The riots are racist

By June, we have cities on fire and ideological gangsterism where, in the name of equality, Americans have been forced to kneel and confess, both figuratively and literally.

In 2020, if you go to church, you might get arrested. But if you destroy police cars and participate in civil insurrection, you are featured as the new mod civil rights movement on MSNBC.

Statues of men who risked their lives to end slavery are being torn down as racists in 2020.

Isn’t that the most delicious irony. Ulysses Grant, the man who, like Joshua’s obliteration of the Canaanites, unleashed civilizational warfare on the Confederacy, had his statue torn down in San Francisco. Like Joshua, Grant had his Shiloh where combat losses in two days exceeded every combat loss in all of America’s wars combined up to that date.

None of the blood and treasure America expended to eradicate slavery matters so much these days.

Grant’s Presidency also saw the enactment of the 15th Amendment and a stack of civil rights laws still in force. Never mind all that. The mob is on the march.

This really isn’t about Grant or Columbus, Thomas Jefferson or any of the other targets of the mob. This is about America and what it stands for. Even the mob admits that.

The mob also wants to redefine what racism is. They want you to think you can sin without knowing it. They want you to think America is bad even when you know it is good. Here, the mob goes too far.

So what should civil rights mean in America in 2020?

Civil rights should mean what they always have. All liberties, all civil rights, flow from the unchangeable fact that every individual has dignity, and deserves to be treated with respect by the state, by others, and by the police. This is the premise on which America was founded, even if the mob doesn’t like it. This is the premise that solves the strife.

In the middle of the dark age of Nazi racism, Pope Pius XI issued Mit brennender Sorge, a Papal Encyclical about racism.

Whoever exalts race … whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God.

Confronting South African Apartheid in 1989, Pope John Paul II defined the active choice of racism saying, “harboring racist thoughts and entertaining racist attitudes is a sin.”

Racism is active. It isn’t hidden in dormant corners of your consciousness. Racism doesn’t slumber in the architecture. It is animus, and animus is an active choice.

At the center of all of these problems – the problem of slavery, the problem of Nazism, the problem of racism, is the exaltation of race. Exalting race means elevating race beyond standard value. Defining people by race, whether a suspect stopped by the police or the wife of an NFL quarterback, is wrong.

The mob doesn’t want to hear this. They are demanding racially soaked vengeance dressed up as corporate introspection and listening sessions. They want to exalt race.

The mob is using race and America’s long earnest struggle to rise above race as a justification to tear down and replace institutions that have nothing to do with what happened to George Floyd.

Quietly, in hearts across the nation, people are watching and contesting the charges. They do not hold the sin of racism in their hearts. They think America is good. They know how many hundreds of thousands have died fighting racist institutions. They know how many trillions of their own dollars have been spent to mitigate the vestiges of slavery and Jim Crow.

They see videos of people on the streets on their knees confessing the sin of racism to strangers who demanded they do so. They see black-owned businesses looted, destroyed and burned by the mob. They see great American institutions, people they trust, the policeman down the street, attacked in the media and on patrol. The see flags on fire and George Washington statues destroyed.

There is only so much destruction they will tolerate in silence.

The answer is simple. Appeal to the goodness of America if you want to improve America. Do what generations of Americans have done before, reject the exaltation of race.

Civil rights start with treating people like they have a right to be treated. It means treating everyone with the dignity they deserve, regardless of race. Nothing gets better about 2020 until we start with that premise. The more the mob, and those the mob has turned into cowards, exalt race, the worse it is going to get.

SOURCE 






Do Facebook and Trump have a deal?

Ben Smith

Last Nov. 20, NBC News broke the news that Mark Zuckerberg, Donald Trump and a Facebook board member, Peter Thiel, had dined together at the White House the previous month. “It is unclear why the meeting was not made public or what Trump, Zuckerberg and Thiel discussed,” the report said.

That was it. Nothing else has emerged since. Not the date, not who arranged the menu, the venue, the seating, not the full guest list. And not whether some kind of deal got done between two of the most powerful men in the world. The news cycle moved on, and the dinner became one of the unsolved mysteries of American power.

But I was able to pry some of those details loose last week from White House officials along with current and former senior Facebook employees and people they speak to. Most said they would only talk on the condition their names not be used, since the company is not eager to call attention to Mr. Zuckerberg’s relationship with the president.

Their accounts painted a picture of an unusual gathering — something in between a highstakes state dinner between the leaders of uneasily allied superpowers and the awkward rehearsal dinner before a marriage that has both families a little rattled.

Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, pulled together the dinner on Oct. 22 on short notice after he learned that Mr. Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, and his wife, Priscilla Chan, would be in Washington for a cryptocurrency hearing on Capitol Hill, a person familiar with the planning said. The dinner, the person said, took place in the Blue Room on the first floor of the White House.

The guest list included Mr. Thiel, a Trump supporter, and his husband, Matt Danzeisen; Melania Trump; Mr. Kushner; and Ivanka Trump. The president, a person who has spoken to Mr. Zuckerberg said, did most of the talking.

The atmosphere was convivial, another person who got an account of the dinner said. Mr. Trump likes billionaires and likes people who are useful to him, and Mr. Zuckerberg right now is both.

But looming over the private dinner is a question: Did Mr. Trump and Mr. Zuckerberg reach some kind of accommodation? Mr. Zuckerberg needs, and appears to be getting, a pass both on angry tweets from the president and the serious threats of lawsuits and regulation that face other big tech companies. Mr. Trump needs access to Facebook’s advertising platform and its viral power.

Both men are getting what they want, and it’s fair to wonder whether this is a mere alignment of interests or something more.

“I believe they have a deal,” said Roger McNamee, an early Facebook investor who is now a fierce critic, who added that it was “probably implied rather than explicit.” “Mark’s deal with Trump is highly utilitarian,” he said. “It’s basically about getting free rein and protection from regulation.

Trump needs Facebook’s thumb on the scale to win this election.” Jesse Lehrich, the co-founder of Accountable Tech, a new nonprofit group pushing Facebook to tighten controls on its platform, suggested that the two men have a tacit nonaggression pact.

“Trump can rage at Big Tech and Mark can say he’s disgusted by Trump’s posts, but at the end of the day the status quo serves both of their interests,” Mr. Lehrich said.

Officials at Facebook and in the administration scoff at the notion that there is some kind of secret pact. And it’s hard to imagine that anyone — certainly not Mr. Zuckerberg — would be dumb enough to make a secret deal with a president known for keeping neither secrets nor deals.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Zuckerberg had met just once before the dinner, an Oval Office encounter last September. Afterward, the president boasted about his giant following on the platform. But October was a hot political month at Facebook: Mr. Zuckerberg was in an open battle with a leading Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who was threatening to break up Facebook and whom he called “an existential threat” to the company. The morning of their dinner, a top British official demanded answers on why Facebook would tolerate false political advertising.

Mr. Zuckerberg, a Facebook executive said, seems to view Mr. Trump as a peer. By contrast, he told amused top aides at one of his regular Monday meetings in March that Mr. Kushner was calling him so often about help with the administration’s coronavirus response that he couldn’t keep up, two people familiar with the meeting said. (“Mark does not think of himself as a peer to this president or any president,” a Facebook spokesman, Tucker Bounds, said, adding that Mr. Zuckerberg had initiated the conversation with Mr. Kushner about coronavirus response.) Mr. Zuckerberg has played the high-stakes and unpredictable politics of the Trump years as well as any other corporate executive. And a week before the dinner last October, he made clear in a speech that his interests and the president’s aligned: Mr. Zuckerberg would reject a growing movement to limit the false or inflammatory statements of the American president.

“I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy,” he said in the address at Georgetown University on Oct. 17. “We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying.” Mr. Trump, for his part, has been notably softer on Facebook than on Amazon, Google, Twitter or Netflix at a moment when his regulatory apparatus often focuses on the political enemies he identifies in tweets.

Still Facebook, like other tech giants, finds itself in a political bind: Democrats hate and distrust them because they spread right-wing misinformation and helped elect Donald Trump; Republicans hate and distrust them because they’re run by California liberals and delete some right-wing speech. But Facebook has avoided that trap deftly over the last three and a half years, by moving faster and more earnestly than its competitors to mollify conservatives.

SOURCE 






The 1793 Project Unmasked

Anyone who still doubts that woke progressives can pose a material threat to the pursuit of truth should consider the case of David Shor. A week ago, as protests over the unjust police killing of George Floyd took place in major cities across the country, Shor—a 28-year-old political scientist at the Democratic consulting firm Civic Analytics—tweeted some observations about the successes and failures of various movements. He shared research by Princeton University's Omar Wasow, who has found that violent protests often backfire whereas nonviolent protests are far more likely to succeed. The impulse behind Shor's tweet was a perfectly liberal one: He feels progressive reforms are more palatable to the public when protesters eschew violence.

But many progressive activists on social media didn't care whether the impulse was liberal, or even whether it reflected reality. They denounced Shor as a racist for daring to scrutinize the protesters, even if his aim was to make them more effective. One activist accused Shor of using his "anxiety and 'intellect' as a vehicle for anti-blackness." Then she tagged Civis Analytics, and invited the company to "come get your boy."

Get him, they did. Civic Analytics promptly fired Shor.

Liberal writer Jonathan Chait blames Shor's firing on "the spread of distinct, illiberal norms throughout some progressive institutions over the last half-dozen years." Chait knows what he's talking about: In 2015, he wrote an influential New York article titled "Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say: How the language police are perverting liberalism." Chait defined political correctness as "a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate," and he arged that "the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old."

To understand why the "new p.c." attained that influence, it's necessary to revisit another influential magazine article from the same year: "The Coddling of the American Mind," an Atlantic essay penned by the social scientist Jonathan Haidt and the civil libertarian attorney Greg Lukianoff. Their article was later expanded into a book, in which Haidt and Lukianoff blamed an increase in "safetyism"—an impulse to be sheltered not just from physical harm but emotional turmoil—for some of the new hostility to free speech. Their thinking has deeply informed my own writings about the censorious streak in campus activism: In my decade or so of covering higher education, I've reported hundreds of examples of progressive students citing their personal sense of safety as the reason they were demanding that punitive actions be taken against some other individual or entity that had offended them.

While some critics have dismissed the idea that the antics of safety-obsessed college students matter very much to the broader culture, I've long warned that the small number—proportionally speaking—of young people inclined toward these tactics could do serious damage elsewhere. As I wrote in my book Panic Attack, "It's not impossible to imagine the same kind of thing happening in the workplace: picture a boss who is afraid to reprimand negligent young employees out of concern that they will say their PTSD is triggered."

Recent events at The New York Times are an almost perfect demonstration of how this is playing out. Staffers angry about an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) claimed that its publication threatened their very lives. They specifically chose "running this puts black Times staff in danger" as their mantra because it invokes workplace safety. When the authority figure—the boss, the principal, the government—is responsible for ensuring safety, and safety is broadly defined as not merely protection from literal physical violence but also the fostering of emotional comfort, norms of classical liberalism will suffer. (One activist told me that for him, safety requires other people to affirm him.) The Times conflict ended with opinion page chief James Bennet out of his job.

He's not the only one. UCLA recently suspended a lecturer, Gordon Klein, after he declined a demand that he make a final exam "no-harm"—that is, it could only boost grades—for students of color traumatized by the events in Minneapolis. Klein refused, in accordance with guidance from UCLA's administration not to give students much leeway on exams. In response, the activists launched a change.org petition to get Klein fired, and the school suspended him. His irritated reply to the activists—that he would not give preferential exam treatment to students because of their skin color—has prompted UCLA to investigate him for racial discrimination.

University of Chicago economist Harald Uhlig, who had the temerity to criticize some of the more radical demands the protesters have made, is now being pressured to resign as editor of the school's Journal of Political Economy. In this case, it's not random students doing the pressuring, but some of the biggest names in economics: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers, and even former Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, who told the Times that "it would be appropriate for the University of Chicago, which is the publisher of the Journal of Political Economy, to review Uhlig's performance and suitability to continue as editor."

The Times article is a master class in guilt-by-insinuation. The authors could not find a single fact to support the notion that Uhlig is a racist or that he has used his position to thwart black scholars. But he holds some views that would be in conflict with the more progressive Black Lives Matter protesters—he doesn't approve of rioting, and he criticized NFL players for kneeling—and that apparently is suspicious enough.

Chait's piece on Shor includes another, equally powerful example: Intercept journalist Lee Fang, a man of the left by any measure, was denounced as a racist and publicly shamed by a colleague for daring to interview a black protester who criticized violent tactics. The colleague

called him racist in a pair of tweets, the first of which alone received more than 30,000 likes and 5,000 retweets.

A journalist friend of Fang's told me he felt his career was in jeopardy, having been tried and convicted in a court of his peers. He was losing sleep for days and unsure how to respond. "All of us were trying to protect his job and clear his name and also not bow to a mob informed by an attitude that views that you disagree with are tantamount to workplace harassment."

The outcome of this confrontation was swift and one-sided: Two days later, Fang was forced to post a lengthy apology.

Fang was plainly terrified, and not unreasonably fearful of losing his job and being branded a racist forever. The Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein called Fang's forced apology "Maoist-style." It's a hyperbolic analogy, referencing the infamous "struggle sessions" of Mao Zedong's totalitarian communism regime. Thankfully, the dissenters from woke orthodoxy are not being tortured or executed for wrongthink. But they do face tremendous pressure to avoid saying anything that might provoke an online mob, or an illiberal colleague, or an activist with different priorities—even if that thing they want to say is plainly true.

This new reality has important social consequences: for the individuals caught in the crosshairs, but also the institutions attempting to navigate these very treacherous waters.

Given that so many cancellations hinge on the accusation that safety is being undermined, I would suggest a different metaphor than Mao.

Mine is no less hyperbolic, but it puts the focus where my reporting—and Haidt and Lukianoff's research—suggest it should be.

In 1793, the Committee of Public Safety took charge of the French Revolution on a promise to "make terror the order of the day." Evidence-free show trials and ideological purges followed, consistent with the radical leaders' belief that public safety requires public terror.

Needless to say, critics of today's radicals do not live in terror of being sentenced to the guillotine. But losing employment and social standing is no small matter. Having a job is usually connected to having health care and economic security: the ability to afford food, housing, and medicine. While some people weather and overcome their cancellation—even profiting from it—others aren't so lucky. We hear a lot about the cases where things worked out eventually (this Olivia Nuzzi piece is a must-read), but many cases never produce a sympathetic backlash that aids the cancelled. And being shamed online by thousands of people over a trivial offense is an unpleasant and exhausting experience, even if it doesn't permanently impact your employment.

This is not to say that every person being cancelled at the moment is a martyr for the cause of free speech. Los Angeles magazine has a list of the recently cancelled. Several were accused of fostering unpleasant work environments. Were they guilty? Maybe so. Recentlty ousted Bon Apetit editor-in-chief Adam Rappaport, for instance, seems like an unpleasant person to work for. Food writer Alison Roman, on the other hand, was dragged on social media for 1) daring to criticize Chrissy Teigen, and 2) wearing an offensive Halloween costume more than a dozen years ago. The photo of Roman was circulated on Twitter by the journalist Yashar Ali, a friend of Teigen with a history of fiercely defending her. Ali claimed the costume was intended as a "chola" stereotype of Mexican-Americans; Roman countered that she was dressed up as Amy Winehouse. Ali deleted his tweet but said he thought it was fair game because Roman had a history of "being called out for appropriation." (Twitter users immediately dug up a photo of Teigen in a culturally appropriative Halloween costume.)

Ironically, the same subset of people ostensibly exercised about emotional safety - the woke left - seem frequently inclined to level unsubstantiated accusations that inflict emotional harm. This makes it difficult to believe that these Twitter warriors' true aim is the promotion of psychological comfort. Did any of them consider Uhlig's mental health after the man was baselessly accused? Does anyone care about Roman, who probably did not expect her enemies to ransack her Myspace page for evidence of racism and then pillory her for a photo taken when she was 23? What about Shor, thrown to the wolves for making a reasonable objection to what one wing of the protesters was doing?

That sounds like terror, not safety. Call it the 1793 Project.

SOURCE 





Australia: "Mr Incorrectness" strikes again

Polarising media personality Sam Newman has sparked further outrage after  describing COVID-19 as the 'Chinese virus' as he called for the official AFL season to be cancelled.

His comments came 48 hours after the former Footy Show host parted ways with Channel Nine, ending a 35-year partnership.

No stranger to controversy, Newman suddenly left the network on Friday following an extraordinary tirade about George Floyd during an online podcast.

The AFL season was thrown into chaos on Saturday after Essendon Bombers player Conor McKenna tested positive to coronavirus.

Newman weighed into the debate about the season after Essendon's round three clash against Melbourne was postponed, with Bombers players ordered to self-isolate until they can be tested again this week.

'Let’s face it. The AFL 2020 comp is a farce. How can a table ladder be set, when games and players are postponed. Cancel the official season and just play on to entertain the TV audience,' the Geelong Cats great posted on Twitter on Sunday, adding the hashtag 'Chinese virus'.

It was the second time within 24 hours he had referred to coronavirus as the 'Chinese virus'.

'Due to the Chinese corona virus, Essendon and Melbourne won’t be on TV this weekend. I know how they feel. Boo boo. #ChineseVirus,' he posted on Saturday.

His latest tweet divided the internet and sparked disagreement among his followers.  'You’ve deadset lost it mate. Take a spell!,' one man commented.  Another added: 'Wrong wrong wrong... Get a life.'

'I like you Sam for calling it for what it is! ChineseVirus,' one said.

'You should take over the AFL Sam and in addition start the Sam Newman Footy Show and let loose. I miss your antics and your full frontals, let em rip again Sam,' another wrote.

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. 
`
************************************