Civil Rights and Discrimination
Imagine the coverage if the pro-life, MAGA-capped kids had shouted “faggots” and other insults at that black and Native American protestors, instead of what actually happened.
"This sad affair has allowed political charlatans, axe-grinders, and race baiters to wax poetic and connect the incident to their own personal bugaboos, be they experiences at the hands of high school bullies or racist white cisheteropatriarchy." https://t.co/K8jPiPWChd
— Quillette (@Quillette) January 21, 2019
Black adults to white kids: "F*ggots, crackers, bigots, incest kids."
White kids: [smiling, not responding]
Everyone: "omg did you see that smile?! So disrespectful!"
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) January 21, 2019
A better way:
The Colorado civil rights commissioners and LGBT activists share a set of core beliefs on what is acceptable as religious dissent—and the extent of state power in compelling artistic expression that violates the religious beliefs of a provider of creative services. Meanwhile, conservative Christian artisans have a different set of core beliefs at odds with the progressives. Consider, however, who is supporting cultural diversity here and who supports state-imposed uniformity.
The Washington Blade reports that Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz.)
…the first openly bisexual person elected to the U.S. Senate, didn’t place her left hand on a bible as per tradition. Instead, she used a book obtained from the Library of Congress which includes both the U.S. and Arizona constitutions.
The Pew Research Center for Religion & Public Life states that Sinema is the only member of Congress that identifies as “religiously unaffiliated.”
He’s doesn’t look at all uncomfortable. He’s giving her tips and laughing. https://t.co/tAbVDduXWw
— Some chick named Heather (@hboulware) January 4, 2019
I'm reading a fascinating book about how our ideology influences what we *want* to see the world and how that interferes powerfully with the actual information hitting our eyeballs and I can't think of a better example than this. https://t.co/QyaPyOOEms
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) January 4, 2019
He treated her exactly the same way he treated every other senator. This isn’t everything, this is nothing. https://t.co/E3NaVk2y4z
— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) January 4, 2019
He literally doesn't look uncomfortable at all, and says repeatedly he's looking forward to working with her. But okay.
Y'all really will find any opportunity to be victims, won't you? https://t.co/CRytrJD5WK
— Brad Polumbo (@brad_polumbo) January 4, 2019
Progressives in general are increasingly showing their animus.
Social justice warriorhood is ostensibly about the victimhood of blacks, women, Muslims, transgender people, etc. But it’s also, and ultimately, about ensuring the power dominance of the highly privileged white liberal elite. On the left, identity politics has all but killed and buried old-fashioned class analysis as the matrix for understanding power relationships.
If progressive politicos, academics, pundits, funders and activists were more confident in their views, they wouldn’t be so very afraid of engaging with nonprogressive viewpoints.
I’m going to miss 2018. Note that the ringleader with “Stay Woke” jacket has to check her phone for words to her chant. To any protestors out there: If you plan to shut down a speaker, have the decency to memorize your chants. https://t.co/Bo6vwFWxIo
— Christina Sommers (@CHSommers) December 31, 2018
The cultural contradictions of progressivism.
Here's my main problem with intersectionality: It's adherents claim the oppressed are sole experts on their oppression, and we must defer to them. But also, it's not their job to educate you or lead the resistance. Thus we end up with this utter confusion. https://t.co/iPS8P1f4dF
— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) December 31, 2018
Wesley Yang writes:
We wouldn’t even be able to conceive of the microaggression were not the macroaggression stigmatized and on the retreat. My parents’ homes were reduced to rubble in Korea. To speak to them about a microaggression is just not credible, it’s simply absurd.
On the other hand, it’s also true that there’s a lot of pain that goes with being an Asian-American, which I write about. …
But… when one looks at remediating that through a system of policing speech and thought, then you cross over into this whole other territory where you’re talking about extinguishing human freedom for the purpose of pursuing some person’s ill-defined therapeutic grievance.
Has the message of anti-racism become as harmful a force in American life as racism itself?https://t.co/fD2DELPqIr
— reason (@reason) December 1, 2018
Before you fan the flames of the firestorm, I'd suggest taking a moment to ask yourself how these changes are anything but reasonable. You can hate Trump and love Obama and still recognize that the Obama administration's guidelines on this were an overreach. https://t.co/TTCluE81Wx
— Meghan Daum (@meghan_daum) November 16, 2018
Not only will the Department of Education's proposed rules restore basic due process and fairness to college tribunals, but they also — given how basic the changes are — highlight just how ridiculous university kangaroo courts have become: https://t.co/14gZExPL0E
— David French (@DavidAFrench) November 16, 2018
Put another way, her reforms will restore due process. https://t.co/2gQRtmySTm
— Christina Sommers (@CHSommers) November 14, 2018
I occasionally need the reminder why I'll never give the ACLU a single damned cent, despite the many things we agree on (and despite the positive interactions I've had with several of their lawyers). https://t.co/oFgqSHC4xv
— Scott Shackford [Blue Checkmark] (@SShackford) November 16, 2018
If only there was a national civil liberties organization that would stand up for the rights of the accused, rather than let the yahoos get away with claiming that adhering to due process "inappropriately favors" the accused. If only. https://t.co/shyUMOVCxN
— David Bernstein (@ProfDBernstein) November 16, 2018
More. As Camille Paglia notes: “The headlong rush to judgment by so many well-educated, middle-class women in the #MeToo movement has been startling and dismaying. Their elevation of emotion and group solidarity over fact and logic has resurrected damaging stereotypes of women’s irrationality that were once used to deny us the vote.”
It's hard to know where to start with this dangerous suggestion from @anncoffey_mp that jury trials should be scrapped for rape cases. "Rape myths" do need to be addressed but defendants are still entitled to a presumption of innocence https://t.co/bYfFgQbvMQ
— Dr Hannah Quirk (@HannahQuirk1) November 21, 2018
Sen. Susan Collins has stood up to the mob and our republic will be the better for it. From her speech on the Senate floor:
Some argue that, because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest courts, public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as abiding to our longest tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee. Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence and fairness do bear on my thinking and I cannot abandon them. In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record.
The Human Rights Campaign, which believes women (except for Juanita Broaddrick…Paula Jones…Kathleen Willey…et al) responded predictably.
And the Women’s March weighed in:
— Women's March (@womensmarch) October 5, 2018
Susan Collins just saved the women’s movement and its progress on rape prosecutions https://t.co/XGpvVo10gS
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 6, 2018
More, you say:
Imagine reading this headline and thinking it makes sense 🙈 pic.twitter.com/TzEF3V0E8V
— The Safest Space (@TheSafestSpace) October 8, 2018
This is what left-wing "feminism" often looks like, folks. https://t.co/CcyYxbeQ3Y
— Brad Polumbo (@brad_polumbo) October 8, 2018
Let’s remember what’s driving the hysteria. Other than reflexive Trump hatred, it’s the demand for a Supreme Court that will oppose state restrictions on abortion, including limits on late-term abortion on demand, preferably done at taxpayer expense. (I agree with more-knowledgeable court-watchers that the likelihood of a whole-scale overturning of Roe by the conservatives on the court, especially under an incrementalist like Chief Justice Roberts, is virtually none.)
I know, I am not entitled to an opinion about terminating the lives of unborn babies.
Ok, so lately liberals at my college have been telling me that I am not allowed to have an opinion on abortion because I'm gay.
How do I even respond to that? Throw a civics book at them or something? Democracy 101?
— Brad Polumbo (@brad_polumbo) October 8, 2018
I wrote in September 2011 about Collins’ pivotal actions in overturning the military ban against openly gay service members:
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, it should be noted, never pushed for repeal or any other pro-gay equality legislation, but his role with “don’t ask, don’t tell” was particularly egregious. In late 2010, he insisted that the repeal bill be combined with an appropriations measure that the GOP was determined to block, and did with its filibuster. Reid then declared it was the GOP’s fault that the repeal failed. An incensed Sen. Collins and Sen. Lieberman demanded that a separate, stand-alone “don’t ask” repeal bill be brought forward, and the media glare [they generated] forced Sen. Reid to capitulate. The stand-alone repeal was brought up for a vote and easily passed with the support of many senators, including Sen. Brown, who had voted against the combined appropriations/repeal bill. …
…Sen. Collins shared that she simply couldn’t, at first, believe what Sen. Reid was doing (and then charged to the podium to protest the maneuver and its foregone conclusion—to no avail).
Keeping “don’t ask, don’t tell” in place as a campaign and fundraising issue while blaming the GOP for blocking repeal was the strategy all along. For the same reasons, when Democrats had a big majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate majority for nearly two years (2009-10), and with a “progressive” president in the White House, they choose not to pass comprehensive immigration reform (or vote on a federal LGBT anti-discrimination measure, for that matter).
As Williamson notes:
What [Phillips] declines to do is to make cakes for certain events, participation in which, even as a vendor, would violate his conscience. As he put it: “I serve everybody. It’s just that I don’t create cakes for every occasion.”
Phillips has been prosecuted under a civil-rights law, but this is not really a case about civil rights: It is a case about compulsion. …
The point is not to see to it that gay and transgender people can live their lives as they wish to — the point is to coerce Jack Phillips into conformity.
— Jamie Kirchick (@jkirchick) August 17, 2018