Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

GLEICHSCHALTUNG: 

 

Georgetown senate publicly condemns student for rejecting Black Lives Matter movement. 

 

If you are not shouting the approved slogans of the moment, you are an enemy of the people!

 

 

 

 

Remember, higher education — especially at elite institutions like Georgetown — was supposed to foster critical thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama Five Guys Workers Refuse To Serve Cops. Now They Don’t Have To Serve Anyone

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/07/13/alabama-five-guys-workers-refuse-serve-cops-now-dont-serve-anyone/

 

FiveGuys.jpg

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

GLEICHSCHALTUNG: 

 

Georgetown senate publicly condemns student for rejecting Black Lives Matter movement. 

 

If you are not shouting the approved slogans of the moment, you are an enemy of the people!

 

 

 

 

Remember, higher education — especially at elite institutions like Georgetown — was supposed to foster critical thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama Five Guys Workers Refuse To Serve Cops. Now They Don’t Have To Serve Anyone

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/07/13/alabama-five-guys-workers-refuse-serve-cops-now-dont-serve-anyone/

 

FiveGuys.jpg

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

What I really found amazing in that picture was all the snow in Alabama in July. I'm going to have to repost this in the Climate Page thread or at least make it a gotcha moment for @Kay Adams.

Posted
2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Why is it "revere racism" and not just plain old racism?

Because there was a warning.  Some guy rode a horse through the studios yelling "The racists are coming......".

Posted

 

 

EVERYONE’S TRANSGENDER-AWARENESS WORKSHOP ATTENDANCE IS UP TO DATE, THOUGH: A friend on Facebook writes:

From the Seventh Fleet accidents — which cost sailors’ lives — to the USS Theodore Roosevelt leadership fracas, to the slow-rolling LCS debacle, to the pierside loss of the USS Bonhomme Richard, it could not be more obvious that the United States Navy requires a top to bottom reorganization and reassessment. Yet who will make it so? In an organizational culture where it’s nearly impossible to suffer consequences past O-6, where is the imperative to change? How do you impose reform in the service of warfighting when the top-level strategic orientation is toward money and acquisition?

 

Someone needs to start cleaning out admirals before their due dates — and imposing an absolute prohibition on their post-service migration to industry, consulting, and lobbying. That would be a good start.

 

Our most important service now has got to refocus on the only thing that really matters: war at sea.

 

 

Yes. President Trump needs to do this, but he’s already faced near-revolt from the admirals. The real problem is that the people running the Navy are themselves members of our execrable ruling class, which always and everywhere rewards posturing for one’s peers over doing one’s job.

by Glenn Reynolds
Posted

 

 

“Low-Hanging Fruit” Deleted From Newspeak Dictionary

Cancel culture has reached a fever pinch reminiscent of the Reign of Terror. This is no time to fall behind in updating your Newspeak Dictionary. Be advised that the common expression “low-hanging fruit” is now forbidden:

The official definition of the term low-hanging fruit is “a thing or person that can be won, obtained, or persuaded with little effort,” according to the Oxford dictionary.

 

But according to one business professor, it’s a racial microaggression.

 

“For African-Americans, if you say ‘low-hanging fruit,’ we think lynching,” said Mae Hicks-Jones, an adjunct faculty member of Elgin Community College.

That is supposedly because of the 1950s Billy Holliday song “Strange Fruit,” the lyrics to which do not include the term “low-hanging.” The actual reason is that no matter what you say to black supremacists, they think of how oppressed their ancestors were generations ago, and how they can exploit that oppression to bully white people.

 

Mae Hicks Jones is of course a Woman of Color, and thereby empowered to tell us which expressions we are allowed to use.

Hicks Jones has other demands:

Also objectionable to Hicks-Jones was the phrase “grandfathered in,” because she said it is reminiscent of a grandfather clause, which privileged white people’s right to vote over that of black people during the Jim Crow South.

Assuming we have any character left at all, eventually we will get tired of the incessant bullying that is political correctness.

 

 

https://moonbattery.com/low-hanging-fruit-deleted-from-newspeak-dictionary/

Posted
24 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

“Low-Hanging Fruit” Deleted From Newspeak Dictionary

Cancel culture has reached a fever pinch reminiscent of the Reign of Terror. This is no time to fall behind in updating your Newspeak Dictionary. Be advised that the common expression “low-hanging fruit” is now forbidden:

The official definition of the term low-hanging fruit is “a thing or person that can be won, obtained, or persuaded with little effort,” according to the Oxford dictionary.

 

But according to one business professor, it’s a racial microaggression.

 

“For African-Americans, if you say ‘low-hanging fruit,’ we think lynching,” said Mae Hicks-Jones, an adjunct faculty member of Elgin Community College.

That is supposedly because of the 1950s Billy Holliday song “Strange Fruit,” the lyrics to which do not include the term “low-hanging.” The actual reason is that no matter what you say to black supremacists, they think of how oppressed their ancestors were generations ago, and how they can exploit that oppression to bully white people.

 

Mae Hicks Jones is of course a Woman of Color, and thereby empowered to tell us which expressions we are allowed to use.

Hicks Jones has other demands:

Also objectionable to Hicks-Jones was the phrase “grandfathered in,” because she said it is reminiscent of a grandfather clause, which privileged white people’s right to vote over that of black people during the Jim Crow South.

Assuming we have any character left at all, eventually we will get tired of the incessant bullying that is political correctness.

 

 

https://moonbattery.com/low-hanging-fruit-deleted-from-newspeak-dictionary/


I was sure low hanging fruit was going to be a reference to the big black balls of African American men.

 

 What a disappointing article.

Posted (edited)

I stopped reading the NYT a long time ago. I suspect that it has long ago completed its transition to a one-sided outlet for news and opinions. 

 

This is a resignation letter from Bari Weiss, who was their OpEd “centrist”. It is worth a read.  Maybe she’s got sour grapes, but what she describes sounds a lot like a description of my suspicions.  If true, I’m glad I stopped reading the NYT and I wish they’d open themselves back up to competing points of view.

 

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

 

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

...

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

...

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

 

 

Edited by snafu
  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, snafu said:

I stopped reading the NYT a long time ago. I suspect that it has long ago completed its transition to a one-sided outlet for news and opinions. 

 

This is a resignation letter from Bari Weiss, who was their OpEd “centrist”. It is worth a read.  Maybe she’s got sour grapes, but what she describes sounds a lot like a description of my suspicions.  If true, I’m glad I stopped reading the NYT and I wish they’d open themselves back up to competing points of view.

 

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

 

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

...

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

...

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

 

 

 

"Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery."

 

This "centrist" strikes me more as being a rational, moderate liberal realizing that there is nothing liberal about modern American leftism. The Times' problem isn't nearly as recent as the author implies - in my opinion they long ago gave up any pretense of objectivity. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
8 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

"Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery."

 

This "centrist" strikes me more as being a rational, moderate liberal realizing that there is nothing liberal about modern American leftism. The Times' problem isn't nearly as recent as the author implies - in my opinion they long ago gave up any pretense of objectivity. 

 

I’ve said it before, the “center” pole got abruptly picked up and moved several paces to the left about a decade ago. This had an instant effect of re-labeling everyone.  The media has been the mouthpiece for this shift, first focusing on social issues and now more obviously combining that with political stances. I don’t think it was a thought out plan.  I think it is a progression that the media obviously believes sells clicks and newspapers. They keep doing it because people “vote” for money-making things with their pocketbook.  And the more they do it, the more normalized this re-labeling becomes.  And here we are today, with “centrists” being called “Nazis”.

 

I think a lot of what the Times has done to try to stay relevant online is to make splashy headlines that try to tell the entire message of an article. The story in the body of the article is usually a different thing, and doesn’t support the headline.  They need to do this because of their online model has to compete with “free” online press. Grab them with a headline and then block the story behind a subscription request.  They know that the result is that most people only read the headline.  The headline is usually some inflammatory claim against the administration that they don’t need to back up in their articles, because their readership has become the “choir”. The Times, especially, gets away with it because they still ride their reputation.  I think they’re throwing their reputation away — whether on purpose or by accident, I don’t know (they started awhile ago, but it has accelerated much more recently).  The Times is in serious danger of dying completely once Trump goes away, IMO.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

I’ve said it before, the “center” pole got abruptly picked up and moved several paces to the left about a decade ago. This had an instant effect of re-labeling everyone.  The media has been the mouthpiece for this shift, first focusing on social issues and now more obviously combining that with political stances. I don’t think it was a thought out plan.  I think it is a progression that the media obviously believes sells clicks and newspapers. They keep doing it because people “vote” for money-making things with their pocketbook.  And the more they do it, the more normalized this re-labeling becomes.  And here we are today, with “centrists” being called “Nazis”.

 

I think a lot of what the Times has done to try to stay relevant online is to make splashy headlines that try to tell the entire message of an article. The story in the body of the article is usually a different thing, and doesn’t support the headline.  They need to do this because of their online model has to compete with “free” online press. Grab them with a headline and then block the story behind a subscription request.  They know that the result is that most people only read the headline.  The headline is usually some inflammatory claim against the administration that they don’t need to back up in their articles, because their readership has become the “choir”. The Times, especially, gets away with it because they still ride their reputation.  I think they’re throwing their reputation away — whether on purpose or by accident, I don’t know (they started awhile ago, but it has accelerated much more recently).  The Times is in serious danger of dying completely once Trump goes away, IMO.

 

 

Many of the Lefty news sources follow this practice. Even our very own little disingenuous weasel @Tiberius incorporates this into many of his posts. 

  • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...