Patterico's Pontifications

4/24/2017

Don’t Be a Racist Who Makes Me Crazy: Look Into My Eyes When I Speak!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:54 pm

[guest post by Dana]

On the heels of President Trump sticking his finger in the eye of Big Media, let’s talk about eye contact: Oxford University has taken the position that students who don’t make eye contact might be racist. And you thought you had seen everything…

The university’s Equality and Diversity Unit has advised students that “not speaking directly to people” could be deemed a “racial microaggression” which can lead to “mental ill-health”.

Other examples of “everyday racism” include asking someone where they are “originally” from, students were told.

Oxford University’s Equality and Diversity Unit explains in its Trinity term newsletter that “some people who do these things may be entirely well-meaning, and would be mortified to realise that they had caused offence.

“But this is of little consequence if a possible effect of their words or actions is to suggest to people that they may fulfil a negative stereotype, or do not belong”.

It’s almost has if the university is dangerously close to espousing a particularly ugly brand of hate speech as they dismiss other cultures and various individuals who do not assign the same value to making eye contact. Consider individuals coming from Asia or the Middle East, or any place where making eye contact means something very different than what it does in the West. Why don’t the members of the Equality and Diversity Unit also consider the very real challenges that those on the autism spectrum have with making eye contact? Because, when you really look at it, the exclusion of certain ethnic groups and those with particular spectrum disorders really makes the Equality and Diversity Unit appear to be about anything but equality and diversity.

Clearly, members of the Equality and Diversity Unit are blind to reality and can only stumble their way through the darkness searching for yet another way to confirm their own victimization by giving birth to the ugly authoritarian lurking inside their soul. They are carriers of the worst sort as they continue to weaken a generation in their mission of telling others what to think, what to feel, and what to believe because they alone are the standard bearers of what is morally and culturally acceptable.

In contrast to this blithering madness, Dr Joanna Williams at the University of Kent, put the kibosh on the silly, self-indulgent “hyper-sensitivity” of students, as well as nailing the authoritarianism of the adults supposedly in charge:

“Essentially people are being accused of a thought crime,” Dr Williams told The Telegraph. “They are being accused of thinking incorrect thoughts based on an assumption of where they may or may not be looking.”

“Instead of people seeing each other as potential friends, equals, these re-racialise academia, they force people to see each other as a person of colour, they force people to be put into boxes about identity.

“It is really problematic – it means people can’t relate to each other naturally, they have rules in the back of their mind and they can’t be spontaneous as their interactions are all overlaid with the desire to follow all these rules.”

–Dana

President Trump Sticks His Finger In Eye Of Big Media – Again

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:29 am

[guest post by Dana]

As you might recall, back in February, President Trump tweeted that he would not be attending the annual White House Correspondent’s dinner. Of course, there has been no love lost between Big Media and President Trump. Post-election, that is.

This weekend, the president announced that instead of attending the annual schmooze-fest of politicians, members of the media, and A-list celebrities, he would be holding a “BIG” rally in Pennsylvania on the 100th day of his presidency. According to staffers, this is not about the media, but about the people:

One senior White House official said the decision to hold the rally on Saturday night was less about the correspondents’ association dinner and more about how to spend the hours around Trump’s 100th day.

“The media is trying to make this about them when, respectfully, it has nothing to do with you guys,” said the official. “It’s about focusing on the people.”

It is certainly amusing to consider that any number of reporters that would otherwise be attending the annual dinner will now be compelled to travel to PA to cover the rally, and the very president whose “roasting” they would have wholly supported.

No matter if one has a less than favorable view of our president, when intentional and misleading reports like this from The New York Times are published, it’s amusing to see the president up the ante and push back against such a powerful and biased entity: Last week, Super Bowl champions, the New England Patriots visited the White House to be recognized by the president, as is the tradition. The Sports section of the New York Times, in reporting on the visit, tweeted a side-by-side photo of the team’s visit last week compared to their 2015 visit to the White House when President Obama was in office:

Untitled

As much as President Trump has demonstrated his slight obsession about crowd sizes, this comparison by The Times was found to be a bit misleading. According to The New York Times Public Editor:

The problem, however, was that the photo taken Wednesday included only players and coaches, whereas the photo taken during President Obama’s tenure included over 40 additional support staff – who, this time around, were seated on the South Lawn – which greatly exaggerated the difference.

When this discrepancy was pointed out by the New England Patriots, the Times Sports section tweeted their mea culpas, and removed the picture. And after readers weighed in, Sports editor Jason Stallman offered this explanation to the Public Editor:

Untitled

In response, the Editor gushed:

Bravo to the Sport’s editor for his honest response. Regrettably as the readers say, it gives ammunition to those who doubt The Times’ impartiality in matter of politics.

The only problem being, it was the Public Editors that reported:

The New York Times Sports section covered the visit, viewed through the political angle that several players skipped the event: only 34 players attended compared with the nearly 50 that attended the last time the Patriots won the Super Bowl, in 2015, when Barack Obama was president, according to a team representative.

Quite obviously, those who doubt The Times’ impartiality in matters of politics, do so with very good reason.

–Dana


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1605 secs.