Americans are not especially fond of the woke
Here are the results of a poll taken last October:
Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.
Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn’t, either.
Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.
No surprise that Asians would be most upset, but the scores for Hispanics and American Indians (hey, shouldn’t that be “native Americans” to be PC?) are somewhat surprising. Makes me wonder how the phrase “is a problem” was interpreted by many of the respondents. Is it possible that some people interpreted a “yes” to the question as meaning there isn’t enough political correctness?
More:
The one part of the standard narrative that the data partially affirm is that African Americans are most likely to support political correctness. But the difference between them and other groups is much smaller than generally supposed: Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. This means that they are only four percentage points less likely than whites, and only five percentage points less likely than the average, to believe that political correctness is a problem.
If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and education.
While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.
Political tribe—as defined by the authors—is an even better predictor of views on political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.
No surprise there. Self-titled “progressive activists” are the main proponents—and enforcers—of wokeness.
Going to the report itself—all 160 pages of it, which I certainly haven’t read—I note the following: “82 percent of Americans agree that hate speech is a problem.”
So almost everyone says that political correctness is a problem, and the same number of people say that hate speech is a problem.
Houston, we’ve got a problem. That does not compute.
My guess is that people are defining the terms in wildly different ways. To me, “hate speech” means “laws against hate speech,” a European and Canadian notion that I’m strongly against. But to most respondents, it may just mean “people hating each other.”
The relevant questions appear on page 132 of the report, and they are simple: Agree or disagree with “Political correctness is a problem in our country” and “Hate speech is a problem in our country.”
I really detest the way polls are worded. You might wonder why I report on polls at all. Despite their myriad flaws, I still think they have something to tell us, although perhaps the main thing they tell us is how flawed polls are.
This is interesting:
The vast majority of Americans want to feel free to speak their mind, but they also recognize that there should be limits on speech that is dangerous or hateful. Levels of conviction on both of these subjects are relatively similar among the liberal segments and the Politically Disengaged. However, among Moderates, Traditional Conservatives, and especially among Devoted Conservatives, there is a stronger recognition of the need to preserve free speech than of the need to protect against hate speech.
On each issue, there is a wide gap between the majority of Americans and the views of either the Devoted Conservatives or Progressive Activists. Devoted Conservatives value freedom above other concerns, and are almost three times as likely to disagree strongly with the need to protect people from dangerous and hateful speech than Americans on average (34 versus 13 percent). Progressive Activists, on the other hand, worry that free speech is often a cover for offensive and dangerous speech, and 36 percent of them strongly disagree with the claim that political correctness has gone too far, compared to an average of 7 percent of Americans generally who strongly disagree with that claim
So is the vast middle apathetic about the issue? Uncertain what the terms mean? Sort of interested in liberty and sort of interested in curbing speech that disturbs them—in other words, muddled about the competing approaches and how intrinsically opposed they are to each other?
The current phrase is “get woke, go broke,” and it certainly seems like, in several cases, that is what is happening.
Examples?
Well, how about the MSM, and CNN and MSNBC in particular?
How about ESPN? How about DICKS?
How about the newest example, the knitting site, REVELRY?
It is not entirely clear who first coined the term “The Great Awokening”, but the effects of this truly pernicious new form of intolerant dogmatism (essentially a secular version of religious fundamentalism) are everywhere evident in the culture, from the banning of books, to the generating of outrage mobs on Twitter, to vandalizing statues and covering murals, to squelching freedom of expression, and, above all else, to fulminating against the worst of all sins, whiteness.
Moreover, wokeness largely explains why the media is held in such low esteem, as they are a bastion of wokeness.
Most people do want Free Speech.
And most think offensive speech is … offensive, bad, and they don’t want to hear it.
It’s not clear how many understand that Free Speech, like Nazis marching in Skokie, or burning the US flag, is also hate speech.
We need Trump and more GOP folk to clearly talk about how speech IS NOT violence, and it is violence which is illegal. The speech that is wrong is that speech which advocates violence.
The hypocritical Dems want to claim to support “civility”, while hating and insulting Rep women like Ivanka or Sarah Pallin as c***.
I’m constantly enraged by the hypocritical double standards of what Dems can say, so much hate-filled and hate-oriented words, against Trump — yet complain about hate speech.
‘Get woke, go broke’ seems to be losing is truthfulness I fear. People said that about Nike when they put out the Kaepernick commercial six months ago and nothing has happened to them except pretty good earnings reports and revenue growth. ESPN has also pivoted away from ‘woke sports’ and is doing ok showing that it doesn’t have to be a death knell to a company.
Small to midsize companies may be more susceptible to damage however.
The bigger point is that a huge percentage ( my guess is 70%) either don’t care or have never heard of the controversy because they are too busy living a real life as opposed to keeping up with the latest twitter outrage.
On the website of the group that did that study, here’s what they say about how they handled “political correctness”:
it is a no brainer for anyone with the slightest concept of Risk aversion, even for minorities like myself who are supposedly the beneficiary of the PC culture the risk of getting my life and career ruined for an careless indiscretion of saying something offensive to someone unintentionally is far greater than whatever benefit I might get from it such as not getting my feeling hurt. I can easily toughen my skin so i don’t get offended easily, but man keeping up with the ever expanding PC vocabs and watching with careful diligence every word that comes out of my mouth is far more difficult.
It is obvious to me, the 1st Amendment is intended to protect speech that some people or even 99.999% of the people disagree with. Paraphrasing Tommy Smothers, the only valid form of censorship is to not listen.
Time once again to reprise A Man for All Seasons.
Saw an article along these lines about Germany somewhere the last couple days. Apparently Germans are fearful of saying things in public that they are thinking or saying in close company.
This is happening here also I think though to a lesser extent. Immigration and homelessness are two topics that come to mind. There are plenty of Trump haters that secretly agree with him on immigration but don’t want to say it too loud.
Tom G,
Fascists know no shame, hypocrisy is their weapon to silence you. Just say NO.
Dave,
It begins with you. Speak your mind. Whenever you hesitate, they win. When they win you are diminished. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Otherwise, it will come down to copper plated lead projecticles. That is where we are headed unless we stand up and speak out. Fortunately, where I live few disagree with me.
Diversity breeds adversity. Don’t indulge color judgments. #PrinciplesMatter
John Stuart Mill perfectly stated it; “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
I still remember when the limit on free speech was yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
It was pretty much understood that the cost of free speech was having to hear a lot of offensive BS. So, we taught our children that, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” We learned not to be so sensitive, while also learning to conform as needed to get along.
I just don’t remember it being that bad…
The problem with “Hate Crimes”, including speech, is no one can prove what was the state of mind of the person committing the crime. I recall that when the concept of Hate Crimes was first proposed and turned into legislation, a lot of very sharp legal minds were objecting strenuously on the same basis. We are now seeing the logical extension of this slippery slope. If we continue like this, how much longer until we are in “1984” territory?
“…Houston…”
“Houston” has gone viral:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274199/pandemic-false-knowledge-bruce-thornton
The surprising difference between the percentage of people that express opposition to political correctness and support for free speech and what we hear and get from news reports and so forth is that the pro-PC and anti-Free Speech folks are just so damn noisy. The squeaky wheel and all that.
German adults had similar opinions of the jugend youth who were herding them to the history we all know.. same way too… except this time, the Frauen mit erhöhtem Bewusstsein und Gleichstellung march with them.
in fact, it was the women who woke em…
they woke everyone… from stem to stern…
every point of movement has originated with one of them
from feminism, to lgbt (which was always baked in), to unpacking knapsacks
twas women who woke em…
and if no one else could have stopped them
then they are the only ones who could stop themselves
but this train has no brakes…
i guess this ALSO applies to women EVEN MORE SO:
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. – Charles Mackay Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
It be interesting to see the purchasing demographics of Nike. If skewed to youth, those under 35, I wouldn’t be surprised why its sales haven’t dipped.
The very concept of ‘hate-speech’ belongs to the distinctive arsenal of the radical left; it’s a term like “kulak”, whose content is deliberately vague while the consequences of your being included in the category are very clear, and damning.
This sort of words are not “natural”, do not arise spontaneously from common usage; they are introduced with a precise political intent, and are meant to hit, humiliate and isolate the enemy – as Alinsky openly taught in his rules, especially n°13.
Given the artificiality of the term, the first difficulty for the activist is to spread its use, but here the left can trust the peculiar blind belief and the proven organization of its ‘cells’: it’s not a case that most SJW groups’ main activity, precisely when public discussion is proposed, is the incessant chanting and repetition of slogans by the mob.
One fundamental principle – identified and exploited by both Goebbels’ Propagandaministerium and the KGB in Soviet Russia – is that endless repetition of a slogan INFALLIBLY modifies most people’s perception and reaction.
Pavlov – think about that – has been one of the few (the only one?) scientists whose research was constantly supported and financed in the USSR, even if he openly refused to accept the Marxist ideology !
Then there’s the educated leftist, the one who reads at least the NYT (in my country, Italy, the analogous paper is “La Repubblica”): everybody who comes from the left (me included) knows that dissent means expulsion; so, any leftist develops a special ear capable of recognizing a new dogma: in articles and speeches given by the cool people in the cool places, a term begins to be used as if it were an indisputable evidence and those who “incredibly” refuse to accept it are gradually described as controversial, then conservative and eventually Fascist.
The sad and irritating fact is how easily the other side – classical liberals but also conservatives and, increasingly, mainstream religious churches and confessions – accepts not just the term, but its USAGE as intended by the left: in other words they, being decent people willing to honestly discuss even the most absurd issue (like: “men can be pregnant”), politely accept the elements of discussion as potentially valid, instead of calling out the fraud since the beginning.
Jordan Peterson, who refused to accept the political imposition of a new grammar, has been obviously categorized among the untouchable of the alt-right (another of those terms, btw). It’s always the same plan as with “kulak”: putting the dissenters in “Gulags” (real or social) where they disappear and cannot be heard any more.
Paolo,
Very well said. Thank you.
I wonder what could possibly be the defense against such a weapon? Is there any educational antidote that can be used to inoculate people against such planned attacks on their freedom?
Where is Lenny Bruce when we really need him?
BTW: One of the terms that Hugo Chavez coined for his opposition was “Los Esqualidos” or “The Squalid Ones”. Semantically, it made no sense whatsoever. The opposition was primarily the middle and upper-middle classes. His primary appeal was to the lower classes. Yet, by using the term repeatedly, he reshaped the very meaning of the word.
Paolo,
Excellent comment! Thanks.
Yes, there is a strong tendency to absorb a Newspeak meaning of a word or phrase so that it displaces the former meaning PLUS the concepts connected to it; or, if the term or phrase is newly invented, to repeat it so as to create or modify a cast of thought.
Yet, we learn language and the meanings of words in just this way, especially as we are learning our mother tongue. And our attitudes toward this or that are shaped (to some extent, anyway) by what most impresses us about other people’s attitudes toward the word, term, sentence, slogan.
So at one time it was fairly common for two men to share a single room and a single bed; as for example, Lincoln and his law partner William Herndon. (Room-rent less costly for one room than for two, plus sharing that rent, plus two bodies in the same bed keeps both warmer than if they’d be if they slept in separate beds.) So, general opinion was that there was nothing inherently wrong with the practice. But now, such a situation involves all sorts of suspicions of homosexual activity or at least proclivity between the two men. And as for children sleeping with their parents, Well! — especially if the child is a daughter and the parent is her father.
And dear Dr. Spock told a whole generation of parents that they should harden their hearts and let the crying baby cry. Else, Bad Mother!
The problem for each of us is to find the “sweet spot” where we are open to helpful changes of interpretation and of attitudes while spotting the counterproductive or unhealthy ones. And by “we,” I mean each of us as an individual.
Excellent Paolo. If one side of a two sided debate gets to select the terminology and create a frame for the debate, then usually the debate is lost before it is started.
Here is a small example from Neo’s blockquote:
“Progressive Activists, on the other hand, worry that free speech is often a cover for offensive and dangerous speech, …”
Well which is it? Offensive speech or dangerous speech? No, no, the PC crowd will complain, the two are the same! My personal offense must be elevated to the level of a crime victim. Once that has been achieved, it gives me a club that I can use for political advantage even in circumstances where I’m not offended at all.
Here’s a probable example:
(boldface mine)
So having gone all ’round Robin Hood’s barn to find examples, these two really excellent ones from Lynn Hargrove in the very next posting (“Fox on a Chilly Night”), at
https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/07/06/the-fox-went-out-on-a-chilly-night/#comment-2441564
Never mind that its “message” is that when people make fun of you, they may well be making fun of a quality that will save their bacon down the road — and that G-d willin’ and the crik don’t rise, they will come to celebrate you and your quirk! So there’s nothing necessarily wrong with being “different.”
(Although I hope the lyrics were written in a spirit of playfulness, however good the life lecture.)
And all the sports teams named in admiration for the American Indians — the Braves, the Redskins, etc. “we” now know are really insults and not to be borne. Ditto “Little Black Sambo” (who knew it’s racist to portray little Negro kids as liking pancakes!), Huckleberry Finn, so forth….
But the Younger Generation(s) live in an era where all this nonsense is the Common Wisdom.
The Sambo of the original book of course, was actually Indian. Not black, nor Negro, nor American.
Hence a tiger, being liquefied to butter. Some assert it was originally a South Indian fable or folktale of some kind.
Nonetheless, it was objected to in the U.S. on the basis that illustrations depicting Sambo, tended to degrade black children in general as ” pickaninnies”.
And certainly there were cartoon take-offs in the 1930’s which can be seen as presenting Sambo as a Negro child (I guess these characters are meant to represent humans rather than anthropomorphised cartoon-beings of some kind), living in an American style house, maintained by a hugely fat caricature of a black woman … with a tiger being the only seeming connection to the real story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSfGvptL_TY
Well, my “Little Black Sambo” carried that title (and whatever East Indians are, few of them are Negro — as far as I know anyway). It was a Little Golden Book, if I remember rightly, with wonderful illustrations*. The kid surely looked Negro, and his Mama was a large Negro-looking lady. As for “pickaninny,” (1) I never heard anyone refer to Sambo that way — and remember, the overall subject I was addressing was the extent to which our individual interpretations of words is shaped by the people of our society, and when one is of the age to be reading Little Golden Books, that society is generally rather small. And (2) It wouldn’t have occurred to me even when quite a bit older to think of “pickaninny” as a particularly demeaning term of any sort, any more than “kid” or the recent “rug rat,” though I suppose that to many people it bore a tinge of that.
*I just took a quick look for various artists’ illustrations, including the one Amazon is carrying as a Little Golden Book, but none of them are like what I remember.
And if anybody cares, what I got on the emotional level was that the little black kid was basically cut from the same cloth as any other kid.
Anyway, I guess that somewhere in my Life’s Journey I did run across a statement that the original story was laid in India; but if so, I’d forgotten, so thanks for reminding me. :>)
I do remember “Little Black Sambo” in a Golden Book. I don’t think I ever thought he was an American, but then, I also read illustrated children’s versions of Rudyard Kipling, so I knew it was India. Not too many tigers around the American South. And what a sheltered childhood I had! I never heard of a “pickaninny” in any context at all.
And, Paolo, well said! Are you @PagliaP67? I have enjoyed your comments here and there for several years, and agree with much on that Twitter account (what I can read of it, of course, and often with context I can make a bit of sense of Italian).
“Los Esqualidos” sounds like it could well be “The Deplorables.”
If it worked for Chavez, shouldn’t it have worked for Clinton?
Well, almost, I guess.
————-
“…defense against such a weapon?….Where is Lenny Bruce when we really need him?”
Yes, I was thinking of the need for popular courses in how to break out “spontaneously” in uproarious belly laughs, seminars in hysterical giggling, voice training in peals of laughter and/or safe techniques in throwing oneself on the floor and then rolling and writhing around in uncontrollable mirth.
Sort of like the equivalent of martial arts or krav maga. So very useful in a whole slough of eventualities. Could become very popular….
No more Lenny Bruce, Don Rickles, Richard Pryor, much less Andrew Dice Clay. Howard Stern is still around, I think, though he’s been invisible and silent to me for years.
Not to derail the thread, but Bookworm takes Scott Adams (Dilbert) to task for his failed analysis of the significance of Antifa (aka Klantifa)
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2019/07/03/scott-adams-errs-badly-about-antifa/
It was cited by CBD at http://ace.mu.nu/. Scott Adams has apparently revised his assessment of klantifa.
Woke folk loves them fascist fighters.
Yes, Barry Meislin, laughing at them is the best attack, on the whole.
TommyJay on July 7, 2019 at 1:27 pm said:
Excellent Paolo. If one side of a two sided debate gets to select the terminology and create a frame for the debate, then usually the debate is lost before it is started.
* * *
Well said.
I have seen comments and even posts arguing that Republicans & Conservatives need to quit using the frame and terms put forth by the Left ( no longer separate them from Democrats), but it’s a difficult thing to do, especially if the media is part of the “one side” defining usage and doing the chanting.
In re “Little Black Sambo”: I almost certainly had the same Little Golden Book as our compatriots here, and my opinion then (and now) was that he was one sharp dude, and it engendered in me a positive opinion of black people (I only learned the story’s origins later) which has endured.
It helps that most of the black people I knew, & know, personally are very estimable.
Perhaps, but one must expect, based on experience, that the “sensible” response will be to make laughter and ridicule illegal.
It starts like this:
https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/07/03/so-whos-the-fascist/
…and then gains traction until it spirals out of control. (Actually, that should be “spirals into total control”.)
Oh, I never thought of Little Black Sambo (and his folks, Black Mumbo and Black Jumbo) as American Negroes. I knew they lived in some exotic land — and that they were fictional f’r’eaven’s sake. (I’m not sure that at age 4 I was aware of the distinction between Africa and India. But from the illustrations I registered “Negro” — today known as “Black” — because I was vaguely aware of “blacks.”)
Little Black Sambo was the namesake of a diner franchise called “Sambos” back in the seventies. The walls were decorated with same illustrations as in children’s book. I liked this place because they offered 10 cent bottomless cup coffee. It was a loss-leader, of course. Even then, there were PC rumblings. Eventually, I think they changed the name and re-branded.
Antifa has its roots in stalinist russia…
willi munzenberg anti fascist league
later..
Antifaschistische Aktion, abbreviated as Antifa, is an anti-fascist network in Germany
The first German movement to call itself Antifaschistische Aktion was proclaimed by the German Communist Party (KPD) in their newspaper Rote Fahne in 1932 and held its first rally in Berlin on 10 July 1932, then capital of the Weimar Republic.
[and they were part of the groups that beat up the Nazis when their speeches claimed that hitler was a better socialist than lenin or stalin… ]
After Hitler
they actually claim they have nothing to do with each other despite its the same groups, same leaders, same symbolism and so on… even stalinism being the same…
The American Antifa of the early 21st-century has drawn its aesthetics and some of its tactics from the original German organization
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Activists involved in the movement tend to be anti-capitalists and subscribe to a range of ideologies, typically on the left. They include anarchists, socialists and communists along with some liberals and social democrats. Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than through electoral means.
Although there is no organizational connection, the lineage of antifa in America can be traced to Weimar Germany, where the first group described as “antifa” was Antifaschistische Aktion, formed in 1932 with the involvement of the Communist Party of Germany
Even though they are a small percentage of the population, the “woke” and their supporters are deadly. They ruin lives and businesses without remorse and for the slightest of infractions. While the leaders of the woke movement likely fall into the 21% of whites who agree with political correctness, I would guess the number against it would be higher except for the fear that the pollsters were “woke” themselves and could exact revenge through doxxing or other means on anyone who disagreed with them. People of other races (especially those considered “people of color”–blacks, hispanics, and native americans) would be less worried about what the woke mob would or could do to them personally, but equally annoyed by their presence and behavior, and thus more of them would answer the question truthfully.
melange:
Actually, SJWs (the “woke”) are particularly hard on certain black people or other minorities who are on the right, such as (for example) Candace Owens.
}}} American Indians (hey, shouldn’t that be “native Americans” to be PC?)
That’s based on the idiotic idea that Columbus (et al) did not realize they were not in India. They knew how big the world was, and it was clear enough that they had not traveled far enough to reach India.
The term is derived from “In Dios” (“of God”) in that the natives were as of Eden, completely innocent of ideas like nudity-as-sin.
}}} Snow on Pine on July 6, 2019 at 3:03 pm said…
Marvel COMICS. Not the movies, but the comics, are in deep doo-doo. Sales are declining in general, but Marvel comics have been taken over by the Woke Looneys. There suggestion that Phase 4 may embrace some of this. If it is constrained, that can work, but if it goes whole hog like the comics, Phase 4 will tank one of the most valuable marques in the industry.
}}} It is obvious to me, the 1st Amendment is intended to protect speech that some people or even 99.999% of the people disagree with. Paraphrasing Tommy Smothers, the only valid form of censorship is to not listen.
Time once again to reprise A Man for All Seasons.
One of the greatest back-and-forths in all of history:
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
Thomas More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
I still remember when the limit on free speech was yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
It was pretty much understood that the cost of free speech was having to hear a lot of offensive BS. So, we taught our children that, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” We learned not to be so sensitive, while also learning to conform as needed to get along.
I just don’t remember it being that bad…
1) The limits allowed on our Rights derive from improper and dangerously irresponsible uses of them — shouting fire in a crowded theater, inciting a crowd to violence, shooting a gun into the air, or ignoring what is downpath of the target…
Not “something MIGHT be harmed”, but “someone IS harmed”, or at least “at serious risk of serious harm”. This latter does not include “Ouchie! You hurt my feeewings!!”
2) Yeah, “Sticks and Stones…” does not seem to be taught in school any more, along with the rest of Aesop. All part of PostModern Eddimikashinalism not supplying any part of either of the West’s foundations of either Greek Thought and Ideal, or of Judeo-Christian Ethos, those, synergistically, being the primary sources of its success.
OBH – there is actually a children’s show that features cute tellings of Aesop’s fables, suitable to the pre-K age group, but there is certainly no serious study of them as political “memes” — which is what they were supposed to be back in the day.
I strongly suspect that Mr. Aesop didn’t have any more real influence over the Greek governments than we do ours, but it’s a nice fiction, and the fables are still true.
Artfldgr on July 8, 2019 at 11:04 am said:
Antifa has its roots in stalinist russia…
willi munzenberg anti fascist league
later..
Antifaschistische Aktion, abbreviated as Antifa, is an anti-fascist network in Germany
* * *
Very interesting, thank you.
Antifa apparently chose their name deliberately because they are targeting today’s “Nazis,” which happen to be not just the recognized White Nationalist/Supremacist groups, but everyone not vocally and demonstrably Left-wing aka socialist/communist.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/04/meet-the-anti-woke-left/
Meet the anti-woke left —
‘Dirtbag’ leftists Amber A’Lee Frost and Anna Khachiyan on populism, feminism and cancel culture.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/05/17/in-defence-of-the-minority-of-one/
SALVATORE BABONES
17th May 2019
People don’t even know that they are asleep in a dream, let alone who got woke up.
Geoffrey Britain on July 6, 2019 at 9:42 pm said:
John Stuart Mill perfectly stated it; “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
Lots of people would love me to be silent, one way or another.
They have about as much chance of that happening as silencing the Son of God (the one they know).
parker on July 6, 2019 at 6:50 pm said:
Dave,
It begins with you. Speak your mind.
I speak my mind all the time. Then I get told that because people here are “older than me” (*ahaha, as if they know anything), they get to tell me off because they know more than me.
Ridiculous human antics. Human pride will be your downfall, but you think it is somebody else’s problem.
Pingback:The left, language, and political change
Pingback:The left, language, and political change | TrumpsMinutemen
Pingback:A ? week begins… | Rabblerouserruminations's Weblog