Category Archives: Political Correctness

The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team found itself embroiled in a bit of a political and public relations dilemma last week. To paraphrase what they no doubt say to their rookies, Welcome to the big leagues of partisan politics.

In what most probably consider to be a sincere gesture of solidarity with those rightfully horrified by the killing of 10 people in a Buffalo supermarket and 19 children and two teachers in a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school, the team said: We all deserve to be safe in schools, grocery stores, places of worship, our neighborhoods, houses, and America. The most recent mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde have shaken us to the core. The Tampa Bay Rays are mourning these heartbreaking tragedies that took the lives of innocent children and adults. This cannot become normal. We cannot become numb. We cannot look the other way. We all know, if nothing changes, nothing changes.

The team then announced it would partner with an anti-gun violence group and donate $50,000 toward that cause.

Some likely felt that was a sign of the growing progressive posturing by corporate C-Suites. One person who may have felt that way was Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who then zeroed out $35 million in the state budget that was intended to help fund a Tampa Bay Rays training facility.

I dont support giving taxpayer dollars to professional sports stadiums, period, DeSantis declared. But he hinted at a bit of political payback, by adding: Its inappropriate to subsidize political activism of a private corporation.

As with his stance against Disneys woke policies, DeSantis has made it clear he will take on Florida corporations he believes are choosing political sides. The Tampa Bay Rays may have moved to the top of the list temporarily.

But lets assume the Rays are sincere with their statement and their admonition to the rest of us not to become numb to mass shootings or to look the other way. In that spirit, I have a few questions for the teams leadership and public relations advisers.

As The Chicago Tribune detailed last year, over the course of the past six decades, more than 40,000 men, women and children have been murdered in the city, and more than 100,000 wounded. Are the Tampa Bay Rays numb to those killings? Have they chosen to look the other way regarding that jaw-dropping murder rate?

Now, if the Rays leadership would care to extrapolate that number and timeframe across the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Trenton, Newark, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Oakland, Houston and other large urban areas, they would discover shockingly that over 250,000 have been killed in our nations major cities and more than a million wounded.

Over the recent Memorial Day weekend, 51 people were shot in Chicago, and last July Fourth weekend, 108 people were shot there. The team didnt release a statement about that. And Chicagos murder rate ranked 28th among 65 major U.S. cities, according to FBI statistics for 2019, the latest year available.

Since the Rays chose to address the violence in cities as far away as Buffalo and Uvalde, one would think the seemingly endless shootings in Chicago would have attracted their attention. The loss of those innocent lives should have produced an equally moving statement of outrage and support from the team.

One should never assume in these cases but, hopefully, the violence in our major cities many of them run by Democrats is not being swept under the rug or ignored because of political correctness, because we dont want to implicate the political party in charge at the moment, or because we dont want to give the other side horrifying statistics to use in debates and tirades against us.

Maybe the tens of thousands of lives lost in major U.S. cities simply escaped the notice of the Tampa Bay Rays. So, lets constrict the circle of violence closer to the Greater Tampa area.

In 2020, there were 1,285 murders in Florida 165 more than in 2019 and 80 percent of them were committed with firearms. There were nearly 5,000 more aggravated assaults in the state in 2020 than the year before, and 38 percent of those involved a gun. I looked for, but could not find, a statement from the Tampa Bay Rays regarding the violence and murders taking place in the Sunshine State.

Lets constrict that circle of violence and murder even tighter. Since 2014, the city of Tampas homicide rate has been about 50 percent higher than the state and national averages, and about twice those rates in 2017 and 2021, the Tampa Bay Times reported. The number of homicides in Tampa in 2020 was the highest since tying that number in 2003, and the 48 homicides last year were the most since 1994. Yet, the citys Major League Baseball team hasnt issued a statement that I could find, saying We cannot look the other way, about the murders happening in their home city.

I pay attention to such statistics because during my childhood, I was counted among the inner-city poor. My family was evicted often, and I was regularly homeless. As a white child, I often lived in housing projects that were majority-minority. And during that time, I was blessed to discover that Black America is a great America. During those years, single Black moms working two to three jobs to support their children became not only my role models, but my enduring heroes.

Today, the urban poor again, mostly minorities have difficulty getting their voices heard in this country if they have no champions. Assaults, robberies, shootings and other crimes plaguing their neighborhoods apparently have become an inconvenience to liberal politicians and many mainstream media members. Everyone seems to be numb to that violence and looking the other way. Arent those who are killed in Americas major cities deserving of heartfelt statements from sports teams, corporations, politicians and others?

As we rightfully scream out in anger and anguish over mass killings at least 33 have occurred in the U.S. since the May 24 school shooting in Uvalde let us not forsake those who suffer in silence and obscurity because they have no voice or because the deaths of their loved ones evidently are not politically expedient.

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration. His latest book is The 56: Liberty Lessons From Those Who Risked All to Sign the Declaration of Independence.

See original here:

Tampa Bay Rays decry 31 killed in Buffalo and Uvalde what about 40,000 in Chicago? - The Hill

Revamped with a Latino cast, the 2022 iteration of Father of the Bride harnesses the generational and cultural divide between immigrants and their children to put a spin on this romantic comedy premise 30 years after the release of the previous version starring Steve Martin and Diane Keaton (and 72 years after Spencer Tracy walked Elizabeth Taylor down the aisle).

With new gravitas, this venerable property serves as an excellent vehicle for veteran Cuban-born actor Andy Garcia to savor a lead role that feels custom-made for him.

This is Mexican filmmaker Gaz Alazrakis first feature since his 2013 mega hit We Are the Nobles (Nosotros los Nobles) broke box office records in his home country. Alazraki went on to create Netflixs first Spanish-language episodic series, the soccer comedy Club de Cuervos. That screenwriter Matt Lopez is an American-born Latino and the director a Mexican national making strides in Hollywood make this reboot surprisingly insightful both in the experiences it portrays and in its portrayal of distinct subsets of a community so often painted with a broad brush.

Also Read:Father of the Bride Remake Trailer: Andy Garcia Cant Fathom Why His Daughter Would Propose (Video)

Traditional in his views on marriage and work ethic, the self-made patriarch of the Herrera family, Billy (Garcia) often pontificates about the hardship he faced as a Cuban exile to attain his current status as a prominent architect. He designed the Coral Gables house where he and his wife Ingrid (Gloria Estefan) raised their daughters Sofia (Adria Arjona, daughter of famed Guatemalan musician Ricardo Arjona) and Cora (Isabela Merced, Dora and the Lost City of Gold).

Billy cherishes old rituals that highlight his paternal role in the life of his children and as head of the household. But in his narrow-minded perception of how things should operate, both at home and at the office, hes lost sight of why he worked so diligently in the first place. As Ingrid informs him she wants a divorce, tired of his dismissive and workaholic behavior, Sofia visits them to announce she is marrying a Mexican man and moving with him to his country. The parents agree to keep their separation a secret until after the wedding.

Story continues

Diego Boneta (Netflixs Luis Miguel: The Series) plays Adan, the future son-in-law who doesnt fit the standards of rugged and stoic masculinity that Billy upholds. And so begins an arduous battle between Sofia and Billy over the number of guests, the location and who will foot the bill. Over the course of the ordeal, Garcia traverses a range of demeanors that give Billy a full-bodied personality. First uncompromisingly proud, later angry at being vilified, melancholic and sad, and eventually allowing his vulnerability to show, Garcia always plays the right tone for the humor, mostly at his characters expense, to work.

Also Read:One Day at a Time on Pop TV Will Have to Sacrifice That Catchy Theme Song (Video)

In this struggle between outdated views and modernity, the film falls into plenty of clichs about millennials, including dietary restrictions, political correctness, and a brief altercation about the contested, gender-neutral term Latinx. Parodying Instagram-obsessed influencers, SNL star Chloe Fineman carries one of the most hilarious supporting parts as the over-the-top wedding planner, filling Martin Shorts thoroughly unsensible shoes.

Tension mounts when Billy meets Adans father Hernan (Pedro Damin), a wealthier and cooler man with a wife several decades his junior and an infant child. With every stand Sofia takes against his wishes, Billy sees his relevance decimated. There are inevitably formulaic elements that push the plot forward in a direction that ensures Billy has a defined and poignant character arc, coming to understand how his stubborn desire for control impacts others before ultimately granting him a pathway to redemption on all fronts.

Yet, though we absolutely know the outcome, this take delivers its message of understanding and personal evolution in a way that will strongly speak to those who are both appreciative of their immigrant parents sacrifices and burdened by the expectation to honor that gift professionally without deviating from the status quo. While Sofia has always done right by her father until now aspiring fashion designer Cora illustrates the struggle of those first-generation Americans pursuing non-traditional careers that their stability-minded loved ones cant fully comprehend.

Also Read:Andy Garcia Joins Katey Sagal in ABCs Erin Brockovich-Inspired Pilot Rebel

Halfway through, as both families meet, the Mexican parents question why, if everyone speaks fluent Spanish, they communicate in English. Garcias Billy goes on to explain the difficulty of preserving ones language and culture for the next generation the more they assimilate into American society. The unexpectedly revealing speech smartly notes the distinction between the lived experience of people in Latin America and their compatriots who migrate to forge a life in a new country raising bicultural children in a multicultural society.

Father of the Bride deserves praise for not reinforcing Hollywoods homogenous Latino culture, instead highlighting the distinctions between the Cuban and the Mexican sides even if with very blunt tropes about music and food without losing sight of the profound similarities. However, other than the presence of Afro-Latino reggaeton star Ozuna, the depiction of Latinos remains racially uniform here, an issue Latino creators must address.

Stylistically, what stands out is how intently Alazraki and cinematographer Igor Jadue-Lillo (Four Good Days) make sure that their sun-dappled Miami locations get appreciated on screen, even if at times excessively. Postcard-ready vistas of Calle Ocho and Ocean Drive parade across the screen to Terence Blanchards jazzy score. That nurtured sense of place ties to the narrative in the third act, when the citys propensity for rough weather coming from the Caribbean adds drama.

For their reinvention of Father of the Bride, Alazraki and Lopez manage to make it feel so rooted in the Latino background of their characters that comparison to the older films doesnt seem all that relevant. This one stands on its own.

Perhaps even more significant in todays divisive climate than ever before is the notion of allowing people from earlier generations the grace to acclimate to societal changes unfolding rather than immediately to ostracize them. Most of us, Latinos or otherwise, know a relative with similarly rigid worldviews, often not out of malice but circumstance. Putting Garcia and Estefan, both trailblazers for Latinos in entertainment in this country, in a project where they are the stars and not the secondary players to the younger cast, goes in line with that.

Father of the Bride premieres Thursday on HBO Max.

Read more here:

Father of the Bride Film Review: Latino Specificity Makes This Remake Feel Like an Original - Yahoo Entertainment

As was the case with Miss Americana and Framing Britney Spears, Halftime joins the canon of documentaries that seeks to re-examine the inherent viciousness of the paparazzi culture that profited off turning female celebrities into tabloid fodder.

Language: English

For most of Jennifer Lopezs career, Jennifer Lopez has been seen less as an actress or a singer or a dancer than as a body, began a 2019 Vox piece about the multi-hyphenate artist. The piece came right on the heels of Lorene Scafarias Hustlers(2019) the movie that revitalised Lopezs cache as an actress worth taking seriously and indicted the media for historically undermining her achievements and sexualising her very existence. In a way, the piece summarises the central thesis of Amanda Michelis Halftime, a Netflix documentary that tracks the sheer craft of Lopezs artistry through the events of a seminal year in her life. Jennifer Lopez has been universally successful, says one character midway through the documentary. But she hasnt been universally respected. Over its 86-minute-long runtime, the documentary, fascinating even when it is by-the-books, examines Lopezs fame at the intersection of her talent, image, and ambition.

The film opens at Lopezs birthday party in 2019. The multi-hyphenate global icon turns 50, an age widely deemed as an expiry date for female artistry. But Lopez, who enters the fourth decade of her career, doesnt see it that way. I really feel like my life is just beginning, Lopez says to her family in under a year, she ends up proving that to the world as well. The straightforward narrative of the documentary goes from event to event: first, it chooses to focus on Lopez finding herself in the middle of an aggressive award season campaign for Hustlers before tracking the six-month prep for her sensational Superbowl halftime performance in 2020. In that sense, Halftime, which premiered at Tribeca Film Festival this week, takes a celebratory approach, putting its subject on a pedestal and at a remove from the world at large.

Still, if Halftime manages to become illuminating, its solely due to the candid vulnerability that Lopez brings to the outing. The documentarys (deserved) praises about her grit, resilience, undeterred talent and hard work gains an added poignancy due to Lopez underlining exactly why this acclaim for her is long overdue. That is to say, she brings clarity to the direction of the narrative for instance, she eschews making her personal life a part of the films narrative, partly in resistance to how throughout her career, the frenetic curiosity about her relationship status has overshadowed any interest in her professional achievements. In fact, anyone who complains that Halftime doesnt dig into her personal affairs will effectively be proving her point. Thats exactly the ask that she brandishes in this documentary through voiceovers, intimate archival and home footage, rehearsals prep, and interviews why is it not possible to see Lopez as an artist in her own right?

To Michelis credit, the documentary is equipped to hold place for deeper levels of introspection about the language of sexism and racism that was collectively directed toward Lopez, an artist of Puerto Rican descent, in the 2000s. Armed with archival footage, Halftime paints an uncomfortable portrait of how Lopez was relentlessly mocked for her curves (her butt became the topic of magazine covers and prime-time talk shows; Conan OBrien and Jimmy Kimmel are guilty of casually normalising that sexism), berated for her acting skills, and packed off to the sidelines of Hollywood. As was the case with Miss Americana and Framing Britney Spears, Halftime joins the canon of documentaries that seeks to re-examine the inherent viciousness of the paparazzi culture that profited off turning female celebrities into tabloid fodder.

As with Miss Americana, my favourite part about the documentary was Lopez witnessing her own transformation in the same way that Taylor Swift underwent her own: if Swift stopped caring about being liked by the whole world, then Lopez took charge of her own sexuality on her own terms. Think Ramona in Hustlers but also Lopezs taking the ramp at 50 in that exact green dress that raised eyebrows decades back. Even Lopez and Swifts political awakening bears resemblance, in the sense that both artists convinced themselves that being apolitical was part of the playbook of being a female pop star.

On her part, Lopez doesnt appear hesitant in directing the documentary toward uncomfortable areas instead of hiding under the cloak of political correctness. The highlights of Halftime are for me, embedded in Lopez realizing the responsibility of her voice and the immense value of her artistry especially when the world chooses to look the other way. The camera catches Lopezs dejected face right after her Golden Globes loss and her angry resolve when NFL Superbowl officials try to interfere in her act, demanding that she drop the bits where she takes a pro-immigrant stance. But the moment that takes the cake though is watching Lopez publicly admit that the Superbowl deciding to have two Latina headliners for the halftime performance traditionally reserved for one performer is the worst decision in the world.

Still, this self-esteem is hard-earned, suggests Halftime. In the opening minutes of the documentary for instance, were treated to a sequence of Lopez learning pole-dancing for her role in Hustlers, boasting an opening pole-dancing number performed by Lopez that is as sensational as any action set piece in the Mission Impossible franchise. The camera briefly focuses on the terrifying height of the heels she wears before getting up on the pole and then on the bruises she accumulates on her legs and arms in the process. The point of the wordless scene isnt just to posit that Lopez is a hardworking artist; rather, it frames it as an extension of Lopezs desire to be taken seriously even when she succeeds.

In fact, Halftime dedicates a significant portion of its runtime on the unfettered acclaim that came Lopezs way for Hustlers. The film made all kinds of lists and the actress racked up endless nominations and several nominations, upending the myth that female actresses cant headline the biggest hit of their careers once they turn 50. Still, it proved to not be enough for the Oscars Hustlers, a film helmed entirely by people of colour, was curiously absent from the Academy Award nominations.

Its fascinating how sharply the documentary treats Lopezs Oscars snub as a connecting thread for its argument about the film industry routinely undermining Lopez as a lead actress.

As it suggests in Lopezs own candid words, she should have been there and her absence is proof of the long-standing intolerance toward the success of people of colour and of the unequal footing provided to female artists. Its as if the cycle never ends: Lopez keeps proving herself, racking up one success after the other only to have the gatekeepers of Hollywood tell her that shes not good enough.

This exact treatment ruined her self-esteem back when she was just about making a name for herself in the industry. But right now, it only hardens her resolve to take up more room. The closing Superbowl performance is proof of that. Lopez brings out the dance movies, the curves, and the unshakeable confidence during her Halftime performance, going from one act to another like a restless acrobat. But the pice de rsistance of her act is when she brings out her pole-dancing act from Hustlers. Its magnetic, electrifying, and completely award-worthy. By then, its clear as day that not recognizing Lopezs work on Hustlers is nothing short of an act of malice. Halftime ensures that the world remembers it.

Halftime is streaming on Netflix

Poulomi Das is a film and culture writer, critic, and programmer. Follow more of her writing onTwitter.

Read all theLatest News,Trending News,Cricket News,Bollywood News,India NewsandEntertainment Newshere. Follow us onFacebook,TwitterandInstagram

Link:

Halftime review: Jennifer Lopez asks Hollywood for her long overdue standing ovation in rousing, effective documentary - Entertainment News ,...

The second round of Colombias presidential election on June 19 will pit leftist Senator Gustavo Petro against populist businessman Rodolfo Hernndez. While Petro would represent big structural change from the conservative establishment that has governed the country for decades, Hernndez would represent a change in the way politics are done. Petro, a three-time presidential candidate and prominent critic of the current administration of President Ivn Duque, had initially appeared likely to run away with the election. But Hernndez, a newcomer to the national political stage, came on strong in the late stages of the campaign and finished a close second to Petro in the 29 May first round of the election.

We spoke to Eurasia Group analyst Sara Torres Raisbeck to find out a little more about who Hernndez is, and what Colombia might look like if he wins.

Who is Rodolfo Hernndez?

The 77-year-old Hernndez, a construction magnate, served as the mayor of a medium-sized city called Bucaramanga from 2015-to 2019. He is running for president on an anti-corruption and anti-establishment platform. The son of farmers, he got a degree in civil engineering and built a successful business that focused on urban housing for low- to middle-income residents. He has three sons and a daughter. His daughter disappeared in 2004 after she was allegedly kidnapped by the National Liberation Army, a Marxist guerilla group.

In a shift from the traditional practice of organizing campaigns around public events, the plain-spoken (and sometimes profane) Hernndez has built support for his candidacy with TikTok videos he calls himself the King of TikTok and online outreach. He has said he has financed the operation himself and has a staff of just 13 people, most of whom are under the age of 30.

As mayor of Bucaramanga, Hernndez was popular, leaving office with an 84% approval rating. Thats despite the fact that he was suspended from office twice: once for slapping a local council member and another time for endorsing his chosen successor, which is not permitted in Colombia. On the second occasion, he decided to quit and was replaced by his chief of staff.

Moreover, Hernndez is under indictment for unlawful favoritism in the award of contracts for garbage collection in Bucamaranga when he was mayor and has been charged.

What are his politics?

Hernndez shows both libertarian and social-democratic streaks. He wants small government and less regulation of businesses, but he has also made progressive proposals, such as legalizing narcotics, supporting adoption by same-sex couples, opposing fracking, and implementing protectionist measures to help the agricultural sector.

Hernndez has drawn comparisons to Donald Trump why is that?

Both are wealthy businessmen who abhor political correctness and say the establishment is inherently corrupt. Also like Trump, Hernndez has shown a disdain for political processes and existing institutions. He has said he would declare a state of emergency on his first day in office to allow him to rapidly push through measures such as the closure of 27 Colombian embassies abroad and the reduction of legislators salaries. He has also said that he admires Latin American populist leaders such as El Salvadors Nayib Bukele and Mexicos Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador. Both campaigned on anti-corruption platforms and, once in office, tried to concentrate more state power in their own hands.

What are his chances against Petro?

The runoff will be very tight. Both candidates appeal to an electorate suffering from economic malaise and deep discontent with the political status quo. Petro wants to radically expand the social safety net and raise taxes on the wealthy, while Hernndez proposes changes in the way government works. He says he would approach the presidency in the same way a CEO manages a company, focusing on results and cost-effectiveness. Hernndez, in addition, can appeal to conservative and moderate voters who see Petro as too leftist.

However, some of Hernndezs novelty may be wearing off as his liabilities come under greater scrutiny. Petro is somewhat unexpectedly after years of being an opposition leader positioning himself as someone who will preserve the countrys relatively strong institutions. Hernndez, Petro says, is a jump into the unknown.

What would a Hernndez administration mean for Colombia?

It would represent a very new way of doing things. As mayor of Bucaramanga, Hernndez sought to fill offices with technocrats as opposed to political appointees, and he sought to make the awarding of public contracts more competitive and transparent.

He has repeatedly said there are many subjects he is unfamiliar with, so he would rely on a team of technocrats to make decisions. Yet the legislative process would likely be gridlocked owing to Hernndezs lack of representation in congress. His political movement Anti-Corruption League holds just two of the 172 seats in the lower chamber of congress and his confrontational stance toward traditional politicians would complicate his ability to build new bridges.

If he wins the presidency, his garbage-related corruption case would pass to the Accusations Committee in Congress, which could in principle oust him from office leaving his Vice President Marelen Castillo as president.

Is there any aspect of Hernndez's candidacy that you think isn't being covered well enough by international media?

Hernandezs technocratic approach to governance and focus on results doesnt get enough focus. Members of his staff when he was the mayor of Bucaramanga recently issued a statement highlighting his achievements in office there. They said Hernndez expanded the average number of companies bidding on public contracts from 1.4 companies to over 40, reduced the citys debt to zero, and reactivated social investment projects that had languished under previous mayors. Moreover, he placed women in most of the key decision-making positions, including those of secretary of finance, infrastructure, security, and transport.

In a word, what is the choice that Colombians are being asked to make this Sunday?

Change.

Read this article:

Will the Colombian Trump win the presidency? - GZERO Media

Britain is reviewing its cornerstone anti-terror programme. As the name implies, Prevent is a strategy designed to stop radicalisation before it metastasises into killer intent. But how well is it working?

There have been accusations that Prevent is discriminatory. Groups such as Liberty and the Muslim Council of Britain have criticised the anti-terror strategy for targetting Muslims, arguing that it has caused hurt to Britains Islamic communities. But there are also criticisms that, even on its own terms, the Home Office programme isnt working as well as it should. Dame Sara Khan, the social cohesion tsar, last week warned that efforts to tackle Islamist extremism are being hampered by political correctness. The fear of being called a racist, she explained, is hampering our ability to avert deadly extremism.

Khan is of course right, as anyone who has followed Britains numerous terror attacks will have heard. Remember the Manchester Arena bombing and the security guard who spotted the Salman Abedi behaving suspiciously with his rucksack? Kyle Lawler, then aged just 18, claimed that if he had confronted Abedi, his career might have been ruined by an accusation of racism. This is far from the only case. Khan herself has given the example of an unnamed local authority in which councillors were very comfortable talking about the far-right but altogether more coy when it came to the Islamist threat which, regardless of what some media outlets might have you believe, is still by far the greater danger to Britains streets

And it isnt just local government thats the problem. Hannah Stuart, a terrorism expert who previously worked at the independent Commission for Countering Extremism alongside Dame Sara Khan, has spoken of how common it was to sit through hours-long meetings with government departments only for Islamist extremism to be studiously avoided. She has said how during these meetings, civil servants seemed very wary of talking about Islamism and very wary of being called racist.

The police too even discussed dropping the term Islamism in favour of faith-claimed attack in order to avoid accusations of stigmatisation. While in prisons the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation described an understandable fear of discriminating against Muslim prisoners, resulting in a tendency to regard Islam as a no-go area [and a] reluctance to focus on Islamist group behaviour. But across Britain and Europe, prisons have proved an incubator of Islamist terror.

Surely academics, the last defenders of truth, would study this phenomenon without fear or favour? Not a bit of it. All of the career and funding incentives point toward safer subjects while focusing on jihadism risks accusations of hardline politics at best or islamophobia at worst. A colleague recently tried recruiting a graduate analyst to work on Islamist extremism and terrorism. He couldnt find a single researcher. All of the applicants perfectly polite and eloquent spoke of their interest in studying the far-right, incels, or in studying video gaming and extremism. In other words, in studying anything but Islamist extremism.

Studying jihadism is not only unpopular, it can at times feel dangerous. Just ask the Bristol University professor forced to leave his home after a spurious campaign was whipped up against him mere months after a fellow educator was forced into hiding in Batley and another was decapitated on the outskirts of Paris.

Even at the very top, the response to Sir David Amesss murder quickly descended into a debate about online trolling. The reality was clear, if uncomfortable. During the trial of Ali Harbi Ali, who was later jailed for life for the attack, the jury heard that the killer had written that he was motivated by revenge for the blood of Muslims.

The review of Prevent, led by Sir William Shawcross, will attempt to redress some of these problems. How easy that will be remains to be seen. Far-right referrals to Prevent now outweigh their Islamist reports. Itis clearly a problem just look at the planned Neo-Nazi attack on Labour MP Rosie Cooper. But there is a question of proportion. Only so many resources are available for halting extremism. The public rightly expects that those resources are used as efficiently as possible. And yet there seem to be substantially differing referral thresholds for far-right and Islamist extremists, as well as a rapidly expanding category of what constitutes far-right in the first place, at least according to Prevent practitioners I've spoken to. Perhaps that has something to do with the various NGOs and civil society organisations pushing the notion of a burgeoning far-right terror network in Britain. Their unmistakably celebratory tone whenever far-right referrals outweigh Islamist reports gives away rather more than they'd wish.

There is something unmistakeably bleak about our institutional response to an enduring extremist threat. Too often those who clearly state the problem are hounded by accusations and ditched by colleagues for fear of cross-contamination. Those charged with understanding and preventing terrorism shouldn't be afraid of accurately and fully describing where it comes from. The risks are just too high.

Visit link:

Prevent and the problem of 'political correctness' - The Spectator

There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language. Each word, no matter how commonplace, packs a powerful punch. We can string words together to make someones day, break a heart, spread ideas or even cause mass hysteria. While some people dismiss this fascinating phenomenon with the phrase words are just words, this ideology entirely ignores the communicative properties of words and invalidates their importance to both society and culture.

Because of our advanced level of communication, we must be hyper-aware of what we are saying and the connotations of the words we speak. I have found that our society often does not prioritize this understanding; our education on these connotations and how they might make others feel is extremely lacking.

I have found myself surrounded by phrases such as thats so gay on a day-to-day basis. My peers and honestly, myself rarely bat an eye when it comes to comments like the ones I just described. Our society has normalized the use of words that describe someone different from ourselves in negative contexts to the extent that we have become desensitized to such occurrences.

When was the last time you heard someone say thats so gay to something that made them happy? Likely: never. It is often used when a person is responding to something they do not like or when mocking something. Using the word gay with a negative connotation is a form of discrimination toward the LGBTQ+ community.

I used the previous phrase as my example because it is such a common one to hear, but the same kind of ignorance is perpetuated with many other misused words and phrases such as Im going to kill myself or thats so Jewish. Using words packed with such heavy social or historical implications in frivolous contexts is ignorant and disappointing. However, if Im giving people the benefit of the doubt, maybe they dont know what it is they are doing and why it is wrong.

In that case, Ill break it down for you. Several of the examples above can be referred to as microaggressions, which are typically subtle ways of showing negative attitudes toward a marginalized group.

One of the reasons why this issue persists is because of the numerous people in positions of power who have encouraged our societys miseducation. For example, former President Donald Trump once stated, I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. Ive been challenged by so many people and I dont, frankly, have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesnt have time, either.

In some ways, there is value in being straightforward and to the point, but to encourage an atmosphere of totally uncensored speech soundly rejects the spirit of democracy and goes against our values of diversity, safety and a welcoming environment. Trumps apparent lack of time to replace a disrespectful word with a respectful one has nothing to do with time and everything to do with the ingrained racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia that prevails in our country despite how progressive we might think it is.

Some of our distaste for political correctness can be traced back to ancient Greece, when wealthy students were taught more advanced rhetoric than their less wealthy counterparts in order to give them an advantage in winning elections or even evading prison time. These ideas even carried into our countrys founding, where a free marketplace of ideas was encouraged through limited government censorship. This meant the persuasive nature of ideas contributed in large part to a particular ideas popularity and acceptance, even if the idea was persuading listeners in the wrong way. These trends show a historical relationship between eloquent speech paired with an element of distrust, which still exists today.

For this reason, we sometimes associate carefully executed speech with calculated, ill-intentioned speech that is designed to manipulate. Trumps simpler and less sophisticated (yet politically incorrect) rhetoric appeals to many Americans because it makes you feel more like you are just talking to the guy next door. This tendency to associate ourselves with those more demographically similar to us is called homophily, and explains why we might prefer to listen to a more casual speaker talk to us rather than a grandiose speaker who seems, and probably is, smarter than us.

With that said, it is no secret that our leaders play a formidable role in promoting or impeding political correctness. While some of us may be averse to the eloquent, occasionally complicated and politically correct speech that is associated with the left, I urge you to keep in mind that you can say the exact same things in hundreds of different ways with varying degrees of social acceptability that is the beauty of the English language.

Circling back to the tremendous impact our leaders have on our social perspectives: whether it is the leader of a country, a celebrity, a parent, a coach or a teacher, every influence, large or small, matters. This is especially applicable to our youth, who are highly impressionable throughout their journey of becoming an adult with steadfast values and beliefs. It is the job of those with more experience and knowledge than the youth to catch these wrongdoings and correct them before they become cyclical, persistent and difficult to reverse.

To further combat these shortcomings, the American Psychological Association suggests that if you are the victim of a microaggression, you should try to consider the context of the situation to help you determine the best course of action, practice self-care and use your experiences as an opportunity to educate. On the other hand, if you are a bystander, it is useful to act as an ally to the victim and assist in uplifting their voice. It is important to allow them to speak for themselves as well, and act more as a helping hand than an overpowering voice.

While I have not found political incorrectness to be an outstanding issue here at the University of Michigan, that is only my experience as a white person and does not represent our student body as a whole, nor other parts of our country. If you hear something on campus or elsewhere, say something. In order to encourage productive conversation and change, be vigilant in your endeavors by educating rather than scolding or talking down to those who lack political correctness.

I envision a society where everyone is articulate, inclusive and sensitive to their own speech and either receptive or corrective to the speech of others. Remember to think before you speak and be conscious of others beliefs, identities and feelings. With the correct educational reinforcements and a dash of heightened social awareness, as well as our leaders setting a desirable example for others, the solution to this issue is hiding in plain sight.

Anna Trupiano is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at annatrup@umich.edu.

Go here to see the original:

The overuse and misuse of politically incorrect speech - The Michigan Daily

Editors note: Please be advised this column contains graphic language and may not be suitable for all readers.

With so many options available, hows a patriot supposed to choose?

Residents are snatching up t-shirts, bumper stickers and a popular yard flag that says, Fuck Your Feelings. Trump 2024.

Thats an oldie but a goodie, recycled from 2020.

We dont normally publish those words in a column or otherwise. And, most of the time when we do, we employ the old cartoonist approach, using asterisks, number sings and exclamation points in place of the letters in cuss words.

However, if the word is good enough and common enough for it to be put on a flag, sold on the street corners of Montana and then flown in houses right across from elementary schools, the words should be good enough to publish, right?

Thats point.

Even in a society that has become more accepting of language that would have normally been reserved for sailors and the French (although why they got saddled with being the Western worlds potty mouths, I dont know), its shocking to see bumper stickers, t-shirts and flags flying in yards with such coarse language.

And if this were just a prudish reaction to the language, that would be one thing. It isnt that I am trying to be a schoolmarm. My own kids can testify that at the right time, mostly while driving, I can weave a string of invective together that is quite descriptive.

In other words, if the language were the only the problem, it would be a fairly stuffy and straightforward approach. I loathe censorship, and would probably say the best way to handle offensive language is by ignoring it. After all, I grew up with a collection of Parental Advisory stickers all over my cassettes, the product of busybody Democrat Tipper Gore and her one-woman crusade to bring back the days of Pat Boone.

This isnt about offending my delicate, snowflake sensibilities or even about political correctness. You want to have a spirited, even ornery debate? Lets go. Im your guy. But telling someone to eff off has never settled an argument or advanced a political ideology.

From the coded Lets Go Brandon t-shirts, a wink-wink-nudge-nudge joke that conservatives tell each other, a sort of password to identify other similarly clever conservatives, to the latest iterations of resistance, which include the letters FJB, in which the JB stands for Joe Biden, its distressing to see most of this foul-mouthed merch emblazoned with stars-and-stripes-colored letters or against a backdrop of the American flag.

Its not that I worry that by putting those aggressive and unoriginal messages on a flag will give the wrong impression of America, its that I am worried its giving off exactly the correct message.

By plastering a Buick with FJB bumper stickers, were normalizing a coarseness in everyday discourse that cuts off conversation. And once we stop engaging, exchanging ideas, were doomed. Moreover, if its gotten to the point where the only response on either side of the political spectrum is to drop the f-bomb, were at an even more dangerous point.

As much as I would like to blame this on former President Donald J. Trumps only successful talent which is marketing and merchandizing his own brand of mediocre products and even worse thoughts, he couldnt sell any of it without willing buyers.

Items that tell people to literally eff off, or suggest telling the president to do so while cloaked in the stars-and-stripes and being so proud of the fact that youd want to put them on clothing and cars for the world to see is symptom of something much larger.

For all the disdain aimed at former presidents and leaders, I cant believe bumper stickers or t-shirts that said, Kick Jimmy Carter in the peanuts, would have been acceptable. There has always been acrimony and discord in American politics, even personal attacks. The American public dealt with morally suspect presidents, including Grover Cleveland and Warren G. Harding. Thats nothing new.

Yet my children can be disciplined for using the bumper-sticker language in the public schools, and rightfully so. How do I, as a parent, explain that its fine for people to display yard signs or parade around in t-shirts, but they cant or shouldnt use the same language? And, if this generations accepts the coarsening of its language and the dulling of ideas, whats the next step? What are their children going to accept in the arena of public discourse? Why should I encourage our children to have reasonable, calm conversations with the other side when all theyre going to be told is to do the anatomically impossible?

Before pounding out an angry response to this commentary chock full of what-aboutisms, including signs that were displayed at protests for Black Lives Matter or some antifa rally, theres a difference between a protest and homemade signs, and an entire industry that has marketed and capitalized on such vulgarity.

The same party which talks about necessity of bringing back God in more public spaces, which urges prayer in school and the righteousness of Jesus, also seems to embrace this sort of hostile merchandise. And telling someone to f-bomb their feelings seems about as far away as you can get to Jesus words: Whatsoever you do to the least of these, you have done it to me.

Forgive me that I doubt the sincerity of those same people who are so worried about a graphic passage or two being found in the books of the school library, yet accept these f-laden messages from their political party. If they were truly worried about the content, theyd be worried about all content, regardless of whether its in a library or on a flag pole.

And I am astonished at those who are so concerned about what they see as the lack of respect when professional athletes and other members of the public kneel during the National Anthem but then have the audacity to co-opt the flag and use its colors and patterns in a message that is as decidedly unpatriotic as FJB.

The irony is as members of the right are telling the rest of us to stuff our feelings (not exactly their words, of course), they have put on bright display their feelings and it doesnt look like theyre about to quietly demur.

To them, I get it show me a person in 2022 who isnt angry about politics.

But now that youve told everyone who pulls behind you at a red light about your anger, what are you going to do about it?

The rest is here:

Patriotism in 2022: Red hot anger, White rage and a blue-streak Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan

In summary

The deterioration of city life in San Francisco and Los Angeles motivated voters to voice their disgust in Tuesdays election.

It may be tempting to make too much of what happened Tuesday in Californias two most prominent cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Right-wing media are screaming that the overwhelming recall of San Franciscos uber-progressive district attorney, Chesa Boudin, and businessman Rick Carusos top finish in a field of 12 candidates for mayor bodes well for a Republican comeback in this deep blue state.

Thats not going to happen.

However, its also tempting to make too little of Tuesdays voting patterns in those two cities. Progressives rationalize Boudins ouster and Carusos strong finish as attempts by the Trumpian right to seize control. In fact Boudin tried, and failed, to make that case to his citys voters.

Rather, both outcomes reflect legitimate concerns by voters, including those who consider themselves to be left-of-center Democrats, that the quality of life in both cities has deteriorated and that their elected leaders have failed to recognize and confront that fact.

Deterioration is especially stark in San Francisco with rampant drug use that is taking a heavy toll on human life, squalid camps of the homeless dominating city sidewalks and a wave of burglaries and smash-and-grab robberies that goes unpunished.

Writer Nellie Bowles vividly captures the San Francisco crisis and why ordinarily progressive San Franciscans became disgusted in a lengthy article that Atlantic magazine published today.

They did it because (Boudin) didnt seem to care that he was making the citizens of our city miserable in service of an ideology that made sense everywhere but in reality, Bowles wrote. Its not just about Boudin, though. There is a sense that, on everything from housing to schools, San Francisco has lost the plot that progressive leaders here have been LARPing left-wing values instead of working to create a livable city. And many San Franciscans have had enough.

Bowles noted that Boudins recall was foretold by the recall of San Francisco school board members who were preoccupied with symbolic acts of political correctness, such as changing the names on school buildings while ignoring the effects of school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I used to tell myself that San Franciscos politics were wacky but the city was trying really trying to be good, she wrote. But the reality is that with the smartest minds and so much money and the very best of intentions, San Francisco became a cruel city. It became so dogmatically progressive that maintaining the purity of the politics required accepting or at least ignoring devastating results.

Boudin himself came close to acknowledging why he lost, albeit with a tinge of rationalization, telling the San Francisco Chronicle, Voters were not given an opportunity to choose between criminal justice reform and something else. They were given an opportunity to voice their frustrations and their outrage and they took that opportunity.

What about Los Angeles?

It has suffered from the same chronic problems that plague San Francisco and a political leadership that has been equally ineffective in dealing with them. Caruso, a very wealthy shopping center developer, tapped into widespread frustration, particularly about crime, in a deluge of self-financed media ads.

Los Angeles notoriously low voter turnout also helped Caruso garner more than 40% of Tuesdays vote, topping Congresswoman Karen Bass, the candidate of the citys Democratic leadership, by several points.

However, with neither getting a majority, they are headed for a runoff in the November election, when turnout will be higher. That will be a truer test of whether Angelenos are ready for the change that Republican-turned-Democrat Caruso promises but Bass and her supporters shouldnt ignore the quality-of-life backlash.

CalMatters is a nonprofit newsroom and your tax-deductible donations help us keep bringing you and every Californian essential, nonpartisan information.

I was filling out my ballot and realized that I use CalMatters every time I vote. Everything else is behind paywalls. I also appreciate that CalMatters is one of the more objective news sources in California.

Featured CalMatters Member

Read more here:

Voters in SF and LA voice their disgust - CalMatters

Last nights premiere of the Congressional January 6 Committee was reminiscent of one of those flashy old Sixty Minute exposes presided over by the long-discredited Dan Rather: lots of gut-wrenching shock footage, artfully-edited sound bites taken out of context, and an attempt to build a big, sinister picture of criminal conspiracy at the highest levels out of a smattering of evidence involving a handful obscure, fringe loonies.

Democratic chairman Bennie Thompson, a dignified old gentleman from the Mississippi Delta, and Republican representative Liz Cheney, a fiercely ambitious former rising GOP Congressional star who seems to have bet on the wrong horse, both did their best lend a bipartisan tone to what is really a brazenly partisan political exercise. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the real puppeteer behind the show, had tossed Republicans selected by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to sit on the committee. The GOP caucus reacted by boycotting the committee. As a result, Pelosi had to settle for two GOP mavericks, Cheney and Illinois representative Adam Kinzinger, to lend the panel a spurious whiff of legitimacy.

Now we are told that the committee has unearthed a sprawling conspiracy that was hatched and plotted from a Trump war room in the Willard Hotel. Donald Trump is accused of having spurred on a mob to march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. But the law-abiding crowd that he addressed on the Mall that morning was still there, listening to the Donald, when a separate, much smaller band of a couple hundred raunchy Proud Boys set off for the Hill and triggered the violent assault on the Capitol. Absolutely no evidence was produced proving a command link or shared conspiracy between even the wackiest of Trumps inner circle and the actual riotersthough Thompson told Jake Tapper last night that he does possess such evidence and that it will be revealed in future hearings. The sprawling conspiracy seems to have been limited to a handful of Proud Boys and Oath Keepersshould that be Oaf Keepers?who had boasted among themselves of a plot to seize key federal buildings that never materialized.

Yes, Donald Trump, who can usually be counted on to behave outrageously, did so on January 6. So far, there is no formal evidence that he behaved illegally or was directly complicit in the violence. Nor could that violence have succeeded if the Speaker of the House, who controls the Capitol Police, had taken prudent security measures in expectation of the protests. Instead, a handful of unprepared officers, relying on a flimsy barricade of bicycle racks, was overrun. Some of them, like Officer Caroline Edwards, an impressive young woman who testified briefly, were attacked.

It was an awful day. But, in the end, the system worked. Order was restored. The official certification of election results, basically a symbolic formality, took place. Life went on. Since then, a number of the perpetrators of the violence have pleaded guilty or been convicted. Case closed. But the problems of declining respect for the law, and fragmenting social cohesion, are still with us. Thats because their roots go back a long way into the pre-Trumpian past.

Being a native Washingtonian born in 1944, Ive witnessed my share of local riots. As a young Congressional staffer in 1968, I can remember seeing the Capitol Dome silhouetted in a fiery, smoky haze as thousands of rioters burned and looted downtown Washington while the local police and federal authorities stood by and watched, ordered to stand down by President Lyndon Johnson. During the 2020 Summer of Love I walked past smashed windows and ransacked shopsmostly drug and liquor stores for some mysterious reasonin my own peaceful residential neighborhood while, downtown, screaming mobs looted, vandalized, attacked the police, and even tried to burn down an historic church just one block away from the White House.

It was all inexcusably bad. But even worse was the way the mainstream media bent over backwards to make excuses for it. Again and again, violent criminal behavior was equated with legitimate peaceful protest, lending a moral sanction to lawlessness when carried out in the name of political correctness. At the height of the urban violence that swept America that summer, the standard mantra for reporters covering scenes of arson, pillage and rapine was that the protests were mainly peaceful.

All that changed on January 6, 2021. What happened that day in Washington was a disgrace. In fact, I was one of the first to denounce it in this space. As I said at the time, I am opposed to lawless violence whether it is committed by the Left or the Right.

In many ways, what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was predictable: the result of pent-up resentment by rightist loonies who had long suffered in silence while the lawlessness of leftist loonies was excused and even glorified by mainstream politicians, media and popular culture. Nothing the January 6 Committee showed us on its opening night addresses this underlying problem.

Instead, as even New York Times columnist David Brooks has suggested, a Democratic-controlled tribunal is desperately trying to distract American voters from the pressing concerns about runaway inflation, voters remorse with the Biden administration, and a litany of other real and current woes. As Brooks concluded, these goals are pathetic. And if Thursday nights premiere was any indicator, theyre bound to fail.

Aram Bakshian, Jr. served as an aide to Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and has written extensively on politics, history, gastronomy, and the arts for American and overseas publications.

Image: Reuters.

Read more:

The Real Goal of the January 6th Committee - The National Interest Online

Over the past decade, liberal democratic societies have witnessed an illiberal, undemocratic phenomenon that increasingly has permeated public discourse. This refers to intimidation of those holding contrary opinions on political, ideological, social, academic and other weighty topics. The ferocity of mob outrage vented on social media so-called trolling is a high-profile example, but there are other examples of intolerant wilding. This article explores the general phenomenon and those perpetrating such aggressive tactics, as well as considering the current trajectory of academic, political, and public debate in a polarized climate, one increasingly dominated by stridently expressed extreme opinions.

Well before the 21st century, a steady-state tradition had built up in democracies whereby freedom of speech was often passionate, but nevertheless generally respectful, even when opponents evoked vehement disagreement. Such popular periodicals as Private Eye, Le Canard Enchain and Charlie Hebdo continue the tradition of satirically speaking truth to power, as do many newspapers, while academics continue to expound their theories and opinions in a variety of academic channels, and sometimes in the popular press. While often controversial, vigorous, and even barbed and whether impartial or partisan, measured or polemical the essence of this tradition has been the principle of engaging, debating, analyzing, weighing, informing, and coexisting. This is all in the public interest, so as to develop and promulgate the most powerful arguments rather than the arguments of the most powerful.

This social contract of normative behavior started to break down noticeably towards the end of the first decade of this century, coinciding with the rise of social media. It has degenerated to such an extent that by now this civil standard is regarded by a significant minority as a contemptible relic that must be abandoned. Increasingly, respect for opposing world-views and opinions has been jettisoned in favor of a shrill determination to crush anyone whose ideas challenge ones own preconceptions.

The arguments of the most overbearing and shouty now swamp the most powerful arguments with their disproportionate noise and impact. In essence, it is a bullying and bellicose win at all costs approach, which might have been taken out of an imaginary Megalomanic Dictators Guide to Advancement and Self-Preservation. According to Ukrainian academic, Anton Shekhovtsov, the claim that Putin is a real and arguably fascist dictator is a case in point. Individuals and groups at all levels in society may display remarkably similar characteristics to Putins ruthless determination to dominate others with little or no concern about the resulting harm. As Ignazio Silones 1930s semi-autobiographies Fontamara and The Seed Beneath the Snow chronicling survival in a fascist society reveal, fascism both in the popular sense of overbearing nastiness and as a political ideology is characterized in daily life by such mundane personality flaws as envy, greed, vanity, resentment, inadequacy, entitlement, sociopathy, criminality etc.

The following cases exemplify the new intolerance, including the much abused weaponisation of the terms fascist and anti-fascist by countervailing interests.

The extreme statements by Donald Trump during his 2016-2020 US presidency are infamous. Trump was an avid user of his Twitter social media account and had few qualms about issuing personal rants in undiplomatic and certainly un-presidential language against a wide range of individuals and groups that he decried. These included senior US politicians, government officials, judges, war heroes, foreign politicians and heads of state, as well as journalists, film stars, sportspersons, and celebrities, but also Mexicans, Muslims, Iranians, disabled persons, refugees and many other objects of his disdain.

In Trumps narcissistic world-view, there is a dichotomy between winners/predators like himself and losers/victims who deserve all their problems and suffering and who, moreover, may be dismissed as unpatriotic, socialist (i.e. crypto-communist) agitators. To him, a loser is anyone lacking his personality and world-view or daring to challenge or criticize his ideas or policies, even constructively. Such Trumpian abuses have been widely discussed, for example by Roger Paxman, Kevern Verney, and Alan Waring in The New Authoritarianism Vol 1 and Denis Fischbacher-Smith, Clive Smallman, Antony Vass, and Alan Waring in Vol 3. As Smallman noted, such toxic leadership is not luck of the draw.

Trumps combative style has helped to polarize political debate in the US and encourage partisan non-cooperation between the Republican (GOP) and Democratic parties. This has continued into the subsequent Biden administration. Moreover, Trumps attitude and conduct (most notoriously his dog-whistle priming of a radical-right mob to attack the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021) gave a further green light to an expanding group of radical-right GOP Congress members.

A growing caucus of such GOP politicians including Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Ted Cruz, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Ron Johnson, Ron Paul, and Marjorie Taylor-Greene has done so, to the extent that the GOP is no longer seen as a one-nation conservative party. Instead, it has become a populist radical-right (and potentially far-right) party in which mainstream Republican politicians are increasingly intimidated and marginalized by their more outspokenly extreme colleagues. The cases of Kinzinger and Cheney are especially instructive here.

Trump (an outspoken fan of Putin and his aggressive nationalism, with a notable ambivalence towards his Ukraine invasion) and his GOP allies have been joined in their intolerant statements by a bandwagon of like-minded fringe political commentators and agitators. They have been adept at using their media spaces to vilify naysayers and stridently promulgate radical-right opinions even extreme ones as well as absurd conspiracy theories (such as QAnon). Among these are Ann Coulter, Alex Jones and, at Fox News, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham.

Until recently, the gigantic and belligerent radical-right megaphone system in the US has not been mirrored by anything similar on the radical left.

In recent years, there has been a trend for some university students to demand that their lecturers must not include any content that these students may find objectionable, and that university authorities should ban lecturers or speakers whose intellectual views they may not like . Students taking part in such cancel culture have become known derisively as snowflakes. In some instances, protests have turned violent.

Student cancel culture runs counter to the primary purpose of university education, which traditionally aimed at developing constructively critical analysis rather than prejudicial rejection. Indeed, experiencing intellectual challenge and discomfort is a necessary part of university education as a means of developing understanding and sharpening evaluative skills.

In considering how to shape academic freedom, especially in the digital age, we have seen undue pressure applied to individual academics who have published opinion pieces causing offense to some readers. Noting that an opinion is typically a subjective and biased view of an issue even when given by an acknowledged expert, since no ones world-view is value-free or experience-free researcher Jaime da Silva warned: Pressure-induced retractions of opinions not only stifle academic debate, they also send the message that opinions need to be moderated and standardized to meet a publishing market that is being increasingly driven by legal parameters, political correctness, as well as business and commercial values rather than academic ones. Yangyang Cheng writing for The Atlantic also highlights concomitant business, commercial and, occasionally, political pressures. Da Silva continued, noting that the way things are said, tone, and the sensitivity of those that might be affected are given greater weight than the message itself. By cherry-picking parts of the message that detractors or critics might disagree with, the original message may be drowned out by the noise of the objectors. The requirement for universities to show proper integrity and firmness against such pressures has never been more urgent.

A stout rejection of fascism could be assumed to be a sine qua non for any member of a body comprising doctoral and post-doctoral fellows dedicated to the analysis of the radical right and countering any associated extremism. Indeed, one such body that for years had been proud of such credentials was what I shall call the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Research Group (hereafter RWARG), a pseudonym used here to save any possible embarrassment. All members were required to contribute non-peer reviewed opinion pieces regularly to the RWARGs flagship online blog. One such member, Dr. Smith (another pseudonym), had been doing so for some years without controversy when unexpectedly his latest article received a blitz of vituperative reaction online from some fellow members.

Their ire had been provoked, it seems, by his observation that whereas most attention was deservedly focused on the radical right, and the latters propensity for the use of threats and even violence to achieve their aims, some radical-left supporters were also now advocating similar tactics against the far right. Although he referenced some specific US examples of violent actions, and articles implying, if not specifically advocating, violence from so-called Antifa groups, the RWARGs online blog editorial policy did not require opinion-piece authors to meet the standards of a double-blind peer reviewed academic paper in order to justify every statement. After all, as da Silva observed, an expressed opinion is typically a subjective and biased view of an issue, and blog articles are intended to provoke thought rather than necessarily to inform impartially or, indeed, comprehensively. Moreover, this example validates da Silvas observation that the sensitivity of those that might be affected [is] given greater weight than the message itself.

The thrust of Dr. Smiths piece was thus to challenge the notion that it is ever acceptable to use or advocate violence as a political policy, strategy or tactic, and cited the well-worn heuristic that violence begets violence. He was debunking the sophistry that it is morally acceptable for anti-fascists (of any hue) to resort to violent tactics, whether reactive or pre-emptive, against radical-right extremists simply because the latter may have a violent predisposition.

The hysterical reaction to Dr. Smiths piece was orchestrated by a cabal of members and like-minded academics who went on the offensive first by circulating a strident denunciation of the author,signed by over twenty individuals and demanding a radical reorganization to prevent far-right members from joining and subverting the organization. After each signatorys name, the designation anti-fascist was added, presumably for the avoidance of doubt.

The cabal then hastily organized an online fellows conference in order to discuss Dr. Smith and his article, as well as to present demands for an overhaul of the RWARGs editorial policy and a radical reform of the Group. Their apparent objective was to (a) prevent any further opinion pieces criticizing anti-fascist aggression, (b) prevent anyone gaining membership whose views did not fully meet the cabals concepts of fascism and anti-fascism, and (c) expel any member who transgressed the cabals new criteria. Partisan censorship of articles that offended the cabal had now become a high risk.

To this author an attendee of the online meeting the exercise resembled a Stalinist show trial. Apparently, Dr. Smith was neither invited to attend nor informed that he was, in effect, on trial. Not only was his offending article canceled but so too was his membership.

A further circular from the cabal continued the professional and character assassination of Dr. Smith. However, it also vilified Professor Jones (another pseudonym), the co-founding Director of RWARG, accusing him of complicity in Dr. Smiths crime for defending the rights of members to hold different viewpoints, as well as attacking his personality and character. Unsurprisingly, the Director and a number of members resigned. This cabal thus achieved a successful insurgent coup led by self-righteous and self-validating anti-fascist zealots. Although continuing to proclaim its broad church membership, the new RWARG would only be tolerating those closely allied to the new illiberal orthodoxy. Those with a liberal or centrist abhorrence of fascism would not be welcome since, like Dr. Smith and Prof. Jones, they would no longer be considered anti-fascist enough.

For the new RWARG elite, fascist is primarily an all-embracing term for anyone in the radical-right spectrum outside and to the right of mainstream conservatism, whether or not a true, revolutionary, fascist as traditionally defined. However, their use of the term now apparently also encompasses liberals, centrists and mainstream conservatives. To them, a fascist is anyone who is not 100% anti-fascist by their standards i.e. not as anti-fascist as the RWARG cabal claims to be. Such widespread overuse and misuse of the fascist and anti-fascist labels has devalued them to near junk status, whether used by academics-turned-frustrated-anti-fascist-warriors or by audacious hegemons such as Putin using fascist tactics against his enemies while accusing them of being the real fascists.

Politics and the media share with academia an overriding responsibility to identify and promulgate the most powerful arguments, not those of the most overbearing and ruthless. Nor should counter-extremism be hijacked either by zealots or by those more interested in their self-promotion, intellectual vanity, or performative feelings of superiority. Regrettably, this standard is being increasingly ignored by those who should know better.

Politicization and ruthless pursuit of intolerant ideology are replacing civil dialogue, precluding any engagement with or understanding of other world-views. Audiences are subjected to unsolicited rants and intimidating toxic messaging, while individuals singled out as ideological enemies are treated to aggressive wilding. Subversive freedom of speech defenses are thereby exposed as little more than an excuse by zealots to obliterate other peoples freedom of expression.The ugly tactics of some extreme politicians, activists, commentators and snowflake students, as well as some self-styled anti-extremists, all reveal an essential illiberalism and a corrupted spirit. The relentless outpouring of vile invective against anyone expressing a contrary opinion is indicative of a deep-seated paranoia and possibly some level of personality disorder. While there is no magic antidote to all this wickedness, sociologist and democracy activist Moshe ben Asher suggests as an essential starting point the radical revitalization of democracy (especially in the US) through popular assemblies. Moreover, there is a desperate need for greater humanity and mindfulness in our dealings with others, friends and adversaries alike.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observers editorial policy.

See more here:

Thought Crimes: the Shameful Undemocratic Wilding of Contrary Opinion - Fair Observer