Patterico's Pontifications

6/29/2016

Liberal Fascism, Parts Umptillion and One (and Two) (and Three)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:05 pm

Part One:

Employers and employees in Washington D.C. are legally prohibited from referring to a transgender employee or coworker by the “wrong” pronouns or asking “personal questions” about their gender identity, according to the city’s Office of Human Rights (OHR).

OHR published a best practices guide for “valuing transgender applicants and employees” earlier this month with a list of “behaviors by supervisors or coworkers [that] may be considered unlawful harassment or a hostile work environment.”

One of the listed prohibited behaviors is: “Deliberately misusing a person’s preferred name or pronoun.”

. . . .

The “best practices” guide featues a chart on “gender and gender-neutral pronouns” that includes the gender-neutral pronoun “ze.” The chart includes example phrases using the gender-neutral pronoun, such as “Ze smiled,” “I met zir,” “Zir bike” and “Ze is zirself.”

You vill fall een line, kind zir!

Part Two:

Democratic operatives responsible for creating their party’s platform this year have unanimously adopted a provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science.

A panel of Democrats voted Friday to approve a final draft of the party’s platform to promote “Progressive Democratic Values,” which apparently includes investigating energy companies who “misled” shareholders about global warming.

First come the frivolous lawsuits (a la Mark Steyn), and then come the criminal prosecutions. For speaking unapproved things.

Part Three:

I spent part of the past week watching a past troll on this blog (hi, Timmah!) tell people on Twitter that a government employee (me) was advocating illegal and unconstitutional behavior (secession for Texas). No, it won’t make me stop. No, I won’t toe the extremist lefty line on global warming out of fear of repercussions. No, I won’t stop advocating secession because people imply I should be fired for it.

But that is the goal. Making us shut up. And if we don’t? Bring on the criminal prosecutions! Contact the employers! Make the Bad Opinions go bye bye!

With all due respect to my friends on the left, this sort of fascism is more prevalent on the left. Shouting people down at universities is exclusively a feature of the left. Y’all have a real problem. Stop whining about the criticism and do something to solve it.

28 Responses to “Liberal Fascism, Parts Umptillion and One (and Two) (and Three)”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. But that is the goal. Making us shut up.

    No. The goal is compelling speech. Making us all complicit in the lie.

    Now bake me a damn cake, Christian!

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  3. http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165havel.html

    “The Power of the Powerless”

    …{4}The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

    …{7}Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology…

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  4. It’s why I cannot negotiate with the left anymore. They don’t want to compromise. They don’t desire to leave people alone. They, like Islam, demand everyone submit to their will or be destroyed.

    It’s going to be ugly before it’s over.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  5. No. The goal is compelling speech. Making us all complicit in the lie.

    Now bake me a damn cake, Christian!

    Steve57 (ecac13) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:26 pm

    The Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes darn it. And you better call the lady a guy and a zir or you will pay the price.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  6. I think the Daily Caller piece is overstating the case somewhat — this isn’t a law against using the “wrong” pronoun, it’s a statement that the deliberate use of it can contribute to a HWE claim. So presumably you’d have to be (perceived as) making a special point of using it in order to call attention to your disagreement with their preferred gender assignment. In the ideal world the claim would hold up only when you’re really being a prick about it.

    KenB (1ad56f)

  7. Since I began reading blogs I’ve seen hundreds of examples of someone trying to silence someone’s political opinions with attempts to get them fired, prosecuted, harassed, or sued. I read opinions across the spectrum and Patterico is right that the tendency to try to silence opinions usually comes from the left. And it’s repulsive and should be called what it is: fascism.

    When I encounter a view I find just plain wrong, I either blow it off or try to explain why it’s wrong. Being so insecure and intolerant that I try to destroy someone’s livelihood over an opinion would be an indication I don’t think I can explain why that view is wrong.

    It also goes right to the core of the secession concept. Suppose Texas did want to go. Why would someone want a state in their union that doesn’t want to be there? Because you want to control people. Because you oppose democracy. Because, at the end of the day, to you it’s all about domination. And that explains a lot when you think about bakeries being shut down and what not. People who get into politics to dominate the flyover people rather than promote a happy and free society are completely screwed up.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  8. Since when is being a prick about anything against the law, KenB? And why should it be? Why should I have to call a man in a dress she if not to comply with the lie? That’s very un American to think that, KenB.

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  9. The Daily Caller is always making mountains out of molehills. No question about it. But that there should be even be a person employed by the DC ghetto government to write this garbage (the guidelines) is a waste of taxpayer money at the very least.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. “Excellency” is my pronoun of choice. “Master” I might choose as my pronoun depending on the circumstances.

    LTMG (79ae2e)

  11. Here’s maybe what could be a serious effort to shut people up who don’t have much money for lawyers:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/david-keating-new-york-amendment-article-1.2693183

    Pity the person who starts an organization to publish report cards on votes cast in Albany. If they spend even a small amount, they must register and report their activities and key supporters to the government.

    The bill would even apply to one person, acting alone, who spends practically nothing criticizing Albany pols. Let’s say some politician ticks you off and you make a homemade video criticizing him. Then you publish it on YouTube and promote it with some Facebook ads.

    Uh-oh. Under the proposal, you just became an independent expenditure committee. You broke the law because you spent funds criticizing a politician without first registering with the government. For that violation, you could face a $5,000 fine. Even if you beat the rap, you’d likely spend way more than that on lawyers….

    ….The message of all this? Don’t bother to criticize a politician. It’s too dangerous. It’s even too risky for many lawyers, who will struggle to understand the law. Even a good lawyer might wonder about speech rules that apply to “a legislative matter other than matters described in subparagraph (E) of the second undesignated paragraph of subdivision (c) of section one-c of the legislative law.” Yes, that’s a real quote from the bill.

    Many effective groups, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving for example, start small, tap into public outrage and then grow. Rules like the ones proposed in this bill will strangle such groups in red tape or worse before they can become effective.

    A more dispassionate analysis of this new law:

    http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=494643c9-88de-4080-9ecf-8aaf87c507c3

    In the final hours of the 2016 New York State legislative session, legislation summarized by the Governor and Legislative Leaders as a “5 Point Ethics Reform Plan,” was introduced at the request of the Governor. This legislation that passed at the end of the Legislative Session and is expected to be signed by the Governor, will affect political committees, political consultants, advocacy groups, public relations firms, and other entities that seek to influence New York State policy or elections. This Alert focuses on the key provisions of the legislation that pertain to political activity. A separate Alert addresses the key changes that affect individuals and entities engaged in lobbying or other issue advocacy efforts.

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  12. Since when is being a prick about anything against the law, KenB?

    Since “hostile work environment” became a thing — that battle was decided long ago, and once the concept was established it was inevitably going to get extended to more and more categories.

    KenB (1ad56f)

  13. Here’s the last few lines from Love me, love me, I’m a Liberal by Phil Ochs:

    I vote for the democratic party
    They want the U.N. to be strong
    I attend all the Pete Seeger concerts
    He sure gets me singing those songs

    And I’ll send all the money you ask for
    But don’t ask me to come on along
    So love me, love me
    Love me, I’m a liberal

    Sure once I was young and impulsive
    I wore every conceivable pin
    Even went to the socialist meetings
    Learned all the old union hymns

    Ah, but I’ve grown older and wiser
    And that’s why I’m turning you in
    So love me, love me
    Love me, I’m a liberal

    ropelight (596f46)

  14. It is so important to use the right pronoun, as well as other psychologically correct speech!

    Somewhere deep in a windowless room deep in the bowels of Foggy Bottom, teams of behavioral researchers are working tirelessly studying the effects of different sound combinations on terrorists and other psychotically motivated enemies of America.

    It is a known fact that the right combination of sounds will simply stop these people in their tracks, though the perfect combination is elusive. A “leaked” version of this research has manifested in the public parlance in so-called “politically correct” speech, with misinterpretations called “micro-aggressions” and other half truths as bandied about in the current popular culture.

    The reason the president will not use “Islamic” in a sentence with “terrorist” and why AG Lynch says that spreading “love” will stop terrorism is merely a hint of the power and secrecy of this laser-like weapon that can win this war against the barbarians without one shot being fired.

    There are things the public is simply not equipped to understand much less be entrusted with.

    Proper combinations of pronouns, diphthongs, consonants in carefully constructed meaning and sound combinations is an extremely powerful weapon, often appearing as obsessive and irrelevant nuance to the typical, ignorant and mostly conservative American.

    Pts (ce7fc3)

  15. Only a leftist would believe using a pronoun another person doesn’t like is “creating a hostile work environment” but threatening someone with “the law” for exercising free speech is not. Talk about your twisted logic. Frankly, I’d say what I want, screw’em.

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  16. Better tamp it down, fellow extremists – Big Bro UN PC police watching your rhetoric.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/obama-administration-and-un-announce-global-police-force-to-fight-extremism-in-u-s/

    Judy Eaton (a1a820)

  17. When I awoke this morning, I realized for the first time that I am the mortal manifestation of
    Odin(chief of all the Gods of the Norse(as well as of the Teutons). All must bow down
    before me.I will allow no disrespect. Furthermore, who stole my Ravens? Loki! Come here now!

    Bar Sinister (c62a89)

  18. It’s that kind of language control that rocketed Donald Trump to the top of the GOP primary. People had been saturated in the anti-Christian messaging that they completely wrote Ted Cruz off because of that alone, without realizing that that anti-Christian messaging was part of the language control that they felt like they were fighting against.

    TheNaBr (0c7c2f)

  19. Just Pat. It’s easier to remember.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  20. #12. I agree with you KenB, that hostile work environment is an established thing and has been normalized to an extent that people can now wield it to get additional control. The problem is that they are now making what Ben Shapiro did to Zoey Tur a criminal and fine worthy offense. They flipped the concept on it’s head. Instead of making people behave normally, they’re making everyone accommodate an abnormal person. They’re now actively forcing people to not use the English language as everyone was taught in favor of words that someone made up.

    Of course, this type of enforcement will naturally only apply to favored groups.

    TheNaBr (0c7c2f)

  21. Seriously, if we secede the rest of the country is up Sh*t Creek (job growth, natural gas).

    Nobody but me busted up laughing during “Captain America — Civil War” when the William Hurt character told the Avengers that they were now under U.N. supervision.

    furious_a (6c3a31)

  22. As it turned out, it want the right move, it was the gambit cool demo used to tear them apart, I think Tony’s got one too many hits to the noggin.

    narciso (732bc0)

  23. furious_a (6c3a31) — 6/30/2016 @ 9:54 am

    Not at my viewing – that line drew equal amounts of “f… that!” and laughs. I opted for “oh, lovely.”

    felipe (6bb3ce)

  24. William Hurt as General “Thunderbolt” Ross is an acting streeeetch. Hurt has always struck me as the type who would wad up into a ball of tears rather than involve himself in a physical altercation.

    To give him due, he is the archetype, best in breed of the beta male.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  25. So, once again, Washington D.C. makes it painfully clear that we are to be continually on the look out and aware of the sensitive feelings of……..0.2% of the population. Good thing there is nothing else important going on in the world.

    Jimpithecus (2c9c93)

  26. Since when is being a prick about anything against the law, KenB?

    It isn’t. But being one at work is against your employer’s rules, and can get you fired. I know that because your employer is required to have such rules. If you’re self-employed then you can be as much of a prick as you like.

    Only a leftist would believe using a pronoun another person doesn’t like is “creating a hostile work environment” but threatening someone with “the law” for exercising free speech is not.

    You do understand what “hostile work environment” means, and why it’s illegal, don’t you? The anti-discrimination laws say an employer can’t refuse to hire black people.

    They also say an employer can’t achieve a black-free work place though the back door by deliberately creating or allowing an environment at work that will cause black people not to want to work there. If you allow your employees to put up white power posters and call black people names, then you’re effectively refusing to hire them.

    The same applies to women, or men. If you have an environment at work that makes people of one sex not want to work there, then you’re effectively discriminating against that sex in hiring, no matter how fair your interview proceess may be.

    Discrimination on the basis of transgenderism is not illegal, but the current government takes the attitude that this is really a subset of discrimination on the basis of sex, which is illegal. They say that a man who tells you he’s a woman is a woman, and if you refuse to hire him on that basis, or make work hostile to him so that he’ll leave, you’re discriminating against him on the basis of his sex. It’s a specious argument, but it has enough surface plausibility that a glib person can convince a gullible one of it.

    Discrimination on the basis of political opinion, though, is legal. You can refuse to hire conservatives and you can make work hostile for them so they’ll leave. For instance by insisting that they use language they object to.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  27. This is something that government has no business getting itself into at any level in any way at any time. That’s to begin with.

    As far as what’s considered voluntary non-government-interfered-with-or-mandated politeness: I’m usually willing to call anyone by whatever name that person prefers. If I think about it. Which I probably won’t. But if I do, and I can’t remember “zir” or “blup” or whatever the codeword is I’m supposed to use to satisfy that person, I’ll probably just call that person “that person,” because most of the time that’s about the most effort I expect from myself about this kind of self-expression. If I err, and call someone “him” when, erhmrm, that person wants to be called something else, I’m unlikely to beat myself up about it unless it’s someone whom I have come to have some positive regard, which would have to be earned by, ahhhh, that person. I might change my mind tomorrow, and so might zir.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  28. Comrade might prove useful, it’s got a long and colorful history. Works for both men and women, both as individuals and in groups. It originated during the French Revolution and spread east all the way to China.

    ropelight (596f46)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2363 secs.