We have been writing about efforts to fire professors who have criticized the “Defund the Police” campaign or Black Lives Matter. Now, Charles Negy, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Central Florida, is under school investigation and has received police protection after he tweeted about what he views as “black privilege.” While countless professors have written about “white privilege,” Negy is looking at discipline or termination while police have been called to his house to protect his life. Negy is not the first professor to be put under police protection after voicing criticism of the protests or BLM. Once again, I am less interested in the merits of the underlying debate as the implications for free speech and academic freedom. As one of the large free speech blogs, we have long discussed efforts to pressure or fire academics for their exercise of free speech and academic freedom. Recently, however, these efforts have been joined by schools and fellow academics who seek to deter others from expressing opposing views.
Negy is facing outrage caused over his tweets in early June including a petition demanding his termination by more than 30,000 signatures. While classroom misconduct has been raised by some critics, most of the effort (and the focus of this posting) is on his statements on social media. That petition addresses Negy’s statements on social media as unacceptable and grounds for termination:
“We are calling on the University of Central Florida to dismiss psychology professor Charles Negy due to abhorrent racist comments he has made and continues to make on his personal Twitter account. In addition to racism, Negy has engaged in perverse transphobia and sexism on his account, which is just as reprehensible. While he has a right to free speech, he does not have a right to dehumanize students of color and other minority groups, which is a regular occurance [sic] in his classroom. By allowing him to continue in his position, UCF would simply be empowering another cog in the machine of systemic racism.”
As we have previously discussed (with an Oregon professor and a Rutgers professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. There were also controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments. There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives. Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.
Negy has faced protests at his home and on campus, according to news reports. He has explored the concept of “white shaming” as an academic, including a book entitled “White Shaming: Bullying Based on Prejudice, Virtue-signaling, and Ignorance.”
Negy’s work is highly controversial and his tweets have inflamed critics. In a now deleted tweet, he wrote “Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.”
He has also written, again on Twitter, “If Afr. Americans as a group, had the same behavioral profile as Asian Americans (on average, performing the best academically, having the highest income, committing the lowest crime, etc.), would we still be proclaiming ‘systematic racism’ exists?”
Again, the question is not the merits or tenor of such writings but the right of academics to express such viewpoints. There is little comparable protests when professors write inflammatory comments about white culture or white privilege. Indeed, I have supported academics who have been criticized for such statements. However, the silence of other academics in these countervailing cases is deafening.
Indeed, many faculty like those at Cornell are pledging to combat what they call “racism masquerading as informed commentary.” When done through their own right to free speech, this is perfectly appropriate. However, there are now a variety of cases where faculty are supporting efforts to force colleagues to retire or to fire colleagues for expressing opposing views.
UCF President Alexander Cartwright told students that the university is now investigating Negy, and that he and his Administration “are acutely aware of the offensive and hurtful Twitter posts that professor Charles Negy has shared on his personal page. These posts do not reflect the values of UCF, and I strongly condemn these racist and abhorrent posts.”
So again the question is how we handle such disputes while respecting core protections of free speech. Faculty at state schools have the added protections from government regulation of speech. However, even public school principals have faced content-based discipline for questioning the protests or BLM movement. It is the lack of a clear standard or consistent application as academics that is so troubling. The message of academics is that their positions can be lost if they express opposing views or dispute a rising orthodox position on these positions on campus.
Again, I often find statements from academics on both sides to be repugnant and inflammatory. However, I am admittedly “old school” when it comes to free speech, particularly on campus. I have been writing for years about the erosion of free speech values in our colleges and universities. I have never seen the level of fear and intimidation in speaking with faculty today. Most are afraid of being labeled racist if they utter a single objection to these measures or the targeting of unpopular colleagues. The result is a chilling effect on speech that is being actively encouraged by Administrators and faculty in investigating, censuring, and condemning faculty to express opposing views on current issues like “Defund The Police.”
When I first entered teaching 30 years ago, universities were viewed as places of passionate debate and pluralistic viewpoints. For years, we have seen ideological rigidity and intolerance supplant those values – a trend that is destroying the very intellectual freedom that gives life and meaning to our educational institutions. This is not about any individual academic or the merits of their speech. It is about all of us and when we will take a stand for the right of expression and academic freedoms — even of those with whom we vehemently disagree.
If you can’t call what the left has been doing for decades censorship, then you have proven the validity of the assertion already. The left uses intimidation, guilt and any other means to achieve its ultimate goal and they are too cowardly to admit just what that goal is. A pox on the lot of them at this point, our nation is being destroyed from within.
More of the famous and well known leftist tolerance for which we are all so grateful! I am simply ecstatic reading this.
Black (and other minority privilege) exists. Just ask Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren, No one would claim such status unless they believed there would be something to be gained. Nobody emulates something they believe to be inferior.
Let me count the ways and means of black privilege.
1. We can riot, burn and destroy businesses without fear of arrest or prosecution. Get free stuff in the process. And then the same businesses pledge millions to rebuild it all.
2. Believing that your racial identity is a badge of honor.
3. Feeling like white America owes you something for the sins of history, even if you didn’t live through any of that history and virtually none of the white Americans in your midst had anything to do with it.
4. Believing that no matter what kinds of crazily racist things you say or do, you can’t possibly be guilty of racism because racism = prejudice + power, and black people don’t have power in this country, so they can’t be racist.
5. Feeling like, no matter how empirically unsupported or obviously ludicrous something is, if you say it and believe it, no one can question it because it is the truth as you experience it.
6. If you are a cop dealing with a suspect of another race, not feeling like you have to second-guess everything you do for fear that a single misstep will get you labeled a racist. (Yes, this is a real thing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27/this-study-found-race-matters-in-police-shootings-but-the-results-may-surprise-you/.)
7. Not having to get much higher grades and SAT scores hundreds of points higher than people of another race to get into a competitive university. The averge black SAT score is about 200 points lower than the average white score.
8. Believing that after having affirmative-acted you in, universities and other institutions have an additional obligation of creating a comfortable environment for you and making you feel at home.
9. Believing that you can laze away the days and party away the nights, and if you’re not successful, racism and white supremacy are to blame.
10. Believing that your bad grades = racism.
11. Believing that anything bad that happens to you when a white person is involved or remotely in the vicinity = racism.
12. Believing that if anything you think is racist happens to you, you have the moral obligation to be obnoxious about it (and, maybe even believing you should get paid a wage for acting on your moral obligation to be obnoxious about it: Remember Oberlin College?
13. Believing that if every white person you know doesn’t take your side when you accuse someone of racism, they’re just part of the problem.
14. Taking for granted that, in order to be able to say that they are exhibiting “diversity,” universities, large corporations and governmental institutions will be falling all over themselves to accept or hire you if you’re even remotely qualified.
15. Believing that if said universities, large corporations and governmental institutions didn’t accept or hire you, it’s because of racism and not because of you.
16. Taking for granted that, once a company hires you, it can’t fire you no matter how lazy and incompetent you are, lest they be called racist.
17. Not having to worry about whether or not an inadvertent racially insensitive remark is going to get you ostracized, fired or both.
18. Feeling free to act and dress as thuggishly and boorishly as you want without anyone outside your immediate family and Bill Cosby daring to call you on it.
19. Feeling like you can be rude to people of a different race because … well … they are of a different race, and you’ve already put up with a lot.
20. Feeling like, just because you’re black, “you’ve been through enough shit” that you’ve earned the right to curse all you want in print and in public so people learn about “all the shit you’ve been through.”
21. Not giving a second thought to taking up two or three seats on public transportation when others are standing.
22. Believing that, just like an explosive metal and a poisonous gas combine to make table salt, your combination of ignorance and arrogance somehow adds up to a virtue.
23. Feeling like “your people” have been silenced for so long in this country that now you need to make up for it by having your private conversation be conducted at a volume high enough for all those around you not to be able to hear themselves think.
24. Feeling at liberty to blast your music and shout out the lyrics, profanity and vulgarity included, in public.
25. Feeling at liberty to ignore or insult anyone white who asks you to turn your music down, as they are just attempting to act on what they think is their racial prerogative.
25. Thinking that it’s just normal that “your music” will be played every time you go clubbing.
27. Thinking that the way you dance, no matter how vulgar it might be, is inherently cool.
27. Feeling like your race gives you the standing to play arbiter of who and what is cool and who or what isn’t.
29. Feeling like you bring “cool” with you wherever you go.
30. Not having to worry about whether expressing pride in your culture is going to get you accused of racial supremacy and white nationalism.
31. Not having to worry about whether saying that your life/lives matters is going to be construed as racism.
32. Expecting that politicians will pander to you on the basis of your race and give you a handout if they expect to win your vote.
33. Knowing that if you write something describing your experience of life or calling out racism in any form, you have a very good chance of getting it published somewhere respectable due to widespread media bias in your favor.
34. Expecting that if you create something artistic, you must be recognized for it, and if you are not, this is the product of entrenched racism.
35. Believing that, if made by you or other minorities, vulgar and primitive street art exhibiting utter ignorance of the artistic traditions of millennia of human civilization is vibrant and profound and deserving of instant canonization.
36. Believing that the mere fact that you are who you are means you are an interesting person with a rich cultural background that frees you up from having to learn anything that you don’t already know, so that if someone tries to teach you something about another culture, especially Western culture, they are oppressing you.
37. Believing that the world as you experience it has the obligation to reflect back to you an aggrandized, beatified version of yourself.
38. Believing that being forced to put in lots of hard work to achieve anything is a subtle form of racism because you “are already dealing with a lot” and don’t need to be burdened with more.
39. Never needing “diversity training” because, though you are just one person, you are inherently “diverse” and bring “diversity” with you wherever you go.
40. Not feeling like you are “walking on eggshells” and have to shut up and hold back every time someone talks to you about race. (You can read more about that here: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begins-in-high-school/.)
41. Expecting that a “dialogue” about race, or really, about anything at all consists of you talking and white people listening, nodding obsequiously and never disagreeing with you about anything because they know you’ve got the dreaded race card ever at the ready in your back pocket.
42. Feeling like no matter how bad things get, at least you’ll still always be one step above the lowest of the low: those poor pickup-driving Confederate-Flag-waving white racist rednecks who deserve to rot on earth and in hell for their sins and those of their ancestors.
43. Not experiencing any sense of shame from letting yourself become grotesquely obese.
44. Not experiencing any sense of shame, period.
45. Not having your sense of self-confidence and self-worth undermined when someone you are interested in who is white doesn’t return your affections, as they are obviously just motivated by racism and, therefore, don’t deserve you anyway.
46. Feeling like you are entitled to make the decision to hook up with/date/marry only people of your own race, while if a white person did the same thing, that would be racist.
47. Not feeling like a target in a dangerous neighborhood.
48. Not having to give a second thought to whether or not you’ll be perceived as racist for crossing the street when a thug is sauntering your way.
49. Feeling at liberty to criticize white kids (and adults) behaving badly as products of white privilege, while anyone who dares to criticize black kids (or adults) behaving badly is clearly a racist trying to perpetuate centuries-old oppression of black inventiveness and creativity.
50. Feeling like if you know someone is white but know nothing else about them, they’re privileged, and you can dismiss out of hand anything they think, say, do or suffer.
51. Never needing to say you’re sorry … about anything.
Fantastic list Antonio! I am going to copy and paste it to my word processor.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@squeeky
Glad you are back. And also glad to be of some help.
Let me add the following. While I am extremely skeptical that today’s whites owe today’s blacks ANYTHING (and even if they did, our government has paid trillions since the days of the Great Society and continues to do so in the form of AA, set asides, minority scholarships, preferences, etc.)
Americans in general and leftists in particular absolutely suck at distinguishing between the various shades of off white and brown. They love to group whites on one side and minorities on the other. I can assure you it isn’t that simple. When whites become a minority (and unfortunately a despised one) a majority minority country dominated by Hispanics will absolutely not tolerate black misbehavior.
TO: MEMO TO BLACK AMERICA
YOUR ANCESTORS MAY HAVE WORKED FOR THE WHITE MAN AND SUFFERED BUT YOU DIDN’T WORK FOR ME OR MINE. I OWE YOU NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
antonio
Thank you Antonio! I certainly hope Hispanics show more “stones” than whites have. I figure a generation or two and new Hispanics here will be assimilated in American culture and society. Meanwhile, blacks will still be whining about slavery, and “nobody lubs dem” and continuing to make other races despise most of them. Blacks need a real leader, like a Malcolm X, to come along and start giving them Hell for their lousy behavior. I don’t think they will ever take advice from white people.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@squeeky
Appreciate the kind words. Some Hispanics could probably assimilate and some could not. Hispanic is not a race or ethnicity, it is a government designation to grant minority status. There are White, Mestizo, Mulatto and Amerindian Hispanics. It certainly doesn’t help for the US government to create another underclass by allowing the importation of millions of poorly educated people to drive down the wages of working class Americans and then encourage them not to assimilate after they arrive.
The left likes mass unlimited immigration because America is an evil place which needs to be remade. The mainstream right likes it because they want to drive wages down. To h@@l with both of them.
Honestly the only solution to the Black-White racial problem is separation. There were blacks such as Marcus Garvey which recognized this. By 21st century standards Abraham Lincoln was a horrible racist because he wanted to resettle the freed blacks to Liberia and the Caribbean.
We aren’t even close to separation yet. Both the left and mainstream right are going to continue to double down and do what has been done for the last 60 years with little success. Lots of people will suffer in the meantime.
antonio
“Honestly the only solution to the Black-White racial problem is separation.”
I think that is a naive statement, but each to their own. In many ways we are tribal and we join together for common safety and the need to survive and improve our lifestyles. The Indians are on their reservations so that perhaps in your mind is a solution. The Mormons predominantly exist in one portion of the nation. The Jews exist all over but predominently in a few urban areas. Anti-Semitism is increasing so would your solution be to separate the Jews from everyone else?
Jean-Michel Basquiat 35
Antonio, Jesus, that is just horrible. What you provided was a mix of racist innuendo, ignorance, bigotry, and a dash of insults. Wow. Good thing freedom of speech lets you say all that.
“Antonio, Jesus, that is just horrible.”
That’s why they’re known as “hate facts”.
They’re true, but if you say them out loud, you must be a terrible, awful human being.
Truthhertz, that’s the problem the majority of what he said “out loud” wasn’t true. They were just racist stereotypes used to paint an entire group of people. Some may be true, but that’s stretching the meaning of true.
@svelaz
By your standards, I CANNOT BE RACIST, get it?? I am Hispanic and if I were a leftist, b@@ch and moan one you would be k@@ing my a@@ by now in attempt to suck up.
I OWE BLACKS NOTHING. And tell you what, you don’t owe me anything either.
antonio
Antonio, I’m also Hispanic and nobody is saying you owe blacks anything. But your racist rant above speaks volumes about your ignorance. And yes by any standard you can be racist. Being Hispanic doesn’t give you license to be racist. Eat your tacos and chillout maestro.
@anonymous
My statements concerning black criminality, short time preference, low average intelligence and other substandard behaviors are FACTS. Inconvenient ones but FACTS nonetheless. And your name calling changes none of that.
As for my “ignorance”, let’s just say my IQ is over 120. So are you saying one is intelligent ONLY if they advocate leftist ideas?
And as for being ‘racist’, it means EVERYTHING and it means NOTHING. The word didn’t even exist until invented by Leon Trotsky in the History of the Russian Revolution (1930). You are a ‘racist’ if you disagree with anything supported by a leftist or happen to present facts for which they have no answer.
Leftists usually are the ones who say only “whites” can be racist. I guess minorities can if they leave the plantation.
antonio
“They were just racist stereotypes used to paint an entire group of people.”
Once again, it all depends on how you define “stereotype”.
Black males statistically commit a wild disproportion of violent crime, however if you acknowledge this “out loud”, you’re guilty of “stereotyping”.
Stereotypes do not originate in a vacuum, nor are they created out of whole-cloth, they’re usually based on an observed pattern of behavior.
It should also be mentioned that “white stereotypes” are perfectly fine, and are in fact a staple of black comedy and black cinema.
It’s only the nonwhite stereotypes that constitute a crime.
What is Antonio saying that hasn’t been shown to exist? You have 51 statements to choose from. Pick 5.
Allan, the majority of Antonio’s “facts” consist of behavior that of just being a d-ick. That’s not privilege exclusive to blacks. All he posted was pure ignorant nonsense.
“ 43. Not experiencing any sense of shame from letting yourself become grotesquely obese.”
What does this even mean? That they are not ashamed to be fat? That’s a privilege?
“ 27. Feeling like your race gives you the standing to play arbiter of who and what is cool and who or what isn’t.
29. Feeling like you bring “cool” with you wherever you go.”
Nobody thinks this as a privilege. Even black people.
All those assumptions and really racist bigoted stereotypes are just awful examples of what real ignorance looks like. That’s not “truth” that’s just pure ignorance being parlayed as “truth”.
Sigh. 🤦♂️
“All those assumptions and really racist bigoted stereotypes are just awful examples of what real ignorance looks like.”
I disagree.
Statistically, blacks are most likely to be clinically obese, and least likely to take any corrective measures. The “traditional black diet”, extremely high in fat and sugar, is embraced as an extension of one’s “blackness”. Healthy diets are too bland (white), and weight-loss is considered a “white thing”, and is therefore rejected.
Truthhurtz, your statistics are not about race being the culprit for them “not being ashamed of morbid obesity”.
Non-Hispanic blacks (49.6%) had the highest age-adjusted prevalence of obesity, followed by Hispanics (44.8%), non-Hispanic whites (42.2%) and non-Hispanic Asians (17.4%).
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
It is certainly not a privilege of race. This is a socioeconomic issue.
“It is certainly not a privilege of race. This is a socioeconomic issue.”
I don’t disagree that socio-economics plays a significant role, but I suppose we disagree on its weight.
In my opinion, blacks are more race-centered than any other group of people, and are fixated on seeing the world through a prism of race…virtually everything is about “blackness”, also known as “keepin’ it real”.
A large part of “keepin’ it real” is fierce loyalty to “black culture”, which includes adherence to unhealthy traditional black cuisine.
For the record, I respect your right to disagree.
I’m not going to say the 51 statements apply to all black people. They don’t, and certainly not to the bulk of blacks that are no different than any other persons in society. Many of us on this blog are unnoticeable as are the bulk of the black population. However, there seems to be a subculture out there that is providing a very noticeable appearance that forms perceptions that are reflective of that partiuclar subculture.
Let me start with the term Black Lives Matter. When a person who very much regrets the racism against black persons says All Lives Matter, that is not being cool (29) and if one is not cool one has to get on their knees to their sovereign to be permitted back into society (27).
I see you could only provide 3 statements not 5 and I personally would have left out (43) and maybe some others but that is only due to my sensitivities that differ from person to person. However, when one thinks about obesity and states that likely one of the risk factors of Covid, obesity, contributes to a higher death rate you can be referred to as obnoxious (12) and told the statement is racist and obnoxious.
This is the subculture we are facing and that many are afraid of. That fear doesn’t exclude blacks that have been assimilated into society for a long time some since the nation was born. Unfortuantely, the left and the media prey on these people who are threatened (18) by their own. Who lost out in the riots? Black businesses, black employees and neighborhood stores needed by black people that reside in that location. Who gained or thinks they gained? The leftist movement filled with Democrats.
What would make some people feel that this subculture represents the black community? It doesn’t. That the people most affected vote for the same politicians that have been screwing them for over a half a century.
There is no room for heretic thought criminals in the Great Leap Forward.
The glorious CHAZ utopia is just one more law or regulation away.
To the gulag with this non-conformist scum.
I support those opposing the BLM cult mob mentality the right to freely express their opinion without losing their jobs, freedom or safety. Does anyone know if there’s an organization yet that is helping all these people out because I’d like to contribute?
While Abraham Lincoln is hailed as “the great emancipator”, he is well documented as believing that there were inherent problems with the black race and proposed the voluntary relocation of freed slaves to Central America if not to Africa. Unfortunately, John Wilkes Booth shot him although there is some question as to who was actually behind the assassination. Our country now faces big racial problems and I see no end to it. Race has become the major political issue and those on the left use it as their weapon. Academia crawls with leftists who want no one to challenge them in any form. They are seeking to control thought by ranting about “hate speech” which is actually the expression of thoughts contrary to theirs.
Negy is targeted for destruction because what he says is true. Capitalism needs to maintain a slave class and it does not particularly care if it is black or “white.” Granting impunity to any group is a dangerous project. There are many videos, publicly available, showing black criminals committing crimes against white people while verbalizing their racist motivations. In one, a group of thugs on a commuter train force a passenger to say “black lives matter” and then they beat him anyway. The Ford Foundation recently gave Black Lives Matter a million dollars to extend its reach. Dem politicians are litterally on their knees to demonstrate their utter devotion to reinventing slavery in the era of monopoly finance capital.
That’s exactly right Kevin. This section of Bastiat’s the law describes what is going on perfectly.
Victims of Lawful Plunder
Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.
The investment banks of America are run by plunderers who would make Chinggis Khan blush. But, we think they are just businessmen.
They are cunning.
Securities firms are a problem if the regulatory regime allows firms to house under one roof divisions wherein the interests of one set of clients is in conflict with the interests of another (and the law allows that with the fig leaf that the various divisions of the firm must not communicate over a ‘Chinese wall”). They are a problem if they’re peddling cr!p to their retail brokerage customers (or just posting them fictitious statements a la Bernie Madoff). They’re also a problem if their structure and the law regulating them does not provide for them to be rapidly liquidated when the need arises.
That having been said, there’s nothing wrong per se with the subsidiary activities of such firms – again provided they’re not embezzling from or defrauding customers. Securities underwriting, proprietary trading, retail brokerage, prime brokerage, treasury services, and private equity are legitimate activities.
You’re missing the point of legal plunder. If you’re expecting investment banks, or any other for profit entity for that matter, to not seek to maximize profits, then you’re expectations are Utopian. If you’re expecting them to operate within the law, then you’d better make sure the law is followed and prosecute when it isn’t. If the law allows for what you call plunder, then look no further than the lawmakers that created the law in the first place. And ultimately, you have to look at citizens themselves that elect and reelect the lawmakers that set up this system of legal plunder.
Kevin Hornbuckle – this is how for the Dems have gone.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1273450148027228160
https://twitter.com/i/status/1273493409899008001
That was horrible, PaulCS! Feral black savages!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – Twitter is starting to fill up with short videos like that, today. People have had enough. Except the Portland Police who got locked in their station house and had to beg to be let out. 😉
That is good! I hope there are a zillion of them. Colin Flaherty used to do them all the time, usually with opera music in the background. That is why I keep a 5 shot revolver in my purse. And now, a knife in my boot. When I wear boots. If I see trouble, my hand goes into my purse. Twice I was in situations where I felt uncomfortable enough to have my hand on the gun, but luckily nothing happened. Plus, I try to follow Tommy Sotomayor’s advice – where there’s more than three, you won’t see me.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Colin Flaherty and Tommy Sotomayor are godsends in the arena of interracial violence.
Of course, both have found themselves repeatedly deleted from YouTube for telling the truth.
@truth
Love Colin Flaherty and Tommy Sotomayor. Jesse Lee Peterson is another truth teller.
antonio
“There are many videos, publicly available, showing black criminals committing crimes against white people while verbalizing their racist motivations.”
There is a website called “World Star Hip-Hop” which apparently is a popular spot for black people posting videos of heinous black-on-white violence, among other things.
The videos are shocking and horrific, and there are hundreds of them.
This website doesn’t condemn the violence…it celebrates it!
Virtually none of this racially-motivated crime is ever mentioned in the media, presumably because it contradicts the narrative of black-victimization.
You are exactly right! There is one that Tommy Sotomayor put on a few years ago from World Wide HipHop that is horrible. I saved the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQlj9EeiRYI
It is well worth watching or listening to.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I’m willing to listen to arguments explaining how Negy’s comments are racist.
Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.
This is his opinion. He believes Black privilege is real and then identifies what has formed that opinion. Are any of those examples untrue? If they are not offered equally to all students, is that not a conditional privilege based on race?
He has also written, again on Twitter, “If Afr. Americans as a group, had the same behavioral profile as Asian Americans (on average, performing the best academically, having the highest income, committing the lowest crime, etc.), would we still be proclaiming ‘systematic racism’ exists?”
Negy is asking a legitimate question. Why not provide an answer?
Olly, the problem is he bases his opinion on stereotypes instead of actual observations. Just as you used Asians as analogy. It’s stereotyping Asians as being smarter, having higher income, etc. it’s a stereotype based on past ignorance. What matters is Thad it is wrong. Just as it is wrong to say people of Appalachia are poor because they choose to be uneducated and marry within their families. Their behavior leads them to be who they are today. But we both know that’s not actually true. A professor has a much higher standard to live up to and purporting such stereotyping is not academic at all.
the problem is he bases his opinion on stereotypes instead of actual observations.
He identified the basis of his opinion, not on stereotypes but on actual policies. Are any of those policies untrue? You never answered that question.
Just as you used Asians as analogy. It’s stereotyping Asians as being smarter, having higher income, etc. it’s a stereotype based on past ignorance.
Actually that was his opinion, not mine. How do you know it’s a stereotype? The appropriate thing to do would be to ask for the data that informs him of this opinion. Denying that is to be misinformed yourself and exactly what you’re alleging him to be.
A professor has a much higher standard to live up to and purporting such stereotyping is not academic at all.
What standard are you living down to? Because if you’ve not bothered to understand what informs his opinion, then it’s you that is being ignorant; willful or otherwise.
“ Actually that was his opinion, not mine.”. Well then that explains a lot. He uses stereotyping as fact. Not only is this wrong, but also a poor assumption for an academic.
You don’t need to ask for data to confirm whether something is a stereotype. Especially when it’s been the “common knowledge “ of a particular group for decades.
He’s making an opinion out of ignorance and his fellow academics know this because they understand that while it may still be his opinion it is also wrong to perpetrate bad stereotypes as fact.
You don’t need to ask for data to confirm whether something is a stereotype. Especially when it’s been the “common knowledge “ of a particular group for decades.
What’s the difference between common knowledge and stereotype? Hint: How is it proven?
Olly, a stereotype is proven as long running “common knowledge” over decades of…stereotyping. The professor was basing his opinion on poor stereotypes which he touted as fact. That’s not something any self respecting academic can defend.
a stereotype is proven as long running “common knowledge” over decades of…stereotyping.
That would only prove it to be a common stereotype.
The professor was basing his opinion on poor stereotypes which he touted as fact.
Now we are back to you not answering my original questions.
Are any of those policies untrue? You never answered that question.
“It’s stereotyping Asians as being smarter, having higher income, etc. it’s a stereotype based on past ignorance.”
I guess it all depends on how you define “stereotype”.
There’s about 100 years of IQ research that has consistently and repeatedly established that East Asians are at the top of the intelligence hierarchy, along with Jews.
And in spite of decades of effort to create an IQ test that demonstrates racial parity, to this day, no such test exists.
The Bell Curve has some interesting nuance about that. Not all Asians by far.
nor all Jews. Ashkenazis, yes. Sephardics, lower average IQ, and Israelis, on the average, with a large population of Mizrahi, even lower.
If you want to know about that, there’s tons of research on it. start with Richard Lynn maybe.
Kurtz, you realize the IQ of Jews from eastern Europe that arrived early in the last century were thougth to have low IQ’s and that was discussed in Congress when they discussed immigration laws and quotas.
“The Bell Curve has some interesting nuance about that. Not all Asians by far.”
You are correct, and perhaps I over-generalized, not deliberately.
@truthhertz
More hate facts or average IQ for different groups.
Ashkenazi Jews 115
East Asians 108
Caucasians 100
Sephardic Jews 100
Hispanics 92
American Blacks 85
African Blacks 75
Australian Aborigines 70
Truthurtz, cite the research. Asians have a bigger emphasis on education in their society than most. That’s cultural not race related. But, this is also significant.
“ In evaluating the claims by hereditarians with known racist ties of higher white and Asian IQ, we must be mindful of a tendency called the ‘Pygmalion effect’ The high intellectual achievement and IQs of whites and Asians may owe something to this. In a classic 1960 experiment, California teachers were informed that as a result ofIQ test scores, certain students of theirs were found to be “special,” with prodigious potential and the expectation of intellectual greatness. Accordingly, the grades of the children labeled “special” improved dramatically, and, when tested a year later, half of their IQ scores had risen by 20 points. In fact, these children had been chosen at random, and the improvements in their scores served to demonstrate the outsize role that teachers’ expectations can play in a student’s academic success.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/08/14/statistics-show-iq-disparities-between-races-heres-what-that-really-means/amp/
“Asians have a bigger emphasis on education in their society than most.”
Yes, and blacks have a bigger emphasis on basketball and football, this is normal.
In case you’ve never noticed, people gravitate toward their genetic/natural inclinations. People tend to choose things that they’re good at.
The Asian “emphasis on academics” is a direct result of their higher IQ’s.
Of course, I respect your right to disagree.
TruthHertz001 – people gravitate towards that which will make them the most money. I remember the age of the Italian boxers, they followed the Irish boxers and were followed by the black boxers. Somewhere in there were a few Jewish boxers.
I remember when pro basketball teams were all white, the Lakers were from Minneapolis. Pro football teams were all white, too.
Asians are great at gymnastics and ping pong. China starts training them at age 6. Now there isn’t a lot of money in ping pong, I don’t think. However, for the gymnastics there are all the Cirque shows.
Here’s someone who never visited Honolulu
For every BLM or ‘Progressive’ overreach there is at least, if not more, treasonous moves on the part of Trump. Trump has placed himself, ‘the chosen one’ by his own words, above the Constitution, overriding and/or firing those who either disagree with him or won’t park their tongue up his where the sun don’t shine.
The BLM overreaches, however extreme and wrong, are reactions to wrongs that are imbedded in Conservative society. The pendulum swings both ways in its Newtonian third law manner.
That this professor is being attacked for speaking his mind is wrong. However, greater wrongs are done on a daily basis by those so called elected representatives of the people. Turley spends much less time there. It’s vastly more complicated, the result of lawyers’ minds at work.
Trump was indeed “chosen”, as we all have agreed to in this society. The BLM thugs were chosen as much as a mugger is chosen by his victim. The elephant in the room that nobody is supposed to notice is that BLM, representing the most criminal and violent segment of society, is complaining that their victims dare to complain or defend themselves.
“For every BLM or ‘Progressive’ overreach there is at least, if not more, treasonous moves on the part of Trump. ”
TDS in Spades.
“extreme and wrong, are reactions to wrongs that are imbedded in Conservative society.”
Because of a wrong that 600,000 young Americans died in the process of trying to end the problem. To further rectify the problem a 92 year old woman is punched in the face and falls from her walker into the street. Correcting the wrong seems to mean permitting that man charged 104 times, some with violent behavior to be permitted on the streets. That seems to make a lot of sense to some people who think that attack on the 92 year old was caused by Trump. The idiocy caused by TDS is amazing.
He’s under fire for making commonsensical remarks that the Bourbon class in academe do not want uttered. Here’s a question: given that about 3/4 of the enrollment in higher education is in public institutions and state legislatures can easily amend the corporation law and labor law governing private institutions, why is it that the Bourbon class feels so free to be abusive in this way? Let’s fix this sh!t.
It’s also indicative of how decadent and useless is intellectual life in this country. We should never be allocating the function of sorting the labor market to these obnoxious clowns and should be dramatically reduce the publicly financed job opportunities for them.
“Let’s fix this sh!t.” This says ‘absurd’.
‘Absurd’ is just another American armchair-expert who thinks that he’s helping to “fix…sh!t.”
Absurd, bourbon class? Are you trying to say bourgeois?
“why is it that the Bourbon class feels so free to be abusive in this way”
I told you why yesterday and you “corrected” me.
Big money donors call the shots on who will sit as trustees. Often they do themselves. Including state run entities. These state run universities have “boards of governors” etc which are handpicked by the same patronage rules that apply to private ones.
But i suspect you knew that already.
So why did you correct me?
Just because you like to be a curmudgeon, it’s your habit.
You seemed to think that when i said they want managers that I meant business, No, i meant a lot more than just business. Managers of the American population in every sphere, who are produced by disseminating whatever liberal norms are now au courant . essentially, universities have become about training a broad “leadership class” to manage American society according to a narrow preconceived range of what is allowed by the plutocracy.
The high table wants pliant cubicle dwellers manufactured in college. Either STEM technicians, or, more of the bureaucratic stiffs who sabotage any real change with their foot dragging and ossified liberal beliefs. This keeps it all subject to high level control.
The only way for real change to happen is when it happens from above. The only way to make that happen from below. is to endanger the interests of a sufficiently coherent faction of elites that they will take action to make it happen.
I suspect some elites got behind Trump but very few. The remains of the industrial captains of industry, who have been outfoxed by the captains of finance, since oh back when Henry Ford shut his mouth and got with the program they delivered to him, like it or not.
Conservative thinking is perpetually too slow moving and habitually reactionary to grasp what few possibilities remain to staunch the slide of our nation into managed decline en route to a new order of globalism that is starting to look as inevitable as ever. trump was a moment of hope, a maverick with a high energy level, but the grossly incompetent and stuffy Republican party has succeeded at pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory, yet again
The trustees are useless.
So much drama the other day… Squeeky thought she’d been banned… And yet, here she is again. She got it wrong. She gets a lot of stuff wrong…
Sooo many dedicated and fierce opponents of Falsehoods and Lies were getting banned everywhere that I thought I was among them. Nope, it was just a wordpress glitch. But I look to go out like that – like a Cyranose deBergerac with my white plume, jabbing at bad people and things and hollering “Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Speaking of freedom of speech, I’m surprised Turley isn’t mentioning the trump administration’s attempt to censor former NSA Bolton by threatening criminal charges for releasing his book despite the fact that it was already cleared and published. In fact copies are already out. From what has been leaked out trump is certainly no fan of freedom of speech if he thinks journalists should be executed or jailed for not divulging their sources. Sounds more like pol pot than an American president.
something tells me, you’re oblivious to the way that Obama went after Journalists…
Spying on them at a minimum.
I’d like to see a few strung up like christmas lights, nothing wrong with saying it, actions are a different matter…which again, Obama took actions against journalist. Trump just makes them look like the fools they are. Bad Trump, amirite?
Ziegler, you gonna provide any examples of Obama going after journalists?
You’re kidding right? Were you in a coma during the Obama presidency?
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/obama_uses_1917_espionage_act_to_go_after_reporters
Olly, Ziegler stated Obama went after journalists, spying on them etc.
YOUR article is a long description of the 1917 espionage act that wasn’t used on journalists, but on government officials leaking info to journalists. You know the very same thing trump is fond of doing.
“ Barack Obama and his Justice Department seem to be of a different mind. They have used the Espionage Act of 1917 six times to bring cases against government officials for leaks to the media — twice as many as all their predecessors combined.”
That’s from your article.
If that’s the best you can find about “Obama spying on journalists” you might not have much of an argument.
You can be willfully ignorant, or you can do your own search and attempt to disprove the allegation. Remember: Google is your friend.
Olly, Obama wasn’t going after journalists. It was going after government officials who were sharing classified information with “a” journalist”.
“ The Post, which broke the story in 2013, wrote that it had obtained a court affidavit that showed the Justice Department used security badge access records to track Rosen’s visits to the State Department, traced his calls to a department security adviser suspected of sharing classified information, and obtained a search warrant to seize two days’ worth of emails with the department official.
In the affidavit for a search warrant, FBI agent Reginald Reyes said there was evidence that Rosen — the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News — broke the law. Reyes described Rosen as “either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/obama-fox-news-and-the-free-press/
Furthermore, the comparison is not an apples to apples one.
Trump actually believes journalists should be executed and be thrown in jail for putting out criticisms. Obama’s case involved an actual crime of government officials giving classified information to one journalist. The FBI is required to do surveillance on the reporter due to the nature of the classified material.
There’s a very important distinction here.
From 7 p.m. Friday, May 29, through 11 p.m. Sunday, May 31, 25 people were killed in the city, with another 85 wounded by gunfire, according to data maintained by the Chicago Sun-Times. And I am willing to bet that UCF President Alexander Cartwright could not name any of them.
MLK & supporters hates antifa/BLM guts!
https://banned.video/watch?id=5eea930fc7a607002f195c08
It takes some doing to conclude Democrats and their legions in academia and media aren’t manifestly un-American. It’s time to say it out loud and let the people decide if they want Mao in November or it’s freer alternative. The personalities don’t matter; the principles do.
Mespo, Mao in November? Perhaps you haven’t noticed but he has already been in the White House these last four years. Based on what leaked excerpts from Bolton’s book. Trump thinks concentration camps are ok and are the right thing to do. Plus executing journalists and jailing them, very Maoist, seems to be something he wants. Helping other dictators avoid scrutiny?
You may already be supporting a Maoist, you just don’t know it.
You really are an ignorant person. Or perhaps you’re simply paid to appear that way. It is veeeery interesting to me that generally speaking, troll posts always appear in these threads in clusters, at the same time. No one is listening, not here. If an actual, articulate and well-reasoned argument comes to mind, we’d love to read it. Just spewing vitriol and talking points tells me that again, you are paid, or ye gods, you have been indoctrinated, but good.
James, you haven’t provided any proof of what it is I said was ignorant. Ironically you’re spewing…vitriol.
Sorry but, Mao lite is currently running from his basement. Trump has shown NO authoritarian tendencies, unlike the House of representatives under Nancy or the Senate Minority under lil Chucky.
“ Sorry but, Mao lite is currently running from his basement. Trump has shown NO authoritarian tendencies,…”
Riiiight…because wanting to execute and jail journalists because he doesn’t like them and approves of concentration camps are not.. authoritarian tendencies.
You mean trump hiding in his bunker and macho tweeting while hunkered down?
(Facepalm)
You misspelled plant. That would be Faceplant.
If you read the detailed biography of Mao written about 15 years ago you will notice a number of similarities between Mao and Trump. Mao was an amoral merciless opportunist and an egomaniac. He betrayed many people, including members of his family and some of his own generals, in his efforts to gain and maintain power. He was an effective “marketer” (propagandist).
There are quite a few differences, however. Mao was not born on third base. Mao’s amorality metastasized into evilness on a scale that dwarfs Trump’s bad acts to date.
Make no mistake, however. Trump admires leaders like Putin, Duterte and “Rocket Man.” He would emulate them if he could.
Be thankful that he has not been able to do so.
Mao is under-rated by us as a leader because we use him as a bete noire. The fact is average Chinese people today regard him as a hero. And why?
Because his leadership in the war against the hated Japanese was equally as important as Chiang Kai Shek’s, And, unfortunately, he outfoxed Chiang in the civil war before and after the Japs were gone.
The Nationalist troops did not make friends in “flyoverland” the heartland of China, north of the Yellow River. Not before the Japs nor after. See the nationalists were strong in the South, the more developed area, near the coast. Up in the agricultural heartland, they treated the peasants poorly, they were too close to the warlords who abused the peasants, and the CCP saw this dynamic, capitalized on it, and won the hearts and minds of the people.
Certainly help from the Soviets mattered too. But the US pumped a lot of money and help into the Nationalist cause and it was a failure.
“Ideology” is a poor substitute for executing a strategy that makes sense in an effective way. Slogans can’t overcome practical realities that even the most uneducated peasants can grasp.
Here’s another thing. “Nationalists” were perceived as “compradors” by most Chinese. That is to say, they were selling out China to foreigners, for money. Kind of like how our big financial wizards have been selling the US out to China!
So in this way, there may be more to the similarity between Mao and Trump than meets the eye. I would content that Mao, in his own way, was a true-er “nationalist” than Chiang was, at least he was perceived to be, and in such things general perceptions mean a lot.
If Trump wants to win again, he needs to show the people how Democratic party leadership are “compradors,” meaning, sellouts to foreign powers, namely, the CCP.
If he fails to do that he loses., plain and simple. So, bolton’s book is not helping him very much now that’s for sure, because the Dems have the jump on making Trump look bad, supposedly asking Xi for help. Well, that’s pathetic if true. I doubt it, but the mere fact a creep like Bolton would dare to say this, true or not, shows that Trump has failed to establish the kind of narrative that he really needs to win.
Funny stuff from mespo. His leader begged for help in his elections from Putin and Xi, went silent on Tiannamen.Square anniversary to suck up to Xi, approves ChiComm concentration camps, makes excuses for Xi and the virus, and buys gifts and writes poetry to communist dictators. And he’s worried aboit Maoists? Only if there not in the WH it seems.
Right about now CommitToHonestDiscussion is preparing his signature, where’s your evidence post. Because you know, he’s committed to objective truth.
Wait for it. Tick. Tick. Tick.
I doubt some of Bolton’s stories but considering that the anti-CCP firebrand Steve Bannon, was shown the door, I believe Trump failed to execute a sufficiently strong policy against the PRC outside of the sphere or trade negotiations. Maybe this was a carrot and stick idea in the mind of Trump, but if he thought he was dealing with unsophisticated rivals in the CCP retinue, he grossly underestimated them.
I don’t expect Biden would do better, in fact, I think he would be “back to business” with the CCP right away.
I still favor Trump as a leader in the geopolitical rivalry with the PRC, which is very important for us all.
But you’ve rightly pointed out a few ways in which Obama, yes Obama, executed some successful containment strategy against the PRC. Obama was underestimated in foreign relations by Republicans. Perhaps that’s because the Democrats liked to pretend he was Jesus himself. Well, he wasn’t Jesus, but he had some successes.
And right now as we are crippled by the Sars Cov 2 virus which was probably a frankenstein gain of function experiment that leaked out of Wuhan, and we have seen the CCP move even more boldly to secure control over HK, and the PRC is now dialing up the heat on its neighbor India, who is an American friend and partner, Trump should be pushing hard against the CCP with what little time he has left.
Instead he’s demoralized by the clever destablization plan against him and pandering. it’s a pathetic sight now from a leader who had so much promise. he can still rally but he has to show the kind of nerve which got him here in the first place, and standing up harder to the CCP would be a very easy place to start.
This is exactly how the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China began. They are right on track with the denunciations, tearing down
Pauly, dont forget your friends when we come knocking at your mancave. The password to your wifi router will be protected with us
🤡
Offensive and hurtful?
Privilege: n.
A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. synonym: right.
Black privilege. White privilege. Sexual orientation privilege.
Seems to me there is plenty of privilege to go around.
I believe black lives matter. But as I have said before, if you believe all lives matter is a racist comment you are in need of some serious psychotherapy.
Negy is saying the same things I have been saying for years, particularly that it is not racist to say bad things about blacks as a group. The only reason that gets called racist is that it defies the Democrat narrative that blacks are where they are today because of slavery, the rebel flag, systemic racism, the electoral college, etc.etc.etc. No! Blacks are where they are today mainly because nearly 80% of them are born out of wedlock income to single, low-income homes. Because of irresponsibility and their mommas wanting a HUD voucher and food stamps.
That is why people are knocking down statues, assaulting the rebel flag, shutting off conservative voices and generally just going bonkers. Because the farce is getting harder and harder to maintain. Particularly when intelligent people can share information freely. The Left is now Hitler, pressing kids and old men into the defense of Berlin, grasping at straws trying to stave off the inevitable collapse of their narrative. There will be a lot of fireworks, and there will be fighting, but as the phony excuses for black underachievement continue to fail, the end is coming. I just hope it doesn’t take another 50 years.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, wow. The level of ignorance you show is massive. Nearly all of what you pointed out is borne out of racial bias and systemic racism.
People are taking down statues of confederate “heroes” because they don’t belong in the public square. There’s nothing heroic or glamorous about what they did. The confederacy was about asserting the right to own people as property.
“Shutting off conservative voices” is not simply about silencing it’s about those folks perpetrating a narrative that still follows the attitudes that the confederacy showed. It’s about their lack of acknowledgement that their belief that the people they deemed as property were seen exactly as you described blacks and their problems. The need to treat them as second tier citizens because “they always were”. That’s the nature of racism and coupled with massive ignorance gives those who share those views an inability to recognize that they are a big part of the problem.
Svelaz;
And yet, like you, the small fringe of which Squeeky is decidedly not one is free to think and speak as they choose free from governmental interference. Imagine that: freedom. Something you and your fellow petty tyrants deplore. The good news: all tyrants fall – great and lesser.
Mespo, I’m not for silencing or censoring people like squeaky. In fact I support it wholeheartedly. HOWEVER the freedom to say what she says is also not protected from the consequences it creates such as criticism of it. Freedom is also about responsibility to accept the consequences of exercising it. Complaining about the blowback and criticism as “censorship” is like being surprised after poking around a hornet nest you get stung.
I agree all tyrants fall. Trump seems to have shown us how when he clumsily went down that ramp at the West Point graduation.
Well, if you are NOT for silencing or censoring people, then pretty soon the Democrat Left will be coming for you too. Because you know, “Not doing anything is Racissst!”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, the left isn’t doing any of that. What they ARE doing is rightfully criticizing the racist rhetoric and views of others. Freedom of speech allows them to criticize it. Criticism is a consequence of exercising ones racist views or other unpopular opinions.
To chafe at the very notion of being called racist or bigoted after expressing such views and call it censorship or silencing conservative opinions is silly.
Some have noted that some of your comments have been removed because they were deemed obviously racist. Given that history it isn’t surprising that you are experiencing the consequences of expressing your views. If you don’t like being called a racist or a bigot or whatever don’t say stupid things like that. But I’m not stopping you not anyone should you have every right to express them. Which means you also have to take responsibility for the consequences of that expression. Obviously you don’t seem to accept the responsibility of what you say, but complain about it anyway.
I think you are missing some nuances here. If Negy had come out wearing a Klan outfit and calling for blacks to be shipped back to Africa, then I think that would probably be racist. But Negy is only disagreeing with the current DNC/BLM race-baiting talking points, and like me, not considering black misbehavior off limits.
That is hardly racist, or damaging to anyone. Yet, the Left is clamoring for his job. Not for racism, but for merely for disagreeing with them. And what is really ironic, it was the Left who got all incensed about the Hollywood Blacklisting in the 1950s, where commie writers and others were pretty much deprived of their jobs.
If the Left wishes to “shun*” people, in the same way Hester Prynne was shunned, or in the way The Church of Christ still shuns adulterers and blasphemers, then that is your right. But there are more enlightened people, like me, who see it for what it is. Neo-Puritanism and thought control, and even worse – Gleichschaltung.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
*Shunning:
In religious and ecclesiastical contexts, shunning is a form of church discipline against a person who has violated church rules. Shunning involves a formal decision by a church that bans interaction with the person being shunned. The extent and duration of the shunning vary among the various groups that practice it. Shunning is often associated with Amish and Mennonite groups, but it is also employed by other churches. Certain cults and traditional societies (such as in Bali) practice severe forms shunning that can lead to whole families being ostracized from all aspects of society.
In Amish shunning, church members are not allowed to eat at the same table as those who are shunned, do business with them, or receive anything from them. Shunning is only applied to baptized, adult members who willfully violate their vows to the church. Non-members and those who never took the vows are not eligible to be shunned.
Although shunning is related to excommunication, the two practices are not synonymous. To be excommunicated is to lose one’s membership rights in a church; the excommunicated person may no longer vote in the church, teach a class, etc. Shunning goes beyond excommunication: to be shunned is to be denied personal interaction with church members even in social, non-ecclesiastical settings.
Squeaky, he wasn’t being attacked just because of his opinion. It was the fact that he was using poorly chosen stereotypes to justify his beliefs as fact.
What seems to be the intent here is ostracism, not shunning. He can express his views as much as he wants, but in doing so he’s also accepting responsibility for the consequences. In this instance it’s criticism and possibly being ostracized from academia. Or simply ignored.
A tyrant is just an autocrat who fails. Not all autocrats fall. Marcus Aurelius was just as much an autocrat as Caligula was. But one is remembered well and the other is not.
Trump is no tyrant, not even close. He should have been ordering executions 2 years ago of the various saboteurs and seditionists if he wanted to be. he didn’t. He is a dynamic leader but lacks command over the bureaucratic structures and as the recent DACA case shows, can’t even seem to find lawyers who can guide him properly in executing what authority he definitely has.
Svelaz – they are taking down statues because it is the first part of the Cultural Revolution for the Marxists.
Paul C Shulte, no, they are taking down statues because they have no place in the public square. Glorifying figures that lost the civil war and putting them prominently in areas where they were used a reminders to the black communities of what they fought for, the right to keep people as personal property, is no longer relevant.
They are not “works of art” or “cultural heritage”. In fact the confederacy’s Robert E. Lee himself said there shouldn’t be any statues put up.
They can still be displayed in a museum, but they don’t belong on the public square any more than a statute of Hitler at a public Square in Germany.
Svelaz – it is all part of a larger picture. You just have to see it. People confessing their guilt, chaos, destruction of culture, etc. All part of the CCPs Cultural Revolution. And Antifa are good little commie-anarchists. BLM are Marxists.
Paul, those statues don’t represent culture. The confederacy was about an ideology not culture. Glorifying those who chose to go against the constitution (traitors) is not….culture.
Is not culture rooted in ideology? You see it as glorifying and others may see it as a reminder of what not to be. Your argument loses credibility when you cannot tell the difference.
Olly, “ You see it as glorifying and others may see it as a reminder of what not to be.”
I don’t see it as glorifying. I’m not the one complaining about the statues being torn down. “Others May see it as a reminder of what not to be”? And what is that? Not to be.. a racist? Confederate supporter?
Those statues were put out there to remind blacks where they belong. The majority of these statues were erected during the civil rights movement. Not as symbols of “culture” but of reminders to blacks of where they still live. Were you referring to those reminders?
I don’t see it as glorifying.
Then why did you say Glorifying those who chose to go against the constitution (traitors) is not….culture?
“Others May see it as a reminder of what not to be” And what is that? Not to be.. a racist? Confederate supporter?
Isn’t that a reasonable possibility?
Those statues were put out there to remind blacks where they belong.
If that were fact and not your opinion, you should have no problem proving it.
“ Then why did you say Glorifying those who chose to go against the constitution (traitors) is not….culture?”
“THOSE” implies the folks who put up the statues and those defending their presence. I though that would be obvious.
Olly, I did prove it to you. The majority of those statues were erected during the civil rights movement. Decades after the war was over.
Statues are erected as symbols of victory, or an ideal. If they were put up to “remind you not to be racist”. They sure did a lousy job of it.
“THOSE” implies the folks who put up the statues and those defending their presence. I though that would be obvious.
Is English your second language? The word those was not the question. You used the verb glorifying, which assumes the motive of those. You’ve haven’t established the motive.
I did prove it to you. The majority of those statues were erected during the civil rights movement. Decades after the war was over.
Once again, you’re having a very difficult time following basic English. You said: Those statues were put out there to remind blacks where they belong. And I said: If that were fact and not your opinion, you should have no problem proving it. And somehow you believe your proof is established by the date they were erected. Your opinion rests entirely on when they were erected and not why they were erected.
Statues are erected as symbols of victory, or an ideal. If they were put up to “remind you not to be racist”. They sure did a lousy job of it.
True, they symbolize something. “What” is in the eye of the beholder. That’s an “if” you are assuming. Objectively, they do represent something from our history that should never be forgotten. Let’s pretend for a moment that every bit of historical evidence was wiped away. Would racism magically be wiped away? Of course not. How would you then explain the roots of racism, having no history of it to point to?
“Those statues were put out there to remind blacks where they belong.”
What is your proof of that? Was the statue of Christopher Columbus put out there for the same reason? How about the Mural of George Washington?
Your conclusions seem to be based on very superficial information.
Allan, we were only talking about confederate statues. Christopher Columbus is a different matter. Keep up.
Svelaz, You may be differentiating between the two but those ripping down the statutes don’t seem to be. Why is it you have to modify the facts to meet your conclusions? You need to think deeper. Keeping up shouldn’t mean that one has to be a shallow thinker. That seems to be the direction you are taking us.
Svelaz – there is nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot secede. If fact, a couple of the New England states considered it before South Carolina did it. And the Northern Southern states seceded because Federal troops were going to invade them to get to their neighbors. They seceded to protect themselves from being invaded by the North. Hence the War of Northern Aggression.
Paul, take thirteen raw eggs and mix them together. Then try and have some of the eggs secede from the bowl.
Allan – take 13 poached eggs and then try to have some secede. Yours is a bad analogy. 😉
There were 13 raw colonies that didn’t mature or were half baked until the colonies were scrambled together. An excellent analogy that all intelligent people recognize except for those that come from Arizona. 🙂
Allan – scrambled is a BAD analogy. They were joined as serve serving units. Even in Arizona we can tell a bad analogy. 😉
I think we have an Arizonian who is eating all the scrambled eggs knowing it is impossible to put them back together. Better have your cholesterol checked.
Allan – I think you are out on a limb there. And my cholesterol is just fine, thank you. 🙂
Paul, the horror! Accusations that I might be out on a limb talking about scrambled eggs, but always remember that eggs get laid and you don’t. 🙂
Allan – hens get laid, not eggs. What are you smoking today? 😉
@svelaz
I will be so happy when the last Confederate statue is GONE because it means a brave, new, happy world will emerge. No more disproportionate black crime, educational levels will increase, no more 70% black illegitimacy rates, black IQ will increase to the 100 white average, no more affirmative action will be needed. Why didn’t someone think of this sooner??
Of course, if it doesn’t work, (and it won’t) who do we remove next? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, the presidents on Mount Rushmore? All of these men were horrible racists by 2020 “woke” standards.
It was never about the Confederates, they are only the beginning.
antonio
Antonio, it is not actually about the confederates per se. but the attitudes towards blacks as inferior and useful only for menial labor they saw as justification for asserting that they were not really people, but property. Removing the statues accomplishes the fact that they are no longer recognized as anything other than the idea of people demanding a right to have….slaves.
The statues represent those ideals they fought to protect. Everything else you said is just drivel.
Hogwash. The Civil War was no more about ending slavery than WWII was about freeing Jews from concentration camps and the Chinese from Japanese occupation. Slavery continued AFTER the Civil War for about another 8 or 9 months IIRC.
And as far as slavery causing 2020’s problems in the black community, that is silly. I think it more accurate to say that 1960’s Era Democrats caused blacks’ 2020 problems. Because before 1965ish, blacks had made some pretty good economic progress, and the illegitimate birth rate was only about 20%. That, and the fact that far too many blacks choose a low class, trashy lifestyle of sexual irresponsibility, drugs, crime, and stupidity, OR they are born into it and they don’t choose to get out.
If you listened to, or read Black Conservatives, you would know this, but I guess you discriminate against them.
“The No. 1 problem among blacks is the effects stemming from a very weak family structure. Children from fatherless homes are likelier to drop out of high school, die by suicide, have behavioral disorders, join gangs, commit crimes and end up in prison. They are likelier to live in poverty-stricken households.
But is the weak black family a legacy of slavery? In 1960, just 22 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Fifty years later, more than 70 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Here’s my question: Was the increase in single-parent black families after 1960 a legacy of slavery, or might it be a legacy of the welfare state ushered in by the War on Poverty?”
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/walter-williams-nails-holding-black-americans-breakdown-family
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
In Squeeky’s world: “The Civil War was no more about ending slavery than…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Causes of secession
Main articles: Origins of the American Civil War and Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War
The causes of secession were complex and have been controversial since the war began, but most academic scholars identify slavery as a central cause of the war. James C. Bradford wrote that the issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war.[23] Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. -Wikipedia
Squeeky is one of those “historical revisionists.”
Was slavery the cause of the Civil War? Probably less than ⅓ of southern families owned slaves which translates into a lot less ownership by individuals. That presents a question about the other 70-80% of the southern population. Why did that 70%-80% fight and die to protect the institution of slavery?
This question makes the unipolar argument that slavery caused the Civil War quite superficial. A superficial argument creates a black and white scenario where one is either ‘for us or against us’ (look at BLM and the threat against anyone that disagrees and believes all lives matter). Those like Anonymous (who hides under a generic alias) like these black and white portrayals of events because that protects them from having to put time in to learn and think critically.
Squeaky, again, your ignorance is impeding your ability to grasp the complex issues you cite. The civil war as about southern states upset that northern states wanted to abolish slavery. The south wanted the right to keep people as personal property.
The very attitudes that pervaded the south and the oppressive culture of slavery of the south that dictated what black people were to be seen as is still the same attitudes that are present today. Just as you described blacks as poverty stricken, thugs, more likely to be in jail, etc. The constant characterization of who they are by whites creates the bias that you rely on when judging them. All the descriptions you note are described in a tone of inferiority towards their “inclinations”.
Black conservatives are few and far between.
Btw, 60’s era democrats are now today’s republicans. There’s a reason why today’s republicans are associated with racism and bigotry especially those in the south when they used to be democrats in the 60’s.
The animosities behind the Civil War certainly included slavery as the most dominant one. However, the war itself was about States Rights, and the right to secede from the Union. Lincoln himself said that if he could have ended the war without ending slavery, he would have. Think about it like this.
Bob and Mary are married. Bob works and Mary stayed at home raising kids. Mary wanted to get a job outside the home. Bob said she needed to stay home and raise the kids, and do a better job with the housecleaning.
Mary says Bob does not respect her rights as an individual and seeks a divorce.
What is the cause of the divorce? You would say it was Mary wanting to get a job. I would say it was because Mary feels Bob does not respect her.
Later, Bob says “Oh go ahead and get a job if you want.” Mary does NOT withdraw the divorce petition. She says that Bob does not respect her rights.
This is where the Civil War was. Lincoln himself said he would not end slavery if the Union could be preserved, yet the South fought on. Stupidly in my opinion. Slavery was already going downhill in the South and being replaced in some areas by sharecropping and profit-sharing plans. Slavery was simply not good economics.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, the south wanted to secede because the north wanted to abolish slavery. They were complaining about the north states right to abolish slavery and they fought to secede so they could keep that right. I agree it was a stupid decision. So there shouldn’t be an issue in removing statues glorifying that stupidity.
Do you know why we amend rather than edit the constitution?
“Squeaky, the south wanted to secede because the north wanted to abolish slavery.” I will repeat a question already asked elsewhere.
Was slavery the cause of the Civil War? Probably less than ⅓ of southern families owned slaves which translates into a lot less ownership by individuals. That presents a question about the other 70-80% of the southern population. Why did that 70%-80% fight and die to protect the institution of slavery?
This question makes the unipolar argument that slavery caused the Civil War quite superficial. A superficial argument creates a black and white scenario where one is either ‘for us or against us’ (look at BLM and the threat against anyone that disagrees and believes all lives matter). Some people like these black and white portrayals of events because that protects them from having to put time in to learn and think critically.
Allan, slavery was the dominant rationale for the south to secede. It was about property rights. Whether “only” a small number of people actually owned slaves. It was the right to have the ability to own other people as property. The south WANTED to keep that ability because it was beneficial to their economy. They based it on slave labor.
“Allan, slavery was the dominant rationale for the south to secede.”
Was it? Why would that be the dominant rationale if 70 – 80% had no ownership of slaves? Is that digging deep or typically superficial?
“It was about property rights.”
Property rights encompasses more than just owning people. Could the non chattle property also be a rationale?
“It was the right to have the ability to own other people as property. The south WANTED to keep that ability because it was beneficial to their economy. ”
The econmy is another question where the north and south were at odds even where the slave question didn’t exist. But how did such ownership of slaves help poor whites that may not have had property or slaves?
Allan, “ Was it? Why would that be the dominant rationale if 70 – 80% had no ownership of slaves? ”. That’s because a majority COULDN’T afford slaves. Only the wealthiest could and THEY wanted to keep the right to do so. The wealthy southerners were the ones who wanted so secede.
It was about wealthy whites wanting slaves because it was hugely profitable. The poor whites were benefiting from the economy the wealthy depended on..with slave labor.
“The wealthy southerners were the ones who wanted so secede.”
I see. You are now revising what you said before in a continuous attempt to make sense out of what you think. 70-80% of the southern population didn’t own slaves. Of the remaining 20-30% that owned slaves, how many of them were rich? You realize a lot of people didn’t have that much wealth and may have only owned one or a few slaves. According to you the actual numbers that supported succession, the rich, is dwindling fast. How did the south raise an army with that very few rich folk that wanted to secede?
Svelaz, each time we delve into your hypothesis you refined your prior statements. I would like you to finish your thoughts and not let another task go uncompleted.
Your logic pointed to only the very rich being interested in a secession. If that were so and there were few of the very rich, how did the South raise an army?
Svelaz, I am repeating a question you didn’t answer.
“how did such ownership of slaves help poor whites that may not have had property or slaves?”…”70 – 80% had no ownership of slaves?”
Oh God, the old “they switched parties” routine. Come on, Svelaz, surely you can come up with something better than that.
Can’t come up with something better than the truth which is far more complicated. Maybe this will help explain it better to you.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2018/07/14/never-trumpers-will-want-to-read-this-history-lesson-219006
What he said was not only true, it was blatantly, obviously, right-there-under-your-nose-true. The lunatic reaction is in proportion to the intimidation you have to attempt to exercise in order to prevent people from uttering obvious truths. (While we’re at it, about the only thing gentry liberals excel at is promoting emotional neuralgia, narcissism, and megalomania among blacks).
In truth, what you might call the 1971 model of race relations has been a failure and needs to be junked in favor of a system of natural liberty. Back in the day, Robert Bork and Gottfried Dietze spotted aspects of the world we are living in coming down the pike. The political culture is deeply disordered as we speak.
The lunatic left reacted much the same to Charles Murray 30 years ago when he published ‘The Bell Curve’.
“That is why people are knocking down statues, assaulting the rebel flag, shutting off conservative voices and generally just going bonkers. Because the farce is getting harder and harder to maintain. Particularly when intelligent people can share information freely.”
****************************
Dying political philosophies maintain through force what they cannot maintain through persuasion. The only proper response is resist through whatever means are available like the courts and governmental devices. If that fails, the response is armed resistance. That’s our history; that’s every free people’s history. People will die and one side will win. Keep your powder dry and play to win.
𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒅𝒊𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝒐𝒅𝒅𝒔, 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒇𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝑮𝒐𝒅𝒔?
~𝑴𝒂𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒚
It’s time to ensure we correctly name those who abhor civil liberties and who are trying to destroy our civil liberties. It is Leftists and Democrats. If they come to power in November, recently emboldened by their ability to violently manipulate and even overthrow local governments (Seattle), they will turn our country towards repressive fascist regime. They will expand their campus regime of Thought Police and destroy the US. Voting Democrat is voting for tyranny and the last 4 years they have shown their playbook. If you can’t see it you are blind.
@SBG They have already done all that. It’s just that it used to be cloaked in legitimacy when they controlled all facets of power. Whether or not one likes Trump, he is the disruptor to their narrative and they have had to become ever more radical to keep up the facade of legitimacy. That’s why we see university professors being run off campus for things they say by people who claim to support freedom of speech. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
I corrected one of the comments in the petition:
“While he has a right to free speech, he does not have a right to provide constructive criticism about the existence of systemic racism or say anything else we don’t like. Free speech is, after all, only extended to those with whom we agree.”