Twitter is Losing Me

In my inbox this morning, and my response. I don't know how much longer I'll be on this platform, but it won't be much longer if I continue to be embroiled in stupidity like this.

I'm shaking my head.

Click on the images to enlarge and read.

Leading Canadian Feminist Meghan Murphy Banned by Twitter for Speaking Out on Trans Ideology

I've interacted with Ms. Meghan a few times. Been following all year, and have been especially fascinated by her deep and shockingly incisive feminist analysis of the transgender cult.

She's been locked out of Twitter umpteen times and now her personal feed has been permanently suspended.

I'm not on other social media platforms (except Facebook, which I literally rarely check, like once a month if that), so for Twitter to continue its extremely rapid decline is depressing. I imagine soon I'll be spending less time on it, but for now I still like it as an entry point and rapid news feed for politics. That it's become the main platform for political correctness and thought control is now beyond dispute.

Jonathan Kay has one of the most thoughtful threads on Twitter's Ms. Meghan ban:

I have now learned that @MeghanEMurphy has had her account suspended again in the last few hours. @Twitter, this is absolutely insane: she is one of Canada's best known feminists, & one of the few voices fighting back against the insanity that's gripped Vancouver gender politics

— Jonathan Kay (@jonkay) November 24, 2018

And check the ever-excellent Robert Stacy McCain, at the Other McCain, "Jonathan Yaniv Is Not a Woman and #IStandWithMeghanMurphy."

Someone coined a new term, "transcel," describing a man who can't get laid -- an incel -- who decides to become transgender in a desperate attempt to gain sexual access to women. https://t.co/PTOMONxyiN

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) November 25, 2018

And at the Daily Wire, "Progressive Feminist Suspended From Twitter After Criticizing the Transgender Movement":

Daily Wire: Has this experience with Twitter changed your perspective regarding online political life?

Meghan Murphy: It’s blowing my mind how much power trans activists have. I’m not able to make my arguments. What they’re doing is ensuring I can’t talk about this stuff at all on Twitter.

It’s not, “you can’t say offensive things,” or “hateful things,” or “you can’t be mean,” because what I’m saying isn’t hateful or mean or offensive in my opinion. I’m trying to show that this ideology is incoherent and irrational. I’m trying to get them to explain their own arguments and defend their own claims.

If I can’t articulate my position, or ask questions – like “how can a man become a woman?” — then I can’t engage in these conversations at all.

The fact that there’s no accountability is crazy. Twitter doesn’t respond to my appeals; they just send me these form responses that don’t actually explain their policies or explain why I can’t say what I’m saying.

DW: Is there anything you want people to know regarding this situation that hasn’t been touched on?

MURPHY: Like I said before, the amount of power that trans activists have over public debate is incredible and kind of scary. It’s just a few people. There are a few people who have connections to Twitter or work for Twitter who are either trans themselves or allied with this movement who are just dictating these rules.

With the stuff that I’m saying, I have more supporters than detractors — not only online, but in the world. Most people in the world don’t believe it’s possible for a male to become female. Most people think this ideology is ridiculous. A lot of people are afraid to say so, and others are just regular people who aren’t aware this debate is going on.

This minority of people, who have an incredible amount of power, are claiming to be the most marginalized people on the planet. You can’t really be that marginalized when you’re controlling the entire conversation, and changing legislation and policy faster than anyone else has been able to do.

Ms. Meghan's response is up at her website, Feminist Current:

Meghan Murphy, founder & editor of @FeministCurrent, has been suspended from @Twitter for stating something outrageously radical: women are people who exist on our own right.

So, @jack, just want to check here:
MISOGYNY, RAPE AND DEATH THREATS: 👍
FEMINIST ANALYSIS AND FACTS:👎 pic.twitter.com/WdWTh4KxzI

— RaquelRosarioSánchez (@8RosarioSanchez) November 24, 2018

Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind

*BUMPED.*

At Amazon, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.

Blame the 'Culture Wars' on 1968

From VDH, at Investors, "Did 1968 Win The Culture War?":

Most of the political and cultural agenda from that turbulent period — both the advances and the regressions — has long been institutionalized. The military draft, for good or bad, has remained defunct. There is greater transparency in politics, fewer smoke-filled rooms. Disabled children, once ostracized and/or dismissively labeled "retarded," are now far better integrated into society and treated more ethically as special-needs kids. The rights of women, minorities and the LGBT community are now widely accepted.

Yet lifestyles have been radically altered — and often not for the good. Before the late '60s, most Americans married before having children; afterward, not so much. One-parent households are now far more common.

Other legacies of the '60s include couples marrying later and having fewer children. A half-century later, these social inheritances often mean prolonged adolescence, older parents, delayed or nonexistent homeownership, and more emphasis on leisure time than on household chores.

Fashion remains '60s-influenced. There are few dress codes left. Even billionaires now dress in jeans, T-shirts and sneakers rather than slacks and wingtips. Wire-rim glasses of the 1950s were considered old people's spectacles. Then they became hip, and now they are standard.

The iconic drug of the '60s, marijuana, has been legalized in many states and soon may be decriminalized at the federal level.

Post-'60s movies routinely include the sort of profanity, nudity and graphic violence that was unknown in 1950s cinema. Big-screen romance is often no longer about courtship, romance and mystery, but lots of on-screen sex.

Promiscuity and hookups were redefined in the '60s as norms. They are now, too — but with lots of ensuing psychological, social and cultural damage.

Before the campus turmoil of the late '60s, there were almost no "studies" courses in the college curriculum. The ancient idea still persisted that the university was obligated to teach philosophy, literature, languages, science, math and the professions — along with the inductive method to use such knowledge to make sense of things.

Yet the impatient '60s threw out that disinterested notion as quaint, naive and a roadblock to utopia. The campus instead became a center of deductive progressive activism. Updated studies courses now train students to think politically correctly rather than empirically...

RTWT.

Ellen Pompeo's Call-Out Virtue

Seen on Twitter, and at USA Today below:

Go, Ellen, GO. @EllenPompeo pic.twitter.com/Oj1YS3cq5G

— shonda rhimes (@shondarhimes) November 19, 2018

Pompeo married a black man to signal her virtue as a non-racist: 🤷‍♂️ Maybe it was about love, but an interracial marriage allows you to virtue-signal like there's no tomorrow: https://t.co/a5F6qY2SLG

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) November 23, 2018

Perpetual War Over Political Culture

The big question is who's to blame?

Both sides?

I don't think so, personally. It was back in 1992 when Pat Buchanan that America had entered a state of cultural warfare to determine the "soul" of the country.

What's different today is the breakdown of the old media hierarchy and the institutionaliztion of the demonizing, destructive, anti-American ideologies of the campus left inside America's top ranks of cultural, educational, and economic power.

But see Politico:

How Everything Became the Culture War https://t.co/01J8gAA398

— POLITICO (@politico) November 4, 2018

Victoria's Secret Chief Executive Jan Singer to Step Down

I guess Victoria's Secret is having problems, big problems.

At Quartz, "Victoria’s Secret’s CEO exits in the latest blow to the once-dominant lingerie brand":

Victoria’s Secret’s CEO exits in the latest blow to the once-dominant lingerie brand https://t.co/VG2Ix38MHI

— Quartz (@qz) November 14, 2018

The CEO of the lingerie giant Victoria’s Secret, Jan Singer, will leave her role at the company, owned by L Brands, after only two years, Bloomberg reports—the latest blow to a brand that has fallen far from the days when it held a near-monopoly on the bra market (pdf).

Singer, the former head of Spanx, was responsible for VS’s $4 billion lingerie business, which has taken a massive downturn in the past several years. And her departure—just a week after VS’s annual extravaganza of a fashion show got withering reviews—is only the latest sign of the company’s decline.

Most recently, a tone-deaf interview with the architects of the annual ogle-fest in Vogue last week served to showcase just how out of touch the brand has become. Edward Razek, chief marketing officer of L Brands, was roundly criticized on social media for his comments, many of which were defensive explanations for the show’s lack of diversity. Razek’s remarks about casting transgender models (referring to them as “transsexuals,” an antiquated phrase regarded as a slur) was especially crude:

“Shouldn’t you have transsexuals in the show? No. No, I don’t think we should,” Razek is quoted as saying. “Well, why not? Because the show is a fantasy. It’s a 42-minute entertainment special. That’s what it is.”

Razek later issued a meek apology via Victoria’s Secret Twitter account. But his message was clear: Transgender models—alongside any woman who doesn’t fit the brand’s narrow definition of bombshell beauty—does not belong in the “fantasy” that he and the show’s co-curator, VS executive Monica Mitro, want the brand to represent.

In his suggestion that the brand’s sex-kittenish aesthetic is working, the marketing chief seems to be indulging in his own fantasy, and missing a crucial fact: Victoria’s Secret is failing. As new, body-positive women’s underwear brands eat its lunch, investors have continued to abandon its parent company, L Brands, causing its stock to swan-dive—72% over three years and 43% in 2018 alone...

And everybody's hatin' on the VS fashion show, it turns out, moaning about how "out of touch the brand still is."

Right.

Mandatory intercourse with transsexuals coming soon. (*Eye roll.*)

Megyn Kelly Apologizes

At the Daily Wire, "Yes, Blackface Is Terrible. No, Megyn Kelly Isn't a Racist."

She made the remark yesterday that folks should be able to dress up for Halloween with "black face," although I don't think she knew the full racist history.

She's deeply sorry, though. She's ashamed even, and tears up at the video. I think she's a good, decent person; and like her, I don't kowtow to PC very much, but black face is out.

Watch:

"I want to begin with two words, I'm sorry..The country feels so divided and I have no wish to add to that pain and offense. I believe this is a time for more understanding, more love, more sensitivity and honor..Thank you for listening and for helping me listen too." Megyn Kelly pic.twitter.com/6hHrvZLNvK

— Megyn Kelly TODAY (@MegynTODAY) October 24, 2018

Elizabeth Warren Releases DNA Test Showing 1/1024 Native American Ancestry

This has been the big story at Memeorandum all day.

See the Boston Globe (safe link), "Warren releases results of DNA test."

And at Twitchy, "MATH doesn’t add up! It gets WORSE for Elizabeth Warren and her DNA release (hint, she’s STILL Fauxcahontas)."

MATH doesn’t add up! It gets WORSE for Elizabeth Warren and her DNA release (hint, she’s STILL Fauxcahontas) https://t.co/IdMKPdokND

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) October 15, 2018

And from William Jacobson, at Legal Insurrection, "Elizabeth Warren DNA test does NOT prove she’s Native American, contrary to the hype."

Elizabeth Warren DNA test does NOT prove she’s Native American, contrary to the hype https://t.co/pzcnb2zsZP pic.twitter.com/24lnwn4lQZ

— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) October 15, 2018

Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, Inventing the Future

Following-up, "America's New Mainline Ideology."

I do read a lot of the current Marxist revolutionary literature, but I've fallen a bit behind. (It takes a lot of time, and I've been enjoying a lot of classic fiction literature this past year.)

In any case, perhaps it's time to order some more books.

See Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work.

America's New Mainline Ideology

This is perhaps the best explanation of "cultural Marxism' I've read. (ADDED: With the exception of Linda Kimball, "Cultural Marxism," at American Thinker back in 2007; a great piece.)

Very good.

At the Mises Institute, "Is Cultural Marxism America's New Mainline Ideology?":

Is Cultural Marxism America's New Mainline Ideology? | Antony P. Mueller https://t.co/SO4stcEbeq @realjameswoods

— Janie Johnson (@jjauthor) October 13, 2018

Another name for the neo-Marxism of increasing popularity in the United States  is cultural Marxism.” This theory says that the driving force behind the socialist revolution is not the proletariat — but the intellectuals. While Marxism has largely disappeared from the workers' movement, Marxist theory flourishes today in cultural institutions, in the academic world, and in the mass media. This “cultural Marxism” goes back to Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and the Frankfurt School. The theorists of Marxism recognized that the proletariat would not play the expected historical role as a “revolutionary subject.” Therefore, for the revolution to happen, the movement must depend on the cultural leaders to destroy the existing, mainly Christian, culture and morality and then drive the disoriented masses to Communism as their new creed. The goal of this movement is to establish a world government in which the Marxist intellectuals have the final say. In this sense, the cultural Marxists are the continuation of what started with the Russian revolution.

Lenin and the Soviets
Led by Lenin, the perpetrators of the revolution regarded their victory in Russia only as the first step to the world revolution. The Russian Revolution was neither Russian nor proletarian. In 1917, the industrial workers in Russia represented only a small part of the workforce, which mainly consisted of peasantry. The Russian Revolution was not the result of a labor movement but of a group of professional revolutionaries . A closer look at the composition of the Bolshevist party and of the first governments of the Soviet state and its repressive apparatus reveals the true character of the Soviet revolution as a project that did not aim at freeing the Russian people from the Tsarist yoke but was to serve as the launchpad for the world revolution.

The experience of World War I and its aftermath showed that the Marxist concept of the "proletariat" as a revolutionary force was an illusion. At the example of the Soviet Union, one could also see that socialism could not function without a dictatorship. These considerations brought the leading Marxist thinkers to the conclusion that a different strategy would be required to establish socialism. Communist authors spread the insight that the socialist dictatorship must come in disguise. Before socialism can succeed, the existing culture must change. Control of the culture must precede political control.

Cultural Control Rises in Tandem with Political Control
Helping the neo-Marxists was the fact many of their efforts in taking control of culture happened parallel to the encroachment of the state on individual liberties. Over the past decades, at the same time when so-called political correctness has been on the rise, the American government obtained a vast arsenal of repressive instruments. Few Americans seem to know that the U.S. is still under emergency law that has been in force since George W. Bush used the executive privilege to declare a state of national emergency in 2001. In the same year, 9/11 opened also the path to push through the Patriot Act . From a score of around 95 points, the Freedom House "Aggregate Index of Freedom" of the United States has fallen to 86 points in 2018.

Moral Corruption
The way toward the rule of the cultural Marxists is the moral corruption of the people. To accomplish this, the mass media and public education must not enlighten but confuse and mislead. The media and the educational establishment work to put one part of the society against the other part. While group identities get more specific, the catalog of victimization and history of oppression becomes more detailed. To turn into a recognized victim of suppression is the way to gain social status and to obtain the right to special assistance, of respect and social inclusion.

The demand for social justice creates an endless stream of expenditures deemed essential — for health, education, old age, and for all those people who are "needy," "persecuted" and "oppressed," be it real or imaginary. The flood of never-ending spending in these areas corrupts the state finances and produces fiscal crises. This helps the Neo-Marxists accuse "capitalism" of all evils when, in fact, it is the regulatory state that provokes the systemic failures and when it is the excess of public debt that causes the financial fragility.

Politics, the media, and the judiciary never pause at waging the new endless wars: the war on drugs or against high blood pressure or the campaigns that assert the endless struggle against fat and obesity. The list of the enemies grows every day whether racism, xenophobia, and anti-Islamism. The epitome of this movement is political correctness, the war against having one's own opinion. While the public tolerates disgusting expositions of behavior, particularly under the cult of the arts, the list of prohibited words and opinions grows daily. Public opinion must not go beyond the few accepted positions. Yet while the public debate impoverishes, the diversity of radical opinion flourishes in the hidden.

The cultural Marxists drive society morally into an identity crisis by the means of the false standards of a hypocritical ethics. The aim is no longer the "dictatorship of the proletariat," because this project has failed, but the "dictatorship of political correctness" whose supreme authority lies in the hands of the cultural Marxists. As a new class of priests, the guardians of the new orthodoxy rule the institutions whose power they try to extend over all parts of the society. The moral destruction of the individual is a necessary step to accomplish the final victory.

Opium of the Intellectuals
The believers of neo-Marxism are mainly intellectuals. Workers, after all, are a part of the economic reality of the production process and know that the socialist promises are rubbish. Nowhere was socialism established as the result of a labor movement. The workers have never been the perpetrators of socialism but always its victim. The leaders of the revolution have been intellectual party politicians and military men. It was up to the writers and artists to conceal the brutality of the socialist regimes through articles and books and by films, music, and paintings, and to give socialism a scientific-intellectual, aesthetic and moral appearance. In the socialist propaganda, the new system appears to be both fair and productive.

The cultural Marxists believe that someday they will be the sole holders of power and be able to dictate to the masses how to live and what to think. Yet the neo-Marxist intellectuals are in for a surprise...

Still more.

Happy Columbus Day

Here's the hilarious Steven Crowder, for Prager University:

Cal State Long Beach Retires 'Prospector Pete' (VIDEO)

Now the California Gold Rush is racist and imperialist. Indigenous people were wiped out, or whatever.

Via CBS News 2 Los Angeles:



And at the school's Daily 49er newspaper, "President Conoley confirms retirement of Prospector Pete."

This is one of the least offensive "mascots" I've seen for any college in the country. Long Beach State's going psycho. (*Shrugs.*)

Nike's Colin Kaepernick 'Just Do It' Campaign (VIDEO)

At Gateway Pundit, "Tucker Carlson on Nike Honoring Kaepernick: “When the Most Successful People Hate the Society You’ve Got a Problem” (VIDEO).

"On Tuesday Tucker Carlson weighed in on Nike’s decision to use Kaepernick as its public face.

Tucker Carlson: It’s factually ludicrous. You can’t give up everything and maintain a Nike contract. It’s the executives profiting on him and his attacks on the United States while simultaneously denying they are attacks on the United States… This is an attack on the country. So it would be very different if he were saying I’m protesting this politician or this policy or this specific person for doing this specific thing. But no, sitting during the National Anthem is a way of making a broad-based generalized and therefore impossible to rebut attack against the country that made him and Nike rich. Again there is something really decadent about that when the most successful people in your society hate the society you’ve got a real problem. It’s a metaphor for our entire ruling class...

And watch:

The 'Diversity' Racket at UCLA

At great piece, from Heather Mac Donald, at the Los Angeles Times (surprisingly), "UCLA's infatuation with diversity is a costly diversion from its true mission":

UCLA's infatuation with diversity is a costly diversion from its true mission. https://t.co/18cp5KhBJ8 pic.twitter.com/Fl6E67j1mu

— L.A. Times Opinion (@latimesopinion) September 2, 2018

If Albert Einstein applied for a professorship at UCLA today, would he be hired? The answer is not clear. Starting this fall, all faculty applicants to UCLA must document their contributions to “equity, diversity and inclusion.” (Next year, existing UCLA faculty will also have to submit an “equity, diversity and inclusion statement” in order to be considered for promotion, following the lead of five other UC campuses.) The mandatory statements will be credited in the same manner as the rest of an applicant’s portfolio, according to UCLA’s equity, diversity and inclusion office.

A contemporary Einstein may not meet the suggested evaluation criteria. Would his “job talk” — a presentation of one’s scholarly accomplishments — reflect his contributions to equity, diversity and inclusion? Unlikely. Would his research show, in the words of the evaluation template, the “potential to understand the barriers facing women and racial/ethnic minorities?” Also unlikely. Would he have participated in “service that applies up-to-date knowledge to problems, issues and concerns of groups historically underrepresented in higher education?” Sadly, he may have been focusing on the theory of general relativity instead. What about “utilizing pedagogies addressing different learning styles” or demonstrating the ability to “effectively teach and attract students from underrepresented communities”? Again, not at all guaranteed.

As the new mandate suggests, UCLA and the rest of the University of California have been engulfed by the diversity obsession. The campuses are infatuated with group identity and difference. Science and the empirical method, however, transcend just those trivialities of identity that UC now deems so crucial: “race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, language, abilities/disabilities, sexual orientation, gender identity and socioeconomic status,” to quote from the university’s Diversity Statement. The results of that transcendence speak for themselves: an astounding conquest of disease and an ever-increasing understanding of the physical environment. Unlocking the secrets of nature is challenge enough; scientists (and other faculty) should not also be tasked with a “social justice” mission.

But such a confusion of realms currently pervades American universities, and UC in particular. UCLA’s Intergroup Relations Office offers credit courses and “co-curricular dialogues” that encourage students to, you guessed it, “explore their own social identities (i.e. gender, race, nationality, religion/spirituality, sexual orientation, social class, etc.) and associated positions within the campus community.” Even if exploring your social identity were the purpose of a college education (which it is not), it would be more fruitful to define that identity around accomplishments and intellectual passions — “budding mathematician,” say, or “history fanatic” — rather than gender and race.

Intergroup Relations is just the tip of the bureaucratic diversity iceberg. In 2015, UCLA created a vice chancellorship for equity, diversity and inclusion, funded at $4.3 million, according to figures published by the Millennial Review in 2017. (The EDI vice chancellor’s office did not have its current budget “at the ready,” a UCLA spokesman said, nor did Intergroup Relations.) Over the last two years, according to the Sacramento Bee’s state salary database, the diversity vice chancellor’s total pay, including benefits, has averaged $414,000, more than four times many faculty salaries. Besides his own staff, the vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion presides over the Discrimination Prevention Office; BruinX, the “research and development arm of EDI”; faculty “equity advisors”; UCLA’s Title IX office; and a student advisory board. Various schools at UCLA, including medicine and dentistry, have their own diversity deans, whose job includes making sure that the faculty avoid “implicit bias in the hiring process,” in the words of the engineering school’s diversity dean.

These bureaucratic sinecures are premised on the idea that UCLA is rife with discrimination, from which an ever-growing number of victim groups need protection...

 Keep reading.

What Happened to the Liberal Arts?

Heather Mac Donald's new book is out on September 4th, at Amazon, The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.

And see the roundup on Ms. Mac Donald at AoSHQ, "Late Summer Saturday Open Thread August 25."

And at Prager University:

Shooting Up Chicago

From Heather Mac Donald, at City Journal, "Thugs terrorize their neighbors in the Windy City":

My latest on the weekend's horrific violence in Chicago, and what police and city leadership need to do. https://t.co/LZgxHaBBmM via @CityJournal

— Heather Mac Donald (@HMDatMI) August 7, 2018

An explosion of drive-by shootings erupted on Chicago’s South and West sides this weekend. At least 74 people were shot, and 12 killed, between 3 p.m. on Friday and 6 a.m. on Monday. In one seven-hour stretch, starting around midnight on Saturday, at least 40 people were shot, four fatally, as gunmen targeted a block party, the aftermath of a funeral, and a front porch, reports the Chicago Tribune. Over two and a half hours that morning, 25 people were shot in five multiple-injury shootings, including a 17-year-old who died after being shot in the face. An 11-year-old boy, a 13-year-old boy, and a 14-year-old girl were also hit over the course of the weekend’s bloodbath. Mt. Sinai’s emergency room shut down for several hours due to the overload of bodies; in May, the entire hospital went into lockdown following a virtual riot in its lobby among gangbangers, reported Tribune columnist John Kass.

Meantime, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan recently celebrated the issuance of a 232-page draft consent decree for the Chicago Police Department, possibly the longest police consent decree ever written. Among numerous other red-tape-generating provisions, it requires the CPD to revise its protocols regarding “transgender, intersex, and gender non-conforming individuals,” to make sure that the CPD policies properly define these terms and that officers address intersex, transgender, and the gender non-conforming with the “names, pronouns and titles of respect appropriate to that individual’s gender.” Last Thursday, a so-called anti-violence march shut down Lake Shore Drive to demand that the CPD hire more black officers and that City Hall spend more on social programs in the black community. Few voices, in other words, are tackling the actual cause of Chicago’s violence: the breakdown of the black family structure and a demoralized police department...

More.

Roseanne Hannity Interview (VIDEO)

At USA Today, "Roseanne Barr finally apologizes to Valerie Jarrett on 'Hannity' — and then tells her she needs to get a haircut":

Hannity asked Barr several times what she would say to Jarrett if she were watching. It took her a while to get around to something, but eventually Barr said:

Let’s talk about it. Let’s really turn this into a teachable moment. We need to talk about race and everything that’s connected to it. Her skin tone is like mine, and I’m brown. I didn’t know she was African-American. I assumed because she was from Iran and she lived in Iran for such a long time. If she’s watching, I’m so sorry you thought I was racist and you thought that my tweet was racist because it wasn’t. It was political. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding that caused my ill-worded tweet. I’m sorry that you feel harmed and hurt. I never meant that.

"For that, I apologize. I never meant to hurt anybody or say anything negative about an entire race of people. My 30 years of work can attest to that,” she added.

And then: "Plus, I'd tell her she needs to get a new haircut."

If the last part sounds insensitive, well, sure, but it also speaks to what made the interview so bizarre and unsatisfying: Barr is a comic, first and foremost, and she could not stop being one Thursday night...

Swedish Student Blocks Afghani's Deportation by Refusing to Sit Down Until Man Was Removed from Flight (VIDEO)

Oh, the "woke" Scandinavian progressives. Notice how the woman was the "lone" activist on the plane. No doubt all the other passengers were glad the jihidist-in-waiting was getting the boot.

And woke journalists at the Guardian were all over it, with video too. See, "Swedish student's plane protest stops Afghan man's deportation 'to hell'":

A lone student activist on board a plane at Gothenburg airport has prevented the deportation of an Afghan asylum seeker from Sweden by refusing to sit down until the man was removed from the flight.

Her successful protest, footage of which spread rapidly across the internet, shines a spotlight on domestic opposition to Sweden’s tough asylum regime, at a time when immigration and asylum are topping the agenda of a general election campaign in which the far right is polling strongly.

“I hope that people start questioning how their country treats refugees,” Elin Ersson, 21, told the Guardian in an interview. “We need to start seeing the people whose lives our immigration [policies] are destroying.”

The social work student at Gothenburg University bought a ticket for the flight from Gothenburg to Turkey on Monday morning, after she and other asylum activists found out that a young Afghan was due to be deported on it. In fact he was not on the plane but activists discovered another Afghan man in his 50s was onboard for deportation.

As she entered the plane, Ersson started to livestream her protest in English. The video received more than 4m hits on Tuesday.

Facing both sympathy and hostility from passengers, the footage shows Ersson struggling to keep her composure. “I don’t want a man’s life to be taken away just because you don’t want to miss your flight,” she says. “I am not going to sit down until the person is off the plane.”

Yes. Hostility. Watch the video and you can see some pissed off passengers. She should've gotten the boot and the Afghani jihadist should have stayed for the ride back to his s***hole country.

Still more.

Raising a Black Daughter in a Red State

I was raised in Orange County, in California, one of the reddest of the red states back in the 1970s. I have two sisters. Being a black (mixed-race) person, there's some things you deal with as a racial minority. Unfortunately, you have to deal with racism. We were lucky, though. Our parents were educated and middle class. We had a nice home in a nice area, with good schools. Our family was cultured. We traveled, in the U.S. and to Europe. I don't ever think my parents said it was a "heartbreak" to raise us in California. If anything, my dad thought it was much better than being raised in the South.

But this piece, from Shanita Hubbard at NYT, is a new classic in the genre of geographical polarization. If you're going to face racism, it's not going to be exclusively in "red states." You're just going to experience it and you're going to learn to deal with it, manage it, and make it less debilitating. And America today is nowhere near where it was back in the 1970s when I was growing up. It's much better, so much better, even in the Deep South.

In any case, FWIW, "The Heartbreak of Raising a Black Daughter in a Red State":

I must stay vigilant against the psychological damage of having my daughter internalize the feelings of inferiority that can occur when her peers imply she is less than them https://t.co/S4M49uL9WF

— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) July 23, 2018

Nearly two years ago, I moved with my daughter, who was then 7, from Yonkers to a small town in Pennsylvania. It’s minutes outside of New Jersey, but right in the heart of Donald Trump’s America. Sixty-one percent of the people in my county voted for him.

Drive through most communities in my town and you’ll still see large blue Trump campaign signs on perfectly manicured lawns. Chances are, you’ll spot at least two newer-model pickup trucks with Confederate flag license plate frames. As I, a black woman, move through my daily routine, I exchange nonverbal social pleasantries with my neighbors — gestures that are calculated to avoid the kind of actual conversation that could quickly become uncomfortable. A quick nod. A small smile. But all the unspoken words that haunt my interactions in stores and on sidewalks seem to fall freely from children’s lips on the school playground.

Raising a brown girl in a solidly red area of a red state is giving me a front-row view of the way the current political climate is affecting young children.

In the past few months, it seems, there is a new, sad, pithy hashtag trending every week or so — a white person calling the police on a black family barbecuing, a black boy mowing a lawn or a little black girl selling bottled water. The interactions are dangerous and also send a dangerous message to children: There are people who believe you don’t belong here. That’s the message I worry my daughter will get every time we drive to school behind a car with a Confederate flag bumper sticker, and worse — when she’s with her classmates and I’m not there to protect her.

When I’m feeling particularly optimistic, I imagine that these kids must have been busy playing, out of earshot, when Mr. Trump’s calling African nations “shithole countries” was reported on the evening news. I try to convince myself that if their parents are defending a man who referred to neo-Nazis as “fine people,” it’s after all the children have gone to bed. I hold out a glimmer of hope that any praise for the “Muslim ban” is saved for when the youngest members of the household are preoccupied with screen time. I assure myself that no mother or father would tell a child that migrant kids from Mexico deserve to be separated from their parents and detained because they are “illegal.”

I am consistently jolted back to reality, and not just by evidence on the internet, like a video that surfaced of two white parents teaching children to be “patriotic” by vandalizing a mosque. My reminders come in the form of my daughter’s answers to “How was your school today?” One recent afternoon she reported that two girls she considered friends could no longer play with her. The reason: She’s brown...

I actually don't believe this story, about how kids wouldn't play with her daughter because "she's brown." And if something like this does happen, so what? You can't force people to play with you. Go find someone you like and enjoy being with. The world's not perfect, and it didn't start not being perfect with President Trump. What's wrong with our country today is leftist political correctness. It's so stultifying and hateful. I don't enjoy following politics and teaching politics as much as I used to, for these reasons exactly.

More at the link, FWIW.