Leaderboard

https://reason.com/2020/06/12/protesters-activists-shor-floyd-1793-project/ Fang was plainly terrified, and not unreasonably fearful of losing his job and being branded a racist forever. The Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein called Fang's forced apology "Maoist-style." It's a hyperbolic analogy, referencing the infamous "struggle sessions" of Mao Zedong's totalitarian communism regime. Thankfully, the dissenters from woke orthodoxy are not being tortured or executed for wrongthink. But they do face tremendous pressure to avoid saying anything that might provoke an online mob, or an illiberal colleague, or an activist with different priorities—even if that thing they want to say is plainly true. This new reality has important social consequences: for the individuals caught in the crosshairs, but also the institutions attempting to navigate these very treacherous waters. Given that so many cancellations hinge on the accusation that safety is being undermined, I would suggest a different metaphor than Mao. Mine is no less hyperbolic, but it puts the focus where my reporting—and Haidt and Lukianoff's research—suggest it should be. In 1793, the Committee of Public Safety took charge of the French Revolution on a promise to "make terror the order of the day." Evidence-free show trials and ideological purges followed, consistent with the radical leaders' belief that public safety requires public terror. Needless to say, critics of today's radicals do not live in terror of being sentenced to the guillotine. But losing employment and social standing is no small matter. Having a job is usually connected to having health care and economic security: the ability to afford food, housing, and medicine. While some people weather and overcome their cancellation—even profiting from it—others aren't so lucky. We hear a lot about the cases where things worked out eventually (this Olivia Nuzzi piece is a must-read), but many cases never produce a sympathetic backlash that aids the cancelled. And being shamed online by thousands of people over a trivial offense is an unpleasant and exhausting experience, even if it doesn't permanently impact your employment. This is not to say that every person being cancelled at the moment is a martyr for the cause of free speech. Los Angeles magazine has a list of the recently cancelled. Several were accused of fostering unpleasant work environments. Were they guilty? Maybe so. Recentlty ousted Bon Apetit editor-in-chief Adam Rappaport, for instance, seems like an unpleasant person to work for. Food writer Alison Roman, on the other hand, was dragged on social media for 1) daring to criticize Chrissy Teigen, and 2) wearing an offensive Halloween costume more than a dozen years ago. The photo of Roman was circulated on Twitter by the journalist Yashar Ali, a friend of Teigen with a history of fiercely defending her. Ali claimed the costume was intended as a "chola" stereotype of Mexican-Americans; Roman countered that she was dressed up as Amy Winehouse. Ali deleted his tweet but said he thought it was fair game because Roman had a history of "being called out for appropriation." (Twitter users immediately dug up a photo of Teigen in a culturally appropriative Halloween costume.) Ironically, the same subset of people ostensibly exercised about emotional safety—the woke left—seem frequently inclined to level unsubstantiated accusations that inflict emotional harm. This makes it difficult to believe that these Twitter warriors' true aim is the promotion of psychological comfort. Did any of them consider Uhlig's mental health after the man was baselessly accused? Does anyone care about Roman, who probably did not expect her enemies to ransack her Myspace page for evidence of racism and then pillory her for a photo taken when she was 23? What about Shor, thrown to the wolves for making a reasonable objection to what one wing of the protesters was doing? That sounds like terror, not safety. Call it the 1793 Project. All these "woke" progressives are hypocrites, every single one of them. And for those of us who truly value the free and open exchange of ideas and public discourse should challenge and refute this politically correct, "cancel culture", bullshit at every opportunity. We cannot let them win. They are the one's who are choosing to be offended, choosing to be afraid. But not I.

This is a game-changer, from a supposedly “conservative” Court. Lots of ramifications. For example, what does this do to the fired teachers’ lawsuits against Roncalli, Cathedral, and the Diocese? The voting lineup in this 6-3 decision is fascinating. https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/justices-rule-lgbt-people-protected-from-job-discrimination?utm_source=breaking-news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=2020-06-15 Justices rule LGBT people protected from job discrimination The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court. The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers. “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented. “The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito wrote in the dissent. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’” Kavanaugh wrote in a separate dissent that the court was rewriting the law to include gender identity and sexual orientation, a job that belongs to Congress. Still, Kavanaugh said the decision represents an “important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans.” The outcome is expected to have a big impact for the estimated 8.1 million LGBT workers across the country because most states don’t protect them from workplace discrimination. An estimated 11.3 million LGBT people live in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA law school. But Monday’s decision is not likely to be the court’s last word on a host of issues revolving around LGBT rights, Gorsuch noted. Lawsuits are pending over transgender athletes’ participation in school sporting events, and courts also are dealing with cases about sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms, a subject that the justices seemed concerned about during arguments in October. Employers who have religious objections to employing LGBT people also might be able to raise those claims in a different case, Gorsuch said. “But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today,” he wrote. The cases were the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement and replacement by Kavanaugh. Kennedy was a voice for gay rights and the author of the landmark ruling in 2015 that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States. Kavanaugh generally is regarded as more conservative. The Trump administration had changed course from the Obama administration, which supported LGBT workers in their discrimination claims under Title VII. During the Obama years, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had changed its longstanding interpretation of civil rights law to include discrimination against LGBT people. The law prohibits discrimination because of sex, but has no specific protection for sexual orientation or gender identity. In recent years, some lower courts have held that discrimination against LGBT people is a subset of sex discrimination, and thus prohibited by the federal law. Efforts by Congress to change the law have so far failed. The Supreme Court cases involved two gay men and a transgender woman who sued for employment discrimination after they lost their jobs. Aimee Stephens lost her job as a funeral director in the Detroit area after she revealed to her boss that she had struggled with gender most of her life and had, at long last, “decided to become the person that my mind already is.” Stephens told funeral home owner Thomas Rost that following a vacation, she would report to work wearing a conservative skirt suit or dress that Rost required for women who worked at his three funeral homes. Rost fired Stephens. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled that the firing constituted sex discrimination under federal law. Stephens died last month. Donna Stephens, her wife of 20 years, said in a statement that she is “grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” The federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of a gay skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired because of his sexual orientation. The full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-3 that it was abandoning its earlier holding that Title VII didn’t cover sexual orientation because “legal doctrine evolves.” The court held that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.” That ruling was a victory for the relatives of Donald Zarda, who was fired in 2010 from a skydiving job in Central Islip, New York, that required him to strap himself tightly to clients so they could jump in tandem from an airplane. He tried to put a woman with whom he was jumping at ease by explaining that he was gay. The school fired Zarda after the woman’s boyfriend called to complain. Zarda died in a wingsuit accident in Switzerland in 2014. In a case from Georgia, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled against Gerald Bostock, a gay employee of Clayton County, in the Atlanta suburbs. Bostock claimed he was fired in 2013 because he is gay. The county argues that Bostock was let go because of the results of an audit of funds he managed. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Bostock’s claim in a three-page opinion that noted the court was bound by a 1979 decision that held “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

I think the Left wants to extend the Pandemic as much as they can. They want to spread fear and chaos among the public.

Well the confederates were traitors to America. I really don't understand why the United States has bases named after them....and the statutes are the ultimate participation trophies.

Considering that the estates of two plaintiffs continued their fights, this is also a win for dead people.

Obama fixes what Dubya broke, and Trump rode the wave until he got lax on COVID.

PAC has a couple younger guys. And I believe that Boonville just had a D1 offer for their RB/DB/ATH from Navy.

I think that looks about right. Valpo is also very close with their enrollment

https://fortwaynesnbc.com/2020/06/06/fwpd-officer-james-payne-shares-message-of-peace/ Let's all take a breath of air, and appreciate that we all need one another....always! I don't like "exposure" that much on forums, but I think that perhaps I am past that now. I hope for peace, understanding, love and a full academic and sports year in 2020-2021.

Thanks for sharing. A great person and great official!

The "community organizer" took over after a bozo from Texas wrecked the economy. What SUBSTANTIVE policy decision did Trump make that led to increased employment, particularly factory employment, in the Midwest?

Just saw four baseball games in the last two days and the only reason it wasn't six is because both of my boys were in different cities today. I have a feeling I'm going to get my fill of baseball easily before the end of summer at this rate.

I do feel the HCC is continuing to improve and get better. I think this year it’s Important for HSE, Fishers, or Westfield to reach the state finals from the north 6A while carmel is south. It’s very important for those programs and that conference for them to do so. Also with Zionsville in 5A north, they need to do well in the tournament. And they most definitely can. HCC needs to perform better in tournament play.

Ask someone on the left.

Seattle's CHAZ: Homesteaders or Illegal Squatters? https://mises.org/power-market/seattles-chaz-homesteaders-or-illegal-squatters Seattle's mayor Jenny Durkan may not go quite as far as Dr. Block, but she does appear to acknowledge the new, uh, "community" essentially colonizing major thoroughfares in the Emerald City. She may not be ready to grant the CHAZ outright ownership of the streets in question, but neither is she setting any deadlines for eviction: Clearly the mayor is in the midst of a dangerous situation, both literally for the people in the CHAZ and in terms of her own political career. It's a public relations nightmare. And from a purely legal perspective, what grants her authority over who occupies Capitol Hill? One answer is taxes, says Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe. In his view, the streets of Seattle are not virgin territory available to homesteaders, but rather akin to land held in trust by (admittedly unworthy) state agents on behalf of taxpayers. If those trustees won't sell the land or other property outright and return the funds to taxpayers, Hoppe's view is that they at least ought to operate and maintain such property on their behalf. So, for the purpose of countering Dr. Block's contention that government property should be viewed as open to homesteading—and only for that purpose, Hoppe says—"public" property should be viewed as being owned by taxpayers. As such, it should be managed on behalf of the long-suffering (net) taxpaying citizens as a matter of simple justice. Principles aside, the essence of ownership is control. Bureaucrats, police, and politicians who control access to and use of "public" property are its de facto owners, because only they can sell, encumber, or control its use. The average American's ownership claim to the local playground or a city library is virtually nil. Simply try sleeping in them overnight, and you'll quickly find out who really owns them. So, for the moment, the Seattle protestors have the greatest control over Capitol Hill and hence an ownership claim of sorts under the brute force of "possession is nine-tenths of the law." Whether their claim is valid comes down to whether they are illegal squatters or righteous Lockean homesteaders. In a densely settled area like Seattle, with a long history of property titles flowing from valid sales, the question becomes absurd. Their protests and encampments directly affect the undisputed private property all around them. The Seattle government has thoroughly controlled the roads and police using funds forcibly taxed from Seattle residents. Capitol Hill residents, businesses, and visitors rely and depend on existing understandings and contractual arrangements. Seattle cannot be homesteaded, not even city property, in any conceivable manner that does justice to its current inhabitants. And to the extent that they've paid for it all through taxes, their right to evict the CHAZ protestors clearly supercedes any "right" to conflate occupation with protest. It's tempting to dismiss the Seattle protestors en masse because of their terrible and violent political beliefs, and their terrible designs for remaking America without property or markets. But that doesn't change the thorny question of how to deal with them here and now. If they are illegal squatters—not to mention disruptors of many who live or work in the area—then their forcible removal is justified. But New York City lacked the political will to remove Occupy Wall Street campers from Zuccotti Park for many months. Will ultrawoke Seattle in 2020, with its obliging mayor, evict the CHAZ protestors anytime soon? I would start with a blockade. Starve them out and turn of their electricity and water supply.

huh? wat?

Because libertarianism is considered a cult and not a religion. Kinda like Scientology in Europe

He only hires "the best".

I do? Pointing out SF's and others weird fascination with AOC is quite different than defending her policies.

Maybe conservatives just have crappy SAT scores?

Was not your point that Harvard being a relatively liberal school was the reason he was accepted?

So your point is that uber liberal schools don't like Hogg and less liberal schools like Harvard do like him? Not following you point. Fox has more than adequately answered your question IMO.

These school are more liberal than Harvard.

You sure seem to snap to attention whenever she is mentioned.

Yes. Anyone that wishes to say gays should be killed for being gay(the Bible says so) should be labeled a hate group. What say you?

You, yourself (in bold print no less) showed where that church claimed to follow the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. The Biblical teaching in Leviticus is clearly to kill gays. If you advocate killing of a group of people with out actually killing them based on their sexual orientation, this is clearly a hateful group. Are you suggesting that you have to physically kill someone to be considered a hate group?? Clearly you are not that stupid? Or maybe Wabash82 is correct....

If they advocate death to gays, I say Yes. What say you?

Dare I say....hateful

Not a stretch at all. You highlighted the fact that this church advocates for the Biblical treatment of gays (death). Thanks again.

He wants someone to bring him a dream for a change.

Unfortunately, way too many in the comment section, don't seem to think so. https://www.al.com/news/2019/02/alabama-press-group-censures-goodloe-sutton-over-kkk-editorial-suspends-democrat-reporter.html

Clicks no doubt drive decisions. Wonder why the MSM thought this story might get clicks....

Upon further investigation there was. I wonder why this story caught caught fire....

I obviously own them and have worn the cufflinks and your effort to make some sort of weak personal jab at my "coolness" is cute. Waste of time. Never said Biden's "my guy". Another conjecture by you trying to mask your biased attack on the fella. Look, I get it, you don't like to be called on your biases. Not the end of the world.

He seems to be parroting someone who speaks and tweets with the same level of idiocy

It was a public user reply form. Unsecured site but I rolled the dice. Here is what I sent: Mr. Sutton Why were you so emboldened to make such an inflammatory statement in your recent editorial? Any insight would be welcome. Good Day, Everett Stokes I will keep you posted. No answer to a phone call. It would seem that Mr. Goodloe has gone on radio silence after all these unfair, fake news attacks on a true southern gentleman. I got your sarcasm. If he doesn't speak for ALL conservatives, he must, in your estimation, speak for SOME conservatives. Is this the point you were trying to make? Looks like Mr. Sutton also likes to attack NFL players, Muslims, Mexicans, and call women nasty names. Hmmmm. I wonder if he only speaks for the 3000 subscribers or is there a larger narrative here and that Sutton is just one example.

It's a print only newspaper with no web site. If you find an email for Goodloe Sutton I will ask him and CC you. Still scratching my head as to why he might have been so brazen in 2019 to make these comments that seem to embarrass much of his own state.

I wonder what caused him to be so bold with his rhetoric. No Klan talk when Obama, the Muslim, socialist, communist, Kenyan born, Muslim brotherhood supporting destroyer of American Greatness was in office. What could have possibly changed that gave him the cajones to print Jim Crow Era nonsense in 2019?? Emboldened flunkies...."The Real New Normal"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-editor-called-lynchings-klan-quit-senator-says-152350995.html #MAGA

The Socialist saves democracy! Government handouts to a welfare queen like Bezos goes down the tubes.

Next distraction!!!!! National Emergency to stop the hordes of rapers overwhelming our southern border!!!!

Only when combined with his gay hate. The dude intimated that he would drown his own son and daughter if they were gay.

You got the point!

MagaMan

lighten up snowflaky responses to any perceived slight to our Prez is "the new normal"