The posters I gathered are overwhelmingly about Stupid Leftists and the stupid things they think and do, so this Bookworm Beat will make you laugh and cry.
The posters I gathered are overwhelmingly about Stupid Leftists and the stupid things they think and do, so this Bookworm Beat will make you laugh and cry.
After a manic weekend, I got the chance to put my all into this Bookworm Beat, which covers politics, homelessness, immigration, antisemitism, and more.
Oh, my gosh, but do I have a lot to share with you — and tonight I’ve got the time to do so. Go get a nice cup of tea or coffee, and maybe a few cookies or a little ice cream, find a comfortable chair, and let’s get going.
I should warn you before you begin that these snippets aren’t in any particular order. I’m writing them down in the order in which I first read them. It’s a little chaotic, but consider it a challenging brain teaser.
Trump is not a show-boater about his patriotism. Saturday was “Wreaths Across America” day, a day on which volunteers descended on military cemeteries all over America to decorate veterans’ graves with wreaths. Without fanfare, Trump showed up at Arlington National Cemetery to honor the fallen. I’ll leave you with a few photos of this present and a past president:
By the way, I know that Obama sometimes carried his own umbrella and that gateways can be tough. Still, there was something about Obama and umbrellas…. [Read more…]
The Kavanaugh hearings have served a useful purpose in that they revealed the Leftists’ vicious and unbridled lust for power to all Normal Americans.
I’m delighted that it looks as if the Republicans, with help from Manchin and no help from Murkowski, will be able to drag Kavanaugh across the finish line. However, while Kavanaugh’s place on the Supreme Court will enhance that Court’s reverence for the Constitution as written, not just as Leftists desire it, the fissures in America have deepened, which the articles and videos below highlight.
The only bright spot is that, while the fissures are deeper, those on the Leftist side may find themselves more marginalized as those people whom Kurt Schlichter calls “Normals” are increasingly disgusted by the self-styled elites excess and hostility to both Normals and constitutional norms. And with that, some things for you to enjoy:
A reminder why Normals recoiled from the unfounded charges against Kavanaugh. This video is from a Catholic Women’s organization, but I think it readily applies to all women who don’t hate men:
I know that, since the day my son was born, I realized that boys, in their own way, are just as vulnerable as girls. I also realized that today’s social norms are incredibly hostile to men, tearing them down instead of cultivating their manly virtues.
A PragerU video reminds us that feminism is also bad for women. Not only is today’s Third Wave man-hating feminism bad for boys, it’s bad for girls too:
I don’t think we can make enough of the point Klavan advances that Third Wave feminism, instead of cultivating women’s virtues as things that contribute profoundly to the good of society, insists that women must be weaker versions of men. This has resulted in women who drink more, sleep around more, and insist on getting in the way on the battlefield, all while downplaying the one thing that they’re uniquely suited to do: nurturing. It’s ironic really that I say this, because I hate nurturing. But I’m good at it. It’s hardwired, whether I like it or not.
I was actually primed for Klavan’s message because years ago I read an excellent book called Female chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy, a very depressing book that first exposed me to a world in which young women try desperately, and in a soul-killing way, to compete with men when it comes to sexual excess and debauchery. Men used to think this was a good idea. Sex! Sex! More sex! However, when you look at the horribly damaged women this creates (see the Steve Crowder video, below, and what I have to say about it), men have to be having second thoughts. [Read more…]
Find here a collection of the Twitter-sphere’s best takes about the danger to our democracy from social media giants silencing Alex Jones and InfoWars.
Before I go anywhere with this post, let me say that I am in no way, shape, or form an Alex Jones fan. I’ve never listened to him, I think his Sandy Hook theory is cruel and distasteful, and I’ve heard that he’s one of the angry talking heads, which is never something I enjoy. This post is not about defending Alex Jones. It is, instead, about addressing technocrats’ war on ideas with which they disagree.
For those who say it’s ironic that I’m turning to Twitter, one of the Leftist social media giants, to find commentary about this totalitarian purge, I agree. However, to the extent Twitter encourages pithiness, I find the following takes on the subject worth repeating.
To those who say the social media giants are private corporations and can do as they will . . . no. They have become communication monopolies. Monopolies are cancerous growths on the free market. That is, while they may have arisen in the free market, just like cells in our body that go awry and become deadly, so too do monopolies corrupt and destroy American institutions.
In the old days, monopolies destroyed whole sectors of the economy. Today, these hi-tech social media monopolies are destroying free speech in America. To the extent that they’ve become the dominant platforms over which Americans communicate with their fellow Americans, to have them take sides effectively squelches speech.
It’s no use saying “Well, other platforms will rise up.” There isn’t time to do that before the November 2018 election, which is what this purge is all about. In essence this is the beginning of a political coup, and conservatives, both private citizens and politicians, need to figure out how to respond, hard and fast.
The following tweets, of course, are just observational — they point out what’s happening and worry about the consequences. They’re scarcely solutions, but solutions don’t happen until people are fully aware that there’s a problem. After reading the following, and based upon your own reading and understanding, please feel free to offer solutions here. I’m a little forum, but any forum is better than no forum at all, right?
I’ll open with my own tweet:
Many things have scared me over the years, but few things have left me as frightened as the tech giants’ erasure of Alex Jones and InfoWars. I’m not a Jones fan at all, but every fiber of my being is opposed to this type of aggregated power.
— Bookwormroom (@Bookwormroom) August 7, 2018
And now some of my favorite tweets regarding the Alex Jones / InfoWars purge:
A crowd yelling CNN sucks at Jim Acosta is a “Threat to Journalism”, but iTunes, Facebook, YouTube, and soon Twitter silencing INFOWARS is “no big deal, it’s a good thing.”
— Carpe Donktum (@Carpedonktum) August 6, 2018
Just curious: Did they also ban Planned Parenthood? To be consistent about opposing those who glorify violence and dehumanize others in order to justify that violence? https://t.co/wdUnrfXhTW
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) August 6, 2018
With the Infowars ban, Apple, Facebook & Spotify have all now ascribed themselves the power to remove people & outlets from their platforms based on their political opinions.
For conservative media outlets who don’t speak out because they don’t like Infowars – you’re next.
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) August 6, 2018
SJWs flex their power by being “offended” when they hear comedians. I’m seldom offended by the content, but I’m always offended by the lack of humor.
Last night, I had some down time (a short commodity today) and I watched a movie that came out in 2015, but is still quite pertinent. It’s called Can We Take A Joke?, and focuses on the fact that audiences today, especially on college campuses, object to comedians on the ground that the comedians offend their delicate sensibilities. The movie, which interviews comics such as Adam Carolla, Gilbert Gottfried, Penn Jillette, Lisa Lampanelli, and Jim Nortan, and free speech advocates such as Greg Lukianoff (of FIRE) and Jonathan Rauch, a Progressive who apparently believes in free speech, is a joint project of Reason and FIRE.
Over and over, the comics interviewed (including some as-yet-unknown college age comics) make the point that it’s their job to push the limits, a job that came into being with Lenny Bruce. And over and over, they point out that people, despite knowing that a comic today will be crude or push buttons, start screaming “I’m offended.”
What’s funny in an ironic way about all the comics interviewed is that they are most funny — and most effective — when they are simply talking to the camera about their job, about free speech, and about censorship that comes, not from the government, but from society itself. As Rauch and Nortan both point out, even if speech is ostensibly free because the government doesn’t quash it, it’s not free if societal norms are so narrow nothing can be said anyway. As one of the comics said, and many others have said before, this situation means that speech in America is only as free as the most sensitive, easily offended person in any room, any state, or any nation. Charlie Hebdo, anyone?
My issue with all the comics is that I don’t think they’re funny. Merely saying the “f” word repeatedly or the “c” word repeatedly doesn’t make me laugh. Lenny Bruce at least worked the obscenities into larger, rather intelligent jokes. These comics, when they’re not talking intelligently to the camera (or, in Penn Jillette’s case doing the most amazing magic in family friendly shows that help showcase constitutional rights), tend to be as in love with dirty words as the average child . . . and, in their acts, to use them as intelligently.
Years ago, when my son was 3 or 4, we took a walk up to Eagle Lake in the Desolation Wilderness (part of the Lake Tahoe region). It’s not a long walk and it’s stunningly lovingly — or was, when I was a child, and it was empty, rather than a busy freeway of hikers. In any event, whether because he’s never been a hiking fan or because the crowds were getting to him, my little guy started whining very early in the walk.
We carried him a bit, but mostly, because it was a walk easily within his capability, we tried to cajole and cheer him. I described to him the wonders of the trail (surprise views, cool rocks to climb, a lovely lake), but he was unimpressed. Finally, he’d had it. Digging deep into his barely-out-of-the-toddler-phase vocabulary, he came up with the biggest, nastiest insult he could imagine: “I hate this. It’s a dirty, stinky walk to poo-poo lake.”
If he hoped to shock me, he failed. I laughed so hard I almost fell over. Please note, though, that what he said wasn’t inherently funny or clever. It was funny only because it was the outer reaches of a very small child’s imagination and vocabulary when it came to the art of the insult. [Read more…]
The president of Macalester College’s free speech manifesto simply reinforces the determination to preserve the campus’ Leftist intellectual monoculture.
At PJ Media, you can read about a lawsuit that a free speech organization has launched against the University of Michigan (which is a public university). As I read it, Michigan’s rule is that all campus speech is judged by its subjective effect on the most sensitive flower on campus — and we all know that those sensitive flowers are invariably hard Leftists:
As the lawsuit says, the university has created an “elaborate investigatory and disciplinary apparatus to suppress and punish speech other students deem ‘demeaning,’ ‘bothersome,’ or ‘hurtful’.” Yes, really: The student disciplinary code defines “harassment” as any “unwanted negative attention perceived as intimidating, demeaning, or bothersome to an individual” (emphasis added).
In other words, as the complaint says, “the most sensitive student on campus effectively dictates the terms under which others may speak.” Under this absurd but dangerous policy, a student expressing his positive opinion about Donald Trump could be considered “bothersome” to the many (or any of the) liberal students on campus.
It’s not better at private universities — except that they think they’re insulated from lawsuits because they’re private. Exhibit A is the the Macalester alumni magazine that I spirited away from my friend once I saw how the Macalester president, Brian Rosenberg, addressed the free speech issue. What’s fascinating is that Rosenberg pays lip service to the notion of free speech, only to make it clear that he will ban anyone who offends a student or promotes non-Progressive ideas.
To reach this end, Rosenberg establishes, repeatedly, that Macalester is a private campus, giving him a fair amount of leeway in making decisions about acceptable speech:
The nature of the question is different for public and private college campuses. Most public campuses are subject to the rules that govern public property and are therefore bound to a very expansive understanding of free speech. Private colleges are private property and have more latitude to establish, should they so choose, narrower limits on free speech. Put simply, a person’s free speech rights do not extend to the right to post a sign on the lawn of your home.
I agree that private colleges are subject to different speech constraints — and I suggest that, to make entirely clear Macalester’s status as a private college, Macalester should return any public monies it receives in whatever forum it receives them (student financial aid, department grants, etc.). I can’t find the numbers, but I suspect they’re significant.
Because Macalester is private, says Rosenberg, the only real constraint is “What is most likely to create an environment conducive to teaching and learning?” You won’t be surprised to learn that after several paragraphs about valuing free speech, and not allowing people to be too sensitive, he gets down to the nitty-gritty, which is that people are allowed to be as sensitive as they want, and he’ll protect them: [Read more…]
The Jordan Peterson event I attended was a “happening” that made me think Americans are craving a spiritual Great Awakening that will bind us as a nation.
For some time now I have had running through my brain the thought that America needs a Great Awakening along the lines of the First Great Awakening in 1730s and 1740s. Large segments of America are suffering from spiritual malaise.
America’s inner cities are in a state of despair and disrepair, plagued by high crime, high poverty, missing fathers, and a general sense of apocalyptic failure. The inner cities, though, are only the most visible symptom of a nationwide disease of the soul.
In small cities across America’s heartland, people who watched their jobs vanish, their communities disintegrate, and their status as worthwhile individuals dribble away have turned to drink and drugs. Once shiny little town are now squalid ghettos.
Although they are dressed better and have more money, many of America’s youth show the same signs of moral and spiritual decay. Both males and white people are told that they are inherently evil, making redemption impossible. Across the spectrum of genders, colors, and socio-economic status, young people are relentlessly indoctrinated into believing that their country is a greedy, oppressive place, guilty of sins past and present, and that the world is facing an apocalyptic ending as boiling seas rise and inundate parched land.
This darkness in the American soul is the inevitable end point of 50 years of cultural Marxism pounding relentlessly away in all of our institutions. We’re currently in free-fall mode, but the bottom is getting rapidly closer — and if you want to get a glimpse into this bottom, look to Europe, which is years ahead of us when it comes to surrendering its institutions over to the cultural Marxists.
England, which gave us the ideas of individual liberty and free speech has become an Orwellian nation in which speech is tightly policed, honest citizens are disarmed (and “disknifed,” although the acid still flows freely), the borders are opened to people whose values are antithetical to traditional British notions about freedom, and the cultural institutions have allied themselves with the most oppressive ideologies, whether Islam or Marxism.
England is not alone, although it’s the most interesting to watch given that our Bill of Rights is a direct descendant of England’s 1689 Bill of Rights. The cultural Marxist claim that western civilization is inherently flawed thanks to colonialism, racism, and sexism (all of which are the poisonous fruit of the Judeo-Christian tradition), has battered Western European nations into a suicidal level of intellectual submission.
The European ruling classes believe that their nations can redeem themselves only through catastrophically destructive immigration policies. This same ruling class also believes that, when the knives flash and the blood flows, no matter the carnage on the streets, the leaders will be protected behind the high walls they’ve erected for themselves in their mansions and elite enclaves. They’re wrong, of course, but that false sense of security is what allows them to use their people as a human sacrifice on the altar of cultural Marxism.
Keep in mind that we in America know that immigration is not inherently bad. For centuries, we successfully invited into our country people who valued our institutions and wanted to assimilate so that they could experience all the blessings a free citizenry can enjoy.
Today, though, both at home and abroad, too many new immigrants have a different attitude. Many have been infected with Marxism, so they seek Western benefits without contributing to Western weal. Especially in Europe, many immigrants are coming as conquerors, not seekers. The millions who are flooding that continent, whether legally or illegally, despise the very culture that is welcoming them and intend to destroy it. Talk about using fire to purify past sins.
Having had 50 years to wreak havoc on the Western tradition, the cultural Marxists are very close to bringing our institutions to dangerous tipping points. Now that our systems face imminent collapse, we do not have 50 years to fix the problem. We need to fix it now. [Read more…]
While posters about sex scandals take pride of place in this illustrated edition, you’ll find more here than just the sordid state of our nation.
The Leftists and Donald Trump are using the NFL anthem and flag kerfuffle as a means to their own ends, but it is clarifying and it makes for good posters.
The media is using the NFL football kerfuffle is a distraction from more important issues, such as storm damage in Puerto Rico, none of which can be blamed on Trump, while Don Surber suggests that Donald Trump is using it as a distraction from John McCain’s betrayal of American voters. All I can say is that kerfuffles such as this are gold mines for illustrated editions. This edition, therefore, is mostly NFL, with a few other things thrown in for fun.
Before getting to the meat of the matter, let me restate my own position: The NFL as an institute, as well as its individual players, are free to say and do as they wish without government interference. The President, who also has First Amendment rights, is also free to speak his mind, provided that he doesn’t use the instruments of government to silence either the NFL or the players. And, in a free society, the American people are welcome to look at the NFL’s values and to vote with their feet regarding those values. This is how freedom works — if you’re the NFL and the players, you makes your speech and you takes your chances.
Illustrations about free speech: NFL owners and players are free to disrespect flag and country — and Americans are free to vote with their wallets.
If the NFL wants to let its employees use their unique bully pulpit to take a knee when the flag flies and the national anthem players, even while barring other players from honoring police officers who died on duty, that is the NFL’s right. And if millions of Americans decide that there’s more to life than seeing extremely well-paid men whine . . . well, that’s their right too. That’s how free speech is supposed to operate, with people speaking out and accepting how the marketplace metes out non-violent consequences that flow from their words.
A couple of things before I get to the images:
First, it was the Obama administration that heavily funded the NFL being overtly patriotic:
There’s something incredibly cynical about being paid to be patriotic and even more cynical about the NFL’s scrapping that patriotism with the end of Obama’s presidency.
Second, employers make speech rules all the time. Believe me, if I, as a young lawyer, had stood up in court and told the judge what I really thought (usually some variation of “you’re an idiot”), not only would I have been held in contempt, I would have been fired. On my own time, though, provided that I did not embarrass the law firm, I was free to exercise my First Amendment rights.
Regarding that freedom to speak when off the job, it’s the Leftists who fire people for pretty damn mainstream after-hours opinions, as they did to Brendan Eich. This programming genius, who was a prime mover behind Firefox, privately gave of his own money to help support traditional marriage and got fired for doing so.
Third, being president of the United States does not mean that one no longer has First Amendment rights. While President Trump cannot mandate that NFL players be fired, as that would be unconstitutional, not to mention tyrannical, he is perfectly within his rights as a citizen to say that, in his opinion, they should be fired.
Trump is also within his rights to play the NFL, both owners and players, like a cheap violin. He knew that his statement that the NFL should fire those “sons of bitches” who disrespect the flag and the national anthem would result in today’s rash of player and owner insults to the flag and, by extension, to ordinary Americans.
As best as I can tell, with the NFL getting attacked from the Left because of the game’s inherent violence and the damage flowing from it, and from the Right, because of the player’s whiny disrespect, it’s entirely questionable whether, a few years from now, the NFL will be a “thing” anymore.
Herewith, some images about the NFL today, both the good and the stupid:
Free speech is meaningless if the government can nevertheless force you to say things that conflict with your values. But Leftist governments persists…
This illustrated edition celebrates the fact that, even when the country goes insane, it’s still possible to be clever, wise, informative, and funny.
Google’s promise was that it would allow an unfettered platform for free speech and thought. Its college-grad employees, though, made it a fascism farm.
I stopped using Google’s search engine years ago, although I’m still chained to Gmail. I was one of the first Gmail users back when it was in beta and it would upset my life a great deal if I had to switch email addresses. Still, depending on how Google comports itself in the next couple of months, Gmail may have to go too. There’s no reason for my email use to advance its fascist agenda.
Did I say “fascist agenda”? Why, yes, I think I did. That’s because Google’s decision to fire an employee who dared to speak out against the Leftist lockstep that governs everything from its workplace to its search algorithm manipulations is entirely fascist. Google is its own little state, one governed by hardcore Leftist ideology, and anyone who speaks out against that must be purged.
I actually don’t have anything original to say on the subject, but there’s so much smart stuff out there, I thought I’d share it with you. Let me begin with a collection of employee self-written bios that Paul Joseph Watson found (click on image to enlarge):
With staff like this, I’m sure tolerance of conservative opinions is paramount at Google. pic.twitter.com/FqawBCilva
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) August 9, 2017
Robert Avrech takes a much-deserved swipe at the Stalinists on the Fainting Couch:
James Damore was fired for expressing his opinions. Google his name and you will find that the left-wing press is demonizing him relentlessly.
Ironically, the entire affair proves his conclusions. By firing him, Google has proven that it is an intolerant ideological echo chamber.
Several fragile female engineers stayed home from their jobs at Google because the memo made them feel uncomfortable, or unsafe, or whatever parlance these overgrown babies default to in order to impose their cultural fascism on the rest of us. Presumably, these female engineers took to their fainting couches for a few hours in order to get over the shock of a non-leftist opinion.
In Stalin’s Soviet Union, the gulags and graveyards were filled with people who expressed opinions that the leadership considered incorrect.
In America, the left does not build gulags… not yet, anyway. Instead, it resorts to shame and creates unemployment.
Read more here.
Daniel Greenfield points out that the problem isn’t limited to Google. As long as Google controls much of the internet, it’s a problem for all of us:
James Damore is an FIDE chess master who studied at Princeton, MIT and Harvard. He had been working as a software engineer at Google for four years.
Danielle Brown is the new Vice President of Diversity at Google. She has an MBA from the University of Michigan and campaigned for Hillary.
She had been working at Google for a few weeks.
Google is a search engine monopoly that makes its money from search ads. It began with a revolutionary idea from young engineers much like Damore. Then the engineers became billionaires. And the company that began in a garage hired a Vice President of Diversity to get rid of the brilliant young engineers.
Google has embedded partisan attacks on conservatives into its search and news territories under the guise of “fact checks”. It has fundamentally shifted results for terms such as “Jihad” to reflect Islamist propaganda rather than the work of counterterrorism researchers such as Robert Spencer. And it wasn’t the first time. Google had been previously accused of manipulating search results during Brexit.
Censorship has long been a problem on YouTube. And it will now officially be caging “controversial” videos using a method developed by Jigsaw. Formerly Google Ideas, Jigsaw is Google’s left-wing incubator developing social justice tech.
Damore, like so many of us, wasn’t thinking the way that Google thought he should be thinking. And so it dealt with the problem by getting rid of him. When users search for results that Google doesn’t like, it guides them to what it thinks they should be looking for. If they persist, then the results vanish. If they upload videos it doesn’t like, they get censored. That’s the totalitarian left-wing Google model in action.
Google is approaching the ecological dead end of its technological niche. There’s not much else to do except make fringe investments that are little more than disguised advertising and build more free apps to feed into its own ad business while driving traffic to them through its search and Android leverage.
If the business model ever fails or the government takes a closer look at its abuses, then it’s all over.
Yale Dean June Chu’s right to free, if offensive, speech trumps hurt feelings — and rednecks are tough enough to handle an academic’s silly insults.
On behalf of all fellow rednecks / white trash, if you believe in the First Amendment, then you should be defending Yale’s Dean June Chu from the PC Police at Yale. Prof. Stephen Davis, commander of Yale’s Special Snowflake Unit, is in epic meltdown over Prof. Chu’s private speech.
Prof. Chu (PhD, Social Psychology, UC Davis) is the Dean of Yale’s Pierson College. In that position, she “is responsible for advising about 500 students and fostering “a familiar, comfortable living environment” in keeping with the university’s residential college system. ” Ironically she was known for promoting ‘cultural sensitivity.’
Ahhhh, but now we learn that when she left the politically correct confines of the Yale campus each day, out came Ms. Hyde. Free of restraint, Dean Chu had, for years, let loose her acid tongue on Yelp reviews.
Before continuing, let me issue a TRIGGER WARNING for any of you out there that might need it. We are about to read Dean Chu’s Yelp reviews. If your mind balks at indelicate utterances and disparaging remarks about, let’s call them deplorables, . . . well, sack up, Buttercup. This from the NY Post: [Read more…]
This Bookworm Beat has all shades of Progressive insanity (fake data, attacks on free speech, Chelseamania), complete with links and my trenchant comments.
Keep circling that drain. Before I get into the meat of this post detailing the worst emanations from the Democrats and their fellow travelers on their Left, I want to lead off with Kurt Schlichter’s article begging the Democrats not to change their current trajectory and tactics:
Look, Democrats, speaking sincerely as your friend, understand that everyone who says you need to take a deep look at yourselves is a racist, sexist, homophobe who won’t even ask about your preferred pronoun. Whatever you do, don’t you ever change.
The problem isn’t you. It’s those stupid idiots who won’t obey you because they’re stupid idiots. How can those idiots be so stupid?
Who knows? But what’s clear is that it’s not your fault. It’s theirs. So when the going gets tough, and you aren’t making progress – in fact, when you’re moving backwards – what’s the smart play? Double down!
Hey, the dealer’s showing an ace in a face-heavy deck and you’ve got a six, what do you do? Double down!
Can I boast? I had the pleasure of meeting Kurt a couple of weeks ago and he’s every bit as smart, funny, and personable as his writing. Lord, but I do envy a brain like that.
Statistically illiterate accusation that Trump voters are racist. You know all about American colleges and universities by now. They’re the places in which self-regard exceeds accomplishments, feelings trump rational thought, antisemitism is great than that found anywhere else in America (except, probably in Dearborn and the DNC), and the First Amendment is subordinate to students’ feelings (provided, of course, that those feelings are consistent with the Democrat Party platform).
Thomas Wood, an assistant professor at Ohio State University, has emerged from this sewer to announce that Trump voters are racists. He thought perhaps they were mere Nazi-style authoritarians but it’s worse — they’re racists. He knows this because he’s got charts.
Why are Trump voters racist? Because Wood specifically defined racism in such a way as to apply to Trump voters. That’s how they do it at universities nowadays:
To test this, I use what is called the “symbolic racism scale” to compare whites who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate with those who voted for the Republican. This scale measures racial attitudes among respondents who know that it’s socially unacceptable to say things perceived as racially prejudiced. Rather than asking overtly prejudiced questions — “do you believe blacks are lazy” — we ask whether racial inequalities today are a result of social bias or personal lack of effort and irresponsibility.
In other words, if you believe that only government can save perpetually hapless and helpless minorities, you’re not a racist. However, if you believe that minorities are rational, sentient beings who respond to incentives and disincentives in the same way as everyone else, and that they therefore deserve to be respected as our equals and not demeaned as perpetual wards of state, you’re racist!
You always win the game if you get to write the rules after the play is already run. Woods is a perfect example of why I keep saying that the best way to get America back on a track dedicated to individual liberty, free enterprise, and constitutional governance is to take every bit of federal money out of American “higher” education.