I think the very idea of ‘microaggressions’ is a Communists attack on Western Civilization in general and myself personally. My evidence is my ‘lived experience.’ You’re a racist, bigoted, heterophobe if you disagree.
Further strengthening the authors’ argument about the unscientific nature of microaggression research is the way its proponents have responded to the few scholars who have dared to question their methods and conclusions.
For example, when Sue’s research was finally critically analyzed for its weak-to-nonexistent evidence, he responded that what constitutes evidence “is bathed in the values of the dominant society.” But that is no answer at all, as he is saying that the well-established norms of science and academic discourse should not apply to his pet ideas. No one should be allowed to proclaim scientific findings and then declare that normal scientific skepticism toward them is inappropriate.
Or consider the way Monnica Williams replied to criticism of her microaggression research by the late Scott Lilienfeld, professor of psychology at Emory University. She maintained that his insistence on proof was trumped by her “lived experience,” and even said that it was a microaggression for white professors to demand that microaggression proponents prove their case.
Because of such unscientific responses to criticism, Cantu and Jussim write that microaggression research exemplifies “aggressive fragility.”
You may have seen the phrase “decolonize your bookshelf” floating around. In essence, it is about actively resisting and casting aside the colonialist ideas of narrative, storytelling, and literature that have pervaded the American psyche for so long.
If you are white, take a moment to examine your bookshelf. What do you see? What books and authors have you allowed to influence your worldview, and how you process the issues of racism and prejudice toward the disenfranchised?
This racist drivel is from taxpayer-supported NPR.org. Several thoughts occur to me:
Note how only whites have to examine our bookshelves? I have to assume that’s because blacks don’t have bookshelves seeing as how they are functionally illiterate.
How DO I process ‘racism’? I don’t. It’s not an issue unless YOU are a racist and are constantly bringing it up. Hint: identity politics is nothing BUT racism.
Disenfranchised? Again, a straw-man argument. If YOU are ‘disenfranchised’ you have done it to yourself. Your choices do that. Ditto for ‘marginalized’.
I refuse to examine my bookshelves, except to add to them using books most likely written by dead white males.
Any public person, group, company or church that identifies as Christian will be forced to take a stand on the question of whether or not they celebrate the LGBTQ lifestyle regardless of whether they want to or not, even if they barely care about the issue. That’s the plan. Because the Bible presents a clear position that is counter to the prevailing culture, it is an easy avenue of attack. The hate on this issue is one-sided. Christian theology teaches to love the sinner while hating the sin. Anti-Christian leftists practice hating the Christian while celebrating the sin. Christian unwillingness to celebrate the sin is the offense that cannot be overlooked.
The detached terms that the new censorship is hiding behind, like ‘fighting disinformation’, are Orwellian euphemisms. Speech isn’t a bodiless abstraction. Disinformation implies an objective source of information. Nobody fights disinformation, they silence some people and empower others. They create authorities over speech and use that authority to perpetuate their own power structures.
So using the same phrase that appears all through Title 8 of federal law to identify an illegal alien in New York City can now land you in hot water. And if you inform the illegal alien that you are going to report their unlawful presence in the country to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), not only will the police not assist the feds in taking the illegal into custody, but they may be dispatched to take you in if the person files a complaint.
I would just blast Genesis from my sound system! (better download this before it’s banned…)
It’s a strange irony that, in the age of the Internet, which was supposed to encourage more transparency and debate, the open exchange of ideas is under threat. This was pointed out by another famous science fiction writer, Michael Crichton. “In the information society,” says Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, “No one thinks. We expected to banish paper, but we actually banished thought.”
I can see that I will not be renewing my blog with WordPress. I do not support such deplatforming bullies. Notice that WordPress doesn’t actually mention what ‘terms of service’ justified the silencing of a perfectly decent blog. This is a violation of the 1st Amendment. But Islam and moslems don’t respect the Constitution. Neither does WordPress.
: a person living in a region overrun by Muslim conquest who was accorded a protected status and allowed to retain his or her original faith
Allowed to ‘retain’ but not allowed to practice his original faith. Or, as WordPress demonstrates, not allowed to engage in his original freedoms.
appeasement towards Islamic demands
The WordPress ‘terms of service’ appear to include protecting the murderous followers of the pedophile prophet from criticism. WordPress demonstrates exactly the ‘creeping sharia’ documented by the blog they silenced. Well done, WordPress.
Do you see what happens when we permit the rhetoric of “civil rights” to be hijacked by lunatics and perverts? Graham Linehan never sought to interfere with Halliday’s fetish of wearing women’s clothing and pretending to be a woman named “Stephanie.” Rather, it is the bullying behavior of “transgender activism” which brought Halliday/“Hayden” to public attention and prompted Linehan’s criticism.
If your state or local authorities attempt to impose transgender “equality” by law, your free-speech rights could soon be similarly infringed.
So my Islam/Muslim Pinterest board was deleted today. Guess Pinterest is pro-savagery and anti-American. There is no such thing as ‘hate speech.’ Find me the legal definition of it. There is a legal definition of freedom of speech. Pinterest is against the legal definition of speech.
When leftists aren’t denying their prejudice, they often selectively cite Scripture to “prove” that Jesus Christ was a social justice warrior or that the Bible mandates open borders. Oh, yes, and Jesus didn’t judge people as we dastardly conservatives do. In a 2010 piece, liberal professor Michael Shermer quoted the oft-misinterpreted passage in which Jesus begins, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Then Shermer declared: “Would any red-blooded, gun-(toting), Hummer-driving, hard-drinking, Bible-(toting) conservative today (say) anything like this? (Matthew 5:43-44): ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.'” (It is astounding that leftists see themselves as tolerant and nonjudgmental, but I’ll let their record speak for itself on this.)
I’ve never met a ‘Hummer-driving’ anybody. They are, or were, expensive. Only rich liberals could afford them.
After many labeling the sign as “anti-LGBT” expressed outrage, the church did not buckle or apologize to observes who were offended by the sign, arguing that it is called by God to warn sinners and lead them to repentance.
Truth hurts. Good for the church for not buckling.
This week it was a CrossFit executive who was fired. Next week it could be you.
Make no mistake: this is about power. There are powerful lawmakers and cultural influencers who want to shut Christians up—to make it illegal for us to speak openly about the biblical view of marriage and sexuality. They truly believe that Christianity is not only hateful, but harmful. Something that should be classified as hate speech so that the full force of the American legal system can be used to snuff out public Christianity.
Example: “hate speech is excluded from protection. dont [sic] just say you love the constitution . . . read it.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo, on Twitter, February 6, 2015. Example: “I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would.” Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR, February 6, 2015.
In the United States, “hate speech” is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.
“Hate speech” means many things to many Americans. There’s no widely accepted legal definition in American law. More importantly, as Professor Eugene Volokh explains conclusively, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Americans are free to impose social consequences on ugly speech, but the government is not free to impose official sanctions upon it. In other words, even if the phrase “hate speech” had a recognized legal definition, it would still not carry legal consequences.
This is not a close or ambiguous question of law.
When the media frames a free speech story as an inquiry into whether something is “hate speech,” it’s asking a question of morals or taste poorly disguised as a question of law. It’s the equivalent of asking “is this speech rude?”