10/13/2017 - David
Limbaugh Townhall.com
Please
join me on a whirlwind superficial but revealing tour of liberal la-la land as
we peek at recent headlines. Meanwhile, liberals call conservatives wingnuts.
Singer
Nancy Sinatra tweeted, "The murderous members of the NRA should face a
firing squad." One wonders whether in her rendering, "murderous"
is redundant. One might also wonder whether she thinks other murderous people
should be exempt from or perhaps face a less humiliating form of execution.
Responding
to Michelle Obama's claim that people are distrustful of politics because the
GOP is "all men, all white," Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, said, "I don't
know if she noticed, but I am not white and I am not a male." To clarify,
in case you are wondering, in this example, Michelle Obama is the inhabitant of
la-la land.
Republican
Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who is running for the Senate seat currently
held by Bob Corker, encountered Twitter's speech police when trying to place an
ad saying, "I fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby
body parts." Twitter's thought cops said the claim was "deemed an
inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative
reaction." They magnanimously assured her that they'd run the ad if she
removed the offending statement. If Twitter brass were truly concerned about
tweets evoking "a strong negative reaction," the executives would
save themselves time and just shut the whole operation down. If you use Twitter
much, you know that evoking such reactions is virtually guaranteed in cultural
and political tweets, which populate Twitter by the millions every day. It
would be much easier to interact with leftists if they could at least be honest
with themselves and others about what they are doing in these situations. They
have no problem with tweets evoking strong negative reactions from
conservatives. But you knew that.
ESPN
anchor Jemele Hill last month faced no consequences for calling President Trump
a white supremacist but was suspended for two weeks when she urged fans to
boycott NFL advertisers because Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones had threatened
to bench players who refuse to stand during the national anthem. "Change
happens when advertisers are impacted," she tweeted. "If you strongly
reject what Jerry Jones said, the key is his advertisers. Don't place the
burden squarely on the players." Twitter moguls apparently didn't deem
Hill's tweets as likely to evoke a strong negative reaction. I wonder whether
Hill would agree that her employer's reaction was neither strong nor negative.
One person who doubtlessly wouldn't regard Hill's tweet as negative is ESPN's
Michael Wilbon, who compared Jones to a slave owner because of his action.
The
Daily Wire reported that activists of Abolish Human Abortion were booted from
Bedlam Coffee in Seattle because the gay owner couldn't tolerate their
presence. After asking members of the group whether they would tolerate his
bringing his boyfriend in the shop and performing sex acts with him in front of
them, he told them, "Well, then I don't have to f---ing tolerate this!
Then leave -- all of you! Tell all your f---ing friends, 'Don't f---ing come here'!"
I have no real problem with owners serving whom they choose in a free market,
but I'll note that it's unlikely that we'll hear outcries from the left
complaining about this discriminatory treatment because here those being denied
service were not asking for a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony.
In
case you haven't heard of the concept of "cultural appropriation," it
is the use of certain aspects of a certain culture by another culture, which,
to those who use the term, is a bad thing. Who thinks this way? But I digress.
University of Texas cultural studies professor Luis Urrieta has taken the
concept to a new level. Urrieta noted that these appropriations have "many
economic, social and symbolic repercussions. The first is obviously the theft
of intellectual property, the theft of communal knowledge. ... Socially, it
reduces native and indigenous peoples to 'artifacts' that can be worn, used,
consumed and displayed." A few examples of what they mean by
"appropriation" will suffice to illustrate. The University of
California, Merced told fraternities and sororities they should avoid using the
terms "Greek," "rush" and "pledge" because they
are appropriations of Greek culture. And at San Francisco State University, an
African-American student reportedly attacked a white student because his hair
was in dreadlocks. No, you really can't make this stuff up. "Appropriation
is a form of theft," said Urrieta. "It is a nice way of saying that
someone is taking someone else's (idea) and making it their own." In my
humble view, the burden of defending such Twilight Zonery is on any who would
defend it, but maybe I'm just old-fashioned. In case you think Urrieta is
merely an outlier, another professor, Rachel V. Gonzalez-Martin, described
cultural appropriation as "cultural poaching." If you're still
thinking "outliers," the University of Michigan advertised to recruit
a person -- at an annual salary of $50,000 -- to handle "cultural
appropriation prevention activities." Don't laugh; this isn't satire.
Finally,
California Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed legislation lowering from a felony
to a misdemeanor the act of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without
disclosing the infection to the person. Also protected by this outrageously
reckless nod to political correctness are those who give blood without
revealing their infection. Here I can't say "there are no words,"
because there are plenty, but I've run out of space.
For
the same reason, I must omit tons of other examples, but in mitigation for this
inadequacy, I think it is only fair that I get props for not opining on the
Harvey Weinstein scandal, trusting that the news saturation on this story has
reached your homes.
No comments:
Post a Comment