Why 'Joker' Is Being Called A 'Toxic Rallying Cry For Incels'

People seem to be universally condemning this film.  They also recognize however that there is a reality behind it.  There ARE incels (males unable to form heterosexual relationships) and they are often very angry.  It seems a pity the film has not become a stimulus for thinking about the incel phenomenon.

And it is not hard to see why the incel phenomenon has arisen so strongly in recent times.  There have always been socially incompetent males who become relationship failures just by reason of how they are made, but now that males and maleness are regularly denigrated by the dominant feminist culture, many more males than before have been cast adrift. 

Strong, confident males will always do well.  They can scoff at at feminist idiocies and form healthy bonds with women.  But less assertive men will not be able to defy the abnormal expectations built up by feminist doctrine and will be forced into relationship failure.  Only a small minority of incels go on a killing spree but feminism bears much of the blame when they do.  The contempt that feminists have for normal maleness engenders contempt for the feminist values dominating society at large and a shooting spree is one way of expressing that.

Once upon a time incels suffered in silence, resigned to being life-long "bachelors" but the damage done by feminism has not only increased the number of incels but generated among them feelings of being unjustly treated -- and that is a time bomb waiting to go off


The Joker has been interpreted multiple times over the last 50+ years. First with Cesar Romero’s goofy portrayal in the initial Batman and Robin film, then Jack Nicholson’s more charmingly witty take in the 1989 Tim Burton film, and of course, the infamously cunning and maniacal depiction courtesy of the late Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight.

Todd Phillips is the first director to take the character and devote an entire film to his origin story in Joker and if the early reviews are to be believed, comic book films ‘will never be the same again’.

The film, having premiered at the Venice Film Festival over the weekend, has already inspired millions (probably billions) of words to be written about it. Starring Joaquin Phoenix in the titular role, the film tells the story of Arthur Fleck, a clown for hire and aspiring stand-up comedian who still lives with his ailing mother and resents the fact that the world won’t pay him as much attention as he believes he deserves. Sound familiar?

The critics are divided on the topic of Phoenix’s performance, with some lauding him for a ‘career best’ turn and others claiming that he actually acts too hard in order to be able to take the film as seriously as it wants to be taken.

But while they disagree about the quality of his performance, what they are almost unanimous in is their assertion that the film is confused in figuring out whether it’s satire or propaganda of white men who, feeling rejected by the world, turn to violence and hatred as the answer to those problems. According to the early reviews, the film walks a thin line that could be potentially harmful if received in the wrong way. It doesn’t seem to handle the themes with the necessary caution it needs in order to avoid glorifying incels and their sometimes violent behaviour.

David Ehrlich of IndieWire called the film “a toxic rallying cry for self-pitying incels,” and believes that it “lacks the discipline or nuance to responsibly handle such hazardous material” in a world of Reddit trolls and maniacal Marvel fans.

Likewise, Jessica Kiang for Playlist wrote that it’s “a film so disturbing it feels almost dangerous: whatever about its hard-R rating, they should maybe think about background checks and a mandatory three-day waiting period at theatres.”

Continuing, she writes, “Joker, based on recognisable IP, and now given the seal of critical and possible awards-consideration approval too, is so aesthetically impressive, effective, and persuasive of its own reality that you see clearly how easily it could be (mis)interpreted and co-opted by the very 4Chan/Incel/”mentally ill loner” element it purports to darkly satirise.”

Vanity Fair’s Richard Lawson opened his own review by noting society’s current obsession with dissecting and finding causation for the motivations of “disaffected white men who’ve turned violent”.

“Whether that violence is born of mental illness, isolation, the culminated rage of masculine identity, or all those bound together in some hideous knot, we seem certain that there is some salvable cause,” he writes, going on to explain that he himself couldn’t stop thinking about this obsession while watching Joker because of the parallels between those ‘disaffected white men’ and Arthur.

Likewise, in a damning review for TIME, Stephanie Zacharek writes that the film is a ‘prime example’ of the ‘emptiness of our culture’. “In America, there’s a mass shooting or attempted act of violence by a guy like Arthur practically every other week. And yet we’re supposed to feel some sympathy for Arthur, the troubled lamb; he just hasn’t had enough love,” she said. “He could easily be adopted as the patron saint of incels.”

With Oscar buzz already thrumming for Phoenix, this will no doubt only be the beginning of the discussion around the film and what it says about incels, masculinity, mental health and violence.

SOURCE 






Chicago Mayor Enraged at Ted Cruz for Telling the Truth About Gun Violence in Her City

It's totally understandable that Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is touchy about gun violence in her city. The city is a shooting gallery with citizens little more than clay pigeons.

Last weekend was a typical holiday weekend in Chicago: 7 dead, 41 shot. Lightfoot's answer to the violence? More gun control, of course.

Senator Ted Cruz tweeted a response to that idea:

Gun control doesn’t work. Look at Chicago. Disarming law-abiding citizens isn’t the answer. Stopping violent criminals—prosecuting & getting them off the street—BEFORE they commit more violent crimes is the most effective way to reduce murder rates. Let’s protect our citizens.

The comment struck a nerve with Lightfoot -- not just because Cruz is right, but because of who he is: a pro-gun, Republican conservative. Lightfoot lost it.

60% of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago come from outside IL—mostly from states dominated by coward Republicans like you who refuse to enact commonsense gun legislation. Keep our name out of your mouth

"Keep our name out of your mouth"? Cruz didn't tweet anything revolutionary. All he did was point out the obvious: gun laws don't affect the ease with which criminals can get their hands on a weapon. All the gun control measures in the world -- any and all laws ever proposed by any anti-gun hysteric -- will not lower Chicago's murder rate. Putting violent offenders behind bars will.

Lightfoot's incoherent rant contradicted the words of her own police chief:

Washington Times:

“We know who a lot of these people are. And how do we know that? Because we keep arresting them over and over and over and over and over again,” Mr. Johnson  said after a weekend in which 52 people were shot. “It’s just a vicious cycle. So until we hold violent offenders accountable in the way that they should be, we’re going to continue to see this.”

It's quite unseemly for a politician to act like a two-year-old and throw a tantrum like this. Besides, what in the wide, wide, world of sports does where the guns come from have to do with anything? Lightfoot is desperate to deflect blame from city politicians, whose only response to the escalating violence is more gun control. They, like their national counterparts in the gun control lobby, are totally bereft of new ideas. They are a broken record, repeating the same mantra over and over.

Meanwhile, the body counts grow.

SOURCE 






Australia: How one in three child sex offenders don't spend a DAY behind bars - as the Government prepares tough new laws to jail paedophiles for LIFE

For two years, Leftist quibbles have delayed the legislation.  The Left has a long history of being sympathetic to criminals

Child sex offenders could face life behind bars under laws to be re-introduced to federal parliament next week, as it's revealed one in three don't spend a day in jail. 

The draft bill means paedophiles face mandatory minimum sentences, while repeat offenders would find it much harder to get bail.

Attorney-General Christian Porter said sentencing of paedophiles needed an urgent overhaul.

'It simply beggars belief that 28 per cent of all offenders sentenced last year (for federal crimes) were not required to spend a single day behind bars,' he said.  'And when jail terms were handed out, the average length of time that offenders spent in custody was just 18 months.'

Of nearly 300 paedophiles convicted for Commonwealth offences last year, almost 100 walked free.

'These changes will ensure that a jail term becomes the starting point for all child sex offenders, including a new life term for the worst offenders,' Mr Porter added.

Sonya Ryan, the mother of murdered schoolgirl Holly Ryan, is calling for an even tougher crackdown.

'We remain concerned the mandatory minimums in this bill won't result in the harshest of penalties, especially when a guilty plea is entered which reduces the minimum,' she said.

Under current laws, offenders face between seven and 24 years behind bars for using the internet to groom a child or teenager, having sex with a child outside Australia and transmitting child exploitation material online.

Communicating indecently with a child online, importing child exploitation material into Australia and operating a child exploitation website also carries the same sentence guideline.   

Home Minister Peter Dutton said the number of exploitation reports, involving Australian children or sex offenders has almost doubled to 18,000 last year compared to the year before. 

'The message we are sending to paedophiles is that it won't matter how good their lawyer is, a prison cell will be waiting for them when they are convicted,' Mr Dutton told The Daily Telegraph.

Mr Dutton said once the legislation is passed, judges will be able to impose cumulative sentences for multiple offences.

The new laws would also stop juries and judges from taking someone's good character into account. 

The coalition tried to pass similar legislation in 2017, but it was knocked back after Labor baulked at the inflexible nature of the mandatory sanctions included in the bill. 

Labor argued juries would be less likely to convict if they knew judges had no discretion on sentencing.

But Mr Dutton was perplexed by Labor's stance, saying the Opposition has supported mandatory sentencing in other areas of the law in the past.  

'The message we are sending to paedophiles is that it won't matter how good their lawyer is, a prison cell will be waiting for them when they are convicted,' he said.

'We need to be realistic about the threat and we need to lock up those people that are doing the wrong thing.'

The legislation will be introduced to parliament next Wednesday.

SOURCE  






Boston Judge refuses to dismiss charges against protesters at Straight Pride Parade

Again and again, as [Leftist] protesters arrested at the Straight Pride Parade in Boston came before a judge Tuesday, a Suffolk County prosecutor asked for leniency — for dismissal of the charges or release without bail.

And again and again, Boston Municipal Court Judge Richard J. Sinnott said no.

The courtroom scene represented a striking role reversal, with a prosecutor assuming the unusual stance of pushing for dismissals while the judge took it upon himself to keep the charges intact. After three dozen protesters were arrested at the weekend rally, which ended with a clash with officers in downtown Boston, it was the latest flashpoint between courts and reform-minded Suffolk District Attorney Rachael Rollins, who has come under previous criticism for declining to prosecute certain low-level cases.

Tuesday night, Rollins defended her office and said, “The judge punished the exercise of individuals’ First Amendment right to protest.’’

Rollins said that some of the people were appropriately handled by the judge and “will be held accountable for actions that put the safety of the public and law enforcement at risk.’’

“For those people now tangled in the criminal justice system for exercising their right to free speech — many of whom had no prior criminal record — I will use the legal process to remedy the judge’s overstepping of his role,” she said in a statement.

As members of the police union looked on, Sinnott agreed to drop charges against just two of the 16 protesters who came before him Tuesday: a 63-year-old Vermont woman charged with disorderly conduct and a 21-year-old man from Worcester accused of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Prosecutors asked for dismissal of nonviolent charges against seven more people, most in exchange for eight hours of community service. Sinnott denied the requests. Prosecutors did not ask Sinnott to drop any charges of assault or of violence against police.

Five more people were held on bails ranging from $100 to $750. One man, 31-year-old Joshua Abrams of Stoneham, was held without bail because he faces charges in another county. He was accused of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Sinnott released the other nine without bail and scheduled court dates for November.

In one sharp exchange, prosecutor Jessica Erickson asked Sinnott to dismiss disorderly conduct and resisting arrest charges against a 26-year-old Lowell man accused of forming a human chain with other protesters.

His behavior was “not appropriate,” she said, but prosecuting him would not make the community any safer.

“Not appropriate? It sounds like he picked up the wrong fork at dinner,” Sinnott replied tartly. The charges would stand.

“I think the general flavor of the room is that not even the district attorney’s office is deeply invested in these cases,” said Christopher Basso, a defense attorney who volunteered his time to represent some of the protesters.

Lawrence A. Calderone, vice president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, said he was pleased to hear Sinnott imposing bails and declining to dismiss charges as prosecutors wished.

“We think that these offenders that are here, most of them outside of the city of Boston, not residents of Boston, came here as agitators. Here for a specific reason, here to create havoc, not only for the Police Department but for the general citizenry that are around, for the visitors that are in downtown Boston trying to enjoy the last weekend of the summer,’’ Calderone said.

He noted that previous district attorneys have also sought to dismiss disorderly conduct charges. “This DA’s office is doing the same thing, but the judge on the bench has taken a different position.”

Also Tuesday, three other people — Timothy Rego, Benjamin Boyd, and Kenneth Kraft Jr. — appeared before Judge Thomas R. Horgan, all on charges of assault and battery on a police officer. Horgan did not dismiss the charges.

He allowed their release but ordered them not to come into downtown Boston except for work.

The officer who patted Kraft down, Captain John Danilecki, was “operating with the knowledge that these groups advocate violence and armed ‘militant resistance,’ ” an officer wrote in an arrest affidavit.

As protesters made their first appearances, questions arose about police conduct as videos from the march circulated online showing officers used pepper spray on protesters.

Boston police officials said they plan to review officers’ conduct, as they routinely do whenever officers use force.

The department’s policy on the use of an incapacitating agent like pepper spray requires that officers “generally confine” its use to defend themselves or another person, or when an officer is met with active resistance.

Mayor Martin J. Walsh, in a statement on Sunday, said he takes “any accusation of police misconduct seriously.”

“I also want to be clear that sowing division between people is exactly the goal of Straight Pride organizers, and I will not stand for it,” Walsh said. “Just as the people of Boston work to make our values of love, inclusion, and acceptance known to all, our public safety officials work tirelessly to keep people safe from harm every single day of the year, and that will never change.”

The 1-mile parade drew about 200 marchers Saturday, who were heckled by some 600 protesters from Copley Square to City Hall Plaza.

The parade, which included a Trump 2020 float, was organized by a group called Super Happy Fun America. Parade organizer Mark Sahady is part of Resist Marxism, a group founded by an alt-right leader that has a history of violence. That group had helped organize a “free speech” rally in Boston in 2017 that critics said attracted white nationalists.

After the parade ended, some protesters turned their anger toward police, accusing them of protecting the marchers.

Police on motorcycles drove up Congress Street to disperse the crowd, but protesters moved into the road to block their path. Officers moved into the crowd and grappled with protesters, in some cases using pepper spray. At least eight people could be seen being led away by police, including a woman who was limping.

Four police officers were injured.

SOURCE 

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************