Category Archives: Political Correctness

In a few hours' time, comedy fans in Sheffield will take to the streets in protest. Their cause? Not Brexit, or climate change, but the decision to ban Roy 'Chubby' Brown from performing a gig in the city.

Chubby, who is not to everyone's taste,is best described as the Norths answer to Bernard Manning or Jim Davidson. An earthy stand-up comic from Middlesbrough,he isperfectly prepared to talk, joke and trade raillery about race, religion and sexuality in a way few other performers are. This week, after 30 years of performing in Sheffield, he was told he is no longer welcome.

Sheffield City Trust, which runs variousleisure sites on the local council's behalf, summarily cancelled a planned performance by him in the citys Oval Hall next year. The reason? The trust'schief executive, Andrew Snelling, said:

'We don't believe this show reflects Sheffield City Trust values.'

For local Labour MP Gill Furniss this was welcome news.'This is the right thing to do. There is no place for any hate filled performance in our diverse and welcoming city,' she said.

But to the councils dismay, few others agreed not least many local residents inSheffield whorather like Chubby. The cancellation spawned a furious popular reaction; 35,000 people have now signed apetitiondemanding Chubby be allowed on stage.

This isn't the first time thatChubby has had showscancelled: performances inAshfield, in Nottinghamshire,back in 2016, and Swansea a couple of years ago, were also called off. Does he deserve this treatment?

Chubbys patter is referred to by his detractors as racist, homophobic and misogynist. But its worth spending a few minutes on YouTube to see what he actually says. There is certainly a never-ending flow of insults, ridicule and profanity; and religion, race and sexuality undoubtedly get their share and more.

But you will hear little, if any, malice, nor are there calls to hate, attack or ostracise anyone. More than anything, Chubby is a highly successful performer because he has a disconcerting ability to see things through his audiences eyes. Forworking-class audiences familiar with thinking, talking and joking about race, sex, sexuality and religion in an entirely unsentimental way with little respect for political correctness, his popularity is hardly a surprise.

True, none of this cuts much ice with progressive intellectuals. But leave such people who are unlikely to be seen dead at a 'Chubby' show anyway to one side. For any ordinary observer, 'Chubby' is just a low if popular comedian, most of whose bons mots you wouldnt be very surprised to hear at the end of a long evening in a lively pub in a down-at-heel area.

Despite the City Trusts expressed high-minded desire to uphold the values of the city of Sheffield, few if any see this comedian as a hate-monger of any kind. And that may well be the real problem. There is a strong suspicion that what drives people to distance themselves from him may be something rather different: namely, good old-fashioned snobbery.

Is the same kind of condescension with which Emily Thornberry viewed 'White Van Man' at work here? In the decision to cancel this show, there certainly seems to be a suggestion that protecting people from entertainers who pander to their low tastes is an obvious priority.

Whatever the cause of the argument against Chubby Brown, he isnt going away. This morninga group of supporters who object to the efforts of the City Trust and local politicians to prevent his appearance will gather outside Sheffield City Hall.

Even if Chubby Browns brand of humour isnt your cup of tea, you may well think Sheffields approach to it even less so. If you do, and you want to strike a blow against petty municipal one-upmanship, then you should back the protest.

Read more here:

The snobbery of Roy 'Chubby' Brown's critics - Spectator.co.uk

Until today, the most depressing letter Ive ever read was the one I received from Arsenal Football Club informing me I had failed in my application to be the new 1st team manager.

Admittedly, I was only 11 years old at the time and Arsenal were one of the biggest clubs in the world, but still, the rejection stung.

However, the pain and anger I felt then paled into insignificance compared to the contorted rage and dismay I experienced when I read Portland State University professor Peter Boghossians public letter of resignation.

Sometimes, even in these increasingly absurd woke-ravaged cancel culture times, I still physically shudder at a particularly awful example of the way free speech is being annihilated at the altar of political correctness.

This was such a time.

Boghossian has lectured at PSU as full-time assistant professor of philosophy for the past ten years.

He was a popular lecturer known for his truth-seeking, non-indoctrinating style.

But hes now been forced to quit because he says the University has sacrificed ideas for ideology.

The woke destruction of a great educator (pictured isPortland State University professor Peter Boghossian who resigned over wokeism at the university) should terrify every one of us because these hysterical enemies of free speech are spreading beyond our colleges and destroying the foundations of American democracy:

Boghossian has lectured at PSU as full-time assistant professor of philosophy for the past ten years. In his letter, published in a newsletter run by Bari Weiss, a former New York Times journalist who also resigned over internal woke nonsense that attacked her freedom of speech, Boghossian started by saying something that resonated very personally with me

His decision came after a lengthy, vicious campaign was waged to drive him out a campaign that should appall and outrage every one of us, regardless of our political persuasion.

In his letter, published in a newsletter run by Bari Weiss, a former New York Times journalist who also resigned over internal woke nonsense that attacked her freedom of speech, Boghossian started by saying something that resonated very personally with me.

I teach classes like Science and Pseudoscience and The Philosophy of Education, he wrote, but in addition to exploring classic philosophers and traditional texts, Ive invited a wide range of guest lecturers to address my classes, from Flat-Earthers to Christian apologists to global climate skeptics to Occupy Wall Street advocates. Im proud of my work. I invited those speakers not because I agreed with their worldviews, but primarily because I didnt. From those messy and difficult conversations, Ive seen the best of what our students can achieve: questioning beliefs while respecting believers; staying even-tempered in challenging circumstances; and even changing their minds. I never once believed nor do I now that the purpose of instruction was to lead my students to a particular conclusion. Rather, I sought to create the conditions for rigorous thought; to help them gain the tools to hunt and furrow for their own conclusions. This is why I became a teacher and why I love teaching.

Yes, yes, and bloody yes.

His words reminded me of what Albert Einstein once said about education:

I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.

That, surely, is the very essence of a proper education?

The best teachers Ive had in my own life all encouraged me to be bold, challenging and above all, open-minded.

I was a member of a school debating society when I was just ten years old and can still remember how invigorating it was to argue with my peer group about issues in the news.

For me, that principle is the very cornerstone of freedom of speech and expression which in turn are the very cornerstones of democracy. Ironically, I lost my job presenting Good Morning Britain (Piers Morgan with co-host Susanna Reid on Good Morning Britain in March 2020) earlier this year for expressing an opinion that I didnt believe the Duke and Duchess of Sussexs wild unsubstantiated claims about the Royal Family during their incendiary interview with Oprah Winfrey. I was ordered by my bosses at ITV to either apologize for that honestly held opinion or leave, so I left

But the teacher who conducted these sessions always insisted we respect other opinions to our own.

Just because you feel strongly about something, that doesnt necessarily mean youre right, she would regularly caution. But you should always be entitled to have your own opinion, just as everyone else is entitled to theirs.

For me, that principle is the very cornerstone of freedom of speech and expression which in turn are the very cornerstones of democracy.

Ironically, I lost my job presenting Good Morning Britain earlier this year for expressing an opinion that I didnt believe the Duke and Duchess of Sussexs wild unsubstantiated claims about the Royal Family during their incendiary interview with Oprah Winfrey. I was ordered by my bosses at ITV to either apologize for that honestly held opinion or leave, so I left.

But last week, the UK TV regulator OFCOM vindicated me in a very important and significant report that emphatically endorsed my right to disbelieve Meghan and Harry (many of whose claims have since been disproven) and described the attempt to muzzle me as a chilling threat to freedom of expression.

OFCOM is a government-approved organization.

So, in effect, the UK government, which I spent most of the past 18 months beating up over its handling of the pandemic, defended my right to free speech more than my employer, one of the countrys largest media firms.

I bet Peter Boghossian wishes hed had an organization like OFCOM in his corner.

Instead, in a country (America) where the whole concept of a government-approved regulator dictating what citizens can say is a horrifying anathema, hes been hung out to dry in the most despicable, cowardly and freedom-wrecking manner.

Everything he stood for as a teacher, which is everything a teacher SHOULD stand for, shamefully repudiated.

In a statement to DailyMail.com, a spokesman for the university (pictured) said: Portland State has always been and will continue to be a welcoming home for free speech and academic freedom. What a load of disingenuous guff!

Brick by brick, he wrote, the university has made this kind of intellectual exploration impossible. It has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division. Students at Portland State are not being taught to think. Rather, they are being trained to mimic the moral certainty of ideologues. Faculty and administrators have abdicated the universitys truth-seeking mission and instead drive intolerance of divergent beliefs and opinions. This has created a culture of offense where students are now afraid to speak openly and honestly.

The more I read of the letter, the worse it got.

I noticed signs of the illiberalism that has now fully swallowed the academy quite early during my time at Portland State, Boghossian wrote. I witnessed students refusing to engage with different points of view. Questions from faculty at diversity trainings that challenged approved narratives were instantly dismissed. Those who asked for evidence to justify new institutional policies were accused of microaggressions. And professors were accused of bigotry for assigning canonical texts written by philosophers who happened to have been European and male.

He courageously took on this nonsense, openly questioning it.

He even began submitting hoax papers to academic journals about insane theories relating to social justice like dog rape and the notion that penises are the product of human mind and responsible for climate change.

Boghossian was taking woke mentality to a ludicrous degree, to illustrate how flawed academia can be because it too often prints anything that fits their ideals even if the theories are fake.

When the hoax papers were published, and it was revealed what hed done, he was attacked even more by the extreme illiberal left who were outraged at being exposed as such frauds.

Brick by brick, Boghossian wrote in the letter addressed toPortland States Provost Susan Jeffords (pictured) the university has made this kind of intellectual exploration impossible. It has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division

Boghossian claims, the more I spoke out, the more retaliation I faced.

He says he was harassed on campus with swastikas written on bathroom walls with his name next to them, flyers went around campus depicting him with a Pinocchio nose, he was spat on, feces were left on his doorstep, and colleagues told students not to take his class.

After someone formally complained about him, making a series of outrageous false claims, he was investigated by university administrators, and students who were interviewed told him they were asked if hed even beaten his wife and kids.

He hadnt, just as he hadnt done anything else that his accuser said hed done, and the investigation was dismissed with the claims deemed unsubstantiated.

But all this inevitably took its toll, and he eventually threw in the towel.

The final three paragraphs of his resignation letter are worth repeating in full:

This isnt about me. This is about the kind of institutions we want and the values we choose. Every idea that has advanced human freedom has always, and without fail, been initially condemned. As individuals, we often seem incapable of remembering this lesson, but that is exactly what our institutions are for: to remind us that the freedom to question is our fundamental right. Educational institutions should remind us that that right is also our duty. Portland State University has failed in fulfilling this duty. In doing so it has failed not only its students but the public that supports it. While I am grateful for the opportunity to have taught at Portland State for over a decade, it has become clear to me that this institution is no place for people who intend to think freely and explore ideas.

This is not the outcome I wanted. But I feel morally obligated to make this choice. For ten years, I have taught my students the importance of living by your principles. One of mine is to defend our system of liberal education from those who seek to destroy it. Who would I be if I didnt?

Exactly.

In a statement to DailyMail.com, a spokesman for the university said: Portland State has always been and will continue to be a welcoming home for free speech and academic freedom.

What a load of disingenuous guff!

In fact, theyre the complete opposite; PSU has woked itself into a place where its young impressionable students are encouraged to destroy anyone or anything they dont agree with and not to respect free speech, but to attack and deny it.

I found Peter Boghossians letter incredibly depressing.

Hes the very best kind of teacher yet hes been disgracefully framed as the very worst kind simply because he believes in free speech and fair debate.

America has reached a very dangerous moment where free thinking of the type Boghossian promotes has become the enemy and hyper-partisan woke ideology the only accepted school of thought.

And this is not a new phenomenon.

The most terrifying aspect of all this is that dangerously illiberal wokeism has been infesting schools and colleges for most of this century, much of it going under the radar.

So, students whove been brain-washed with it for the past 20 years are now heavily populating liberal society from the Democrat party and Silicon Valley to mainstream media and big business.

And every day we see horrifying new evidence of how these woke warriors as they see themselves are bullying their cowed bosses into supine submission.

Soon, theyll be running America. Into the ground.

This madness has to stop, or democracy will die.

PIERS MORGAN: The woke destruction of a great educator should terrify every one of us Source link PIERS MORGAN: The woke destruction of a great educator should terrify every one of us

Original post:

PIERS MORGAN: The woke destruction of a great educator should terrify every one of us - Texasnewstoday.com

The British are, by nature, a pragmatic race who take the truth in their stride.

They gave up most of their colonies when dreams of an empire became unaffordable after the victory in the Second World War.

They hitched their carts to an American horse during the Cold War, as it was obvious that Europe wouldnt last a week against the Soviet Union on its own.

They gave up Hong Kong to the Chinese in 1997 without much fuss once they understood that Beijing wouldnt countenance the perpetuation of strategic colonial outposts.

And they manfully did their duty in Helmand province, Afghanistan, during the two decades-long global war on terror by accepting that this was the price for having a special relationship, one that allowed them a continued say in world affairs.

Ironically, the true wages of that defeat are only now starting to be paid by Britain at home.

The why and how are predicated upon British foreign policy being hamstrung by domestic socio-political compulsions and constraints of a left-liberal making.

Simply put, vote-bank politics has become so integrated into the British electoral system that the threat of Islamism and minority appeasement are now two sides of the only coinage in circulation.

A principal, public manifestation of that rarely discussed issue is the perennial question of why the West has consistently refused to highlight Pakistans role in the creation of the Taliban or take action against it for systematically derailing a trillion-dollar effort to solve the problem.

Could time, money, and lives have been saved if only they had admitted that the solution to the Afghanistan problem lay in Pakistan and acted accordingly?

Author Minhaz Merchant says that they knew, but still didnt act because of a long and sordid history of collusion between NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and Pakistan, going back to the origins of the Cold War.

No doubt, countless dollars were siphoned off by everyone involved, for generations, for which no one can point a finger at Islamabad today without sending prominent participants in the West to the clink.

In addition, fairly brazen political correctness is also being peddled furiously now, as the manifold dangers of the Wests disastrously hasty exit from Afghanistan becomes increasingly apparent. Look at just three absurdities that surfaced in Britain over the past few weeks:

- The British Chief of the Defence Staff, General Nick Carter, whitewashed the Taliban as a group of country boys with a code of honor. Worse, he denied calling them the enemy. Ah, well! Good to know, but who, then, did so many valiant British soldiers die fighting in the Hindu Kush?

- A BBC anchor shut down an American academician trying to argue that the root of the Afghan problem was Pakistan, on the flimsy ground that there was no one from the Pakistani side to rebut the professor.

- It was reported that Britain would give 30 million pounds in aid for housing Afghan refugees to countries bordering Afghanistan. Though not stated explicitly, this payoff will go largely to Pakistan.

Why would Britain behave thus?

These three incongruities, among others, plus veiled social media schadenfreude at Amrullah Saleh and Ahmed Masoods resistance not faring well in the Panjshir valley, raises a broader question: Why would you wish for the defeat of a group you supported, by those whom you called the enemy till just last month?

The answers lie in British domestic politics. We may call it the Blair-Corbyn effect, after former Labour prime minister Tony Blair and failed Labour prime ministerial candidate, Jeremy Corbyn, who adroitly mainstreamed good old-fashioned secular Congressi vote-bank politicking into British elections.

They and their left-liberal jamaat (every democracy hosts such a section these days) learnt, to their delight, that dozens of parliamentary constituencies could be won on the back of a decisive Muslim vote. It was a profitable discovery in a country where most victory margins amount to only a few thousand votes.

In the 2017 general elections, the Labour Party gained 30 seats to score 262 in a House of 650. It wasnt enough to cross the majority mark, but they stood just two percentage points behind the Conservatives.

Of those 262, a full two-thirds of their top 30 wins were in seats with a significant Muslim population. In a hundred-odd others, their margins matched minority demographics.

In 2019, Brexit (short for "British exit") overrode political correctness, and Labour were handed one of their worst electoral defeats in a century. They lost 59 seats and 8 per cent of the popular vote.

Yet, even in that debacle, as Swarajya showed using electoral and census data, it was the loyal Muslim vote that spared them the blushes.

The point, therefore, is that save for the bloc Muslim vote, Labour would have been wiped out in both 2017 and 2019, and it would have been a series of incredible Conservative sweeps.

The net result of this crushing, existential dependency on a vote bank meant that parties like Labour, which grew fat on identity politics, were now severely constrained from executing requisite foreign policy, in case it cost them the popular mandate.

No wonder that the more the West bombed the Taliban, the louder these people raised the bogey of Islamophobia at home.

Where does that leave Britain today, apart from calling the Taliban country boys or preventing an academician from voicing uncomfortable truths in public? In a pretty pickle.

Decades of pandering to pronouns and cultural separatism have created a fatal flaw in the British electoral system, where foreign policies lie at the mercy of domestic politics and an accursed enabling environment of counterproductive correctness.

Sadly, it is not just the Labour Party that is a victim of this macabre development. The ruling Conservative Party is just as delicately poised on a knifes edge, albeit for different reasons.

Indians, brought up on a strict diet of secularism, would recognise the situation in Britain today. Boris Johnson is where Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in the 1990s. Any erosion in popularity hands the opposition a sterling opportunity to cobble together a majority using the minority vote.

The problem is that such an alternative, if it were to ever secure the mandate, would be woefully stymied in formulating necessary policy, driven as they were by legitimate fears of somehow having to hold on to that crucial swing vote.

This is the surreal mess British politics is in at present, and this is what is driving absurd, conciliatory statements from various corners, which blithely force security concerns and geopolitics to be thrown to the four winds.

Pakistan wont mind, though. It is the new doctrine of deterrence they couldnt have constructed even if they tried. The importance of the swing Muslim vote in British constituencies ensures that important nations would stop short of pinpointing Pakistan as the true source of the jihadi problem plaguing Afghanistan, the subcontinent, and the world.

Today, non-appeasement of that vote bloc risks triggering either violence or vote-bank apathy. Who needs nuclear weapons when you can defeat a left-liberal party simply by not turning up to vote, or by implicitly threatening the government of the day with terrorist strikes at home?

The proof of this interpretation is self-evident in the election results, and in the fact that the perpetrators of both successful and aborted Islamist terrorist attacks in Britain over the past 15 years were born, bred, and radicalised there.

Perhaps, Britain might have avoided this terrible predicament, if only they had studied two things: past Indian secular politics and the way in which minority appeasement, and its attendant ills, are being systematically sidelined in India by the vote.

We, too, went through a torrid stage when a Congress government wanted to demilitarise the Siachen Glacier, give up efforts to reclaim Gilgit-Baltistan, accept terrorism as a way of life, or invoke pious, moral equivalences to shed tears for Muslim terrorists killed by our security forces (like at Batla House).

But we woke up and decided that national security concerns could not be held hostage to electoral exigencies.

Naturally, this is a work in progress since, as recently as this week, a former Indian editor said India could not afford to alienate its Muslim population when the Taliban were on the ascendant in Kabul. What he meant was that if India didnt bow to the wishes of its minority, the minority would alienate itself further and become a grave internal security threat.

This statement encapsulates, perfectly, what the British have had to suffer courtesy their intellectuals and politicians.

The truth, of course, is that this sense of alienation predates the Taliban by two centuries. In fact, it is the Taliban that is a product of such alienation, and not the other way around (so eerily similar to those who bombed the London Underground or stabbed innocents near London bridge).

This, allied with vote banking, is what has prevented the Muslim community from joining the mainstream so far be it in Britain or India. (Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, doesnt count. He first made his name by defending a 9/11 terrorist, and then his fame, as a darling of the left-liberal brigade, by infamously exceeding his remit to oppose Donald Trump.)

This is the problem Indian politics is trying to solve, one that countries like Britain will have to tackle soon if they are to cleanse their electoral systems of identity politics alienation, pampered and promoted by an indulgent liberal mindset, only perpetuates division, aggravates strife, and sustains a two-nation theory.

So, we see that the problem is not so much in Afghanistan or Pakistan, as it is in parts of Britain, like Sheffield, Bradford, or Manchester, where elections are won or lost by the identity vote and terrorism is kept away by appeasement.

The grim inference, in political terms, is that countries like Britain are now a full decade or two behind India. The grimmer implication, in geopolitical terms, is that India must not expect much assistance from the West as it gears up to tackle the stiffest national security challenges it has faced in centuries.

The actual failure of the global war on terror lies not on the desolate battlefields of the Hindu Kush, but in the well-heeled, well-paved constituencies of countries like Britain, where identity politics, vote banking, and minority appeasement have ensured that the very threats these nations went to war against have now been legitimised on their soil.

These are the true wages of defeat.

Read more:

Britain, Islamism, And The Wages Of Defeat - Swarajya

Humourist Drew Hayden Taylor recently took in The Rez Sisters at Stratford.

Stratford Festival i

Drew Hayden Taylor is an Anishnawbe playwright and humorist.

Recently I saw the Stratford production of Tomson Highways The Rez Sisters. It was about the dozenth production of this play Ive seen but the first one in about ten years. Full disclosure, Ive always been a Highway fan. All in all, the production and script holds up remarkably well once I got used to hearing the word Indian being repeated. In these politically correct times, even Indigenous theatre is being affected.

Most BIPOC people have benefitted from the tidal wave of wokeness that has hit our society. For the most part, it has been a positive experience. A few decry the movement. As a humourist, its sometimes made it a little more difficult to satirize or ridicule society, but also, as a First Nations writer, I am given a bit more liberty to play around with the changing rules. So many times Ive heard the phrase you can say that but I cant. Sometimes clawing your way out of colonization can have its benefits.

Story continues below advertisement

But back to my point. A decade or so ago I saw a production of the musical The Fantasticks at Torontos Soulpepper Theatre. Its a weird play with a Caucasian character running through it perpetually dressed in a full scale, clich'd Indian (yes, I know I said it. Call Human Resources if you dare) headdress. Im not sure what the point that was trying to be made was but sometimes in theatre you just have to go along for the ride. Ive been known to have Native people dressed as settlers running across the stage wearing Birkenstocks, waving a briefcase full of low fat Greek yogurt, just for the hell of it.

At some point in The Fantasticks, one of the other main characters comments about the aforementioned feathered gentleman by saying something to the effect of: Hes not really a Native American/Canadian. I forget the exact reference but within the original text, the term used was Indian. I remember raising an eyebrow at the acknowledgment at the impropriety of the character but still thinking that doesnt do much to rescue the show. In fact, the attempt to add political correctness to such a character only made the travesty more obvious.

Just prior to last years COVID-19 clampdown, there was to be the premiere of a play written and directed by Guy Sprung at Infinitheatre in Montreal called Fight On! It was about Charles Dickenss third son, Francis, who spent eleven years as a Mountie out west during the North West Rebellion. Its one of those snippets of Canadian history that many do not know. I did not. Unfortunately, several of the Indigenous cast members in the production were uncomfortable with the rampant usage of the term Indian in the epic play. I find this understandable, but I also find it difficult to imagine Sir John A. Macdonald, a plethora of Mounties and racist settlers saying We have to do something about those damn First Nations people! Im sorry to say, but it sort of goes with the era.

One of my favourite stories exploring this issue took place in Toronto. An Indigenous woman who had witnessed the production of a certain play complained about how two characters being played by Indigenous women were being repeatedly intimidated on stage by the non-Native male leads, and at one point, a character felt threatened by a pulled knife. Eventually in the show, both women died as a result of direct and indirect actions of men. Even though this was all in the script, this patron found it somewhat triggering and complained.

It was a production of Hamlet, and the Indigenous women were playing Gertrude and Ophelia. Im not sure what you do in a situation like that? Rewrite the script to allow them to survive and prosper? Make sure no Indigenous women are cast in those roles? No that would be a whole different category of complaints. Do an all Indigenous production of the play? Actually, I like that one but there would still be the issue of the women being under threat by men. Except this time they would be Indigenous men. Coincidentally, both actresses were absolutely delighted to be doing Shakespeare not as First Nations actors, but just as actors. I dont think we have a word in our language for conundrum.

And then theres the play fareWel by Indigenous writer Ian Ross. Winner of the 1997 Governor Generals Award for Theatre, I doubt it will ever be produced again. Its a searing comedy, exploring the complexities of life on the reserve, but that actually has nothing to do with it. There is a character in it, actually one of the more interesting ones, whose dark skin has earned him the nickname well, lets just say its commonly referred to as the N word. No, not Native, but a term frequently used by racists referring to members of the African American community.

The irony here is that nicknames are exceedingly frequent in First Nations communities. Commonly grotesque and inappropriate ones too. Growing up, I knew a guy named Anus. I remember cringing uncomfortably when I saw the production and heard the characters name repeatedly uttered, thinking this could be problematic. Oddly enough, back in the 1990s, it wasnt. As I said, it won a major award. But I dont know if theres a theatre company out there today willing to take on that extra baggage.

Story continues below advertisement

Im thinking of writing a survival manual, on working in the complex and crazy world of Indigenous theatre. Im thinking of calling it All the Worlds a Stage Depending Who Colonized It.

Sign up for The Globes arts and lifestyle newsletters for more news, columns and advice in your inbox.

Read the original here:

Even Indigenous theatre has fallen victim to wokeness - The Globe and Mail

The following interview by the Metras Editorial Board with Palestinian activist Mohammed El-Kurd was originally published in Metras on July 16th, 2021.

Israelis have long oriented their rhetoric towards the West through an intentional program of political propaganda referred to as hasbara. In contrast to this, Palestinians have had few comparable successes, and none that were ever as formalized.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Palestinians benefited from international leftist rhetoric in mobilizing public opinion. In addition, they were able to recruit volunteers of left-wing international movements.Edward Saids rhetoric subsequently stood out, based on the principle of embarrassing the West, highlighting the contradiction between the broad human rights rhetoric versus how the the rights of Palestinians are diminished.

In the recent years, diverse movements and organizations, including boycott movements and other legal organizations, emerged to re-introduce the Palestinian cause to Western audiences. Their efforts concentrated on exposing the occupations violations of human rights, and its violations of international law. Despite their cautiousness, these movements are still always forced to stand up to Zionist pressure under the charges of antisemitism. These charges in turn have been responsible for the cautiousness of some of these movements, and the broader intimidation of public opinion.

However, it seems that the events in recent months in Palestine have strengthened the development of bolder rhetoric that dares to call the spade a spade, as activists are increasingly striving to state the the obvious rather than being cautious. One of those who stand today behind this bold rhetoric is Mohammed Nabil El-Kurd, a resident from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem who has been subjected to threats of being displaced from his home by the settlers movement for years.

As opposed to many Palestinian speakers, in his interviews with Western media Mohammed calls the Israeli presence in the lands occupied in 1948 occupation. He clearly states that Israel is a terrorist regime that Palestinians cannot coexist with, and that it practices policies of settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and forced displacement in addition to practicing the policy of apartheid, which has come into vogue with pro-Palestine advocates.

The rhetoric engages the political intuition that every Palestinian knows, and shifts confrontations with the media from defensive to offensive and puts the debate on Palestinian terms. It consequently avoids all rhetorical labyrinths that transform just causes into a cluster of incoherent legal and micro-detailed issues.

Mohammed El-Kurd was not the first to introduce such rhetoric. This truth telling reflects the Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani, and many other Palestinian national liberation writers. While several Palestinian advocacy institutions believed that diplomatic rhetoric, that focuses on red lines and agreed upon legal definitions, is more successful in addressing Western audiences and affecting their policies, others believe that the new rhetoric, given its clarity and boldness, is more efficient in speaking to the international public.

In this conversation, Mohammed El-Kurd discusses these shifting rhetorical strategies, its effectiveness, and how it has been developed.

The Palestinian cause has (re)gained widespread international solidarity beginning with the events in Sheikh Jarrah and then the Sword of Jerusalem battle of last May. Unprecedented great marches took place for the first time in capital cities in Europe, in which protestors condemned Israels violations in occupied Palestine. While voices opposing Israel have long existed throughout the history of the Palestinian cause, why and how, in your opinion, did these voices become more effective and prevalent?

I think there are too many reasons responsible for raising the ceiling of the new Palestinian rhetoric. The wave of advocacy in the recent months is only a continuation of an cumulative process that advocates and varied institutions have done for several decades.

This time, with insightful and politicized use of social media platforms, Palestinians were able to overcome all obstacles and attempts of silencing they had to face by Western media companies, forcing them to discuss and shed light on the viral news in social media. There were a lot of celebrities who used their influence on social media to stand by the Palestinian cause and condemn settler-colonialism. To give an example, regardless of the rhetoric, several voices in the American congress had the courage for the first time to criticize Israeli policies, in addition to the collapse we have witnessed of Israels status in American and European public opinion polls.

The protests over George Floyds murder in the Summer of 2020 prepared international audiences for the new Palestinian rhetoric and paved the way for making demands such as liberating Palestine from the river to the sea.

At the same time, I can not forget the protests over George Floyds murder in the Summer of 2020 before it was hijacked by the American government and the elite of black capitalists as they have prepared international audiences for the new Palestinian rhetoric. Instead of asking to fix the legal and security systems in the U.S, these protests asked for the abolition of these systems entirely; the abolishing of both police and prisons. While this radical rhetoric was not new, it was able for the first time to make headlines in the press. This, in turn, has paved the way for making demands such as liberating Palestine from the river to the sea.

When talking about the occupation state in English today, not to include everyone, we do not limit our speech to the inhuman treatment and the violations of Palestinians rights. But we also challenge and debunk the legitimacy of the state and its institutions, in addition to addressing the geography of the occupation state as a settler-colonial system. The Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem is a case to consider. Not only have we said there were false pretenses of settlers and discriminating rules against Palestinians, but we also said that Israels juridical system is essentially colonialist. And that this system will never do justice for Palestinians because it was built by the settlers to serve their interests. We also recognize that the Israeli magistrates do not have any legitimate authority to decide on our fate as Palestinians who live in occupied Jerusalem.

I would say that the Palestinian today is able to overcome all bureaucratic obstacles imposed on him by the leading Western media, such as distorting apparent power relationships that make it harder to decide on the Palestinian cause for the international public. As a consequence, it became easier in Palestine, since it is not necessary anymore for the audience to be a specialist in politics or history in order to understand the essence of settler colonialism and its manifestations.

What is also worth mentioning is that the Palestinian rhetoric was aimed historically at addressing a specific audience of decision makers in Western and Israeli governments. However, it differs today as the rhetoric today is a mere interpretation of the voices and prospects of Palestines street. The rhetoric does not seek anymore to gain the sympathy and respect of Western audiences.

Listen to an interview with Mohammed El-Kurd on the Mondoweiss Podcast

What do you think about those who believe that addressing the West through its media is inefficient and that there is no need to convince its public with anything? Would it be possible to differentiate between Western media channels? Put differently, what is the difference between European and American media? Are there any distinctions when looking at them separately?

It is widely thought that the West consists of white people only. However, the West is much complex and includes varied racial groups that stand against fascism, slavery, and colonialism in their diverse contexts, which sometimes identify with the Palestinian struggle for liberation. We have to be aware that when talking to the West we are speaking to groups of oppressed people who also struggle against injustice. We speak to people, not to governments, to fight against their fascist states that are complicit with the Israeli occupation.

We have to be aware that when talking to the West we are speaking to groups of oppressed people who also struggle against injustice. We speak to people, not to governments, to fight against their fascist states that are complicit with the Israeli occupation.

It is noteworthy that addressing does not necessarily mean begging. It is sometimes a struggle against diplomats and decision makers and others who are steeped in our blood. It is also crucial to explicitly confront and hold them accountable for being responsible for our displacement and the continuation and sustainability of the occupation. The struggle does not necessitate refinement and diplomacy. On the contrary, it is important to name and shame. We can not be complicit with liars and defer to them anymore, as this strategy has proven its ineffectiveness throughout time.

We can only assume that most known news channels, either American or European, support the Zionist narrative and even oppose the truth under the name of neutrality. An interview with a Palestinian in CNN will not free Palestine or change the channels agenda. However, what we aim for is a Palestinian intrusion of ordinary citizens screens.

Regardless of the questions asked, we need to be aware of what to say and enforce our agendas instead of being subjected to maneuvers that force us to explain ourselves and our resistance. Despite the fact that the majority of these interviews seek to put the Palestinian in a defensive position, it is important to emphasize here, first and foremost to ourselves, that facts are not disputable, and that we cannot allow to let these conversations address us as debatable.

In regard to differences between European and American channels, I would rather say that it is more about the audience we address and the role it can lead. It means that when we speak to the American audience, we discuss its governments role in sustaining colonialism and supporting the colonial entity. And in turn, we encourage those who wish to, to move against their government. The American government provides the occupation with an annual amount of four billion dollars under the name ofmilitary assistance, which should be invested instead for the benefit of the American people themselves who, for example, suffer from an expensive and inaccessible health system.

On the other hand, there are other roles and demands that might be required from the German citizen. In short, these people will not be able to support the Palestinian cause, unless they stand up for themselves. The money that goes to finance Israels persecution is better used to finance the least fortunate and oppressed groups in their countries.

Looking at your interviews across news outlets it is clear that you do not use the typical diplomatic discourse, and that you do not use what we know as political correctness. To give an example, while international law recognizes the existence of the Israeli state in Palestinian lands occupied in 1948, and deems it legitimate, you call it occupation. Is this an intentional strategy? Or do you simply call things as they are?

Lately we are witnessing a peoples reclamation of politics in Palestine. The people, who fight in the streets are now the game-changers and the decision makers after we have broken from what is called formal representation from the Palestinian elite and the formal leaders.

Today the Palestinian youth is able to dictate its Palestinianity along all of historic Palestine, despite the colonial geographic and political fragmentations forced upon us by Palestinian elites. At the same time, we reclaimed our expressions the real and explicit designations and names of things. There are some today who reclaimed the calling of every settler in all of the Palestinian lands, either 48 or 67, by calling all of them settlers.

Simply put, yes I call things as they are.

Regarding international law, Israel uses it as a silencing tool without a real commitment to any of its rules. On the contrary, it would even violate these rules without any regard. We should be aware that international law as a tool is very restrictive and does not serve our aspirations as colonized people. Our counting on it should consequently be limited, because despite it proving, theoretically, of some of the Palestinian rights, it was rare when the decisions of international institutions are ever enforced.

Palestinians have long been seen in the media as the victims of Israeli violations. How do you see the difference between this rhetoric and the one you have been employing during recent events in Palestine?

Yes, we are victims. However, the assumption that victims lack agency and political will is incorrect. On the contrary, victims might resist and they are even responsible for leading revolutionary changes. I believe that the heritage of black resistance in the U.S has paved the way for western audiences to understand the character of the Palestinian as an implicit victim, but actual fighter.

We have long seen Black teens executed in the streets by the American police. Discriminatory questions like what were they doing?, were they suspicious?, or were they armed? used to be raised to legitimize the teens killing. Regardless, the police are not allowed to kill them under any conditions, even with the teens being armed or hostile.

In my view, the Black community in the U.S today completely rejects these kind of questions that serve to divert attention from the original crime and the original criminal.In the wake of this rising rhetoric in Palestine, Palestinians today do not aim to present the image of the perfect victim, who is known for its patience and tolerance. On the contrary, they aim at introducing the image of an outraged and resisting victim to the worlds attention.

Following the last question, you have flipped the defensive position that is imposed on you by interviewers several times into a proactive position. While Palestinians are typically the accused, that needs to prove his/her good intentions and condemn any action affiliated to the Palestinian militarized resistance, you restate the questions to focus on Israeli policies. Was the strong Palestinian rhetoric more powerful and effective than the Palestinian victim?

When receiving such a question, you should uncover its implicit intentions instead of starting to answer by condemning or un-condemning. Our mission in the coming period should not only be legitimizing the Palestinian right to resist, but also legitimizing his or her right to feel anger when their land and rights are violated.

Our mission in the coming period should not only be legitimizing the Palestinian right to resist, but also legitimizing his or her right to feel anger when their land and rights are violated.

It is untrue and irrational to expect from a Palestinian especially those who were directly subjected to colonial crimes to come and say that they do not detest Israel on international platforms in order to gain the Western audiences sympathy. There is not a need for such rhetoric!

It is dehumanizing to expect such declarations from Palestinians. Palestinian humanity does not only mean having childhood memories or future aspirations, but also having reactions of anger and resistance. When saying the Palestinian is a human, we do not only mean that he or she goes to school like anyone, but also that they slap their attacker like normal people.

Any critic of Israels policies is charged with being antisemitic. How do you deal with common responses from interviewers on Western news channels, including responses related to antisemitism?

It is important to understand why we are always questioned about antisemitism. It is not to determine our thoughts regarding it, but to force us into a defensive corner that would essentially criminalize any opinion we adopt. No matter what we say, even if sharing a non-radical position, we are always charged with being antisemitic.

In debate, this is called a red herring (literally: a fish with a strong scent is put in front of hunting dogs to distract them from hunting rabbits), namely diverting the attention from the main issue and focusing on marginal ones. This, in turn, will not contribute to the discussion, but cover up the facts and distract from the main topic.

While it is possible to engage in a debate to prove you are not antisemitic, this would lead us to walk into a trap that the Zionist lobby has been working on for years. It aims at charging any critic of Israel, or any doubter of the occupations legitimacy, to be antisemitic. We have unfortunately seen a lot of people get ambushed in these trials. Instead of investing the time in delivering their message, they had to behave as perpetrators defending themselves in court.

Paradoxically, these questions are never directed to the oppressor. Say, you will never see a Zionist accused by hating Muslims, and this is an indication that the balance of world power is always aligned with the oppressor and condemns the oppressed, even in televised dialogues.

Israelis have developed a program that specializes in political propaganda called Hasbara, which aims at formulating defensive strategies of Israel and its policies. What would be the crucial points that the advocates of the Palestinian cause must be aware of when speaking to the Western media? In other words, how should repeated questions asked by the West be responded to? Like for instance, how would questions on the Palestinian resistance in Gaza and its responsibility for killing Israeli civilians be answered? Accusing Hamas of the degrading situation in Gaza, claiming that the governments of PA and Hamas oppress people in the West Bank and Gaza district, and such other examples.

Similar to any other propaganda, all of these claims share one fact; that they are all shallow and repetitive. As I have mentioned earlier, these claims do not aim at learning the opinion of the Palestinian being interviewed, but forcing him or her into a defensive corner. In my opinion, disclosing the intentions behind these kinds of questions in a five-minute interview is much more effective and beneficial to the viewer than fighting ideological battles that will definitely need more time.

Zionists frequently speak about two sides of the story, their grief, the lives of Palestinian innocent civilians, and ask the Western viewer what would you do if you were in our place?. They also claim that Hamas uses its civilians as human shields, while the truth is that Israel is responsible for civilians deaths irregardless of any other information.

Yes, we admit that the PA oppresses its people. However, it is definite that the Zionist entity is the only one responsible for this reality, as PA suppression would not exist without the presence of Zionist settler colonialism. I would rather say that we need to formulate new strategies that aim at countering the Israeli hasbara. We should aspire for strategies that can be easily understood and repeated by any average citizen that does not relate to current power relations. In addition to that, there is a need for raising consciousness regarding Israeli allegations and recognize them as examples of hasbara that are not necessarily legitimate. On the contrary, they should be recognized as products of governmental strategic plans and huge funding that target the consciousness of Western audiences while without caring to answer its questions.

For instance, I was recently engaged in a virtual dialogue where I was asked about my input on the claim that Gaza and the West Bank were both under the Jordanian rule and that they were empty and uninhabited. While some of my colleagues fell into the trap and started responding and justifying by quoting historians, I had to stop them. I said that despite our full readiness to answer such questions and refute claims on empty lands, and how Palestinians were created in the 1960s, and the human shields myth, questioning us about these claims is simply surprising and unacceptable. It merely condemns the questioner rather than the one who can not respond to it.

It should be called as it is: a deceitful question that does not require an answer. We should make clear that these questions are only meant as a distraction from our core issue which is our displacement from our homes and land. When naming these questions for what they are, and even mock them, the viewer would be able to recognize that these questions are not worth answering from the beginning.

Translated by Nur Jabarin.

Metras Editorial BoardMetras is a Palestine-based digital media outlet founded in 2018 that covers politics, technology, culture, society, and under-reported topics in Palestinian media. To learn more visit: metras.co.

So where are the Palestinian voices in mainstream media?

Mondoweiss covers the full picture of the struggle for justice in Palestine. Read by tens of thousands of people each month, our truth-telling journalism is an essential counterweight to the propaganda that passes for news in mainstream and legacy media.

Our news and analysis is available to everyone which is why we need your support. Please contribute so that we can continue to raise the voices of those who advocate for the rights of Palestinians to live in dignity and peace.

Palestinians today are struggling for their lives as mainstream media turns away. Please support journalism that amplifies the urgent voices calling for freedom and justice in Palestine.

Read more:

'Simply put, I call things as they are': Mohammed El-Kurd on shifting the Western discourse on Palestine Mondoweiss - Mondoweiss

Political correctness may lessen overt forms of bullying and workplace harassment, but without internalisation of nonprejudiced values, it may come with the side effect of promoting more passive aggressive forms of discrimination, which work against the goal of diversity, equity, and inclusion.Paris Will and Odessa Hamilton suggest how to progress from political correctness as compliance to a true internalisation of egalitarian values.

A recent poll indicates that 51 per cent of people associate the term diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI) with political correctness (RightTrack Learning, 2021). This reported coupling of terms begs the question of how perceptions of political correctness may be impacting DEI initiatives in the workplace. The reality is that most DEI initiatives fail. The importance of not just meeting compliance targets for diversity, but instead seeking culture change for true inclusion is now receiving much attention (Chavez & Weisinger, 2008; Deloitte, 2014; WIBF, 2021). In many cases, it has been found that quotas imposed by firms are not enough to sustain real change, which brings to question the commitment to DEI on an individual level. This post, therefore, reflects upon political correctness as an ideological construct, how individuals respond differently to politically correct pressures, and how it may be obstructing progress in DEI. We propose that politically correct pressures may have led to superficial change in workplace DEI through the reduction of overt prejudices, but with increased covert forms of discrimination. Lastly, we highlight some promising ways to shift toward a true internalisation of egalitarian values.

The ideology behind political correctness is predicated on a principle of tolerance, morality, and equality (Lichev & Hristoskova, 2017), which is very much in line with DEI. It reflects the Greek philosophy of equality in the eye of the law (isonomia); equal civil rights (isopoliteia); equal fortune and happiness (isodiamonia); equal respect (isotimia); equal freedom of speech, and equal political voice (isogoria; Schutz, 1976). Congruently, political correctness implies the presence of sufficient power and support to enforce compliance through informal disapproval or formal penalty. It is, therefore, additionally linked to authoritarianism, coercion, and censorship (Hoavov, 2013), which is the antithesis to the principles of DEI. Essentially, political correctness is a moderating of potentially harmful speech, behaviours or polices, toward more socially acceptable expressions that are less likely to cause offence, or result in law infringements (Sinitin, 2021).

Be that as it may, the social engineering of language can be controversial. It has been accused of advocating censorship to protect the rights of marginalised and vulnerable groups, while paradoxically censoring the right to expression of thought and infringing on a basic right of freedom of speech. This has proved to be a major point of contention, since freedom of speech, by most, is considered a fundamental psychological commodity.

Further, political correctness is charged with giving carte blanche to the use of emotionally charged accusations (e.g., racist, sexist, homophobic) toward views that dissent from a supposed superior moralistic perspective (Gordon, 2011). Political correctness ultimately complicates engagement between people who differ; rendering interactions and discourse shallow or uncomfortable (Sinitin, 2021). In this way, the politically correct narrative can be detrimental to the DEI agenda. However, the question is whether a middle ground can be reached, since a right to free speech should not equate to a right to affront, and honest transparent conversations are key to a spirit of understanding and empathy between people.

Curiously, humans naturally push back against forced ideas and rules for two primary reasons. The first being emotional reactance; stemming from an instinct to assert our individual beliefs and a right to make independent choices both potentially jeopardised by political correctness. The second being information contamination; insofar as the emergent politically correct ideology serves to undermine the informational value of formerly held views (Conway et al., 2017; Crawford et al., 2002). Each reason coincides with an innate desire to be right.

Still, pushback against political correctness can be understated and discreet. One result of discrimination becoming socially unacceptable is its transformation into more subtle forms of iniquitous expression that are more socially acceptable, and thus, politically correct (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005). Invariably, there are conditions under which one may refrain from making overtly discriminatory articulations, but political correctness is peculiar in that these acts of personal restraint do not necessarily reflect an assimilation of equitable beliefs, nor an internalisation of egalitarian values. Thus, the risk of a juxtaposition between thought and speech. A further limitation of political correctness is its failure to replace repressive terminology overtime, which suggests it is not permeating into peoples true value set, and so a pushback manifests in more subtle ways (Lichev & Hristoskova, 2017). In an ideal world, the pressure of political correctness would not only abate overt expressions of prejudice, but it would also develop into internalised attitudes and behaviours that echo its ultimate intent. Moreover, if operationalised effectively, political correctness would organically advance DEI initiatives.

As researchers have found, there is a substantial discrepancy between our internal and external displays of prejudice (Greenwald et al., 1998). Within the same individuals, overt prejudicial attitudes have been detected to a lesser extent than covert attitudes exposed through implicit test evaluations. This discrepancy has been found to be due to political correctness (Levin, 2003), such that individuals are less likely to overtly display prejudicial attitudes due to the pressures of complying with politically correctness. Yet, there was some inter-individual variability, since this finding was crucially dependent on how the individual viewed political correctness. When viewed in a negative light, there was a smaller discrepancy between internal and external prejudices as opposed to when political correctness was viewed in an affirmative way. Among those who viewed political correctness as a negative pressure, they were more likely to rebel against such pressures and thus less likely to act in an egalitarian way.

Additionally, it has been found that inter-individual variability in motivations may determine how one feels about political correctness (Plant & Devine, 2001). Individuals who have low internal, but high external motivation to respond without prejudice are more likely to feel angered and threatened by politically correct pressure. For these people, they may be sensitive to other imposed pressures, but as they do not have internal motivation to be unprejudiced, this dichotomous motivation can make them averse to politically correct pressures. This in turn may result in behavioural backlash an outright refusal to be politically correct.

Taken together, these findings show that inter-individual motivations to respond in an unprejudiced manner can form our views on political correctness, which can then impact our external displays of prejudice towards others. It seems that political correctness can be effective in moderating external displays of prejudice, but motivation must be taken into consideration, as backfiring effects can occur when individuals are especially averse to politically correct pressures.

There are certainly benefits to reducing external expressions of prejudice in the workforce, as political correctness would encourage among most individuals. It may lessen overt forms of bullying and workplace harassment. However, without internalisation of nonprejudiced values, it may come with the side effect of promoting more passive aggressive forms of discrimination, such as incivility and microaggressions. Such actions have been described as modern discrimination in organisations (Cortina, 2008), as they manifest as subtle prejudicial actions that can be hard to detect and, thus, hard to address. Although subtle, they can still have substantial detrimental effects on individuals in the workplace (Nadal et al., 2014), and can also make true inclusion difficult to achieve. It is likely no coincidence that such covert forms of discrimination have become a modern-day phenomenon that coincides with a rise in politically correct ideologies. As a result, political correctness may be responsible for the shift from overt to covert workplace discrimination. This represents a lack of real progress for workplace inclusion and may be inhibiting lasting impact arising from DEI initiatives.

Given its contentious and often provocative nature, the challenge then becomes how to progress from political correctness as compliance to a true internalisation of egalitarian values. Without this transference, the effectiveness, and indeed permanence, of politically correct ideologies is untenable, and DEI becomes futile.

One must first seek to change the narrative. Political correctness has been tied to differences in beliefs and in some instances a complete polarisation of views (Gordon, 2011). A refocus on similarities and seeking common ground can often help people appreciate differences. The ultimate intention behind politically correctness is to alter discriminatory perspectives (Sinitin, 2021), but how can one impose change, when not being open to change [by example] themselves. Compromise of attitude is key. Given that forceful mandates to observe politically correct views are often met with resistance (Conway et al., 2017), it would likely be more effective to depart from force and coercion to a more amenable approach of persuasion for a depth of influence. Certainly, persuasion through the proposition of a compelling line of reasoning, is a subtler and less antagonistic method of communicating a supposed moralistic point of view.

Maintaining an awareness of thought, with regard to why you hold the views you do and being self-reflective enough to recognise possible limitations to your own belief system is central to holding a rational conversation about DEI. For that reason, promoting introspection could prove more effective than imposing conformity. Equally, attempting to understand why someone may hold the view that they do is crucial to developing empathy and engaging in reasonable, logical communication. There should be an appreciation for differences that, more often than not, derived from our environmental milieu, inclusive of upbringing, culture, and life exposures. These dictate the experiences, and thus, beliefs, principles, and convictions that we each hold. In order for such a process to be effective, one cannot assume to hold the moral high ground; insofar as maintaining a belief that any divergence from our own perspective is erroneous and redundant. In this way, both parties enter into discourse receptively, with a view to understanding the other and respecting any differences.

Finally, taking the emotion out of it. Open, honest, yet composed discussions are paramount to changing minds and instilling values. Instead of engaging in political diatribe, we should seek to understand differences in views and values engage in perspective-taking, even if those perspectives are diametrically opposed to our own. Only then can we open the minds of others to assume our views. Instead of a combat brewing because of different views held [with accusations and insults in tow], this level of sensible and pragmatic discourse could result in a healthy respect for the alternative view, or even a change of view.

Ultimately, political correctness would likely be more effective in advancing DEI initiatives if reframed as a respect for others, irrespective of their views; endeavouring to eliminate the us against them dogma, with a view to treating everyone with respect, in order to coexist and collaborate. As in all DEI initiatives, its effectiveness is rooted in a genuine willingness to listen and change on both sides of the aisle. This takes a particular level of maturity and rationality, dosed with humility.

Notes:

Originally posted here:

Is political correctness holding back progress on diversity, equity, and inclusion? - USAPP American Politics and Policy (blog)

Nicole Kidman is one of the most sought after television actresses of the moment, delivering chilling performances as the leads in Nine Perfect Strangers, The Undoing, and Big Little Lies over the last several years. Naturally the rumor mill quickly took into effect to tear down a strong and successful woman, churning out stories that the 54-year-old actress recently stormed off the set of her new Amazon show Expats. However, the production studio swiftly shut down these rumors, denying the claims and setting the record straight.

Here's how you can get FREE perfume

Shutterstock via Tinseltown

This past weekend, Hong Kong based publication HK10 raised the allegations that Kidman angrily left the set of the new Amazon Productions show Expats after a disagreement with the director, Lulu Wang. These rumors were quickly ruled unfounded, however, as Amazon shared with Variety that there was no drama to be had.

Nicole wrapped as scheduled, she did not leave early. She always had other projects she was committed to. The production is not stalled or on hiatus, it was always going to continue shooting without her, an Amazon spokesperson revealed to the publication via email.

Shutterstock via taniavolobueva

This was not the first controversy that rose from set, and earlier this week it was revealed that Hong Kong, where Expats is filming, waived their quarantine mandates for Kidman upon her arrival to the country. The reasoning for waiving Kidmans quarantine was justified for the actress 'to carry out designated professional work, according to Hong Kong's Commerce and Economic Development Bureau via HK10. However, this was not well received by the general public although Kidman is vaccinated as stipulated in the agreement.

Kidman will serve as an executive producer on the show, which has also sparked concern over the political correctness of the premise, which was derived from Janice Y. K. Lee novel The Expatriates, and follows the story of privileged white expatriate women living in Hong Kong. Questions have been raised as to whether or not the show is tone deaf considering the current climate of Hong Kong at the moment, with Amazon catching significant flack. However, filming for the show continues, and is set to premiere on Amazon video with a date yet to be announced.

See original here:

So Awkward! Your Jaw Will Drop When You Hear The Rumors About Nicole Kidman On Her Latest TV Set - SheFinds

Kevin Hart, Megyn Kelly, Joe Rogan, Kanye West and other celebrities have all faced cancel culture a merciless, social media backlash targeting their comments and beliefs, which seeks to remove them from society.

But this social firing squad isnt just for the elite. In fact, most cancel culture victims are young, voiceless, financially vulnerable or dont have a major platform on which to defend themselves.

Last year, I became one of those victims.

In the summer of 2020, when defunding the police became a popular refrain and white supremacy was considered the greatest threat to the West, I wrote an essay sharing my experiences with racism growing up as a young Sikh boy in a majority-white area in British Columbia, Canada. However, I also argued that making broad racial generalizations and stripping minorities of human agency and self-determination does not lead to racial progress it does the precise opposite.

Soon after my piece, called The Fallacy of White Privilege, appeared in this newspaper in November 2020, it went viral, leading to an interview with The Hills Saagar Enjeti on his show Rising and later an appearance on The Adam Carolla Show.

I was surprised and happy about reaching such a huge audience until I realized I had violated the current culture of political correctness.

On social media, I lost friends, former classmates, colleagues, sports teammates and social connections. I noticed as my private, relatively tight-knit Instagram following declined from 500 to 350 followers. One of my best friends since seventh grade blocked me on Instagram for views he considered critical of the Black Lives Matter movement. I have not spoken to him since, despite seeing him at a recent social gathering where he ignored me.

This may sound juvenile and trivial, but when social media has increasingly replaced real social interactions during the pandemic, the ostracism took a heavy toll. At 19, I felt like I was born in the wrong generation.

Even so, I felt compelled to keep speaking out, taking a contrarian position on many social issues, leading to more widespread attention.

The handful of young moderates in my social circle who support my work messaged me in private, saying they respected my views but were unable to publicly support or share them on social media.

One friend said, I loved your appearance on The Ben Shapiro Show, man, but dont tell anyone I said that. Ill be crucified.

In August 2020, Paul Henderson, the editor of my local newspaper The Chilliwack Progress (who happens to be white), started taking to social media to accuse me of downplaying racism in our society and spreading misinformation. Worse, in January 2021, he went on to describe my views as alt-right (frequently used to describe white nationalism).

I have also faced backlash at my college, University of Fraser Valley. Last August, concerned with social justice activism pervading academia, I tweeted at Sharanjit Sandhra, aSouth Asian studies/sociologyprofessor at my college, to ask if my perspective would be welcome inher new thinktank for young thinkers to examine racism in our society. Expecting her to welcome my ideas, I was shocked to see her blunt reply, not interested.

Later in 2020, Carin Bondar, another professor at my university (who was recently elected to the local school board) criticized an essay I wrote about Joe Rogan, praising him for his heterodox views. Why? Because, as she tweeted, he is a #whiteman.

Incidents like these have forced me to avoid courses on racial inequality and gender relations at my school, two of my favorite subjects.

My views also affected my job, working remotely as a content creator. In July 2020, when I tweeted a study by black Harvard Economist Roland Fryer, which found no systemic racial bias in police shootings, my boss e-mailed me and told me to remove my affiliation with the company from my Twitter bio because it might make the company look anti-black and pro-police.

He found me correlating policing with saving black lives (his words) to be offensive, but assured me my job wouldnt be compromised and I could continue to work. Though unsettled, I removed my work with the company from my Twitter bio.

A month later, I published my essay on white privilege. Though I expected more remote tasks from my employer, I mysteriously received nothing for weeks, something that had never happened before. Finally, my boss sent me a brief text, telling me to remove my affiliation with his company from my LinkedIn profile as I am no longer an employee.

As a result, I lost out on a $1,000 paycheck that summer, which I received every couple of months a modest but much-needed amount that I was putting towards my college tuition.

You may wonder why I am now sharing these stories a year later.

The answer is simple: I no longer fear the backlash from my contemporaries, media figures or professors.

In many ways, the outrage over my dissent has reached its peak. Any new assault on my character by my local newspaper editor or anyone else will have little influence or impact on my mental state or work.

Perhaps most importantly, I have established my independent voice and can (modestly) financially support myself with my writings for now.

But, one thing is clear: the reputational costs for dissenting from the correct views are high. According to a 2020 Heterodox Academy survey, 62 percent of sampled college students believe the climate on their campus prevents them from sharing their views on social and political issues, mostly because they fear backlash from professors and other students.

Meanwhile, only 8 percent of Generation Z supports cancel culture, according to a recent Morning Consult survey.

While rich, powerful celebrities are comparatively bullet-proof from cancel culture, its no wonder why many ordinary people remain silent or cynically supportive of the social justice cause du jour. The odds are stacked against them from the university system, the media, the labor market and broader culture and compliance is the only financially and socially sustainable option.

Rav Arora is a 20-year-old writer, who specializes in topics of race, music, literature and culture. His writing has also been featured in The Globe and Mail and City Journal. https://twitter.com/Ravarora1

See the rest here:

What it's really like to be canceled and how I overcame it - New York Post

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been presented with a clear dichotomy of policy choices. The government could institute restrictions that sacrifice the economy for the benefit of public health, or take a laissez faire attitude towards the pandemic that does the reverse. This dichotomy has defined the public understanding of pandemic policy and possibly politicized the pandemic more than anything else.

To conservatives in favor of a laissez faire approach, even basic public safety measures became associated with over-cautiousness, economic ruin and political correctness. Those that supported restrictions bought into the same framework: they called conservatives greedy and heartless for caring more about the economy than human lives.

These assumptions still go unchallenged. But after a year and a half of this pandemic, it is becoming clear that reality was not as simple and clear-cut. It turns out that very restrictive approaches to the pandemic might have been the best long-term economic choice, not one that sacrificed the economy.

This may sound strange, but that is because our understanding of what caused the coronavirus recession is flawed. The slowdown in economic activity was not because government officials hit some kind of economic off-switch. It was because millions of people were terrified of getting a life-threatening disease.

These people existed before the shelter-in-place orders. They existed after these orders were rescinded, and in the areas where restrictions were simply never enforced. But they were rarely acknowledged by a media that focused on only the most extreme anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers over everyone else.

However, this was not the case everywhere. Other countries around the world recognized that having a large portion of their population fearful of going out would be a major long-term economic problem, so they attempted the only real solution: getting transmission as low as possible. This goal led countries to institute measures unimaginable by American standards, with nations like Australia and New Zealand shutting down entire cities after only a few infections.

These measures were undeniably effective at stopping the spread. New Zealand has never had over 100 confirmed cases in a single day. Australia never had more than 1000 cases a day until this summer. But more importantly, neither country faced economic devastation as a result of these monumental efforts.

Completely contrary to expectations, they got the best of both worlds, achieving miniscule spread while also seeing a rapid economic recovery. Because of their serious approaches to stopping the spread, both Australia and New Zealand came out of the pandemic with massive economic surges that brought them at and above their pre-COVID GDP levels.

China is another example of this. After instituting some of the worlds most draconian and controversial lockdown rules at the start of the pandemic, they stopped the spread to such an extent that they never even had a recession in the first place, being the only major economy to have a positive GDP in 2020.

By lowering case counts so much, these countries were able to fully reopen their economies early rather than having to wait for vaccines to become widely available. And when they reopened, they reopened: even the most fearful and reluctant felt confident returning to everyday life.

This has never been the case in America, where we have seen tens of thousands of daily cases even at the absolute best moments of containment. Those most vulnerable, or even just fearful, have never had an environment where they felt comfortable returning to everyday life. Even those who feel comfortable going out when cases are low are forced back inside when yet another surge occurs the next month.

As a result, we have reaped an inconsistent, incomplete economic recovery, with growth completely dependent on the state of a rapidly mutating disease. This is already evident in the recently released August jobs report, which showed an unexpected dropoff in job gains from previous following the surge of the Delta variant.

It is hard to miss the irony here. Our laissez faire approach, intended on saving the system from COVID-induced destruction, may have ended up crippling it for years to come by making the disease a permanent issue. It is even harder not to feel frustrated with the choices made at the beginning of the pandemic, when all of these issues could have been nipped in the bud.

Unfortunately, the genie cannot be put back into the bottle. Until America reaches herd immunity through vaccinations, both the economy and the state of public health will be at the mercy of COVID, as it has for the last year and a half. All we can do now is hope that we reach that point sooner rather than later and commit to never again choosing this path during the next crisis.

See the original post:

OPINION: Trying to save 2020's economy ruined 2021's - Red and Black

And the next change was when hedge funds came in. Now you are talking about the people who came in and give you the formula as they were in the movie. If you have these factors, this amount of action, we can earn 17 percent on our investment. Thats what I was told. Ive always heard things like this, so I didnt really care so much. To direct a movie, you need to have an alpha personality in the first place. Your instinct is Give me that chair, give me that whip. I will go there and make those lions behave. Well, sometimes the lion wins. Especially if the lion is not particularly interested in the concept of circus.

Martin ScorseseYour frequent collaborator, has recently been in the news saying that Marvel movies are not movies, but upset many people in the process. Do you have the same opinion?

No, they are cinemas. The YouTube cat video is also a movie. Its a little surprising that teenage comics, which we considered adolescent entertainment, have become an economically dominant genre. Each generation is informed by literature, theater, live television and film schools. Now we have a generation that is informed by video games and manga. It wasnt the filmmakers that changed, but the audience. And when the audience doesnt want a serious movie, its very difficult to make it. When they do, when they ask you, What should I think about womens freedom, gay rights, racial conditions, financial inequality? And the audience asks about these issues. Interested in, and you can make those movies. And we have. Especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s, I write about social issues once or twice a week. And they were financially successful because the audience wanted them. After that, something changed in the culture and the center dropped out. Those films are still made, but they are no longer the center of conversation.

What do you think has changed?

Well, that happened all over. Theres no Walter Cronkite, no Johnny Carson, no Hollywood studio movie. The center of gravity is gone. What happens then is that people retreat to the surrounding area. In other words, there is a world of Comic books, or a world of X or Y, Z, and it is very difficult to reassemble these people. It has been culturally lost. Will never come back.

I know you are now In Facebook prisonBut if not, why is it your favorite platform and how do you choose what to share there?

Well, I started as a film critic. And many of my friends on Facebook are critics, filmmakers, or cultural consumers. Therefore, Facebook is a great way to communicate. You see something interesting, you tell them about it.If I were on Facebook I would have mentioned something Swan rhymeThis is a completely strange movie starring Udo Kier. Its about the aging queen, the best beautician in the town of Sandusky, Ohio, trying to escape from his nursing home and discover his old world. Who knew that Sandusky, Ohio had gone to zero because of the homosexuality of American men? But thats where the filmmaker came from.

Well, thats what I would have posted on Facebook. But I couldnt.Because, of course, the focus [Features] I understand the world of this clickbait we live in. I wont talk about it because Focus asked me not to do that, but lets say the actress said something creepy. What happens is that clicks occur, and clicks and other clicks occur. Its fictitious and I made it up, but when I say Paul Schrader talked about Michelle Obamas big ass, click-click-click-click-click. And their employers are happy. yours The employer is happy because they will get a lot of clicks. Therefore, in that environment, it is not possible to predict who will implement the concept. So Focus said, Everyone is looking for a click, so its better to keep your mouth closed. Its the same in everything, including political correctness. We all know what reality is. We all know the language used in childhood, but it is still used today to define words that can no longer be used, whether sexually or geographically. But if you say I know those words, its almost as bad as using those words.

Source link Paul Schrader knows the perfect Clickbait headline for this interview

Excerpt from:

Paul Schrader knows the perfect Clickbait headline for this interview - Texasnewstoday.com