the total rejection of hedonism, which was all we X-ers were ever good at. Alcohol consumption has been in steady decline since 2002. The 90s saw a surge, among young men in particular; between 1994 and 1999, they increased their intake by an incredible eight units a week (young women were less dramatic, starting from a lower bar, but female drinking overall increased by a third over the same period). These spikes are understood to be spurred by economic booms, although the relationship between those and a kind of cultural exhilaration must surely be symbiotic, each driving the other. To recap for the younger reader: these were the years when binge was a compliment; William Hague would show off about drinking 14 pints at a sitting; whole sitcoms would be built on the assumption that you could drink wine in the morning and that would be funny. It was the era of ladettes and self-parody, hangovers and fags, gleeful personal failure. All of that has been comprehensively rejected; nobody even staged a rebellion. They just thought we were silly.

There are other things happening here, sometimes in parallel, sometimes bisecting. People spend what they can afford, and other costs have gone up. Wages have stagnated, rents increased. Credit is tight and viewed with suspicion. As Reni Eddo-Lodge, a 27-year-old activist turned writer, explains to me, rather wearily: Its really just about money. When I was a student, I drank more heavily than I do now. Ihavent smoked since 2012. It wasnt a puritanical thing; I just couldnt afford to. Everybody who I was friends with when I was 18 is limiting nights out because the cash just isnt there. The economic circumstances since the crash have been most punishing to the young, and their behaviour has changed the fastest.

Yet their drinking attitudes reveal motivations beyond frugality: Heineken polled 5,000 21-35 year olds in five countries this year, and found that self-awareness and staying in control were two considerations behind the fact that three-quarters of millennials limited the amount they drank on the majority of nights out. The alcohol industry has been wise to this for at least a decade. Bruce Davis, an anthropologist turned, briefly, consumer-whisperer, remembers seeing this anxiety in the 00s: Its the one thing thats constantly worrying drinks companies; all profits are based on volume. If you make beer, you only make money when you sell lots of it. They get really worried when they see volumes decreasing. But as soon as the millennials came of pub age, volumes did decrease, and at that point, it was more about self-fashioning than it was about cash. In the past, you didnt go drinking to be individual, you went to be the same as everyone else. Volume drinking is driven by people trying to keep up with each other. Millennials behaviour was always much more individual. People dont buy rounds as much. People are nomadic, they might not even stay with one group for the whole evening. Its a much more liquid, modern social life. But it would be a mistake to take modern as an unalloyed good; its partly modern because its atomised, insecure and precarious. Even among working-class millennials, theyre not going to the same workplace, so theyre not drinking in the same place. The big volume push for alcohol was drinking in groups.

Eddo-Lodge reminds us not to elide these new working patterns with adeliberated individualism. Theres this significant uptick in the number of young people freelancing. Its not achoice, thats just us making the best of a bad situation.

Swerving off the labour market and back to the pub, the industrys response was to devise interesting spirits, drinks that would generate income even in relatively small amounts. Davis invented Monkey Shoulder whisky and Sailor Jerrys rum, brands that consciously sought to disassociate themselves from the generations that drank in order to get drunk. The signature drink of this trend is craft beer, which partly through international cross-fertilisation the Antipodeans with their more distinctive hops, the Americans with their entrepreneurialism, us with our romantic attachment to beer has become the ultimate drink-as-self-expression, definitely-not-drunk-to-get-drunk drink. Chloe MacDonnell, 30, who works for the fashion title InStyle, lives the niche alcohol dream. We spend a lot of money getting the best gin, or the best beer. But at the same time, I will buy a bottle of wine for a fiver in Tesco. Its like fashion, the high and low element, designer to highstreet.

There is a health element that, again, occupies that uncomfortable space between individualism and insecurity. If you look at gym membership and gym frequency among millennials, its higher. You drink water and you take pills because it doesnt make you fat, Davis observes. (Gym-going, interestingly, may drive spending in all kinds of areas going out to eat, clothes shopping but it doesnt drive people to drink.) Narcotics spending has probably gone down not because of abstinence but because drugs are cheaper and purer and altogether better, proof if any were needed that market forces do work especially well on non-essential commodities. Yet both the surge in legal highs and the spate of clubs turning into bars makes me wonder whether the majority of people just prefer not to break the law. As a footnote, notions of indulgence and masculinity have changed: it used to be signifier of something or other, something good, if you could drink 10 pints without soiling yourself. That doesnt impress millennials so much.

MacDonnell names the defining generational difference: brunch. Me and my friends would go out for brunch at the weekend; older colleagues think thats just weird. Why not wait for lunch, so you can drink? For a short time last year, Ilived on ahill in the semi-suburbs of south-west London where young people would queue down the street on aSaturday morning to go to cafe/brand the Breakfast Club. I kept wanting to close-question them about it youre waiting in line, for an egg. Who does that? but they all looked so fit.

Both eating out and event spending minibreaks, day trips, experiences have peaked this year, which illustrates that its not leisure that has dropped off so much as hedonism. Spending on experiences is variously characterised as a new wisdom people realising that memories are more important to ones identity than things and a new self-fashioning people deciding that mindless enjoyment didnt add much to Project Me. Eddo-Lodge says: Once you get out of the habit of big nights out, theyre no longer attractive. If Ihave a bit of disposable income, Id rather go for a day trip. Ive actually decided to go to Maldon.

Sara Mahmoud, 30, is an economic analyst in the housing sector. Im aprivate renter, as a lot of young people are. When youre renting privately, no matter what your income is, you feel that you are being made poorer by having such high rents. And you feel your life is insecure because of the instability of renting. But I know how lucky I am, because I look at household-income data all day long. What really shocked me was how many renters have no savings at all. Zero in the bank, totally hand-to-mouth. And that is really serious, because obviously, people have very limited prospects of being able to get themselves out of whatever insecure situation theyre in.

Beyond that, it is incredibly unusual for those under 30 to think of themselves as saving to buy a house; its unrealistic, for anyone who doesnt have help from their parents. Shelter did a study that showed 50% of first-time buyers, rising to 60% in London, had help from their parents, Mahmoud continues. One of the things that concerns me is the concentration of wealth that that implies. But also, there is a real tension; were increasingly moving towards asset-based welfare. People have to rely on the value of their homes to pay for their care, while also paying for their children to get on to the housing ladder. This colours all other decisions where to live in the long term, when to start a family, whether to eat or put the heating on. It has a different effect on social behaviours across the income distribution. At the affluent end, there is very little point saving 50 on any single decision, since those 50 quids are not as they would have in the 90s ever going to add up to a deposit on a flat. At the low-waged end, there isnt any flexibility at all, and there is more pre-loading at home, Scandinavian-style.

Yet Mahmoud, being also in a punk band, doesnt see her generation as particularly abstemious or reserved. If anything, she thinks youth culture is rediscovering its rebellion, an antipathy to the mainstream not seen since Thatcher. Young is really defined by social constructs over time. I wouldnt necessarily count myself as young, but someone in the government would aim a scheme at me. Because Im not on the property ladder, my life has only just begun. All our lives have been characterised by the financial crisis, and it is really interesting to see that feeding through to actual youth culture, how they think about the world, how they go out and enjoy themselves.

Theres never much national mourning when unwanted, smelly, disease-causing behaviours decline; and nobody, probably, would be sorry to see the back of smoking, although I will add here that the e-cigarette technology partly driving that has left me more addicted to nicotine than Ive ever been in my life. But large-scale restraint in the booze arena, while it may shave a few off the cirrhosis register decades hence, has implications for the present reality that we should take seriously and not cheerlead: plain lack of disposable income, for one; reordering of power between renters and rentiers, which cannot, I dont think, be waived away with acasual, everybody rents in Berlin; a growing economic insecurity and intensifying personal perfectionism that cant possibly be unrelated. All this clean living is driven by some dirtydata.

See the rest here:

When did Britain stop being a nation of hedonists? - The Guardian

How dirty do you like it? Revel in hedonism with You Pull It, the new EP from The Byzantines – Happy

Posted on by

The earliest Arctic Monkeys tracks were brimming with a fast-paced, frenetic energy thats hard to match. Their later effortsSuck It And SeeandAMwere a different beast; mature, considered and wholly held together by Alex Turners commanding baritone.

Somewhere in between the two, sprinkled with a smattering of church organs and and an even more palpable vigour is the latest EP from The Byzantines,You Pull It.

Michael, David, Jose and Johnny are the lads from Adelaide who have pulled together this thrumming release. Listening to the EP, you have to wonder exactly what this foursome have been getting up to on tour, but that pervasive, pitch-black and often perverted underbelly givesYou Pull Itcharacter beyond the bands years.

Lyrically The Byzantines adopt the adept philosophy of the practised hedonist. Brutally honest, provocative and even spine-chilling at times, the EP is a murky swamp of vice from start to finish. But ifmusical history has taught us anything, a little high-end degeneracy goes a long way. The band sculpts their wickedness for the better onYou Pull It, employing their character as a draw-in rather than any sort of repellent.

The music is uniformly interesting, a consistent metamorphosis that keeps you on edge. The way the Byzantines employ fills, key changes or the introduction of a new layer is unswerving in their effectiveness its the furthest youll possibly get from boring instrumentation.

Closing trackBefore I Go Under demonstrates this consideration. At times a dancehall, Brit pop singalong, this track reaches into the abyss of psych rock raunchiness for an almost out-of-place breakdown. The singing, tremolo chords come out of nowhere, but ripthe song and EP into a different state of mind with their introduction.

The British influence is worn on The Byzantines sleeve, Arctic Monkeys have been mentioned but the sonics of Kasabian consistently rear their head. That being said, the heavily employed organ, adaptive musicality and lyrical impurity of this record carve out something unique for this four-piece from Adelaide.

WithYou Pull ItThe Byzantines have carved their names into their genre-scape and the Aussie scene. No longer a simple of imitation of music which hascome before, this EP speaks volumestowhatever will follow.

You Pull Itis out now.

The Byzantines are on tour right now. Catch the dates below, and head to their Facebook page for the details.

Fri Feb 24 The Karova Lounge Ballarat, VIC Sat Feb 25 The Workers Club Geelong, VIC SunFeb 26 The Workers Club Melbourne, VIC Wed Mar 1 Rad Bar Wollongong, NSW Thur Mar 2 Transit Bar, Canberra, ACT Fri Mar 3 The Brighton Up Bar Sydney, NSW Sat Mar 4 Clipsal 500 Adelaide, SA Fri Mar 10 The Currumbin Creek Tavern Gold Coast, QLD Sat Mar 11 The Milk Factory Brisbane, QLD

See more here:

How dirty do you like it? Revel in hedonism with You Pull It, the new EP from The Byzantines - Happy

You Don’t Have To Choose Between Alt-Right And Regressive Left – Huffington Post Canada

Posted on by

I know -- everyone is tired of talking about identity politics -- and for good reason.

It's a poison pill in an already toxic landscape, a conch for the left and a stone in the shoe for the right. It's where political correctness goes to thrive or be smothered, a way to gaslight the opposition through slogans and smugness, hostility and populism.

(Photo: Pinkbadger via Getty Images)

How the hell did we get here? How did our politics mutate into such prolific and unabashed tribalism? Think about how the landscape looks like right now. The hard left have constructed a sort of boilerplate militancy; a method of attack towards anyone unwilling to abide by their version of modern decency, especially in the realm of identity politics. Meanwhile, the hard right act like science and their racist relatives don't even exist, all while using really bad wordplay to denigrate their political opposites.

In the gladiator arena of social justice, identity politics serves as a high-calibre weapon for progressives eager to force feed a perceived notion of fairness onto the populace, wielded by a hand determined to apply retribution inside the consciousness of the privileged class. To conservatives, identity politics is the ultimate propaganda tool; a vehicle for outrage spawned through university campuses by academic elites whose collective common sense has been replaced by stringent ideology.

Both sides are half right, half insane... and we do not have to choose either side.

The conventional wisdom in modern-day politics is to define these problems through polarization, but this mainstay idea relies on the suggestion of a split between the right and the left when the evidence suggests that we have been traditionally polarized for decades. There now exist two divisions and four total groups of people in the battle of ideas -- two fringe groups on the extreme right and left, and two groups desperately running from both fringes.

U.S. President Donald Trump invites a supporter onstage with him during a "Make America Great Again" rally in Melbourne, Florida, U.S. Feb. 18, 2017. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

The irony is that we used to embrace moderation in politics through the tried-and-true blueprint of being socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Well, we now have the opportunity to merge these classic beliefs into a new construct, one less reliant on orthodoxy, willing to become an ambidextrous sect of voters who care more about actual societal progress than the fortunes of a singular political party.

And if they could ever summon the political will and organize, the two fringes will never control our politics again. Make no mistake, the fringes have taken over... but there is hope now that we have witnessed the damage they have done.

We have an opportunity to use the power of the middle effectively. Voter apathy is shrinking, awareness is growing, and the identity politics war is already dividing the wings. The regressive left and alt-right are destroying our sense of rationalism through violent protests and disgusting behaviour that would be almost unheard of just a short time ago. Most of us are afraid to go against the status quo, but maybe we need to pick up our swords rather than feeling pressured to fall on them.

Because we are better than this.

We are better than the labels we thrust upon one another. We just need to stop acting like we can read the minds and motivations of people who do not subscribe to our way of speaking, or our way of looking at the world. We can believe in universal health care and still be capitalists. Just because we do not attach the profit motive to life or death doesn't mean we want to bankrupt the system or get a free ride.

We can criticize someone from a different race, and not be a racist. We can discuss privilege and oppression, but know that we are not necessarily textbook examples of the oppressed or the oppressors.

We can adore our traditions and values, but understand the painful symbolism of things like the Confederate flag. We were not robbed of our heritage by lowering that flag. In fact, we enriched it by proving we understood why it belongs in a museum instead of the top of a courthouse.

We can be incredible supporters of gender equality and still not convict a defendant in a sexual assault case until the jury does. We can be Marie Henein instead of Lena Dunham, and that's OK.

Jian Ghomeshi, a former celebrity radio host who has been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, leaves the courthouse after the first day of his trial alongside his lawyer Marie Henein (L), in Toronto, Feb. 1, 2016. (Photo: Mark Blinch/Reuters)

Because we can be fair, and just, and reasonable, and rational -- especially when we happen to disagree with each other.

We are more complex than the gatekeepers of ideologies. But those ideologies are becoming more and more mainstream. Certain concepts on both sides have been stitched into the fabric of our pop culture quilt, and we are afraid to challenge these ideas, all because we do not want to be bullied by the mobs.

But this fight is just beginning. The successful dismantling of extremists will not be easy, or finite. There will always be ideologues. But challenging the alt-right and regressive left has never been more dire; it's a critical component needed to inject a healthy dose of rationalism back into the ether, and with it a viable chance at escaping the gladiator arena unscathed.

Sure, it's a blood sport, but the coliseum is already crowded, and the people are no longer entertained.

Also on HuffPost:

Close

SAN FRANCISCO, UNITED STATES - JANUARY 28: Activists stage a rally against President Donald Trump's 90-days ban of entry on 7 Muslim-majority countries at the San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco USA on January 28, 2017. (Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

SAN FRANCISCO, UNITED STATES - JANUARY 28: Activists stage a rally against President Donald Trump's 90-days ban of entry on 7 Muslim-majority countries at the San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco USA on January 28, 2017. (Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

SAN FRANCISCO, UNITED STATES - JANUARY 28: Activists stage a rally against President Donald Trump's 90-days ban of entry on 7 Muslim-majority countries at the San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco USA on January 28, 2017. (Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

SAN FRANCISCO, UNITED STATES - JANUARY 28: Activists stage a rally against President Donald Trump's 90-days ban of entry on 7 Muslim-majority countries at the San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco USA on January 28, 2017. (Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - JANUARY 28: Activists stage a rally against President Donald Trump's 90-days ban of entry on 7 Muslim-majority countries in the Fourth terminal of JFK airport in New York, U.S.A on January 28, 2017. (Photo by Mohammed Elshamy/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - JANUARY 28: Activists stage a rally against President Donald Trump's 90-days ban of entry on 7 Muslim-majority countries in the Fourth terminal of JFK airport in New York, U.S.A on January 28, 2017. (Photo by Mohammed Elshamy/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - JANUARY 28: Activists stage a rally against President Donald Trump's 90-days ban of entry on 7 Muslim-majority countries in the Fourth terminal of JFK airport in New York, U.S.A on January 28, 2017. (Photo by Mohammed Elshamy/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - JANUARY 28: Immigration activists stage a protest against President Donald Trump's 90-days ban of entry on 7 Muslim-majority countries in JFK airport in New York, U.S.A on January 28, 2017. (Photo by Mohammed Elshamy/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

Police officers stand guard as protestors rally during a demonstration against the new immigration ban issued by President Donald Trump at John F. Kennedy International Airport on January 28, 2017 in New York City. President Trump signed the controversial executive order that halted refugees and residents from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.. (Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Hundreds protestor the Muslim Ban at Philadelphia International Airport on January 28th 2017 as a group of Government officials' attempt to negotiate the release of Syrian Refugees is going into the night with a standstill. A judge is expected to make a decision on Sunday Morning as two families are held by Federal Border Patrol after President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order restricting entry for many traveling from selected Middle Eastern countries. (Photo by Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Hundreds protestor the Muslim Ban at Philadelphia International Airport on January 28th 2017 as a group of Government officials' attempt to negotiate the release of Syrian Refugees is going into the night with a standstill. A judge is expected to make a decision on Sunday Morning as two families are held by Federal Border Patrol after President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order restricting entry for many traveling from selected Middle Eastern countries. (Photo by Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Hundreds protest the Muslim Ban of President Donald Trump at Philadelphia International Airport, in Philadelphia, PA, on January 28th, 2017. An attempt by local government representatives and ACLU lawyers to negotiate the release of a family of six Syrian refugees is going into the night with a standstill as a judge is expected to make a decision on Sunday Morning. (Photo by Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Hundreds protest the Muslim Ban of President Donald Trump at Philadelphia International Airport, in Philadelphia, PA, on January 28th, 2017. An attempt by local government representatives and ACLU lawyers to negotiate the release of a family of six Syrian refugees is going into the night with a standstill as a judge is expected to make a decision on Sunday Morning. (Photo by Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

DALLAS, TX - JANUARY 28: Keri Puckett hands out snacks and water to protesters gathered to denounce President Donald Trump's executive order that bans certain immigration, at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on January 28, 2017 in Dallas, Texas. President Trump signed the controversial executive order that halted refugees and residents from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. (Photo by G. Morty Ortega/Getty Images)

DALLAS, TX - JANUARY 28: Protesters gather to denounce President Donald Trump's executive order that bans certain immigration, at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on January 28, 2017 in Dallas, Texas. President Trump signed the controversial executive order that halted refugees and residents from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. (Photo by G. Morty Ortega/Getty Images)

DALLAS, TX - JANUARY 28: Texas Representative Marc Veasey (2nd L) speaks to a reporter at the entrance to international arrivals at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, at the site of a protest to denounce President Donald Trump's executive order that bans certain immigration, at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on January 28, 2017 in Dallas, Texas. President Trump signed the controversial executive order that halted refugees and residents from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. (Photo by G. Morty Ortega/Getty Images)

Demonstrators protest agaist President Trump's executive immigration ban at Chicago O'Hare International Airport on January 28, 2017. US President Donald Trump signed the controversial executive order that halted refugees and residents from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. Trump boasted Saturday that his 'very strict' crackdown on Muslim immigration was working 'very nicely,' amid mounting resistance to the order which has been branded by many as blatantly discriminatory. / AFP / Joshua LOTT (Photo credit should read JOSHUA LOTT/AFP/Getty Images)

Demonstrators protest agaist President Trump's executive immigration ban at Chicago O'Hare International Airport on January 28, 2017. US President Donald Trump signed the controversial executive order that halted refugees and residents from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. Trump boasted Saturday that his 'very strict' crackdown on Muslim immigration was working 'very nicely,' amid mounting resistance to the order which has been branded by many as blatantly discriminatory. / AFP / Joshua LOTT (Photo credit should read JOSHUA LOTT/AFP/Getty Images)

Demonstrators protest agaist President Trump's executive immigration ban at Chicago O'Hare International Airport on January 28, 2017. US President Donald Trump signed the controversial executive order that halted refugees and residents from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. Trump boasted Saturday that his 'very strict' crackdown on Muslim immigration was working 'very nicely,' amid mounting resistance to the order which has been branded by many as blatantly discriminatory. / AFP / Joshua LOTT (Photo credit should read JOSHUA LOTT/AFP/Getty Images)

Demonstrators protest agaist President Trump's executive immigration ban at Chicago O'Hare International Airport on January 28, 2017. US President Donald Trump signed the controversial executive order that halted refugees and residents from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. Trump boasted Saturday that his 'very strict' crackdown on Muslim immigration was working 'very nicely,' amid mounting resistance to the order which has been branded by many as blatantly discriminatory. / AFP / Joshua LOTT (Photo credit should read JOSHUA LOTT/AFP/Getty Images)

Read more:

You Don't Have To Choose Between Alt-Right And Regressive Left - Huffington Post Canada

Letter to the Editor: Banning Immigrants on the Basis of Faith Has Hudson Valley Roots – Patch.com

Posted on by

Patch.com
Letter to the Editor: Banning Immigrants on the Basis of Faith Has Hudson Valley Roots
Patch.com
The report of one of the Methodist Upper Iowa districts at the 1883 Conference contained the following concern about events in its district: Upon the river borders Catholicism and German rationalism press upon us. Rum and Rome and Rationalism ...

Read the rest here:

Letter to the Editor: Banning Immigrants on the Basis of Faith Has Hudson Valley Roots - Patch.com

American society headed toward a breaking point – Jerusalem Post Israel News

Posted on by

A little over a week ago, Bill OReilly of The OReilly Factor on Fox News slammed the twisted reporting of the deportation of illegal immigrants who were convicted felons, showing how the media portrayed them as innocent maids, moms, and shopkeepers. He said that this exemplifies how the media coverage of President Trump is beyond biased; it is blatant dishonesty. Mr. OReilly, whose program is routinely the highest-rated show of the three major US 24-hour cable news television channels, concluded the item declaring, There is a radical element [the radical left] in this country that wants to destroy it. If this continues, there will be a breaking point.

As harsh as this threat sounds, judging by the relentless attempts of the Democrats to sabotage Trumps efforts to man key positions, the medias slew of warped and made up stories purporting to prove the presidents incompetence, through the army of on-the-ground agitators that Obamas Organizing for Action has dispatched in order to disrupt every town-hall meeting in the country and create the pretense that the nation is with the Democrats, it seems that there is indeed a war against the president on multiple fronts.

It is not a question of policy; it is a question of identity. Donald Trump recently deported 680 convicted criminals, and the media was up in arms over the deportation of innocent people, as they called them. Where was the media when Obama, to whom immigrants referred as Deporter-in-Chief, drove out 2.5 million people during his tenure, the majority of whom were without any criminal record? And where was the outcry when it became known that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, sold one fifth of US uranium to Russia, and that she and her husband, Bill Clinton, personally profited from the deal?

The media were silent because Obama and Clinton were the guardians of power for a small ruling elite that wants to dominate the US. A president who does not comply with their dictates does not serve their interests and there is no telling what they will do to remove him from office. For now, they are using a bogus, humanistic agenda such as caring for the immigrants and backing the Obamacare program to promote their goal of ousting Trump, but there is no reason to believe that they will stop there.

The Necessity of Diversity

Liberalism in itself is a noble idea. Following World War II, numerous countries in the West adopted the Liberal agenda as a vaccine against fascism and Nazism. However, a society cannot be vital and vibrant unless many different views vie against one another and in the process become polished and refined. When all the parties understand that diversity of views creates vitality, they strengthen their society and increase its ability to cope with changes.

Our own Jewish tradition encourages diversity and debate as a means to enhance social cohesion. Martin Buber wrote in Nation and World: It is not neutrality that we need, but rather cohesion, cohesion of mutual responsibility. We are not required to blur the boundaries among the factions, circles, and parties, but rather share a recognition of the common reality and to share the test of mutual responsibility. Likewise, the great Rav Kook wrote (Orot Hakodesh), Near the end of days, the quality of unity will surface in the nation This quality is immersed in pool of strife and discord, but its content is paved with love and wondrous unity.

For generations, Jewish leaders taught their disciples that conflict of views is a means for finding the ideal solution and strengthening social cohesion. The Talmud writes that A father and son who engage in Torah become each others enemies, yet they do not move from there until they return to loving one another (Kidushin 30b). The Zohar, too, writes (Aharei Mot), Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to also sit together. These are the friends as they sit together, and are not separated from each other. At first, they seem like people at war, wishing to kill one another. Then they return to being in brotherly love. And you, the friends who are here, as you were in fondness and love before, henceforth you will also not part And by your merit there will be peace in the world.

The Inevitable Evil Yet, the American society has denied the legitimacy of other parties, as Buber put it. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, said British Liberal MP Sir John Dalberg-Acton. Liberalism has been the sole legitimate agenda for decades now, but instead of using it to create a vibrant arena of views that invigorate one another, it has become a stifling mechanism by which anyone who contradicts what the media deems true is shamed and bullied. If business people such as Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank feel that they must apologize for stating their honest, very mildly conservative views for fear of losing business, this is no longer liberalism and certainly not pluralism. This is tyranny. Beneath a guise of free speech, America has become a fascist country, where only one view is permitted.

But if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then this is to be expected. The inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth (Gen 8:21) is not merely a verse from the Torah. It is who we all are. This is why rulers need the media to monitor them, and why the media needs to be kept genuinely free and pluralistic.

This is not the situation in America. Neoliberalism, which has destroyed Europe through immigration, and nearly destroyed the US by eliminating its middle class, has been the sole ruling agenda in the US for decades. It serves the interests of the small elite group of magnates who control the American economy, the media, and thereby the government, all the way up to the White House. They determine what is reported and what is not, who is defamed and who is glorified. By controlling the media, they have dominated public discourse, public opinion, and have avoided criticism. This is ingenious, but deadly to society.

Their best interest is not the best interest of the American people. They aspire for world domination. Through proxies such as Obama and Clinton, they removed Arab leaders such as Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Bashar Assad, destroyed their countries, and created an influx of migrants into Europe. It is not that these Middle Eastern tyrants are or ever were anything to admire, but if you look at Iraq, Libya, and Syria today, would it not have been better for their people if their tyrants had remained in place, rather than the ruin, death, hunger, and terrorism that is their daily reality today?

If the people driving the liberal agenda in Europe maintain control over their governments, it will not be long before Europe accepts Sharia law. As this sad story of a forced child marriage shows, this is already happening, but it will spread much faster if they succeed.

And what they have done to Europe, they will continue in America: This same group will allow unchecked influx of migrants into the US, who will drain the already overstretched welfare system, create an impossible conflict of cultures and faiths, which will result in extremism and subsequent bloodshed on both sides. And all this will be done in the name of liberal thinking, pluralism, humanism, and democracy.

On the Side of Correction It may appear as though I am in complete support of President Trump and against the Democratic Party. In truth, I have no personal affinity for any particular person or agenda. I do have great affinity for diversity above which people can connect since diversity keeps society cohesive, agile, and healthy, and keeps the country strong. At the moment, President Trump represents this view quite well, and the Democratic Party, with its undisputed monarch Barack Hussein Obama, absolutely does not.

I regard Trumps victory as a sign that the American society is still alive and kicking. It gives me hope that it will also be able to go through the necessary sobering up without bloodshed and without dragging the world into another war. If Clinton had been elected, there is no doubt that war would have erupted. Russia, America, and Europe were already making preparations on the ground. Now, at least there is a chance for peace and the correction of society.

But to correct society, all parties will need to learn from the Jewish traditionthat love covers all crimes (Prov 10:12). Rav Yehuda Ashlag, author of the Sulam (Ladder) commentary on The Book of Zohar, wrote in his essay, The Freedom: Just as peoples faces differ, so their views differ. Therefore, society is cautioned to preserve the freedom of expression of the individual. Each individual should maintain his integrity, and the contradiction and oppositeness between people should remain forever, to forever secure the progress of the free society. Liberals would do well to listen to their own coreligionist Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times who wrote, We progressives could take a brief break from attacking the other side and more broadly incorporate values that we supposedly cherishlike diversityin our own dominions.

At the moment, Trump cannot end the war with the media and the Democrats because he is not the one waging it. For things to calm down, the media and the Democratic Party must decide that the best interest of their country comes before that of their party, or even that of their financiers. If this war does not stop, then either the media will be severely restricted going forward and American democracy will be hampered, or the next leader Americas political right sends forward will likely be one who will truly galvanize the conservatives in America, and there will be a breaking point, as OReilly put it.

For Americas sake and for the sake of the world, I pray that this great nation wakes up and understands the value of diversity, the benefit of honing views through open debate, and the powerful cohesion attained when that debate yields solutions that contribute to the thriving of the whole of society.

Michael Laitman is a Professor of Ontology, a PhD in Philosophy and Kabbalah, an MSc in Medical Bio-Cybernetics, and was the prime disciple of Kabbalist, Rav Baruch Shalom Ashlag (the RABASH). He has written over 40 books, which have been translated into dozens of languages. Click Here to visit his author page.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Originally posted here:

American society headed toward a breaking point - Jerusalem Post Israel News

Freedom & Islam ‘not compatible,’ says far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders – RT

Posted on by

Far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders has stated that Islam and freedom are not compatible, slamming his country for importing those who follow the religion.

Dutch values are based on Christianity, on Judaism, on humanism. Islam and freedom are not compatible, the Freedom Party politician told USA Today.

You see it in almost every country where it dominates. There is a total lack of freedom, civil society, rule of law, middle class; journalists, gays, apostates they are all in trouble in those places. And we import it.

Read more

He went on to accuse Dutch society of being afraid to stand up against Islamic ideology.

For a long time, our society has been afraid to say, No, this is our Dutch culture, we dont treat women like that, and anyone who did was labelled a racist or bigot or hate-monger, and they are not, Wilders said. They just believe we should be more proud of who we are.

Wilders, who has become known for his controversial rhetoric and hailing Donald Trump's victory in the US as a patriotic spring, is advocating for all mosques to be closed in the Netherlands. He also wants to ban the Koran and seal the nation's borders to asylum seekers and migrants from Islamic countries.

"On Islam, it is true that I am tough. Perhaps tougher than I should be if my only aim was to get votes," Wilders said. "But I really believe in what I say, that the Islamic ideology is this huge threat."

Wilders and his Freedom Party are expected to come in first in the national election on March 15, December polls showed. But despite expressing a desire to be the country's next prime minister, such chances are unlikely. Based on the Netherlands multiparty system, Wilders would have to form a governing coalition with other parties, most of which have ruled out that possibility.

Even so, Wilders said that even if he loses the election, the genie will not go back in the bottle again.

"People are fed up with the combination of mass immigration, Islamization and austerity measures that require us to cut pensions and support for healthcare and the elderly while giving (debt bailout) money to Greece and the eurozone, he said.

"People are not satisfied. They feel misrepresented," Wilders added. "The process of a patriotic spring wont be stopped.

Wilders' comments come just days after he targeted so-called Moroccan scum in his election campaign launch.

READ MORE: Far-right Wilders targets Moroccan scum in his election campaign launch in the Netherlands (VIDEO)

It's far from the first time that Wilders has targeted Moroccans. He was convicted of discrimination and inciting hatred by a Dutch court in December after calling for Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!" Moroccans in the country, as well as calling them scum.

Read more

Wilders has also compared the Koran to Hitler's 'Mein Kampf.'

The politician has repeatedly come under fire in the Netherlands, a country known for its liberal approach to topics ranging from marijuana and prostitution to euthanasia.

The politician has vowed to continue his mission, but said he wouldn't wish his cautious lifestyle on his worst enemy.

"I cant even go on a spontaneous walk or to a restaurant without armored cars and police, but there is no alternative," Wilders said. "If I stop or moderate my voice, people who use or threaten violence against democracies would win. I will never let them win."

The upcoming general elections in the Netherlands are being watched closely by other countries across the European Union as a sign of the growing spread of populism throughout the bloc particularly following the UK's Brexit referendum, which saw the country vote to leave the EU.

German Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel warned last month that the EU could fall apart if populist parties gain power in the upcoming Dutch or French elections.

However, Germany is not immune from the populist sentiment sweeping the continent. The anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been gaining support following the refugee crisis, which saw more than 1 million asylum seekers enter the country in 2015.

Read the original:

Freedom & Islam 'not compatible,' says far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders - RT

‘Sensitivity’ or Self-Censorship? – The Weekly Standard

Posted on by

Here's an excerpt from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451:

Now let's take up the minorities in our civilization, shall we? Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog-lovers, the cat-lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did.

There you have it, Montag. It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no!

Farhrenheit 451 was published in 1953.

Here's an excerpt from a Washington Post news story:

Before a book is published and released to the public, it's passed through the hands (and eyes) of many people: an author's friends and family, an agent and, of course, an editor.

These days, though, a book may get an additional check from an unusual source: a sensitivity reader, a person who, for a nominal fee, will scan the book for racist, sexist or otherwise offensive content. These readers give feedback based on self-ascribed areas of expertise such as "dealing with terminal illness," "racial dynamics in Muslim communities within families" or "transgender issues."

Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climatefueled in part by social mediain which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group.

The Washington Post article was published in 2017.

As Post reporter Everdeen Mason points out, if you're an author of best-selling renown whose published works include Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone just for starters, you might think you don't need to be screened by a sensitivity reader. You'd be wrong:

Last year, for instance, J.K. Rowling was strongly criticized by Native American readers and scholars for her portrayal of Navajo traditions in the 2016 story "History of Magic in North America." Young-adult author Keira Drake was forced to revise her fantasy novel "The Continent" after an online uproar over its portrayal of people of color and Native backgrounds. More recently, author Veronica Rothof "Divergent" famecame under fire for her new novel, "Carve the Mark." In addition to being called racist, the book was criticized for its portrayal of chronic pain in its main character.

Furthermore, sensitivity readers aren't even controversial in the eyes of a surprising number of the media. "What's not to like?" asks Claire Fallon of the Huffington Post:

There's really no meaningful difference between the content editing any reputable publisher would offer and sensitivity readingexcept that most agents and editors, to this day, are white, straight, cisgender, able-bodied women. The average editor at a publishing house isn't personally familiar with the experiences of an American bisexual child of Chinese immigrants, or a black teenager, or a deaf woman. An editor can and will alert their author that an odd coincidence reads as ridiculously contrived, or that a character's dialogue seems stiff and unrealistic; that's part of helping a writer hone their craft and polish their book. What, then, if the book's flaw lies in a cultural detail misrepresented, or a glaringly dated stereotype of a person of color? Unless the editor has more fluency in a given culture than the author, the editing process could skip right over that weakness.

And Slate's Katy Waldman, although not quite so enthusiastic about the sensitivity industry as Fallon, still thinks it's a generally good industry to have around:

As a push for diversity in fiction reshapes the publishing landscape, the emergence of sensitivity readers seems almost inevitable. A flowering sense of social conscience, not to mention a strong market incentive, is elevating stories that richly reflect the variety of human experience. Americaspecifically young Americais currently more diverse than ever. As writers attempt to reflect these realities in their fiction, they often must step outside of their intimate knowledge. And in a cultural climate newly attuned to the complexities of representation, many authors face anxiety at the prospect of backlash, especially when social media leaves both book sales and literary reputations more vulnerable than ever to criticism. Enter the sensitivity reader: one more line of defense against writers' tone-deaf, unthinking mistakes.

Even authors these days seem to see no problem in having to rewrite their books to fit the exquisite sensitivities of sensitivity readers. Waldman mentions one author "who totaled 12 sensitivity reads for her second novel on LGBTQ, black, Korean American, anxiety, obesity, and Jewish representation issues, among others."

There's another name for sensitivity screening, of course. It's called self-censorship. In Fahrenheit 451 some 64 years ago, Ray Bradbury prophesied that ever-increasing authorial sensitivity to the demands of an ever-increasing group of aggrieved minorities would result in books so blandly inoffensive that no one would care about books anymore. And then you'd have actual censorship.

Read this article:

'Sensitivity' or Self-Censorship? - The Weekly Standard

Universities and the Threat of Censorship – Conatus News

Posted on by

During the last few years, we havewitnesseda very worrying period for free-speech within universities. In 2015 alone we witnessed 30 universities banning newspapers, 25 banning songs, 10 banning clubs or societies, and 19 worryingly banning speakers from events. Not only that, we have witnessed various feminists, human-rights advocates and LGBT-Rights defenders indicted as encroachers of acceptable propriety and consequently indicted as unfit for a speaker platform.

In the same year, the feminist and anti-Islamist Maryam Namazie was inadmissibly indicted as a highly inflammatory figure who could incite hatred, and was initially prevented from talking at The University of Warwick. Also in 2015, another feminist, Julie Bindell, was labelled transphobic and attempts were made to thwart her planned speech at The University of Manchester because it was deemed that she might also incite hatred. Furthermore, attempts were made to foil the planned university speaker-event of comedian Kate Smurthwaite at Goldsmiths, University of London, as well as Dapper Laughs at Cardiff University for similar refractory reasons. The factious journalist, Milo Yiannopoulos, was also initially no-platformed and prevented from appearing at the University of Manchester in October 2015 over concerns that he, likewise, might incite hatred.

The venerable Chief-Executive of HOPE not HATE, Nick Lowles, was also no-platformed and prevented from speaking at aNational Union of Students (NUS) anti-racism conference in February of this year by the NUS Black Students on the grounds that he was seen as islamophobic and could rile certain frail university students. Not only that, the eccentric MP and former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has also been indicted as unfit for a speaker platform at Kings College London after he made inappropriate remarks about President Obamas ancestry.

Where did all of this encroachment on university free-speech originate? As many a student with even a tentative grasp of NUS-philosophy will attest, much of the encroachment has emerged out of a sanitising utopia that is politically-orientated NUS policy encroachment which is uninvitingly embodied in its current no-platforming policy. How did this happen? The NUS was once a profoundly respected body that prized free-speech and truly represented all students around the UK inclusive of political disparity.

Once upon a time, the NUS would only infract on the independence of a university platform when individuals such as fascists and racists wanted to perorate their sickly ideas. Now, however, we have a union gravely steeped in political proclivity, a union that thumps for inoffensiveness and one that regards any speaker who might aggrieve a persecuted minority worthy of censorship.

Its not just the no-platforming of speakers, we have seen people within the NUS short-sightedly no-platform themselves. The honcho of the NUS LGBT+ section caused an uproarwhen she did just that during an event that she was scheduled to appear on alongside the much-respected LGBT-rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Much to the surprise of many LGBT+ people across the UK, her decision was motivated by the fact that she wanted to remonstrate against and to further arraign Peter Tatchell for holding apparent racist and transphobe views.

Such issues of no-platforming have obviously been a motivator alongside the appointment of Malia Bouattia as the new NUS president, a person that many deem cavil on account of past remarks that many argue are anti-Semitic for many NUS-disaffiliation campaigns. Whilst Exeter, Cambridge, Surrey, Oxford, and Warwick have all voted to remain, Lincoln, Loughborough, Hull, and Newcastle have all voted in favour to disaffiliate. And it wouldnt surprise me if more follow.

Weve seen a plethora of articles rightly griping about the NUS as of late by various academics, campaigners, luminaries, and students all of whom seem to be united in their consternation that the NUS and various university student-unions have restricted free-speech to excess. They rightly adjure their readers to challenge both the NUS and various student-unions because they both now undermine the very legitimacy of debate within universities leaving untold damage to the rich pluralism and debate that once characterised universities. Many deem such untold damage, such a low ebb, to be a mere reflection of the mollycoddling preferences of the uproarious, regressive, and deeply-forcible newfangled university generation.

What, though, is this newfangled university generation? This newfangled generation is characterised by its marked yearning for utopian-like inoffensive environments, its unashamed appeal to pity or guilt to effectuate its political campaigns, its identity politics, its clamorous protestations it calls liberation, its writhing victimisation, its brash holier-than-thou attitudes, its candid cultural relativity, and its unimpeachable ill-will towards those who have the audacity to criticise any unscrupulous areas within minority groups they deem persecuted.

However, what about its unapologetic safe-space advocacy? Is it not the case that universities should be safe places where people are protected from offensive narratives? Moreover, is it not right that universities be increasingly encouraged to symbolise places where students particularly LGBT students and other minority groups can feel protected from maltreatment, harassed, etc.?

Many people both within and outside of academia have quite a different opinion of what universities should represent. Many claim and quite commendably that universities should be places in which the rich tapestry of discussion and debate are safe-spaced i.e. protected as opposed to being safe-spaces in which inoffensive narratives are supressed.

Universities should, of course, be safe-spaces that protect students from certain types of behaviour. No university should put up with particular forms of behaviour such as students or speakers inhibiting the participation of LGBT-students within university life, or subjecting them to violence (or threats of violence). This would clearly be in breach of the law, and utterly reprehensible.

Here its important to introduce a key distinction: freedom-of-behaviour vs freedom-of-expression. Let us consider an example to highlight this. There are many students and speakers, for example, with rather regressive religious-leanings who make the claim that women should be prevented from showing their hair publicly and prevented from occupying certain positions in society the head of a church, for example. Now, whilst I find such a view utterly distasteful, I find myself unwilling to proscribe such drivel-like open expressions of such opinions. However, and here is the important point: if they were to then physically ring-fence such positions from women (or verbally threaten women with violence if they were to occupy or even pursue such positions) then I think contravening would certainly be justified.

What, then, about an external university speaker given a platform in which he or she spews the claim that LGBT people should be prevented from participating in the military? Or a speaker claiming that such a group should be stoned to death because they have spurned godly-endowed propriety? Should they be allowed to speak their minds? Am I really arguing that as long as such a speaker is not actually preventing the LGBT community from participating in the military, or actually stoning LGBT members, then such a speaker should be allowed to churn-out such cruel and hurtful narratives?

Most exponents of that shibboleth safe spacewould likely deem any approval to be, at best,outre, and at worst, uncouth a mere stridencycommandeered by the privileged in societythat doesnot merely ignorethe rights it obviouslytrammels but, most pressingly,ithas the potential ofyielding universityenvironments that is knownto becoldly indifferent and even a pillar that substantiatesthe injustices that besmirch minorities.

I think that an important distinction should be carried when talking about this upbraided term platform namely, contested vs uncontested speaker platforms. I am of the opinion that speakers should have the right to an uncontested platform that is to say, a platform bereft of an opposing speaker if the speaker has not been found to be in breach of what I call inalienable-traits. What do I mean here? To put it bluntly, not encroaching upon those fundamental traits that are an inalienable part of a persons identity at a given time. That includes, at the very minimum, gender, sexuality, race, age and nationality.

If, however, a speaker is found to be encroaching upon such fundamental traits of a person an example would be denying such characteristics, ridiculing them, etc., but is not in breach of the law, then it is my view that a university must only allow that speaker to talk on a university campus on the condition that they are challenged by an opposing speaker (agreed by individuals and/or a society within a university who identity with that trait a speaker is deemed encroaching upon). No-platforming here is positively inexcusable. The stultification of such liberty that this stifling would bring-aboutshould be utterly condemned by all students and university staff alike. Such a speaker should instead be debated and their views exposed to scrutiny.

Why, though, should open debate be prioritised? I have two arguments for this. I will expound the first. Now, its important for us to remember that noxious narratives those that infringe upon the rich humanist-based principles of equality, compassion, and, lets face it,human decency come in various forms, and they will likely be encountered wherever students might find themselves, and whatever age they may be. Noxious narratives can penetrate our local communities, our work environments, our friendships, and even our families. Surely theres an imperative that young people at university be equipped with the invaluable tools to effectively invalidate and neutralise such things as racism, homophobia, transphobia and sexism?There is therefore a key utilitarian point to be made: how can students challenge those noxious narratives in society in the furtherance of equality and overall societal well-being if they have come to learn that noxious narratives can only be defeated through avoiding them? Put another way, how can students particularly those who are passionate about promoting or directing social, political economic, orenvironmentalchange with the desire to make improvements in society and to correct social injusticecreate a better society if they are not fully aware of those things which are antithetical to it?

The secondargument relates to an important epistemic issue: how can students know if offensive narratives are actually morally circumspect if they are not exposed to them? After all, let us not forget that once upon a time Darwins account of evolution was deemed to be immoral and deeply offensive by swathes of people (and many still deem it to be). Galileos heliocentrism was also deemed to be immoral and deeply offensive and many efforts were made to muzzle such views. Given the advances in todays science and the benefits from this that have trickled into our society that the views of Galileos and Darwins have considerably effected we heartily look back to that time in the knowledge that such a view was indeed made manifest despite the significant offense caused. Whilst I deem many a narrative assuredly and distastefully in error racist ones being examples who can unerringly claim with a degree of confidence that all those narratives that our society (or others) considers offensive, whether by the majority or minority, are unquestionably so?

Now, with these two arguments kept in mind, I deeming myself to be somewhat of a defender if notvying fordefender of both classical liberalism and human-rights fear that the kind of universityenvironments hankered for by both theNUS and large swathes of universitystudent-unions alikeis hindering students from effectively tackling noxious narratives in society whilst, simultaneously, deprivingthem of such a key epistemic point. However, there is a third argument to be made which is closely linked to the previous two I expounded. The kind of university environments hankered for by both the NUS and large swathes of student-unionswillcreate, sooner or later, the kind of university environments that preventstudents from expending real discretion. I say this because the kind of excessive censorship that we have seen being coveted by both NUS and student-unions alikewill have the dire consequence of creating a very large sect of people in universitywho are unequipped with the tools of extolling the difference between, on the one hand, independence of thought and, on the other hand, meekness. Students need to exposed to as much richly-plural a medium ofviews as possible in order that they can extol such a key difference. This is such an invaluable component within the development of our young peoples critical reasoning skills. And its critical reasoning which is indispensable in the overall fight against noxious narratives whether in university, our local communities or in society as a whole.

Its essential that students convene in solidarity and press the NUS and university student unions to recalibrate their footing and champion such an extolling, such a key difference. We cannot and should not tolerate their trajectory that currently sees them staunchly remaining inimical to it. Students need to be armed with those salient and deeply important tools to challenge, through debate, those noxious narratives within our larger society. Students need to be exposed to narratives that some, even many, deem offensive for this to happen, and universities need to be places that unerringly epitomise the fearsome pursuit of knowledge and, with it, epistemic-justification.

However, as long as mollycoddling and inoffensive environments continue to be the uncouth utopia of the new-fangled generation and university student unions and the NUS continue to epitomise this we will irrevocably see further free-speech violations within further education. The consequence of this will inevitably be students personifying a spindly type of principled-activism one mired in flimsiness and susceptibility that shakily endeavours to achieve the kind of decent society that most of us rightly deem upstanding.

comments

Read the rest here:

Universities and the Threat of Censorship - Conatus News

Tear down Loyola’s walls against free speech – Socialist Worker Online

Posted on by

Students at Loyola University rally in solidarity with the Mizzou football team's strike against racism (The Loyola Phoenix)

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY students organizing for a variety of progressive goals, from women's rights and to justice for campus workers, are now at the center of their own struggle to overturn bureaucratic restrictions on their right to free speech and assembly.

In the aftermath of Donald Trump's election victory, students around the country recognized the urgency of organizing in solidarity with those who are the target of Trump's attacks. But in many places, they are facing increased barriers to protesting, as universities place further restrictions on the right to organize--even while administrators claim their campuses to be bastions of free speech.

At Loyola, several organizations--including Students for Reproductive Justice, Students for Worker Justice, Students Organizing for Syria and the Loyola Socialists--recently initiated a campaign in defense of students' right to organize. The groups' petition has already been signed by more than 250 students, faculty, staff and alumni.

Trump's election has transformed the political climate at Loyola. As the new administration targets immigrants and refugees, women, LGBTQ people, people of color, union members and low-wage workers, many students are looking for avenues to effectively organize and resist--and for spaces to discuss political alternatives to a system of racism, sexism, xenophobia, poverty and war.

On Inauguration Day, more than 200 students rallied, marched and briefly occupied the student center--to denounce Trump and to demand that Loyola's administration declare the school a sanctuary for its undocumented students and workers.

Groups of Loyola students participated in the Women's March and the protests at O'Hare International Airport against Trump's Muslim ban, and a number of meetings have been held on campus to discuss next steps in pushing to make Loyola a sanctuary campus for immigrants.

Unfortunately, Loyola's administration has thrown up significant barriers to students organizing to discuss, strategize and speak out. The administration's policies around reserving rooms, publicizing meetings and tabling on campus make it very difficult for any group of students which does not have recognized student organization (RSO) status to do any of these things.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE UNIVERSITY'S "solicitation policy" defines "promotion of an idea" as solicitation, which is subject to regulation and approval by the Dean of Students. In effect, any group of students whose political message isn't sanctioned by the university is prevented from communicating publicly or organizing freely.

The Loyola Socialists, a campus branch of the International Socialist Organization, recently applied for and were denied RSO status by the university. And the ISO isn't the only organization on campus that isn't officially recognized. Loyola's hostility to activist organizations fighting for progressive change has a well-documented recent history.

Students for Worker Justice and Students for Reproductive Justice, both of whom have ongoing campaigns targeting the university's hypocritical anti-worker and anti-woman policies, aren't recognized by the university and have faced bureaucratic obstacles.

In addition, the administration has treated recent successful unionization campaigns by graduate employees and non-tenured faculty with outright hostility.

Loyola Students for Justice in Palestine had their RSO status revoked for a whole year following a spontaneous demonstration in the student center against the anti-Palestinian Birthright organization. And in 2015, the administration threatened three students with suspension for organizing a 700-strong Black Lives Matter demonstration on campus.

The arbitrary application of Loyola University's bureaucratic standards around student organizations and the onerous rules applied to groups of students who wish to organize are a significant curtailment of free assembly, free association and free speech.

Those of us who organize on college campuses need to fight against bureaucratic restrictions on free speech and the right to assemble, which always have and always will be used against those who challenge the administration's right to run our universities like corporations.

Go here to read the rest:

Tear down Loyola's walls against free speech - Socialist Worker Online

Charleston SC Puts Kibosh On Free Speech – FITSNews

Posted on by

HOLY CITY TRIES TO SHUT DOWN FUTURE CONFEDERATE FLAGGINGS

Days after supporters of the Confederate flag hoisted their banners from the rooftops of parking garages in downtown Charleston, S.C., the Holy City taking steps to block future free expression of

According to a notice issued from the office of liberal mayor John Tecklenburg, city of Charleston parking garages now expressly forbid Signs, Banners, Flags or other Displays that Protrude Through Openings Between Parking Levels, or Upon the Exterior Surfaces Between Parking Levels or that Extend Higher Than the Perimeter Wall on the Top of the Garage.

The misuse of city garages to fly various flags and banners was unexpected, a city spokesman said. This notice makes it clear that city garages are for parking, not for these types of public displays, and it applies to any and every one equally.

Leaders of the S.C. Secessionist Party which unfurled the controversial banners said the citys action was an attempt to silence protected speech. They also said the response to the new edict was yet another example of liberal intolerance.

You would think liberals would be screaming from the roof about infringement upon their rights but theyre cheering this on, said James Bessenger, leader of the party. Theyre too dumb to realize this effects them too.

According to Bessenger, the city never would have issued such an order had we raised an American flag or a rainbow flag or a state flag.

Bessengers group sent a letter to the city asking it to provide its legal basis for restricting free expression at city-owned parking garages.

Following consultation with multiple civil rights organizations and review of the library of city ordinances we have been unable to find anything which supports the ban of flags, banners, and signs that are affixed to privately owned vehicles parked in garages in any standing law or ordinance, he wrote.

According to Bessengers letter, Tecklenburgs administration was attempting to crush under its heel the rights of the People of Charleston to free speech simply because the Mayor was upset about an exercise of free speech he did not agree with.

Our view?

First of all, as weve stated repeatedly, government has no business whatsoeverbeing involved in the parking garage business. This issue shouldnt even be before us because parking garagesshould be private property with private owners determining the policies for patrons as they see fit.

Since government has chosen to intervene in this particular corner of the marketplace, though, it seems to us there is a presumption of permissiveness when it comes to various expressions. So long as that expression does not directly interfere with the exercise of another liberty.

Incidentally, thesuppression of free speech in Charleston comes as another taxpayer-fundedentity in the Palmetto State the University of South Carolina made a list of theten worst campuses for free speech in the entire country.

Clearly speech is only to be tolerated if it conforms with whatever the herd has defined at that particular moment as being politically correct.

Banner viaS.C. Secessionist Party

Original post:

Charleston SC Puts Kibosh On Free Speech - FITSNews

CSULB makes ‘worst of the worst’ list for free speech – Long Beach Press Telegram

Posted on by

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an advocacy group, named Cal State Long Beach to its list of 10 worst of the worst U.S. campuses for free speech.

The Philadelphia-based group, which is also known as FIRE, also included Cal State Los Angeles on its list, alongside private institutions including Harvard and Georgetown universities.

Cal State Long Beach ended up on the list following last years events that led to Michele Roberge, the former Carpenter Performing Arts Center director, resigning in protest after school officials declined to support the performance of a potentially controversial theater performance

The performance, Speak Theater Arts N*igger Wetb*k Ch*nk, is a satire of racial stereotypes featuring performers of African, Latino and Asian descent. The Carpenter Center had booked the show for a September 2016 performance that never took place.

Peter Bonilla, FIREs vice president of programs, said in a telephone interview that its obvious from the shows title that the performers are seeking to be provocative, adding the campus did the right thing by letting Speak Theater Arts show go on in 2015.

But what he described as the campuss particular stubbornness and refusal to reverse itself on the shows cancellation last year warranted Cal State Long Beachs inclusion on FIREs list of the worst campuses for free speech.

Its a shame it didnt follow its own script this year, he said.

Campus spokeswoman Terri Carbaugh replied to FIREs list by accusing the organization of ignoring the day-to-day nature of political expression on the campus.

FIREs survey techniques are questionable at best, she said in an email. On any given day a visitor to campus will hear speech ranging from the far right to the far left and everywhere in between. Our campus not only embraces, but teaches the value of, free speech in all forms and is home to a renowned First Amendment rights center.

She also defended the campus environment for artists.

On any given day you could also see a broad array of art projects that meld inside and outside of the mainstream, from the outrageous to the mild mannered, Carbaugh added.

Last year, campus President Jane Close Conoley and Roberge gave different accounts to explain why last years performance was canceled.

Conoley said in September the performance could have gone forward, but she declined to ask faculty and other campus employees to develop educational content related to the social issues involved with the performance, as was the case about the time of the shows 2015 performance.

Advertisement

Roberge, however, said Conoley ordered the shows cancellation. She resigned in protest shortly thereafter and continues to say the decision to cancel the show came from the presidents office.

It was a complete alternative fact, Roberge said Wednesday of Conoleys past description of events.

Roberge said she has not landed at a new job since leaving Carpenter Center, but said her stance led to the Association of Performing Arts Presenters honoring her with its North American Performing Arts Managers and Agents Award for Excellence in Presenting.

I stood up for the artists, and I stood up for the voice of the artists, Roberge said.

FIREs Chief Executive Greg Lukianoff revealed the groups reasons for including 10 schools on its worst of the worst list in a Huffington Post op-ed piece published Wednesday. The list calls out institutions for reported suppressions of conservative, liberal and apolitical expression.

Cal State Los Angeles made the list for events surrounding conservative commentator Ben Shapiros appearance on campus in February 2015. That campuss president allowed Shapiro to appear after a previous decision to cancel his appearance in the interest of safety and security. Protesters blocked people from listening to Shapiros on-campus remarks.

Other instances, as described by FIRE:

Harvard University made the list for administrators reported attempt to blacklist students enrolled in single-gender organizations like fraternities and sororities from certain scholarships and student leadership posts.

Georgetown University received criticism after its law school stopped students from campaigning on behalf of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders while he was seeking the Democratic Partys presidential nomination in 2015. Georgetown altered its policy, but Lukianoffs post asserted pro-Sanders students continued to experience difficulties afterward.

Go here to read the rest:

CSULB makes 'worst of the worst' list for free speech - Long Beach Press Telegram

The 10 Worst Colleges For Free Speech: 2017 | The Huffington Post – Huffington Post

Posted on by

There isnt a week that goes by without a campus free speech controversy reaching the headlines. Thats why its as important as ever that we at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) review the record each year and shine a spotlight on the 10 worst schools for free speech.

Since FIREs first worst of the worst list was released in 2011, the number of colleges and universities with the most restrictive speech codes has declined. However, 92 percent of American colleges still maintain speech codes that either clearly restrictor could too easily be used to restrictfree speech. Students still find themselves corralled into absurdly-named free speech zones, taxed when they invite speakers deemed controversial by administrators, or even anonymously reported on by their fellow students when their speech is subjectively perceived to be biased.

The average person muzzled on a college campus is often an everyday college student or faculty member: someone who wants to chat about politics, a student who confides in a friend about their own mental health concerns, or a group of students that simply want to discuss free speech controversies with their peers.

As always, our list is presented in no particular order, and it includes both public and private institutions. Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment, while private colleges on this list, though not required by the Constitution to respect student and faculty speech rights, explicitly promise to do so.

If you believe FIRE missed a college, or if you want to nominate a college for next years list, please let us know in the comments. Most of all, if you want to challenge your own schools speech codes, please get in touch with us. FIRE is happy to work with schools to improve their speech codes. You can find more information on our website at http://www.thefire.org.

Northern Michigan University

Any list of schools that most shocked the conscience with their censorship in the past year would have to include Northern Michigan University (NMU). Until last year, NMU had a long-standing practice of prohibiting students suspected of engaging in or considering self-harm from discussing suicidal or self-destructive thoughts or actions with other students. If they did, they faced the threat of disciplinary action.

After FIRE brought this information to a national stage, causing a social media firestorm, NMU hastily distanced itself from the practice and publicly committed not to punish students for discussing thoughts of self-harm.

Unfortunately, NMU has not answered all of its students questions. NMU is currently under investigation by the Departments of Justice and Education for allegations that it threatened to disenroll a student for discussing mental illness with a friend. The school allegedly forced the student to sign a behavioral contract promising not to do so again. Is that student now free from her contract? Is every student who received a letter about discussing self-harm now free to speak out? Will NMU ever acknowledge and apologize to the countless students it hurt in the past, many of whom have spoken up to FIRE and online? Until we get answers, NMU remains on our list of worst schools for free speech.

California State University, Los Angeles

Last February, conservative author and political commentator Ben Shapiro was scheduled to speak at California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) at the invitation of a student chapter of Young Americas Foundation. After students threatened to protest Shapiros speech, CSULA demanded that the students hosting the event pay the cost of security because the appearance was controversial. The students objected, but it didnt matter; CSULA President William Covino unilaterally canceled Shapiros speech, claiming he could appear at some future date if accompanied by a panel of speakers who disagree with him.

Shapiro threatened to show up and speak anyway. Hours before he was set to appear, CSULA relented. But while CSULA administrators no longer attempted to prevent Shapiros speech, some student protesters picked up where the university left off. Some students did the right thing by protesting outsideexercising a more speech response to speech they found offensive. However, other students engaged in a hecklers veto by pulling the fire alarm and attempting to prevent attendees from entering the venue.

For all this, CSULA earned a bruised reputation for its lackluster dedication to freedom of expressionand a lawsuit. Shapiro and Young Americas Foundation sued CSULA, compelling the university to change the policy that allowed it to impose a tax on controversial speech. The lawsuit remains pending.

At FIRE, weve seen universities offer a number of viewpoint-discriminatory justifications for rejecting student groups applications to become officially recognized, but few are as persistent and brazen as Fordham Universitys.

On November 17, the Fordham United Student Government (USG) Senate and Executive Board approved a prospective Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter. Dean of Students Keith Eldredge informed SJPs members that he wanted to review the groups status before it could be granted official recognition, and then chose to overrule the USG and deny SJPs recognition on December 22. Eldredge wrote that he cannot support an organization whose sole purpose is advocating political goals of a specific group, and against a specific country and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often leads to polarization rather than dialogue.

On January 25, FIRE and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) sent a letter to Fordham demanding the university recognize SJP and noting that its reasons for rejecting SJP fail to align with the universitys stated commitments to free expression. In its response to FIRE, Fordham doubled down on its rejection of SJP and offered a new baseless justification: that members of SJP chapters at other universities had engaged in conduct that would violate Fordhams code of conduct.

Whats more, just last week, it was reported that Fordham is retaliating against a student who organized a rally to protest the schools decision to ban SJP. Senior Sapphira Lurie has a hearing scheduled for today with Eldredgewho denied Luries request to bring counsel and will conduct the hearing despite being both the complainant and adjudicator.

Fordhams persistent refusal to live up to the promises it makes to its students earned it warnings from FIREand a place on this list.

The University of Oregons (UOs) Bias Response Team (BRT), and its response to a professors off-campus Halloween costume, earned it a spot on this years list.

UOs BRT, which responds to student complaints about offensive (yet protected) speech, found itself embroiled in public controversy last spring and then tried to hide its records from public scrutiny. Criticism arose when the BRTs annual reports surfaced, revealing that the BRT had intervened with the student newspaper because of a complaint that it gave less press coverage to trans students and students of color. In another instance, UO dispatched a case manager to dictate community standards and expectations to students who had the audacity to express anger about oppression.

When FIRE asked UO for records surrounding the complaints, UO claimed that it wouldnt be in the public interest to share the records and demanded that FIRE pay for them. Apparent suppression of protected speech, coupled with a resistance to transparency, would alone be enough to earn UO the dubious honor of inclusion on this years list. But thats not all.

Last fall, a law school professor found herself in hot water after hosting a private Halloween party at her home, attended by students and professors, where she wore blackface as part of her costume. According to the professor, the costume was intended to provoke a thoughtful discussion on racism by invoking Damon Tweedys memoir, Black Man in a White Coat.

The costume did, in fact, spark discussionmuch of it criticizing the professors judgment. Thats the proper response to offensive speech: more speech. Yet the fact that students and faculty discussed the costume was a factor UO cited in deciding it had reason to override her First Amendment right to freedom of speech and punish her. UOs move puts the cart before the horse and risks justifying punishment whenever expression motivates rigorous debate on campus.

California State University, Long Beach

File photo

This fall, California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) administrators betrayed First Amendment principles when they closed the curtain on a scheduled campus performance of the satirical play N*GGER WETB*CK CH*NK (N*W*C*).

The university canceled the September 29 performance due to its apparent opposition to the plays deliberately provocative content. N*W*C* is performed by Asian-American, Hispanic-American, and African-American actors who share personal narratives about how the construct of race shapes personal identity while also mocking stereotypes and racial slurs that perpetuate social injustice.

FIRE, the National Coalition Against Censorship, and the Dramatists Legal Defense Fund wrote a letter to CSULB urging the university to protect artistic expression. The letter argued that the CSULB community should not be denied the opportunities for engagement the play provides. The university never reversed its actions, and Michele Roberge, then-executive director of the Richard & Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center, where the play was slated to be performed, resigned to protest the censorship.

CSULB has a red light rating for free speech and a troubled history with protecting students civil liberties. Last fall, it ended a year-long moratorium on recognizing new student groups that threatened students ability to associate and organize, so it wasnt hard to find a place for CSULB on this years list.

Last May, Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust and Dean Rakesh Khurana announced their plan to blacklist members of off-campus single-gender organizations, including fraternities, sororities, and Harvard-specific final clubs. Students determined to be members of these organizations would be banned from leadership positions on sports teams and official student organizations, and barred from receiving recommendations from the Deans Office for Rhodes and Marshall scholarships.

While not a straightforward free speech violation, Harvards actions so severely violate the correlated right to freedom of association that the university deserves inclusion on this list.

Organizations including FIRE and hundreds of students at Harvard pushed back against Harvards flagrant disregard for freedom of association. The backlash prompted the administration to announce that at least one favored single-gender club would be allowed to operate as long as it pretended it was co-ed. Even more troubling was the discovery that President Faust was willing to characterize freedom of association as primarily a defense for racists, apparently not realizing it was an indispensable tool for civil rights activism that protected the NAACP and other civil rights advocates on more than one occasion.

Earlier this year came news that the policy may be revised or replaced by a new committee made up of faculty, students, and administrators. FIRE strongly urges this new panel to shelve the policy altogether, lest Harvard wind up violating freedom of association for a third time.

Harvard last appeared on FIREs worst schools for free speech list in 2012. It still maintains FIREs worst, red light rating for free speech.

University of South Carolina

What lesson did students at the University of South Carolina (USC) learn in 2016? Even when you do everything you can to avoid getting in trouble for potentially controversial speech on campus, trouble may still find you.

Last February, USC student Ross Abbott and the campus chapters of Young Americans for Liberty and the College Libertarians filed a First Amendment lawsuit with FIREs assistance after Abbott was investigated for a free speech event for which the groups received prior approval.

In late 2015, the groups planned an event to draw attention to threats to free speech on campus. The event involved poster displays featuring examples of campus censorship across the country. Given that some of their posters included provocative words and symbols, the groups sought and obtained approval for the event ahead of time from USCs director of campus life.

Despite these precautions, Abbott received a Notice of Charges the day after the event, demanding that he meet with the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs to respond to student complaints of discrimination. Several weeks after their meeting, the office dropped its investigation, but it provided no clarification on USCs treatment of protected speech.

Abbott and the groups now seek that clarification through their lawsuit, challenging not only Abbotts investigation, but also USCs requirements that expressive activity be pre-approved and limited to small, designated free speech zones on campus. The ongoing lawsuit is part of FIREs Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project.

Last February, Williams President Adam Falk took what even he described as an extraordinary step when he unilaterally disinvited author and conservative commentator John Derbyshire, a polarizing figure for his writings on race realism, from the Massachusetts liberal arts college.

It didnt seem to matter to President Falk that Derbyshire had been invited by the student organizers of a speaker series called Uncomfortable Learning, which seeks to purposely confront controversial and divisive issues in its programming. Nor did it matter that the groups president, Zach Wood, is African-American, and that Derbyshire had been invited precisely so his writings and comments on race could be debated.

While nonetheless making paeans to Williams commitments to free expression, Falk asserted that [t]heres a line somewhere and Derbyshire, in my opinion, is on the other side of it. In a single, paternalistic stroke, President Falk declared that there were certain speakers and viewpoints that Williams students werent to engage, and he showed the lengths Williams would go to to keep them off campus. Falk has done his students a serious disserviceand earned Williams a place on this years list.

Making its second appearance in as many years on FIREs worst list is Georgetown University. As the presidential primary season got underway, Georgetown University Law Center informed a group of Bernie Sanders supporters that campus was no place for talking to fellow students about their chosen candidate. The students were informed that, because Georgetown is a tax-exempt institution, the law school could not allow any campaigning or partisan political speech on campus.

FIRE wrote to Georgetown Law last February, asking it to revisit its policy on student political speech. Every campaign season, we see examples of both public and private colleges erroneously suppressing student political speech because they believe it will jeopardize their federal tax-exempt status. Indeed, Georgetown Law student and Bernie supporter Alexander Atkins and a FIRE staffer were invited to speak on the issue at a hearing before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight. Georgetown sent a letter to the Subcommittee pledging to revisit the law schools policy.

In March, Georgetown Law released a revised policy but failed to answer many questions about permissible partisan student speech on campus. In fact, the group of Bernie supporters continued to face resistance and confusion from the law school for the entire election season.

This is not the first time that Georgetown played politics with speech on campus. The university has for years repeatedly violated its own policies on free speech and expression to the detriment of the student organization H*yas for Choice, the most recent example occurring in September.

While few free speech controversies truly surprise FIRE anymore, its fairly uncommon for a college or university to put four notches in its censorship belt in a matter of months. But if theres any school that could do it, it would be DePaul University.

In April, after students chalked messages in support of Donald Trumps presidential campaign, DePaul warned all students that they were not allowed to chalk partisan messages on campus due to the universitys tax-exempt statusa justification that FIRE has refuted on several occasions.

A month later, when the College Republicans invited controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos to campus, DePaul attempted to obstruct the event by limiting Yiannopoulos speaking time to 1520 minutes and charging the students $1,000 for extra security. When students stormed the stage and disrupted the event, the security guards refused to intervene. When the College Republicans sought to re-invite Yiannopoulos, DePaul banned them from doing so.

But DePaul was not done infringing on its students rights. In July, DePaul also banned the DePaul Young Americans for Freedom chapter from inviting conservative journalist Ben Shapiro to speak on campus.

FIRE wrote to DePaul about all of these incidents, urging it to adhere to its promises of free expression for students. Unfortunately, DePauls response did little besides deflect and blithely repeat its illusory commitment to working with students to invite speakers from across the ideological spectrum.

One might suspect that DePaul would think twice about resorting to the same censorship tactics again. However, only eight days after FIREs first letter, the university required the DePaul Socialists student organization pay hundreds of dollars for security for an informational meeting about the group, because the event could be potentially controversial.

These multiple acts of censorship, along with DePauls sordid prior history of restricting speech, led FIRE to ask whether DePaul University is the worst school for free speech in the United States. So it should be no surprise to anyone that DePaul finds itself on this years list of worst offenders.

Continue reading here:

The 10 Worst Colleges For Free Speech: 2017 | The Huffington Post - Huffington Post

Milo, Donald Trump and the outer limits of hate speech: When does absolute freedom of speech endanger democracy? – Salon

Posted on by

Everybody loves free speech until they dont. The exact opposite is the case with deplatforming, which is what recently happened to former Breitbart editor and professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos. He was originally scheduled to speak this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference but saw his invitation rescinded after videos resurfaced in which he appeared to defend pedophilia. Shortly after CPACs decision, Simon and Schuster cancelled Milos $250,000 book deal and he resigned from Breitbart, whose editor-in-chief called Milos comments absolutely indefensible.

In the offending video, Yiannopoulos jokes that he learned how to perform certain sex acts from his Catholic priest (to whom hes grateful). But lets be clear: This isnt the first time Yiannopoulos has made such remarks. For example, during a college talk last yearhe saidthis abouthimself: I know what youre thinking. If every priest looked like this, those little boys would stop complaining.In a podcast appearance, host Joe Rogan brought up the supposed tradition in Papua New Guinea of men who take these young boys and inseminate them, and put cum in their mouths and their asses to make them grow. To which Yiannopoulos responded, Sounds like homosexuality. Sounds great.

So it turns out that Republicans are morally fine with, say, Donald Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women in the crudest language possible, as well as going backstage at beauty pageants to see women getting dressed.Nor do Republicans have a problem with TrumpssayingthatMexico is sending its criminals and rapists to the United States. They also dont have a problem with Trumps comments about a Mexican judge, which House Speaker Paul Ryan described as sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment.

But when it comes to ostensibly pro-pedophilia comments from a C-list Internet supervillain, the line must be drawn.

Why? I suspect its because the moral badness of pedophilia, as philosophers would put it, is relativelyeasy to understand. One need not be the victim of a pedophile to grasp why such acts are morally abominable.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with a wide range of other immoral actions, including hate speech, of which Milo has become the most lionized contemporary champion. Is it really a surprise that the most vocal supporters of allowing hate speech in the name of free speech are white men? After all, this demographic is the least likely to ever experience verbal assaults based on gender identity or skin color. As Louis C.K. once quipped, Im a white man. You cant even hurt my feelings. What can you really call a white man that really digs deep? Hey, cracker! Oh, ruined my day!

The First Amendment provides no exceptions for hate speech, although many European countries proscribe certain kinds of hateful expression, making the U.S. an anomaly in this respect. While Yiannopoulos has repeatedly argued that words are not weapons and thus cannot cause harm, many psychological studies show this to be empirically false. Children who are verbally bullied end up with psychiatric problems and even neurological abnormalities. Hostile workplace environments can cause debilitating anxiety, panic attacks, clinical depression . . .and even post-traumatic stress, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute. Chronic high levels of stress hormones can lead to a range of health problems, including cognitive impairment. Furthermore, psychological injury is oftenworse than physical injury because its more difficult to overcome.

So, no, fuck your feelings is not an enlightened statement.

It followsthen that if the ultimate goal of public policy is to implement laws that maximize human flourishing, happiness and productivity, one can reasonably argue that certain forms of hate speech should not be free. Insofar as they cause genuine harm, they should be appropriately regulated. One of the most influential liberal thinkers, John Stuart Mill, appeared to agree when he saidthere are many acts which . . .if done publicly, are a violation of good manners and, coming thus within the category of offenses against others, may rightfully be prohibited.

Mill added, Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance.

Just as we have laws that restrict individual liberty for the greater good for example, the state imposes penalties for committing murder so, too, should we have some limits on speech. This, in fact, isalready the case: The Supreme Court has ruled that many forms of expression, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater or possessing child pornography, are not protected by the First Amendment. Why? Because speech of this sort has real, measurable, bad consequences for society consequences that civilized nations ought to prevent.

As the aforementioned psychological studies show, certain kinds of language can have bad consequences as well. So, one might ask, whats the difference? Perhaps we should say the following: Restrictions on speech, including hate speech, are in principle acceptable, but only if such restrictions can be morally justified, since all forms of authority must always be justified. In other words, the burden of proof is on those who would like to impose speech restrictions. The question thus becomes, Are there any good moral arguments, grounded in empirical facts, for restricting certain kinds of hate speech? And the answer appears to be It sure seems so.

One might object that this could open the door to Big Government restricting more and more types of speech until this freedom a fundamental pillar of democratic states has completely eroded. But this argument is unconvincing: Few would maintain that limitations on defamation, for example,constitute a slippery-slope threat to the First Amendment, even if there are real questions about what exactly counts as defamation. So why would rules prohibiting hate speech constitute a more serious threat?

Many philosophers have defended a variety of speech restrictions on moral or ethical grounds. For example, Stanley Fish argues that free speech is a value that must be weighed against other democratic values, with which it is sometimes in tension. Consequently, one must not be a fundamentalist about free speech as a principle that applies, no matter what, in all possible contexts. Rather, we should seek a balance according to whichwe consider in every case what is at stake and what are the risks and gains of alternative courses of action. There are cases in which free speech could undermine cherished democratic values, such as the equality of all people..

AddedFish: I am persuaded that at the present moment, right now, the risk of not attending to hate speech is greater than the risk that by regulating it we will deprive ourselves of valuable voices and insights or slide down the slippery slope towards tyranny. That essay was published in 1994 but seems no less applicable today, and perhaps more so.

Furthermore, the philosopher Karl Popper famously claimed that a maximally tolerant society will contain the seeds of its own destruction. As he put it, If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Social theorist John Rawls echoed this sentiment when he wrote, While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.

Our institutions of liberty areclearly under threat by the alt-right and its authoritarian leader, Trump. Consider the presidents ongoing campaign to delegitimize the free press by calling itthe opposition party and the enemy of the American people, joking about killing journalists, referring to themas scum and promising to expand libel laws so the government can sue news outlets that publish unfavorable articles. The Trump presidency constitutes a genuine danger to the free press and therefore democracy itself, as intellectuals from Steven Pinker to David Frum have convincingly argued.

It is encouraging to see Republicans and conservatives finally stand up to the moral rot that has made Milo Yiannopoulos famous. Perhaps with an expanded circle of empathy one that reaches beyond victims of pedophile abuse to include trans people, lesbians and gays, women and minorities conservatives will begin to recognize just how harmful unfettered hate speech can be.

Continued here:

Milo, Donald Trump and the outer limits of hate speech: When does absolute freedom of speech endanger democracy? - Salon

Transhumanists, biohackers, grinders: Who are they and can they really live forever? – ABC Online

Posted on by

Updated February 23, 2017 13:17:22

Can transhumanists, biohackers and grinders live forever?

The answer is maybe soon at least according to them.

Ok. So what's a transhumanist?

Like some scientists, they believe that ageing is a disease, and they are not afraid of taking human evolution into their own hands by harnessing genetic engineering, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.

Sydney-based IT innovation manager and self-described transhumanist Peter Xing says Australians aged in their 20s and 30s could now end up living long enough to live forever.

It is called "longevity escape velocity".

"That means staying healthy for as long as you can until such a point that there's the technology to enable you to live indefinitely," Mr Xing explains.

Fellow transhumanist Meow-Ludo Meow-Meow (yes, that's his real name, changed by deed poll) believes he could be one of the first generations of humans to live forever.

"I'm 31. I think with technology improving exponentially I have a very good chance of living forever."

"We know a lot of the causes of ageing and we're actively working on technology to address them.

"If we can increase our life span by more than one year for every year of our lives, then we become functionally immortal."

Have you got a question? Join the live QandA with Peter Xing and Margot O'Neill on Facebook tonight at 8:00pm (AEDT).

In the last couple of years, researchers have extended the life of mice by up to 40 per cent through various means including gene therapies.

Human trials are a long way off because of tight government regulations, but many researchers have started experimenting on themselves.

In 2015, American genetics activist Liz Parrish flew to Colombia to avoid US regulatory constraints.

Once there she says she injected herself with an unproven anti-ageing gene therapy.

Ms Parrish, the CEO of biotechnology company BioViva, is now known as Patient Zero.

She says results show the treatment rejuvenated part of her DNA, called telomeres, that shorten with age, and she claims her telomeres have now grown by 9 per cent, or about 20 years.

Many scientists question her claims.

Grinders or biohackers are people who augment their bodies with technology.

This could be as crude as implanting magnets under your skin a procedure that can be done at some tattoo and body piercing studios or slightly more high-tech like getting microchips placed inside your body.

Mr Meow-Meow has a micro-chip implanted in his left thumb and has downloaded some smartphone functions directly into his body.

"I can open doors, authenticate myself to my credit card, activate my phone, activate drones and I can program the chip in my thumb from my phone anytime," he said.

US grinder Rich Lee has more than seven implants, including magnets in his finger tips which twitch in response to electro-magnetic fields.

"You can feel it because all those nerves in your fingertips have grown around the magnet and it has a texture and you're feeling this otherwise invisible world," he said.

Mr Lee also has magnets in his ears which serve as earphones: "being able to hear through walls is cool."

Yes.

And Mr Meow-Meow warns would-be biohackers against trying to implant themselves with DIY kits.

"Anything that's put under the skin provides an environment in which bacteria can grow," he said.

"This is why it's very important that you go and see a professional."

Hmmm.

Aside from physical modifications, the race is also on to reach a new, super intelligence.

Billionaire Elon Musk wants to develop a neural lace which would layer onto the human brain and connect digitally to AI.

Without it, he says humans will risk becoming like a "house pet", because AI will eventually outstrip human intelligence perhaps this century.

Mr Xing says all this is vital so humans don't lose their jobs to robots and it will also help us adapt to space travel.

"The question is at what point does the incorporation of all this technology make us a different species and what are the ethics behind that?"

Watch Margot O'Neill's report tonight on Lateline at 9.30pm on ABC News 24 or 10.30pm on ABC TV.

Topics: science-and-technology, pseudo-science, biology, robots-and-artificial-intelligence, australia

First posted February 23, 2017 06:02:40

Visit link:

Transhumanists, biohackers, grinders: Who are they and can they really live forever? - ABC Online