Is "cancel culture" as bad or worse than the right-wing Christian movement?

    Modern social justice and cancel culture are secular reboots of the evangelical Christian crusading of decades past, with one big difference: Christianity is replete with forgiveness and redemption narratives, while the secular version has none.

    — Antonio García Martínez (@antoniogm) September 25, 2019


    Or is it more like the "100,000 Little Stalinists" as per David Mikics review of Robert Boyer's The Tyranny of Virtue: Identity, The Academy, and the Hunt for Political Heresies ?

    For all the tears shed over identity politics and political correctness, there is much more discussion of issues on the Left than there is on the Right. On the Left there is discussion of whether a particular candidate is racist or black enough. Harris has been challenged on race and her actions as states attorney. Buttigieg has been questioned on his actions on police abuse. Biden has had to defend his position on Clarence Thomas and the 1994 crime bill. These are important discussions. They are happening in the real world and they are happening on the Left. 

    College students of 2020 are pathetically tame compared to their grandparents. There is intersectionality. The Parkland students made sure that minorities got air time on the gun debate. Feminists are openly debating issues of race leading to changes at the top of the March for Women. I see a vibrant,, sometimes aggressive discussion occurring on the Left. I see "My way or the highway" coming from the Right. The high schools and colleges seem to be producing activists on the Left capable of dealing with current situations. 

    The Right does not allow debate. In the true scope of things, the Right represents the clear danger to discussion in the United States.

    I feel good about our future being in the hands of the Liberal snowflakes.

    I wonder what activities the author of the book participated in while in college.

    All I can think of saying is that the Hatfields and McCoys could never see how many similarities they had either.

    One side murdered Heather Heyer and is on FBI radar for high powered weapons used to kill innocent people. The other side is not.

    Really, one side murdered Heyer? The whole of the right not just the small number of white supremacists in Charlottesville? All republicans are white supremacists?

    All republicans are white supremacists?

    How many times have we had to ask this of him? He is just like the worst of the p.c. crowd and family values cultural warriors. He either knows not the damage that kind of  "us vs. them" partisan rhetoric and stereotyping does or he is a a poor learner and refuses to adjust his writing style to the reaction to it. (For crissakes, if it turns off nearly all of his like minded correspondents to his message, imagine the damage he could do canvassing for a candidate in real life.)

    I am convinced people like him, who practice this kind of rhetoric, very much helped Trump win. Trump has been taking advantage his whole life with how the p.c. warring affects an important group of swing type of people. There is no need to do this, lump everyone in as the same. One can attack the real bad guys without falling into the "us vs. them" divisiveness.

    And I should say at this point that there are actually smart people out there who know how to introduce politically correct memes out there with wisdom, grace, style and humor, to culture-changing effect. It's just that currently it seems the idiocracts have taken over and made it counterproductive. Again, just like the Falwell Family Values crowd.

    Hmmm. Does not compute:


    The fifth installment of Sylvester Stallone's veteran saga gets slammed as pro-wall propaganda ... and much worse.

    @ Hollywoodintoto​.com, Sept. 19

    2) Jaylon Smith of the Dallas Cowboys:

    It seems to me the problem of men who identify as women who compete in women's sports is greatly exaggerated. There are so few of them that most women in sports will never compete against them. But it is a problem. What ever gender a person thinks they are those who have the XY chromosome are physiologically male and will dominate against most women in most sports. I don't think they should be allowed to compete in women's sports.

    While I thought of it as rare, seeing 2 dudes-turned-girls take a local track meet made it kinda obvius that someone will be gaming it out on the local level, then state, then nationals. The exception in 2019 becomes the rule.

    (kinda like the Hollywood stars paying for their kids to get into cherry schools with created fake activities - rare in this instance, but an indication of the bigger scandal that permeates the whole system, including supporting the awfully high costs of education in the US)

    The physiological differences between those with an XX and an XY chromosome is well documented. But I learned it from experience over and over again, much to  my surprise. I'm 5" 4' and when I graduated from high school I weighed 95 lbs. I've always thought of myself as small and weak. Every woman I dated or just did things with was taller and weighed more than I. The first time I realized men are stronger than women was on a canoe trip with a woman who was not just taller than me but was a huskier woman. Not over weight, just with a larger body frame and type. When you canoe you have to occasionally portage around obstacles. Carrying the canoe can be difficult but it's not overly onerous. Given our size difference I thought it would be easier for her than for me. But what was a little hard but relatively easy for me was a struggle for her. I was on the extreme fringe for size and strength for men and she was somewhat off center in the other direction for women yet what was at most a small difficulty for me was a very real struggle for her. Biology matters.

    Found @Glinner's feed interesting, prolly cuz I'm an old scuzzy cracker who ain't woke.

    I love your self-slur, it's adorable.

    "I love it when you talk self-dirty".  Self-debasement as a turn-on - class, please turn in 3-5 pages by Monday, make sure to include self-references and foot fetish notes.

    Well now, I've watched this whole thing: Black and Indigenous Millennials Are Canceling Latinidad. Here’s Why @, Sept. 26.

    And I've got to admit this particular cancellation is not at all like simple tribalism or simplistic wingers. Turns out that to achieve liberation politics and indigenating, it's real fucking complicated, it means being attuned to the ways one creates one's own hierarchies, it means unpacking them those hierarchies, and working against them as well. The end message to me, my takeaway: let's all tribalize further by skin color but first let's also get a DNA test to know who we are, check out out what our people did going back like 500 years, then you'll really know who your people are and you can hang only with them and they will make you feel welcome? Oh and homogenity is a lie, that came through loud and clear. Except: it's okay to just be "black" and reject all the other stuff.

    It seems to me that those interviewed were describing rejection by white Latinidads they experienced today. 

    Gates did a great documentary on this in "Black in Latin America".

    Is there anything white Lainidads need to do?




    That video wasn't by Henry Louis Gates. I like Gates. Gates doesn't do cancel culture crap. He's interested in melting pot history. He's basically a uniter, not a divider.

    But this thread is about cancel culture getting out of hand and being tribal and/or sanctimonious and/or preachy and/or ridiculous to the point of counter productivity. Just like when right wingers do.

    So I am not going to get into Gates here.


    ...let's all tribalize further by skin color but first let's also get a DNA test to know who we are, check out out what our people did going back like 500 years, then you'll really know who your people are and you can hang only with them and they will make you feel welcome?

    I don’t think that would work for me, since going no further than my family of origin, there are those who are weird and unwelcoming.  Friends are those people whom you have chosen and who reciprocate.  Family members often are like friends as well.  The choice is based on shared values and circumstances; enjoying each other’s company and mutual trust.  

    Sometimes tribes are just supportive groups, and good ones are inclusive rather than exclusive, IMO.

    I'm a bit worried about that paternity test with my sister, and then there's other stuff I'm just not sayin' (without a good attorney - obviously not Rudy). In any case, do we know the gene yet for Radical Confederate? Can 23AndMe identify a Rebel Yell from birth? Is being a NASCAR fan a marker for more despicable behavior? (and can I just like Richard Petty, or does that call the whole thing off?)

    Oh crap, like clockwork, someone over on Twitter asks what happens to NASCAR with electric vehicles introduced - Apocalypse, obviously - no super loud exhausts and shifting gears,  full bore carburetors, smell of fumes... Even the pit bimbos won't even know when to bounce. It's over. Not with a bang, but with a whimper. We hardly knew thee...

    You are correct to point to the whole car fan culture as a interesting problem, much less stock car racing (famously popular in the lands of some of the most important swing voters). It is coming,  it's going to be an even bigger culture wars issue with Greta out there being turned into a potent symbol by both sides. It's also very much tied into urban vs. rural. And individualism vs. common good. And on this point, I can see suburban very much siding with rural! 

    These are easy  problems to solve. We'll still be able to see which car is faster. For those who miss the sounds loud speakers can play a sound track with roaring engines and gears grinding. That's what they do in movies. For the traditional smell of the race track burning tires can be strategically placed around the track.

    Peracles, I have it on good authority that most bimbo eruptions, or “bounces” as you so delicately put it, absolutely, definitely do end with a bang.

    Yes, but w/o the bounce per ounce, there's no bang for the bucks - literally "what/where the fuck?"
    This does not "end" well. And I'm skeptical about OceanKat's Quadrophonic surrund sound approach - all those theaters with moving seats & emitting smells & shit, including the special 3D glasses - how well did they catch on? We're simple folks - responding to simple stimuli, human sweat & sexual secretions over simulated mechanics.

    You don't have to worry about the smells & shit. The porta-pottys will be just the same

    just ran across this ad on my Twitter feed for the Polestar "performance electric car". It's definitely not the NASCAR demographic they are going after here, though, hah, with all the millennial aesthetes with Euro accents discussing design. But it's interesting because the marketing clearly expecting continuation of old fashioned love of a "sports car"

    it's a bit weird - the "Made in Chengdu" is a joy killer, it's quite a bit slower than a Tesla (4.7secs to 60 vs 3.2), less range than the Tesla extended version, and of course won't be in production until Q2 2020, almost 3 years after the Model 3 launched - which considering the amount of data & improvements Tesla gets around driver & car feedback it's a serious disadvantage. Perhaps some of the styling issues will make it compelling, and they're hoping they get some Volvo cred & European style marks, but the price doesn't seem to be any cheaper and it's hard to see what will make this succeed. [still a whole lot less than the Porsche Taycan]
    (Note: the Tesla SUVs should be going into production late Q3 2020, using much of the tech from Model 3's, so it's also hard to see why many won't wait the 2-3 months for a Tesla for those less into the sports features and more into the room)

    More on Polestar here:

    Also "made with VR":

    Automotive designers used virtual reality to create this electric performance car’s interior and the result is stunning. @PolestarCars #seeker #polestar #polestar2 #ad

    — Seeker (@Seeker) September 29, 2019

    C'Ville you are really getting up close and personal now with that meme.

    In my dotage I am really starting to regret spending so much time and loyalty and blood sweat and tears on people that I share DNA with just because I share their DNA with them. Who I don't really like. Who give me stress and anxiety when I share time  with them. And have neglected my friends who I do really like, to tend to those with my DNA. I chose my friends because we clicked. And we grew apart because I spent too much time helping family members that I actually dislike. ]

    It hit me so hard again just the other day: every minute I spend talking to my godmother/aunt on the phone is a fucking chore and distressing. I have to put on a mask, a character.  We have nothing in common and I get depressed after I get off. She doesn't even know the adult me, she knows nothing of my life and is still talking to me as if I was my 12-yr old self.

    You get so much of this, instinctively, I bet, because, as I recall you saying a couple of times, you are an adoptive mother. DNA has nothing to do with what makes for happy.

    It seems this is  a common experience. I don't tell my parents or my sisters most of the things happening in my life or most of the things I believe. I call my mother twice a month and it's excruciating to find things to talk about when most of my life is off limits. Of course it would be worse to reveal myself since that would start arguments and leave us with hurt feelings.

    Yeah, comes to mind, this Geico commercial famously exaggerated the syndrome.

    Why "exaggerated"? They nailed the mother (ok, poor choice of words), and just because *you're* not part of a Seal team stopping a thermonuclear device from going off in some major metropolitan area by hitching a ride on a helicopter doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What was your worst, in the middle of a SoHo opening? Interrupting a talk with Rudolf Stingel where he was going to turn over his entire collection to you? It happens. Don't be bitter.

    Yes, Arta, you do remember correctly.  I have three adopted children and am very close to them.  The boys will be 30 this November and my daughter will be 34, and although I would help them if they wanted to search for their birth parents it has never been an issue.  

    I agree that this may be part of the reason I feel as I do on this subject, but this feeling may also be part of the reason I went the adoption route rather than IVF, which was available at that time (though not as successful as it is now).  My mother had 8 siblings, and they all reproduced like rabbits so you can imagine how many cousins I had.  Family reunions were no different for me than going down the mid-way of the State Fair.  All kinds of kids; some too loud, some too rough, and most that I almost never even had a conversation with, made me not want to go to reunions as a kid.  I remember one of them only because I almost drowned in my Uncle Atwell’s pond.  My father saw me go under and saved me.

    But it was only when I got the best job I ever had (Student Health Center at GWU) and I realized how much more pleasant and supportive my co-workers were than many of my family members, that it started to gel.  Religion and the hypocrisy around it was the final straw in one case.  

    The other thing was that during a very stressful time in my life I made a conscious decision to avoid people who caused me stress.  It was win/win for them as well as me I’m sure.  I feel your pain about the godmother. I remember being very excited about a two-day conference I attended.  I was staying with my mother because it was in her town.  The guest speaker was Tom Robbins, and when I started to repeat an amazing vignette he shared I saw her eyes glaze over as she reached for her cigarettes.  I just stopped.  All she cared about was that I was there and she could tell her friends I was visiting.  After that I sent regular notes that she liked much more than calls anyway. I also visited, and we did have many nice visits, but almost never nice conversations.  

    Oh, well.

    Even Dem Girls Get the Blues. Just another roadside distraction.

    Yeah, I had 1 amazing breakthrough real conversation the last 5-day visit, & then it retrenched to minutia and irrelevancies. But the 1 talk was rather refreshing - vainly I hoped it might continue a bit after. We of course don't talk politics or anything even slightly controversial - my opinion isn't exactly welcome. Oddly enough, "Shark Tank" was the winning activity 3 nights in a row, which is fine - better than some of the dumber shows & allowed the kids some input. What PP does? she still has no clue.

    guy with a great head on his shoulders, not trying to shame anyone, just trying to assist everyone in communication by understanding words:

    He should be ashamed of not shaming people.

    an enemy of the woke people to be sure

    "The biggest trap of this whole identity politics lark has been getting lured into debating a proposition that’s unworthy of my address" | Lionel Shriver

    — UnHerd (@unherd) September 28, 2019

    The best weapon against people who take themselves too seriously is not to denounce but to make fun of them. ~ Shriver

    The designer quoted at the end of the article says that fashion is not diverse. If that is true, what is the proper response? If you point out a lack of diversity, those in positions of power will complain that they are being called racists. If you don't comment on a lack of diversity, you are complicit.

    On topic, Maher's opinion is no surprise, but a NYTimes "Editor's Pick" IS:

    Editors’ Picks:

    Bill Maher on the Perils of Political Correctness

    “Religions always talk about the one true religion. Now on the left we have the one true opinion.”

    Magazine 17m ago

    The K-12 Math Ethnic Studies Framework in Seattle Public schools:

    This is apparently not satire.

    — Amir Sariaslan (@AmirSariaslan) September 30, 2019

    How is this so very far from how some right-wing-Christian curricula approach science and twist it to fit what is in the Bible?

    Actually it's quite different. Think of it say as media studies by Latin American students who look at US/Hollywood-originating programs and analyze the often subconscious assumptions & negative cultural messages that permeate themes & imagery. One class I had discussed the frequent Tom & Jerry scenario, where Tom is patient while Jerry runs around annoying him until Tom is finally "forced to" act. In Latin America, this parallels the patient paternalistic US calmly standing by as Latin America makes a mess, until finally "but reluctantly" the US has to send in troops or restructure the economy or some other drastic measure. Of course those on the receiving end of this "patient largesse" have a different view to American "patience" and how much the US restrained itself vs. stoking the flames in the background. A different lens was how US values in Sesame Street or other programs differ from cultural norms in say Colombia or Chile - small details, but it's a steady pressure to change to the "right way" from the US, vs. homegrown programs that might reflect better that culture's values.

    Garcia-Marques' "Erendira & her heartless Grandmother" looks like a shocking book about a young girl who's raised as a 24x7 maid for her grandmother, doing all the chores, cooking, whatever, til exhausted, and then by mistake she falls asleep with candles burning & burns the mansion down, so her grandmother takes her on the road to whore her out to pay back her "debt". For us a rather bizarre inexplicable behavior. But for Latinos, it's an allegory of how the US entraps Latin America & then controls its whole economy & freedoms of action to pay back its unrepayable debt - essentially an eternity of prostitution & servitude.

    So while at some point I think these students will have to learn the various standard mathematics forms, I find it fascinating addressing what are the assumptions behind the development of mathematics, how it addresses problems of the European world where it found greater development, how it might be looked at from another angle...

    There was a mathematician G. Spencer Brown who developed a pre-algebraic/pre-logic framework based simply on 1 allowed operation: to cross. So you have boundaries, and the only thing you can do is cross. To cross back is equivalent to not crossing at all. Using this form, he was able to derive a proof of basic AND/OR logic & other seeming primitives. Another mathematician decided to fuck with Euclid's postulate that parallel lines never intersect, and from that came up with a model & proof system for spherical geometry, where parallel lines intersect at poles,but not as latitudes. This is great for plane & boat navigation. But what are the insights into daily conditions in Uganda or Tajikistan or Borneo? while the world is developing new AI algorithms for self-driving cars, what are the math theorems & paradigms to assist with a well gone dry or poorer less-educated people trying to compete with globally encroaching Silicon Valley software firms? Knowledge is Power, which means it greatly has the potential for abuse. With offshore economies, an Indian mathematician is more likely to be training his insight onto problems of the Western world than the ills that plague his own backyard. Think of "Psychology" - it's of course much more developed in areas that reflect Western thinking, with some hat tip to these mystical Asian values, but those are "exotic" rather than default or a standard version of reality. Math & Engineering appear to be more pure, but still they're part of grasping the levers of production, the Marxist ideal - yet invariably managed by Capitalists for Capitalists, with occasionally a charity project by some foundation.

    So yeah, I actually think the course curriculum *might not* be such a bad idea, if it leads to both a better understanding of how math can be more relevant to these other traditionally left-behind cultures, and leads to developing both standard & new alternative math approaches that fit & assist these different environments.

    And note that nowhere in the curriculum do I see promoting of ahistorical junk, such as "God flooded the world & Noah put 2 (or 7?) of every creature on a boat (and they didn't eat each other but instead survived a year or so of just floating around, no diseases, no probs...)". Presumably they have *some* justifications where math hurt people of color in some scenario(s) [life surely isn't always level & fair]. So it's *some* kind of indoctrination, but then again so is much of our "do your math tables like this, these are the X most important topics for an 8-year-old to know" and so on - by the time a kid finds some breathing space to think she's been indoctrinated with years of specific techniques, vs. how to think about math in new more generalized ways before La Place & Euler & so many others nailed down the basic landscapes. [the teachers see the destination points they want to hit on this tour, but maybe a few students could skip the tourguide part & approch it as non-guided tourists]

    Ah but why do I not mind reading what you have written here, but looking at the link still makes me want to roll my eyes?

    If I were a parent, I really would be quite upset about the level of victimization language the kids are being pushed. Heck, I couldn't even stand this stuff back when I was a radical wannabe undergrad. A lot of the rhetoric there sounds to me like Pol Pot re-education camp speak. And sounds like pushing an ideology just like a religion. Some of those questions sound just like ones in Sunday school.

    Because a narrative's more persuasive & powerful than a litany of grievances?

    If the question is whether "cancel culture" is as bad as the Christian Right, the answer is that the Christian Right is worse.An Evangelical pastor warned of a civil war if Trump was removed by impeachment for abuse of Presidential power. Trump retweeted the threat.

    From the NYT

    As outlandish and extreme as it is, warning of a looming civil war is a familiar talking point across the pro-Trump media. It’s part of a growing tradition of right-wing fearmongering — what Vox’s Dylan Matthews referred to last year as “apocalypse punditry” — that moves easily from the online fever swamps to the Oval Office and back again. 

    So it wasn’t surprising — though it was deeply troubling — to see President Trump tweet a warning from a pastor on Sunday night of “a Civil War like fracture in this Nation” should he be removed from office. 

    Invoking civil war — even indirectly — was once a third rail of modern American presidential rhetoric. Though Mr. Trump in the past has openly toyed with illiberal notions (ignoring term limits, not accepting election results should he lose), his casual suggestion that his ouster might lead to bloodshed felt like uncharted territory.

    It doesn’t matter that we’re not on the brink of a civil war; the threat as outlined by right-wing media is intended to inspire fear in liberals and conservatives alike. For conservatives, it’s the notion that Democrats will stop at nothing to get rid of Mr. Trump and will marshal the forces of the “deep state” to right the wrongs of the 2016 election. For liberals, it is a warning: Don’t push churchgoing, gun-loving conservatives too far, or there’ll be dangerous consequences.


    This is not a both sides do it argument. The Right is openly threatening violence. The Evangelicals are leading the charge.

    You introduce the op-ed you link to with this An Evangelical pastor warned of a civil war if Trump was removed by impeachment for abuse of Presidential power. Trump retweeted the if I don't know what he is talking about, that I don't know that happened, as if I am clueless about recent news. When actuality I am the one who first posted about that on this site and while you may not have noticed that, I am sure you saw me post on TMac's thread joking about a supposed civil war.

    Do you realize how insulting that is?

    This is what makes it sound as if you are preaching to someone you think is dumb and needs to be enlightened. If you left that sentence out, and put this If the question is whether "cancel culture" is as bad as the Christian Right, the answer is that the Christian Right is worse, it would be your opinion and that would be fine. I would disagree, but we might talk.

    If you were a newbie to the site and just plopped that here I might just ignore it as someone who doesn't participate here regularly and doesn't know member's knowledge levels.

    But that's not the case. So it's insulting.

    It's one thing if you did it on your own blog. But in reponse to me, it's a different thing. 

    But I want to carry what you do further and make it an example pertinent to the topic of the thread.

    This is actually what a lot of p.c. people do that ramp up culture wars rather than de-escalate them.And that it is exactly like an evangelical preacher. A lot of your own rhetoric style actually sounds just like evangelical preachers do.

    When people are angry to the point of threatening violence (which is not the case here) there's a traditional thing called the art of diplomacy that de-escalates the situation . War of words vs. communication and treating the other with respect, you should try practicing it here sometime and your p.c. friends should try it in meatspace. Otherwise, you are being just like them, following Trump troll style. And in the end, this is exactly what Warzel is saying in his op-ed, that people have to stop buying into that. He says Fear wins. We all lose. And all you ever seem to want to do is promote fear of "them".  You sound very afraid, often. There's fear in your words, you preach fear. They're just trolls. They are not going to be able to start a civil war, not if you quit buying in and sharing the battle rhetoric.

    My post was specifically about the question of whether cancel culture was as bad as the Right. I addressed that question. An Evangelical suggests violence. We have seen wingnuts use Trump's own words to justify violence.

    From ABC News

    "I think my rhetoric brings people together," he said last week, four days after a 21-year-old allegedly posted an anti-immigrant screedonline and then allegedly opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 and injuring dozens of others.

    But a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 36 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault.

    I bet you think this song is about you, don't you?



    Also of note from the NYT 

    In a little-noticed strategy document published last month to guide law enforcement on emerging threats and in recent public appearances by Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary of homeland security, the department is trying to project a new vigilance about violent white nationalism, beating back criticism that the agency has spent a decade playing down the issue.

    “I would like to take this opportunity to be direct and unambiguous in addressing a major issue of our time. In our modern age, the continuation of racially based violent extremism, particularly violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation,” Mr. McAleenan said during an address last month, describing white nationalism as one of the most dangerous threats to the United States.

    The department’s new stance contrasts that of President Trump, who has repeatedly dismissed white supremacy as an insignificant fringe movement. But beyond words and documents, many officials trying to combat the threat throughout the country remain skeptical that the full weight of federal law enforcement is finally being used to give bigoted domestic terrorism the attention it deserves.




    The above are all Facebook ads placed by Russian trolls before the 2016 election to provoke tribal divisiveness. Facebook Russian Ads: 50 Fake Posts From the News Feed PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE  @, May 11, 2018. The irony: they are milder than a lot of the real thing lately!

    Both cancel culture and right wing evangelicals do this:

    So these posts (fake and real) are the same as the terrorist acts committed by the Right?

    Wow you're so insightful. That's exactly what Arta is saying. Posting on facebook is the same as mowing down Heather Heyer with a car and killing her. God how did you get so smart to see that? Most of us missed it completely. It's totally on topic and it's not a strawman at all.

    Trump is a racist. Trump tweets violence.

    I'm on point because the violence comes from the Right. That is the important message. 
    You confirm that with the Facebook posts versus the murder of Heather Heyer.
    Both sides eat food.

    You absolutely are on point to point out that Arta thinks the facebook posts she posted  (fake and real) are the same as the terrorist acts. You're the only one here who noticed that. It must be because you're so brilliant! It's such a perfect reply to Arta in that is exactly how she thinks. It's so clear from her posts. Finally you're addressing what people post because that's surely not a straw man. 

    The first post was about cancel culture being the same as Evangelical Christianity. An Evangelical leader just talked about civil war if Trump was impeached. The two sides are not the same.

    A white comedian has video showing him telling racist jokes about Asians.He loses a spot on SNL. Was that cancel culture?
    Teachers are being questioned about the use of the word nigger.

    Comedians' skits are challenged. We are doomed.

    How can you say that you are tolerant if you don't tolerate my intolerance?

    All I see is challenging the status quo.

    I don't see society collapsing from discussion.

    I do see violence from the Right.



    First example, no.

    Second example - can be, depending.

    Still, these are pretty dumb examples.

    Try "Elon Musk gave $40k to group that's against X", or "Female athlete disses trans women", or "2 professors resign over comments about Halloween costumes".

    You could try harder. But will you? This thread has been up for days - yet all you can offer is some lame examples that fit closest to your usual racial topics without having much to do with the new social media rapid-disapproval/shunning mechanism.

    You talk as if all republicans are complicit in the killing of Heyer. They're not. Most were horrified when Fields drove the car into the crowd and killed her. That's like blaming all democrats when James Hodgkinson deliberately targeted and shot republicans at a baseball park in 2017.

    Mahrer laments the fact that he can't perform at colleges, then at the end of his television show, he tells about all the comedy clubs where he appears. Comedians hone their acts in clubs, where they can tell their edgy jokes. Profanity is allowed. The only thing that has happened is that the market has shifted for comedians.

    The question was if cancel culture is the same as the Evangelical Right. I pointed out that an Evangelical pastor threatened a civil war if his people don't get their way. I think that equating cancel culture and the Evangelical Right is false equivalence.

    I gave examples of targets of cancel culture who remain intact. On the Right, if you disagree, you are kicked out. The true cancel culture is a feature of the Right. 

    The teacher who question why the documentary wasn't called "I am Not Your Nigger" was cleared and still has her job.

    1 crazed evangelist doesn't make the whole field, and i'm sure comedians have said crazier shit than "civil war". The 2 professors lost their jobs over Halloween. Cancel Culture is a technique, preachers are a group as are comedians - does the evangelical community use cancel culture? Sure. Same as liberals? Nope. Does Maher like being smug and pissing people off? Affirmative.

    Have you seen the forgiving Christianity mentioned in the first post coming from Evangelicals.

    Were the 2 professors fired because of blackface?


    I said that Christianity/Evangelicals are being affected by Cancel Culture, did I not?
    nonetheless, I'm not around, so aside from nonsense out of Jerry Falwell Jr & other prominent nuts,
    I don't know what the average evangelist is doing these days.

    The 2 professors were forced to resign roughly for thinking students could wear what they want for Halloween,
    without all the self-policing.

    Fire and brimstone has been around for ages. It was the inspiration for Southern Baptists supporting Jim Crow. The reason there are Southern Baptists is that Baptists split over slavery during the Civil War. Cancel Culture must be ancient.

    If you are talking about the Yale controversy, the male professor kept his tenured professorship and won Yale's highest faculty honor.

    Are you talking about another incident?



    “Cancel culture” is a phrase that’s been lobbed often this past year, as an impulse toward outrage is ever-amplified by the megaphone of social media. But what the hell does it even mean?

    At face value, the term refers to what is perceived as a reflexive, unfair ruthlessness. In a society that is increasingly concerned with being politically correct and “woke,” there is no tolerance of anyone whose words, attitudes, or behavior do not adhere to those mores. And as those ideas are most often ascribed to people who hold liberal values, it is often alleged that this applies to anyone who speaks or does anything that works against a utopian lefitst ideal. In other words, say something that upsets a “snowflake” and you’re fired. 

    In that version of “cancel culture,” we’re a lynch mob of Red Queens, hysterically policing social media for problematic people, screaming “off with their heads!” anytime we encounter an idea we don’t like. 

    But like many phrases and ideas in 2019, this one has been appropriated, bastardized, and misused to the point of not only betraying its original definition and its usefulness in checking the actual repercussions of reactionary censorship, but in fact has become almost meaningless. 

    Now, “cancel culture” isn’t a diagnosis of a concerning trend that has become prevalent in recent years: Celebrity says something eyebrow-raising, ensure that the celebrity never works again!  No, it’s morphed into an excuse used by those who wish to justify or endorse the very words and behaviors that are being flagged as offensive in the first place. 

    You see, consequences are not “cancel culture.” Just as entitlement is not a rationalization for offensive behavior. 

    It would take too long to list all the recent controversies involving celebrities who said something alarming enough to detonate social media outrage: Scarlett Johansson defends Woody Allen, Dave Chappelle mocks Michael Jackson’s accusers, Lara Spencer shames male dancers, a Queer Eye host rails against his critics, some Real Housewives are caught being casually transphobic. 

    Some of these celebrities apologized. Some didn’t. All were likely forced to consider the impact and the responsibility of their words, amid outcry and, in many cases, calls for them to lose their jobs. But none of them were fired. Shane Gillis, however, was. Is that a symptom of cancel culture?

    A different view of. cancel culture 

    No, Shane Gillis is not an example - he was a bad choice for a position who wasn't properly vetted. He didn't just step into a controversial area - he had age-old comedy acts based on surprisingly backwards cringeworthy nastiness. If they gave a comedy slot to someone who'd been doing jokes about lazy blacks liking watermelon, it would seriously be about equivalent. Yeah, maybe he can survive a small comedy club, but promioton to Saturday Night? Nope, wrong league.

    You trivialize the issue by going for Hollywood examples, as if Taylor's spat with Kylie is the same as somebody gives an un-PC opinion on immigration, healthcare, voter ID, free education, a particular protest, free trade, etc. and is then shamed into silence and takes a big hit in popularity. It's hyperretribution Mean Girls, and greatly discourages open thoughtful opinion.

    I was insulted and quickly blocked because I suggested mental state *might* have an effect on susceptibility for *some* kinds of diseases, giving links to a couple - I thought -relevant scientific literature surveys that were then derided as being useless and if I didn't know what I was talking about (I.e. a PhD or MD in immunology and cancer treatment?) I should just shut up. One of the ones who blocked me was someone I'd had a lengthy funny friendly round if jokes with the night before on a different more standard political area or just gonzo dada humor, so it surprised me that this area would be a tripwire for him, but it was. Multiply this by a swarm of dozens that can quickly take down a known figure, and people learn to shut up and do virtual air kisses.

    ETA - ugh, NYC just passed a sweeping law that includes huge fines for using the common term "illegal alien" with the annoying pithy "no human is illegal" from some campus somewhere. Should be unconstitutional (a judge struck down the understandable but flawed CA attempt to add taxes as requirement to run for Prez).

    We began with:

    Modern social justice and cancel culture are secular reboots of the evangelical Christian crusading of decades past, with one big difference: Christianity is replete with forgiveness and redemption narratives, while the secular version has none.

    This is bullshit. Evangelical Christianity is not about forgiveness. They openly speak of violence if others do not fall in line. 

    Wrong decade. Yes, Christianity has had a path to redemption, but is now afflicted with same cancel culture, which is the topic of this diary. But a judge who was recalled for a horrid sentence on a rape trial needs to resign from coaching volleyball? A comic who masturbated in front of women or maybe something less is not ready to work a comedy club 2-3 years later? In the old days you went into Betty Ford clinic, did your purge and came back out chastened a few months later. Now it's a totally undefined lengthy period of shame and exile. 5 years? 10?

    Sarah Silverman who appeared in blackface and was caught up in cancel culture

    During an episode of “The Bill Simmons Podcast” last week Silverman criticized the movement to essentially erase people for their past mistakes, even if the mistaken have since recognized their errors. The comedian also discussed some of her own regrettable moments — like performing in blackface in an episode of her show that was about race — for which she hopes the public can forgive her.

    “It’s really scary,” Silverman said of the cancel trend. “I call it ‘righteousness porn,’ where it’s like, if you’re not on board, if you say the wrong thing, if you had a tweet once. … Everyone is throwing the first stone. It’s so odd, and it’s a perversion.”

    But not everyone deserves a second chance, in Silverman’s opinion. After all, she’s had no problem jumping on the cancel train for controversial public figures like President Trump and Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. For the comic, cancel culture operates on a “case-by-case” basis.

    Dave Chappelle is surviving. The Governors of Virginia and Alabama are surviving. Trudeau May still win.

    If someone is dumb enough to appear in blackface this Halloween, well that is just thinning the herd.

    FFS, it wasn't just "blackface" for Halloween - it's worry about every goddamned type of "cultural appropriation" or "harmful portrayals". You can't even go as a guppy w/o offending some fish somewhere.

    "I was raped by a doctor, which for a Jewish girl is bittersweet" - Sarah Silverman
    (she also kinda defended CK for masturbating in front of women, just an ez going live-and-let-live kinda chick...)


    As noted above, the Yale professor just won the highest faculty honor.

    So *she* lost her teaching position, *he* lost his place as head of residence plus the school's so worried they gave him his award/"highest honor" in summer so no one would notice. Thanks for picking out the critical distinctions, rmrd.

    If Liberal cancel culture was all powerful, why give the award? Wouldn't they both be fired?

    I don't see comedy not addressing issues. On television, Black-ish begat Grown-ish and Mixed-ish. They have addressed things like the use of the word nigger. There is also Fresh Off the Boat. Women have Daily Show style programs. I think these shows reach many more people and have more impact than the college gigs.


    They were both "fired" or forced to resign, just from different positions - though she made the comment, he just backed her, so she just lost her full tenured professor gig - no big deal, I s'pose...

    (we haven't gotten to the point where it's cool to turn in your parents or spouse for thought crime, but it's coming).

    How are the supposed snowflakes of today different from student protests of the 60s and 70s? The NAACP objected to shows like Amos N Andy. Even earlier than that there were protests of minstrel shows and acts like Al Jolson. Society isn't collapsing. 

    Wow, that's so coherent & consolidated.

    Did the NAACP protest or dictate how people dressed up on Halloween?
    Did they want to get people who enjoyed Amos 'n Andy or Al Jolson, or thought it was ok they existed, fired?

    Did they want to get people who enjoyed Amos 'n Andy or Al Jolson, or thought it was ok they existed, fired?

    Students wanted William Shockley gone

    The NAACP worked to get Amos N Andy off the air

    One of the landmark radio shows in American history was “Amos ’n’ Andy,” which began in 1928 and featured white actors portraying black characters. It was rife with black caricature. Black audiences, starved for entertainment, listened as well as whites. In June 1951, the show landed on television. The actors were now black, but the stereotypes were intact. The protests were swift, and the show lasted less than two years.

    There were protests against even showing a film featuring Al Jolson

    For Stan Maclin, the President of the Harriet Tubman Cultural Center in Harrisonburg, the photo of two people — one in black face and the other in Ku Klux Klan attire — was not surprising.

    "It's nothing new to me," he said on Wednesday. "This is something that goes on. It doesn't make it right."

    Maclin feels while the country has integrated 'professionally,' it remains segregated socially. In the 1980s, he led a protest in his Illinois hometown against the viewing of a film by Al Jolson — an actor known for wearing blackface.

    "It is a taboo, it is not acceptable and it is stereotyping," said Maclin

    I doubt that blacks had the power to truly punish people who wanted to see the performances, given the times.






    I didn't ask about getting Amos n Andy off the air - I asked about getting the people who liked them fired. You ain't too good with this reading bit, or else you have ADHD. Here's how it goes in real life -someone asks a question and you answer the question, not something tangentially related but largely irrelevant or obvious.

    I said that at the time, it was doubtful that blacks had the power to get people fired.

    Not whether they had the power - they would *want* to do that? Get someone fired for having a bit redneck or objectionable taste?

    I mean, here we have black guys giving hugs to people who slugged them or killed family members, but minstrels and statues bring out unforgiving anger? Something strikes me as weird.

    The hugs are not about the murderers, but about personal peace for the family members. That was the message from the mother of Botham Jean.

    Whites love the idea of docile blacks. A single statute by a black artist is viewed as the proper response to over 1700 Confederate statues. Roxane Gay expressed why she is all out of hugs. Sophia Nelson wrote about the one-side nature of black forgiveness.

    The narrative of the Mother Emanuel massacre was forgiveness but that was not the full story. 

    From "Grace Will Lead Us Home".

    I mean, look at the forgiveness narrative, that's a key one. Everyone points to the notion that all of the families of the survivors forgave Dylann Roof two days after the shooting, at his bond hearing, and that is just not true. There were five family members who spoke at his bond hearing; three of them referenced forgiveness. They all spoke in Christian themes of love and mercy and forgiveness and grace, but they were [just] one group.

    If you talk to all of the survivors and a whole variety of family members, you'll see some family members didn't forgive him. And the people who died are all human beings who are different. They may share one thing in common, they may all be Christians, or in this case, they may all be black, but they are not all the same person. As journalists, we do them a disservice by painting them that way when in fact the story's a whole lot more interesting.


    Whites love the stories about the docile blacks.

    Regarding getting people fired. Don Imus got his sorry behind fired when he made an offensive joke about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Al Roker led the movement to can Imus. Blacks who worked around Imus could not stand Imus.



    Yeah, us honkies be funny & sentimental that way.

    It's pretty grand how you attribute characteristics to all whites, thinking probably that that's not a racist and stupid and reality-defying thing to do. But that's you being you.

    "The hugs are not about the murderers, but about personal peace for the family members." - interesting - like you can really separate the two? I understand the mother's feelings, but I also thought her son was pretty strong for taking that act, trying to reach across an incomprehensible divide & try to *create* that peace. I wouldn't dismiss it as just a selfish act to help him settle scores - I don't see how it actually works *unless* he also brings some understanding, some type of forgiveness to the killer as well. But I'm not in his head, so I'm just guessing.

    A bit of whities doin their mawkish Home on the Range schtick fer ya...


    I note some white male comics been using an dead white Jewish lady given to self-deprecatory shtick and equal opportunity ridicule (note 553 likes and 118 retweets)

    but then they've also been retweeting this ol' black lady:

    mad as hell not going to take it anymore

    They can say if you don't get it don't watch us, but they don't really mean it. If enough people stop watching they'd change their routine fast. If they're capable of doing that. The whole reason Gillis was fired was SNL was worried that enough people would stop watching and they'd lose money. If they thought the controversy would increase ratings they wouldn't fire him, they'd be hoping he'd call the new comic a slant eyed chink live on the air. 

    If you could justify Gillis as funny, he would have made it.

    But his Asian stuff just wasn't very funny, more just standard crap discrimination fare. Sure, Beavis & Butthead might laugh. Anyway, if he's so awesome, he'll bounce back.

    As for "Don't Watch Us", no, it's true - if they don't make you laugh or somehow enjoy yourself, walk away. If few enough people find the comedy cathartic or enjoyable, then the comedian(-ienne) will adapt or change careers. That process happens every time they walk up to the mic. Bomb once? It happens. Bomb 3-5x? Reconsider your line of work or go spend some time on your act/delivery/material.


    Hah, I think I saw them doing the blueface in 1988, like everyone says "it was the 80's"

    Still wondering what to do with my Mudman outfits. Oh wait, that was just smearing myself with mud & going around naked. Appropriation? The Earth screams. As does Papua New Guinea and Uluru.

    Food for deep thought on topic:

    I'm waiting for someone to figure out that new statues going up will undoubtedly honor some people about as flawed as those coming down. When that time comes, of course we'll discover tolerance for flawed human beings.

    Martin Luther King Jr has a statue.

    It was one of many ways in which Trump’s less-than-Christian behavior seemed, paradoxically, to make him a more appealing candidate to beleaguered, aggravated Christians. “I think conservatives for decades have felt bullied by the left, and the default response was to roll over and take it,” Jeffress said. But Trump enacted a practice of hitting back twice as hard whenever a critic takes him on — not exactly turning the other cheek, I pointed out. Jeffress chuckled. Trump’s “favorite verse in the Bible he says is ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth,’ ” the very maxim Christ was rebutting when he taught believers to return offense with peace.


    found retweeted by Australian costume historian Hillary Davidson wink:


    — big müde (@snaxolotl) October 3, 2019

    I am unashamed to admit that I find Discover trying to brand itself as the genderless loving credit card hilarious:

    I am amazed that comics can even think of material anymore when reality is the same as The Onion

    Note to fellow honky PP,

    Though you introducing the word pedantic in discussions recently was an aha moment, I still felt a need, it wasn't quite right.

    Yesterday I just thought of the word I've been searching for these last couple years. It's the secondary definition here:




    adjective: parochial

    1. relating to a church parish.

      "the parochial church council"

      • having a limited or narrow outlook or scope.

        "this worldview seems incredibly naive and parochial"































    Back to the topic of the thread and somewhat related. Struck me after seeing this comment by Abramson, one of the major problems we have is HYPERBOLE of the worst thing that has happened in human history. It's a competition and Drumpf is just one who plays it to the max


    Just a quick note to remind people that Trump has twice in the last 72 hours implied that what is happening to him now (facing even the *prospect* of responsibility, for the first time in 70+ years, for a *lifetime* of crimes) is the worst thing that has happened in human history

    — Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) October 4, 2019


    Since it's PP, parochial *and* pedantic seems fitting.

    Good that Danny's been documenting that the plague doesn't look too bad in the hinterlands. Perhaps Hunger Games haven't hit his sector as hard as others.

    PS -it's a bit pedantic to give me the entire goddamn list of 27 or so synonyms, but I guess you wanted to make sure *got* it, and indeed I *got* it, will not confuse it with patriarchal nor Petrarchal, will indeed pay it forward...

    More pile on but not so pedantic

    Yes, I'm able to think in grits and corn pone, a skill I've been unable to pass onto my kids, sadly.

    Wanna hear me cracker? I duz it reel good. I can even cracker in multiple languages, jes so they knows what theys dealing with. And have put together a pedantic list of "You ain't from around here, is ya boy?" in those same languages.

    PC CULTURE: The Mob vs. Joker’s Director

    His unguarded remarks about the state of comedy inspired a huge wokelash.

    By Kyle Smith @,  October 4, 2019 2:21 PM​

    The Problem with Sensitivity Readers

    By Ryan Holiday @, Oct. 1

    The idea of a sensitivity reader, the newest profession birthed in our politically correct times, instinctively does not sit well with writers. Because writing is not about protecting people’s feelings—it’s about provoking them. And nobody pursues a career in the arts because they like being told what they can and can’t say with their work.

    So I, like many writers, watched the influence of these “editors” grow with significant consternation. In theory, sensitivity readers simply review looking for anything that might offend the arbitrary sensitivities or transgress the invisible fault lines of the moment. In practice, I saw what looked like hordes of censors with the power to block the publication of Young Adult novels. I even watched as one professional sensitivity reader—a black, gay man—had his own novel sunk for not being sufficiently sensitive to diversity concerns.

    I shook my head and then, for some reason, I thought, “Well, I’d like to try that.”

    Earlier this year, between the final passes on my book Stillness is the Key, I told my publisher that I wanted to hire a sensitivity reader to review my writing [....]

    Be careful who you praise, because they might have flaws - and then you're tainted too.

    You've been warned.


    One sided mentions of historical situations, such as slavery, that do not tell the whole story (ie, I’ve read a lot of books that say the civil war was only about slaves, which isn’t fully true, things like that).

    So much for *that* sensitivity reader.

    Some time ago I read that Dostoevsky & Faulkner's worlds are universally accessible because they're so specific, Yoknawpatawpha(sp?) County & the Russian capital. Yet the "sensitivity" is saying to expand it all so all frames are represented - an impossibility, of course. Where you can narrow things down to a few variables, you can't take on near-infinite. Good luck with all that. Is this why people don't read so much anymore? Prolly not, but...

    Ellen pushes back - "Be kind... to everyone" (even George W Bush)

    thanks, I did see it on Twitter and watched her whole monologue on it. The problem, though, is her shtick works on already halfways decent people who are capable of learning one-on-one tolerance if they aren't practicing it already. But I'd seen more than one tweet previously screeching along the lines of "how can she sit next to a war criminal?!! She's a traitor now!" What do you do with people like that? The kind where Ellen's of the world can not only not have an affect but are treated as if they are totally complicit and have gone over to the dark side. Those that are worse than purity police, they are basically the same as Jacobins, they want blood, they want revenge, they want perpetual war.

    Well, I'm halfway. I mean, we can shame a guy more for patting a woman's ass or not using a new gender pronoun than we would for someone who lied us into a massively destructive war (including destructive of a sane foreign policy trajectory these last 16 years & the expansion of neocon eternal war doctrine) or introduced a whole new type of surveillance state (see 15 years of Emptywheel's work on FISA & related).

    But that's still on all of us - we elect the leaders we deserve to a large extent, and we in general don't hold them responsible for much of anything aside from speech mishaps.

    too many utilizing the simple-minded superhero comic book narrative:

    ....It’s an anxiety that has led reviewers to condemn the kind of moral ambiguity that was supposed to distinguish art from crass commerce in the first place. Legitimate movies are about complicated protagonists who combine good and bad qualities; superhero movies are about two guys, one good and one evil. By combining them into a single guy, won’t this movie cause dummies to think the Joker is good? To ask the question is to argue that nuance is dangerous. By fretting over Arthur Fleck’s sympathetic qualities, progressive-minded critics are demanding the same sort of bright line between good and evil that makes comic-book movies so boring....


    What’s the Panic Over ‘Joker’ Really About? by Dan Brooks @, Oct. 3 

     the preview provided social media with the one thing it will not tolerate: moral ambiguity.

    I haven't seem the movie so I can't comment on it. But this analysis has to be wrong. By far the most popular show for the last 7 years has been The Game of Thrones. Every one on it was a morally ambiguous character. People didn't just love the show they obsessed over every detail. Another very popular show was The Walking Dead, another extremely morally ambiguous show. What ever the issues are about this movie it doesn't seem likely that it's because people, or progressives, can't tolerate moral ambiguity.

    The current Nobel Prize in Literature "cancel culture" type disagreement is on a much higher level and more complex than the usual shit that is represented by most of the comments on this blog entry. Really gets at the disagreements in among "high art" intellectuals, as there is a push for new paradigms. It's where the libertarians about art become the free speech radicals and those formerly known as "liberals" and free speechers have become illiberal, they are now into judging a whole oeuvre and life as an artist rather than an individual work. I.E. should there be a breathtaking work of genius by a Nazi, it is still a Nazi work and must be cancelled.

    Olga Tokarczuk and Peter Handke Awarded Nobel Prizes in Literature

    The 2018 and 2019 laureates were named at the same time because last year’s prize was postponed over a scandal involving a husband of an academy member.

    By Alex Marshall and Alexandra Alter @, Oct. 10

    For more than a century, the Nobel Prize in Literature has often been a polarizing spectacle, with critics denouncing the winners as too obscure, too Eurocentric, too male, too experimental, or simply unworthy of literature’s highest honor.

    On Thursday, it waded into fresh controversy, awarding the prize to a right-leaning writer, Peter Handke, who delivered a eulogy at the funeral of Slobodan Milosevic, the former leader of Yugoslavia who was tried for war crimes.

    This year was supposed to be a reset for the Nobel Committee [....]

    [...] it was Mr. Handke’s prize that sparked a backlash, including a rare rebuke from another literary organization, PEN America.

    “We are dumbfounded by the selection of a writer who has used his public voice to undercut historical truth and offer public succor to perpetrators of genocide, like former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic,” the novelist Jennifer Egan, PEN America’s president, said in a statement on behalf of the organization. “At a moment of rising nationalism, autocratic leadership, and widespread disinformation around the world, the literary community deserves better than this. We deeply regret the Nobel Committee on Literature’s choice.”

    When asked about the academy’s selection of Mr. Handke, Mats Malm, an academy member and its permanent secretary, said it was based on literary and aesthetic grounds, adding: “It is not in the Academy’s mandate to balance literary quality against political considerations.” [.....]

    edit to fix paste duplication in quote 

    Oh come on, part of the Nobel in Literature is its inspiration of words on mankind. Yeah, ok, Idi Amin's secretary wrote some fine verse, but uh, the negatives rather outweigh the positives. Shockley? a great scientist - we usually don't parse the mutterings or political affiliations of scientists - Liz Meitner sadly didn't get hers, but her German Nazi-funded co-workers did. Still, Literature & Peace Prizes have higher social expectations. Take Toni Morrison's. Or William Faulkner's acceptance speech, "not only will man endure, he will prevail". Undoubtedly part of Camus' consideration was his role in the French Resistance, not just his contributions to Existentialism. Orwell had he lived longer would have won not just because he told some nice tales, but because he exquisitely expressed the debilitating corrosion of totalitarianism & seductive group-think.

    That said, there's always been some contradictions in writers who fell in with fascism, vs writers who fell in with socialism & communism, even if the latter wiped out a lot more people than the former, but neither having stellar humanitarian credentials. Borges was denied a Nobel because of his support for dictators, and Tolstoy was denied for his social & political theories. Someone else was denied because he was too plain, not idealistic enough.

    Should we reconsider Leni Riefenstahl's reputation? generally acknowledge as a great film maker, but also as a Nazi apologist, enabler, and ultimately huge liar, denying against facts her collaboration. Had she been a writer, I'd count her out of the running for a Nobel as well. Not ban her works, but not reward her fucked-up ideals & behavior.


    I learned that Rosalia is a nasty appropriator and instead of singing stealing various Latin American genres, she should be suffering for the sins of her Catalan ancestors, and repent by being ashamed and sticking to Flamenco. How dare she, really:

    Rosalía and the Blurry Borders of What it Means to Be a Latin Artist

    As the pop sensation pivots to reggaeton, not all fans are applauding.

    By Justin Areglo @, Oct. 11

    [....] Just a month earlier, Rosalía became the first Catalan artist in MTV’s Video Music Award history to win multiple awards, snatching trophies for Best Choreography and Best Latin video for her hit “Con Altura.” “I come from Barcelona,” Rosalía said while accepting the VMA for Best Latin video. “I’m so happy to be here…representing my culture.” 

    That acceptance speech earned Rosalía a strong side-eye from some viewers. As Afro-Dominican journalist Jennifer Mota put it: “What part of ‘Con Altura’ was Rosalía’s culture, exactly?”

    “Con Altura” is a reggaeton banger featuring Colombian superstar J Balvin and Spanish producer Pablo “El Guincho” Díaz-Reixa. The song showcases Rosalía’s beautiful, airy voice and distinct Spanish pronunciations over a classic Dembow beat—a rhythm that originated in Jamaica and then made its way throughout the African diaspora to places like Panama, New York City, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. Dembow is the foundation of reggaeton, a genre of music created in large part by Afro-Latinx people. 

    While Rosalía’s wildly popular song draws heavily from Afro-Caribbean music traditions, the artist herself has no Latin American heritage—a fact that has sparked cries of cultural appropriation from many Latinx fans. Since the artist’s catapult into the upper-crust of Latin music over the past year, a debate about race, class, privilege, and who gets to be considered Latinx has followed close behind [.....]

    Likewise, all those rockers of various non-Afro-American nationalities deserved to die at early ages having appropriated and transformed the blues?

    More and more this shit is so similar to religious zealotry, it's beyond ironic. Some of these people could just as well trade places with 16th-century missionaries. Over music, yet. It's supposed to be a joy that unites people and crosses tribes, soothes the savage breast. Even The Taliban know that, that's why they try to ban it.

    All I see going on is discussion 

    Here is true cancel culture

    A Latinx author’s college talk about the ills of white privilege got the predominantly white crowd so riled up, a group of them decided to use her book as kindling.

    Jennine Capó Crucet was invited to the campus of Georgia Southern University to discuss themes from her novel, Make Your Home Among Strangers, about the travails and experiences of a Cuban-American student during her first year at a predominantly white college

    Link to the original article


    That's tribalism based on skin color or ethnicity and cancel culture, all outrage all the time, zero sum game. Everybody canceling everyone else out. People of color don't like being judged for the color of their skin, why do you think white people would? Unless they're masochists who wallow in victimhood.

    I read today that Pompeo's actions were an example of white pipple - men of course - screwing everything up. Of course tgings would be better if run like China or Venezuela or Haiti or Saudi Arabia or Congo or Papua New Guinea - I'm afraid my privilege has created a mess.

    The problem really is that white pipple all look the same, you can't tell them apart.

    That's a feature, not a bug, right? I mean, melting pot is more than smoking ganja wanning to be Bob Marley, yo.

    Um, yeah turns out you're really fucked if it's hard to tell what skin color you are?

    Oh and I see over there on Quora that in Turkey, they got a sort of Hispaniola thing going on, lovely:

    [....] Kurds are indeed darker than Turks.

    And it's not a matter of Who Gets The Most Tanned In The Summer! Light hair and eye color just happens to be higher in ethnic Turks.

    First off, "Turkish" IS an ethnicity.

    Ethnicity ≠ Race.

    An ethnic group is a bunch of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as shared ancestry, language, history, culture, religion, homeland and Turkish people fit this description perfectly. The diverse background of many Turks is not an obstacle to their unity.

    That being said, there are categories in Turkish:

    Esmer : black/dark brown hair and/or deeply olive skin

    Kumral : lighter brown hair

    Sarışın : blonde hair

    Kızıl : Redhead


     This really begs the question: which hair color gets the best schools and which gets the highest food subsidies?

    They left out Hamburg, which tends to be a bit darker.

    And in the geographical area of uber identity politics bar none, it gets real complicated with the skin color thing

    "White" is whatever you want it to mean, I guess. Right now, it means "Trump & Pompeo"?

    Before it used to mean: Dick Cheney and George Bush?

    And: hello people who can't see and call him the first black president:  Bill Clinton was born with blue eyes and blond hair. Since white privilege obviously helped such a cracker get into Oxford and Yale law, begs the question: was it the white half or black half privilege that helped Barack Obama get into Harvard Law? And did Hillary really lose because she was a blue-eyed devil without the benefit of being a cracker?

    Hey that reminds me, I never figured out which color skin is the best to have in Hawaii!

    What about prejudice towards white-haired people running for president?

    And is Corey Booker an oreo or not?

    Furthermore: Aha! 'Splain yourself, Kamala

    Harris was born into the top Indian caste. Her mother was an upper class Brahmin from the Besant Nagar neighborhood of Chennai, Tamil Nadu, whose "Gopalan" bloodline can be traced over 1,000 years.

    Kamala Harris - Wikipedia

    Real "privilege" for 1,000 years. Imagine that. But Kamala was born in the U.S.A.

    Along those lines, comes to mind Cardi B's got some splainin' to do, she's been down in the D.R. rubbing her Dominican privilege into the faces of the Haitians currently suffering next door on Hispaniola.

    So you accept pity olympics when it's done by white people? Whites who don't complain are victims?

    I think the audience just told her to fuck off - didn't seem to be looking for any pity.

    How can I make it clear to those who wish to twist comments into strawmen? I think identity politics is counter-productive to whoever practices it. Especially when it's done by skin color only, that's when it makes the least sense and is bound to get major kick-back. Because frankly, that's "racist".

    If people see white privilege in operation, what are they supposed to do?

    This one definitely is very much like right-wing Christian jihad against "Hollywood".

    Not to mention the role of the bikini in objectifying women.
    And just like a man to sponge off the hard work of women as well.

    Just like how mom solves the problem: NOBODY gets to say the word now! NOBODY!:


    You'd make a good parent - or block warden.

    every time we talk about how absurd tech-company gut-check "culture fit" hiring is, I trot out this talk a PayPal guy gave during Peter Thiel's computer class

    so many different threads of bullshit woven together

    — Alex P (@SaddestRobots) October 17, 2019


    Makes me wonder if they understood the meaning of the word "ghetto". Diversity/globalism, it's not rocket science, not even as hard as coding.

    Latest Comments