Tag: political correctness

Kew Gardens to Tell Visitors How Racist Its Plants Are

Kew Gardens in London is to change labels on its plants and flowers in order to inform visitors on how racist they are.

Yes, really.

The popular attraction, which welcomes over 2 million visitors a year from all over the world, is set to “change display boards for plants such as sugar cane – previously harvested by slaves – to highlight their ‘imperial legacy’”, reports the Daily Mail.

According to Kew director Richard Deverell, the change is part of an effort to “move quickly to decolonise collections.”

The change happened after managers at Kew consulted with Ajay Chhabra, “an actor with an insight into how sugar cane was linked to slavery.”

This is yet another capitulation to woke mobs who are trying to subvert the United Kingdom and make its population ashamed of their heritage and birthright, despite the fact that Britain was the first major country in the world to end slavery.

Brits like William Wilberforce literally risked their lives to travel to the colonies and free slaves.

The purpose of activist efforts to push for “decolonisation” is actually just reverse cultural colonisation by the woke mob.

Keep reading

To defeat woke tyrants, the rest of us must treat them like the monsters they are

Most Americans hate woke politics — and most minorities don’t share “woke” priorities. Indeed, according to pollster David Shor, woke excesses are causing black voters to flee the Democratic Party. Despite endless charges of “racism,” former President Donald Trump took the biggest share of minority voters of any Republican in my lifetime.  

Woke tyrants ride high, even so; according to a Cato/YouGov poll, 62 percent of Americans self-censor their political expression. Only a tiny minority of consumers care about Mr. Potato Head’s toxic masculinity, about “Aunt Jemima” as a brand or about the #MeToo aggressions of Pepé Le Pew. Yet corporations, universities and governments rush to placate that minuscule slice of the population, trashing large chunks of our culture in the process. 

It’s happening not because anybody voted for it, but because a small but determined and vicious minority is bullying people to go along, relying on cowardice and groupthink to achieve ends that could never happen via majority vote: How do you think Dr. Seuss would have done in a referendum?

Keep reading

“Normal” Gets Cancelled as Unilever Vows to Drop Word From All Brands

The next thing to be cancelled is apparently the word “normal,” with corporate giant Unilever vowing to ban the use of the description on all its products.

Yes, really.

“In a statement on Tuesday, Unilever revealed that its brands would be “removing the word ‘normal’ from advertising and packaging” after 70 percent of people in a survey said the word had a negative effect and the beauty industry needed to be more inclusive,” reports RT.

Unilever President of Beauty & Personal Care Sunny Jain said the company was “committed to tackling harmful norms and stereotypes, and shaping a broader, far more inclusive definition of beauty.”

The skincare giant will also ban “all digital alterations to body shape, size, proportion and skin colour” in TV commercials, print advertising, and product images in order to be more “inclusive.”

Many leftists celebrated the decision, although others questioned “how else its brands would now “describe non-oily, non-dry, non-combination, non-sensitive skin” on its skincare product packaging, if not as “normal.”

This is yet another example of woke corporate capitalism, where transnationals engage in sanctimonious virtue signalling in order to secure millions in free advertising and the approval of the mob that now runs society.

Keep reading

Comedian Gabriel Iglesias Hits Back After NYT Columnist Says Cartoon Mouse ‘Speedy Gonzalez’ Stereotypes Mexicans

Speedy Gonzalez, along with several other cartoon characters, came under scrutiny on Wednesday after Charles Blow, a columnist for The New York Times, wrote a defense of those businesses and groups that have canceled six books by Theodor Seuss Geisel, known as Dr. Seuss, over allegations of racism. Blow included in his column a handful of cartoons and other shows that he claimed pushed toxic culture. As Blow writes:

Some of the first cartoons I can remember included Pepé Le Pew, who normalized rape culture; Speedy Gonzales, whose friends helped popularize the corrosive stereotype of the drunk and lethargic Mexicans; and Mammy Two Shoes, a heavyset Black maid who spoke in a heavy accent.

Reruns were a fixture in the pre-cable days, so I watched children’s shows like Tarzan, about a half-naked white man in the middle of an African jungle who conquers and tames it and outwits the Black people there, who are all portrayed as primitive, if not savage. I watched the old “Our Gang” (“Little Rascals”) shorts in which the Buckwheat character summoned all the stereotypes of the pickaninny.

And of course, I watched westerns that regularly depicted Native Americans as aggressive, bloodthirsty savages against whom valiant white men were forced to fight.

Blow’s column sparked backlash in defense of the cartoons that millions of Americans grew up watching. Many spoke out in defense of Pepé Le Pew, a cartoon skunk famous for his numerous failed attempts to woo a black and white cat.

“[Right wing] blogs are mad [because] I said Pepe Le Pew added to rape culture,” Blow tweeted on Saturday. “Let’s see. 1. He grabs/kisses a girl/stranger, repeatedly, [without] consent and against her will. 2. She struggles mightily to get away from him, but he won’t release her 3. He locks a door to prevent her from escaping.”

“This helped teach boys that ‘no’ didn’t really mean no, that it was a part of ‘the game’, the starting line of a power struggle,” argued Blow. “It taught overcoming a woman’s strenuous, even physical objections, was normal, adorable, funny. They didn’t even give the woman the ability to SPEAK.”

Keep reading

The Virtual Book Burning Continues: eBay Bans Listings of ‘Offensive’ Dr. Seuss Books

Online action site eBay has banned users from selling copies of the Dr. Seuss books that the left found “problematic.”

The company is now messaging users saying that their listings have been removed because it didn’t follow the “Offensive Material Policy.”

Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced this week that they are discontinuing six of the author’s books that crazy liberal activists have been complaining about, including If I Ran the Zoo and And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street.

“Listings that promote or glorify hatred, violence, or discrimination aren’t allowed,” the message said.

Keep reading

Translating Social Justice Newspeak

Opponents of our new social justice dispensation often find themselves at a rhetorical disadvantage. Social justice advocates desire to replace oppressive “cultural, structural, and personal norms” with a new, more “welcoming culture.” Anyone who opposes this transformation is, by definition, unwelcoming. Who wants to be defined as unwelcoming? The rhetorical disadvantage of dissidents is only compounded by the development of new code words for social justice (like diversity or inclusion). Social justice warriors win battles simply through deploying certain terms, since this language cows and confuses their opponents.

Americans, after all, value diversity, inclusion, and equity. Diversity of faculties and talents produces inequalities—and protecting such diversity was, as Madison writes in Federalist 10, “the first purpose of government.” Inclusion reflects the universality of the rights of man, though certain people would enjoy them sooner and others later as enlightenment spread. Equity is a characteristic of impartial laws, derived from English common law, that protects and recognizes all equally before them; it provides predictable rules and doctrines for settling disputes. Diversity, inclusion, and equity produce inequalities that serve the public good: they reward productivity, expand opportunities for individuals, and provide a basis for stable common life under equal laws.

Our regnant social justice ideology redefines these words, taking advantage of their sweet sounding civic bent. This co-option represents a thoroughly new civic education. Social justice advocates have won no small ground in American political debate by seeming to adhere to the words and ideas of the old civic education, while importing a new, pernicious vision. We must re-train our ears to hear what social justice ideology peddles.

Opponents of this movement can best grasp social justice newspeak through an analysis of its public documents. What follows is based on my analysis of the state of Washington’s 2020 Office of Equity Task Force’s Final Proposal. The same word salad is served everywhere critical race theory is taught—in university task forces (like Boise State’s), in corporate trainings, even in K-12 curriculum.

Keep reading

Biden Nominee Vanita Gupta Urged Facebook For More Censorship In Letter

President Joe Biden’s associate attorney general nominee Vanita Gupta urged Facebook in 2018 to adopt more censorship and hate speech policies because of free speech’s “harms” to “civil rights.”

In a letter addressed to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in 2018, Gupta’s leftist interest group The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights laid out 11 ways the company has neglected what they claim are civil rights. Gupta’s twisted interpretation was that Facebook should therefore engage in increased levels of censorship and content policing.

“As a company whose public mission is to ‘give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together,’ Facebook has a responsibility to ensure that the platform is not used to drive bigotry and stoke racial or religious resentment and violence,” the letter states. “But for years, Facebook’s refusal to acknowledge and/or chronic mismanagement of civil and human rights violations occurring on the platform have raised many questions about Facebook—primarily, whether you are willing or able to fix the toxic online environment that you have allowed to flourish.”

The letter goes on to claim that several “harms” are indicative of why Facebook must purge its “toxic environment.” This includes the idea that white men are supposedly protected from hate speech but not black people, “racially charged “advertisements” that suppress voters of color, a lack of “anti-bias training and civil rights education for staff,” as well as “insufficient protections” for users who are attacked by misogynists.

Gupta called for an “audit” of Facebook for allowing “well-documented harms” to exist on the platform. To leftists like Gupta, “hate speech” is not merely rude speech or already outlawed calls to violence, but can include expressing a mainstream conservative perspective or a religious perspective such as that male and female are objectively defined. The letter also claims that Facebook should not look into anti-conservative bias since civil rights are “non-partisan.”

Surely, civil rights are in fact non-partisan. But Gupta conflates authoritarian oppression with freedom and discourse. Facebook and other corporations have colluded to censor conservatives in an unprecedented way for years, and the LCCR’s notion that “civil rights” requires Facebook to remove “hate speech” goes against the very notion of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Keep reading

The Spectre of Totalitarianism

In March 2019, tax expert Maya Forstater was dismissed from her job — legally, according to a later judicial ruling — for voicing the view that “sex is a biological fact, and is immutable.” When author J.K. Rowling came to Forstater’s defence, she was bombarded with abuse, including an invitation from one lady to “choke on my fat trans cock”. The case became a cause célèbre. But it is only one of many such cases. Today, anyone who ventures a controversial opinion on “trans”, race, disability, Middle Eastern politics and a handful of other issues risks being fired, insulted, intimidated and possibly prosecuted. 

Last year, a “Journal of Controversial Ideas” was launched, offering authors the option of writing under a pseudonym “in order to protect themselves from threats to their careers or physical safety”. How did things come to this pass?

The new intolerance is often seen as a specifically left-wing phenomenon — an intensification of the “political correctness” which emerged on US campuses in the 1980s. But that is a one-sided view of the matter. It was US Zionists who pioneered the tactic of putting pressure on organisations to disinvite unfavoured speakers; far-right nationalists are among the keenest cyberbullies; and religious zealots of all stripes are prodigal of death threats. 

Generalising, one might say that left-wing groups, being more publicly respectable in our part of the world, prefer to pursue their objectives through institutions and the law, whereas right-wing groups seek out the anonymity of the internet. But the goal on each side is the same: it is to intimidate, suppress, silence. In any case, the distinction between “left” and “right” is becoming increasingly muddled, as lines shift and alliances regroup. All one can safely say is that the various forms of contemporary extremism imitate and incite each other. What has given way is the civilised middle ground.

Keep reading