Woke and Cancel Culture Gone Wild, Chapter III

    “In much of the Western world, the liberal takeover of institutions is nearly complete. But the revolution isn’t coming.” — @verdur_in observes a reactionary backlash emerging instead https://t.co/7dw6VFWMqz

    — The Critic (@TheCriticMag) March 8, 2023

    (Continued. Chapter II is HERE (locked to new comments)


    While contemplating white male privilege... (Murdaugh et al)

    Then again what's happened to the head of BLM with her new houses And such?

    Carl's a normie Dem with 10K followers - not even centrist, he's pretty FDR liberal - following people like him is how I know that Woke lefty cancel culture is still very much operative:

    here we go again:

    that the NYPost is making a big deal about this story is part of the whole shtick

    here we go again, II:

    he got several good replies, but this is the best one wink

    Joker and Taxi Driver? Are you saying PoC's are laughable and mentally unbalanced? White privilege again...

    Paging Doc Cleveland, bet he's having some fun now, yep, oh boy

    the quips continue...

    and then there's retweets like this

    publish or perish, madam, and bullshit or not that's the narrartive that the powers-that-be are publishing these days in the humanities

    Stanford Law School is far from immune, here's proof at the end of his thread:

    Really disgusting behavior! Just wait til this crew starts showing up in the courts.


    More -

    How'd she get to be Dean?  She's a 12-year-old.

    Ted Cruz sees red meat here, just pointing it out:

    the drama at Stanford Law continues (thread)

    good question:

    This Stanford brouhaha just makes me want to grind this axe again — why would Stanford Law School, an institution whose only purpose in life is to be exclusive and hierarchical, have a dean whose job is to pretend to be trying to make it equitable and inclusive?

    — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 17, 2023

    And it’s not like this is unique to Stanford. The core function of every high ranked American college and university is hierarchy and exclusion.

    Maybe they want to also be diverse, but that’s different from being equitable and inclusive.

    — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 17, 2023

    & there's a long thread of replies

    but let me just point out the thing of elites thinking they represent what 'the underclass' wants again

    and not enough Dems are willing to 'Sister Souljah' them

    1978, what's old is new again.Inflation soaring,underclass being a big problem with babies having babies, Carter's version of the 'new south' all the rage, so "Hollywood" was doing the 'woke' thing hot and heavy, Dems still all for tax-and-spend" LBG era, and so a whole bunch of Dems became "Reagan Democrats" -

    res ipsa loquitor -

    "tenets", dammit.

    very sad -

    A bit dumb. Blacks made up 1/4 the vote in 2016 primaries. Even tho Biden's black support fell, he won 90% of the black vote (and 39% of his vote was PoC). Unsurprising that a devoted block of voters gets a shout-out. Here maybe 50% black, not sure where or for what the photo is. And w/o Clyburne's deal, he was running i to trouble in the primary vote that would've hurt him.

    Maybe I was youthfully naive, but i thought Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition" was kind of cool (but it wasn't built on white shaming, justifying destructive riots and spikes in gun deaths - somehow felt more like kitchen table issues).

    Interesting 538 exercise showing black peer pressure gets black conservatives supporting a black liberal (Obama).


    Meanwhile, here's how Joe's 2020 figures panned out - not losing non-college whites while padding college whites a bit made for the success - yes, Cubans and Texas Mexicans abandoned but also Wisconsin Hispanics. Part we can guess is Hispanics aren't so down with BLM and George Floyd junkie messaging, while Hispanics are building on the American dream, not so much Latinx woke victimhood.




    Sorry it's your opinion that strikes me as clueless. Reasons off the top of my head:

    1) The vote for Biden has something to do with who gets to be congressional interns?

    2) Black voters care who gets to be congressional interns? If so, won't the Dem picture make Black male voters angry?

    I find their photo nearly as insulting to the intelligence as this:

    Fact check: Kente cloths have ties to West African slave trade

    Well you did catch me before coffee, so i didn't register it was congressional interns.

    25% of Congress folk are PoC, so interns that are closer to 50% PoC would st Ike me as discriminating against whites pretty hard, and it can be a pretty important credential for budding politicians or bureaucrats/civil servants.

    Actually if 90% of PoC in Congress are Democrats, then roughly 40% of Dem congresspeople would be PoC? so an ethnic makeup in that ballpark is near normal, no?

    (this photo was taken in 2016, numbers have shifted a bit since - quite a few more females were elected in 2018, 2020 & 2022, tho i can't say female PoC or especially black female).

    (and to be sexist, i imagine often females will do a better job in the kind of work interns do than frequently testosterone full-of-themselves males who may expect more to start towards the top, but then again, female law students prolly aren't gunning for coffee/Xerox duty either - not sure what the background is for these interns - all high school, or some college?)

    This video is not "woke". But I think it's wonderful!

    oh boy frown

    Well, to detox a colon sounds like i gotta go pollute it first,
    wish I could drink like in the old days... would help me ignore this rubbish.

    Martha Stewart: she's coming after your shtick (and your friendship with Snoop won't help you as he's complicit)

    Good to know my pickle containers are tabooi remember coming to India how even disheveled shanties on the inside could look immaculate with super clean sheets, etc 

    But that's just me appropriating.

    what's new is old:

    Norway's healthcare watchdog not woke:

    Anti-woke in the Bronx:

    'The free speech skeptics abandon Salman Rushdie'

    #savethewriter https://t.co/mMTu9iEp81

    — Michael Maiello (@MichaelMaiello) March 17, 2023

    https://t.co/gM9f6dyRpf via @Harpers

    — Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) March 17, 2023

    I'm gonna paste the whole article, fair use basis, because it's important, not the least of which because Oates is mentioned in it (as signing a letter against an award to Charlie Hebdo) and one wonders whether she has changed her mind. My underlining:

    A Climate of Fear Harper's March 2023 issue

    The free speech skeptics abandon Salman Rushdie

    Salman Rushdie’s 2012 memoir, Joseph Anton, closes as its author emerges in 2002 from years in hiding; he bids goodbye to members of the security detail that has guarded him since Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa called for his death. “That was it,” Rushdie writes. “More than thirteen years after the police walked into his life, they spun on their heels and walked out of it.” Still, he wonders whether “the battle over The Satanic Verses” has ended in “victory or defeat.”

    This may seem a strange question. Rushdie’s novel had not been suppressed; in fact, its literary and political significance was widely recognized, and its author was alive and well. Both Rushdie and those charged with his protection believed that the threat against him had abated enough for him to return to public life. Yet Rushdie ends his memoir on a note of concern: he writes that the “climate of fear” had intensified since the fatwa was issued, making it “harder for books like his to be published, or even, perhaps, to be written.”

    As it happens, he had cause to worry. In the intervening years, support for Rushdie and for free expression has narrowed—a fact made particularly clear since his August 2022 stabbing by an American of Lebanese descent who expressed admiration for Khomeini and condemned Rushdie after reading “a couple pages” of The Satanic Verses. The assault, which put Rushdie in intensive care and left him blind in one eye, would have been unimaginable without the fatwa, yet many have been content to treat it as a random act of violence by a lone madman.

    An August 19 New York City rally of writers gathered in support of Rushdie reprised a 1989 demonstration against the fatwa in which Susan Sontag, Norman Mailer, Joan Didion, Christopher Hitchens, and others participated, but the later iteration “paled in comparison,” a Le Monde editorial remarked. Across social media, writers expressed concern for Rushdie’s health, but an instinctual solidarity with him and the sense—so strong at the time of the fatwa—that his fate spoke to all of us as members of a liberal society did not materialize. Even among his defenders, free speech took a back seat.

    Why? One reason is fear. In 2009, the British writer Hanif Kureishi told Prospect Magazine that “nobody would have the balls today to write The Satanic Verses.” He might have added that no one would have the balls to defend it. Most writers, Kureishi continued, live quietly, and “they don’t want a bomb in the letterbox.”

    The effectiveness of threatened violence was proven by an event that came to be known as “the Danish cartoon crisis.” In 2005—the same year that Ayatollah Khamenei reaffirmed Rushdie’s death sentence—the left-wing Danish author Kåre Bluitgen sought an illustrator for a children’s book about Mohammed but was reportedly unable to find one due to artists’ fears of retaliation. The story caught the attention of editors at Jyllands-Posten, one of Denmark’s leading newspapers, who solicited members of the forty-two-person newspaper illustrators’ union to draw the prophet in a test of self-censorship. They received twelve submissions. Their publication, alongside an essay on the experiment by culture editor Flemming Rose, led to a series of violent protests over several months in which hundreds of people died. The controversy became international news, but the vast majority of U.S. outlets that covered it did not reprint the cartoons, so as to avoid instigating more violence.1 When Yale University Press published the definitive scholarly work on the subject, Jytte Klausen’s The Cartoons that Shook the World, the publishers also declined to reprint the cartoons, against the author’s wishes. The press’s director, John Donatich, explained that he did not shy away from controversy, as shown by the fact that he had published an “unauthorized” biography of the Thai monarch: “I’ve never blinked.” But despite this record of untold bravery, he did not want “blood on [his] hands” by reprinting the cartoons.

    That offense to fundamentalist Muslims will result in bloodshed—and that any spilled blood would be “on the hands” of those whose free expression caused the offense—remains a bedrock assumption for editors and publishers, as recent examples demonstrate. In 2008, Random House—Rushdie’s own publisher in the United States—sent around advance copies of The Jewel of Medina, a novel about Mohammed and his child bride, for promotional blurbs. When some of those solicited declined on the grounds that the book might provoke violence, Random House simply pulled the plug, claiming that it wanted to protect “the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.” Rushdie was vocal about his disappointment: “This is censorship by fear,” he said, “and it sets a very bad precedent indeed.”

    Censorship by fear can take two forms: top-down or bottom-up. From the top, a publisher or editor can stop publication over concern about a potential reaction. If the right to free expression is qualified by the condition that you not “upset someone, especially someone who is willing to resort to violence,” Rushdie noted in Joseph Anton, it is no longer a right. However, the text or cartoon still exists, and might appear elsewhere (a small publisher picked up The Jewel of Medina after Random House scrapped it). But bottom-up censorship—self-censorship—is more nefarious, more widespread, and more difficult to track. Writers shelve projects before they see the light of day. The cartoon is undrawn, the novel or the scene unwritten. “The fight against censorship is open and dangerous and thus heroic,” the Yugoslavian novelist Danilo Kiš observed in 1985, “while the battle against self-censorship is anonymous, lonely and unwitnessed.”

    Despite the heroism of so many writers behind the Iron Curtain, some Western commentators throughout the Cold War claimed that citizens of the Soviet bloc valued the right to work, housing, free medical care, and education, but didn’t desire the imposition of Western liberal principles. Demands that those living under communist regimes be guaranteed freedom of expression were thus considered a form of imperialism. Many progressives offer the same interpretation when discussing the Muslim world today.

    There is another reason support for Rushdie is not as strong as it should be: the increasingly widespread belief that free speech operates as a tool of the elite, that it ought not to be applied to speech that risks harm to marginalized groups. In a 2015 interview, Rushdie suggested that if the fatwa had come down then, commentators would be more upset that he’d insulted a minority group than that his life was endangered.

    At the time, Rushdie was responding to fresh controversy: PEN America—the writers’ organization for which Rushdie had previously served as president—had given the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo an award after Islamic terrorists raided an editorial meeting and slaughtered twelve people over the magazine’s history of mocking Mohammed.2 To Rushdie’s amazement, over two hundred great and not-so-great writers—including Francine Prose, Geoff Dyer, Michael Ondaatje, Joyce Carol Oates, and Teju Cole—protested the award. If a writers’ group cannot defend free expression, Rushdie wondered, what can it do? To the righteous protesters, the cartoonists had intended to cause “humiliation and suffering” by attacking devout French Muslims who were “already marginalized, embattled and victimized.” Moreover, the cartoonists ignored the power dynamic at play—the fact that, supposedly, the illustrators with their pens held all the power, while the terrorists with their guns held none. (Convey that news to the families of the dead.)

    This protest demonstrated the left’s retreat from free speech. For the American essayist Eliot Weinberger, the award was “merely the latest instance in the now-rampant free expression of gentlemanly Islamophobia.” Weinberger was probably pleased that the Islamic Human Rights Commission, a British outfit which claims to defend “the oppressed,” bestowed its “Islamophobe of the Year” award on Charlie Hebdo just two months after the massacre. First you get murdered in your office, then a human rights group posthumously condemns you for offending your killers.

    The PEN protest popularized the idea that free speech should face limits when it comes to marginalized groups. The free speech movement of the old campus left apparently had the story upside-down: the new progressive credo posits that free speech sustains racism. In a recent article with the lovely title the settler coloniality of free speech, the scholar Darcy Leigh argues that free speech props up “white supremacist colonial power.” Rather than serving as a public good, Leigh explains in a model of academic prose, the “liberal politics around the freedom of free speech have functioned to control or silence Indigenous, Black, and/or otherwise racially othered speech.”

    What this view means in practice was recently demonstrated at Minnesota’s Hamline University, when the adjunct professor Erika López Prater showed a fourteenth-century painting of Mohammed to a global art history class. The image was not a satirical drawing but an illustration from medieval Persia, and López Prater gave advance warning, allowing any student who might take offense to leave. Nonetheless, the university fired López Prater following complaints from Muslim students, and the university’s president co-signed a letter stating that the feelings of the Muslim students “should have superseded academic freedom.”

    The free speech skeptics might want to read up on the history of abolitionism. In 1860, Frederick Douglass participated in a meeting of abolitionists in Boston. A mob of anti-abolitionists stormed the hall and silenced the gathering. When Douglass finally gave his prepared remarks, he included some thoughts on free speech. He found the excuse that the meeting in crisis-ridden Boston was “ill-timed” unconvincing: “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.” The right to free speech, he stated, strikes fear in the heart of tyrants. “It is the right which they first of all strike down. . . . Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble. . . . Slavery cannot tolerate free speech.”

    One wonders what the bien pensants who prefer inoffensive expression would do with Voltaire, who regularly signed his letters “Écrasez l’infâme!” This translates to “crush the abomination,” by which he meant the Catholic Church. Today’s progressives would probably charge him with humiliating the faithful. Voltaire failed to understand the plight of provincial Catholics; Weinberger would doubtless take him to task for a gentlemanly anti-clericalism.

    The point is, the liberal literati are backing away from freedom of expression. As one British free speech advocate recently asked, “Where is the ‘Je suis Salman Rushdie’ movement? Answer: nowhere.

     is the author, most recently, of On Diversity.

    also note the reference in the article to leftists during the Cold War who excused lack of freedom of speech in the Soviet Union, and think about how that relates to Putinist Russia 

    The Samizdat literary warriors under Communism relied on a brother/sisterhood of patriots to free speech to keep forbidden material in circulation. The signatories if the Czech dissident Charter77 were known as much for their resultant suffering - Havel's incarceration the best known, but far from the only - while government reprisals against any signs of non-allegiance were quick, even tho often mundane - loss of job, exile from Prague to a village, reprisals against one's parents, and other assorted deaths by a thousand cuts. Voting was expected to be 100%, so anyone not participating was chased through the streets lest the village suffer reprisals as a hotbed of non-conformity. Waving the appropriate flag on whatever Communist commemoration was of course de rigeur, and non-participants even through foolish neglect would see "privileges" rescinded. Children were expected to be good "pioneers" (Communist version of scouts), training ground for next-gen fellow travellers. This is covered by the the movie "years under the dog", where a Prague café socialite/actress and her foolish but tnthusiastic business husband are exiled to the non-cafe'd well socially monitored boonies a few miles out of Prague.


    whatever continues 'the narrative'

    three of those evil white hetero guys plotting white supremacy or some such 

    (just because I felt like sharing the picture; I was never a big fan of any of the 3 but now they look comparatively charming to pop culture these days)

    Latest Comments