Persistent issues

Mar 22nd, 2019 9:36 am | By

Today for the second day Charlottesville public (state) schools are closed because of threats.

Police said in a statement that the online threat was directed at Charlottesville High School .

Authorities declined to further describe the threat, but images circulating on Reddit and other social media sites referred to a post on 4chan, an anonymous online messaging board. The post included a racist meme, used slurs for blacks and Latinos, and threatened to attack students of color at Charlottesville High.

The threat was another jolt to a community still strained by the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in August 2017 that turned Charlottesville into the site of America’s largest white-supremacy gathering in decades.

This week’s online episode did not surprise members of Charlottesville High’s Black Student Union, who say it is symptomatic of persistent issues in Charlottesville City Schools, including excessive police presence in schools and a lack of black students in advanced classes.

There’s not much to say, is there. This stinks.



An ideological thumb on the scale

Mar 22nd, 2019 9:00 am | By

Yesterday Trump signed an executive order to do with free inquiry at universities.

At a signing ceremony at the White House, Mr. Trump said he wanted to give notice to “professors and power structures” seeking to prevent conservatives “from challenging rigid, far-left ideology.”

In a background briefing call with reporters on Thursday morning, a senior administration official said grant-making agencies would work with the Office of Management and Budget to make sure that institutions receiving funding promote free speech rights within applicable law. The issue has become a cause célèbre among conservatives, who argue that their voices are being silenced on liberal campuses.

While their voices are being very loudened in government and on Fox News.

Mr. Trump was not much more specific in his own remarks. He said agencies would use their control over grants “to ensure that public universities protect, cherish, protect the First Amendment, First Amendment rights of their students or risk losing billions and billions of dollars of federal taxpayer dollars.”

It’s so cruel of them to quote him verbatim. Let’s look at that again, with the repetitions highlighted.

He said agencies would use their control over grants “to ensure that public universities protect, cherish, protect the First Amendment, First Amendment rights of their students or risk losing billions and billions of dollars of federal taxpayer dollars.”

Ouch. The aphasia is progressing rapidly rapidly.

PEN America has some concerns.

The directive that federal agency heads, in coordination with the federal Office of Management and Budget, take “appropriate steps” to ensure that institutions receiving such funds “promote free inquiry” and comply with federal law and policy is vague and overbroad. Neither “appropriate steps” nor “free inquiry” are defined, opening the door to interpretations that could impinge upon academic freedom or insert the government into decisions that are properly made by faculty and university leadership. “Free inquiry” must not mean that discredited theories or pseudoscience need to be given a forum on campus.

All U.S. academic institutions are required to uphold the law, and oversight and enforcement mechanisms already exist to ensure such compliance. It is not clear that any additional steps would be appropriate for the federal government to guarantee that an individual university promote the White House’s concept of “free inquiry.” The idea that scientific research or educational grants could be tied to prevailing political winds is anathema to the academic enterprise.

In other words, “free inquiry” means different things to researchers as opposed to political people. That’s the thing about electoral (aka democratic) politics: the people in charge are inevitably political, because they have to get elected before they can be in charge. That makes them accountable, good, but it also means they have to keep one eye on public sentiment at all times, not always so good. Researchers often have to be somewhat political too, because of the struggle to get funding, but as a class their motivations and scruples tend in another direction. To put it crudely, the two sets have a different orientation toward truth.

Truth and free speech aren’t always fighting on the same side. Free speech and inquiry can mean free for cranks, frauds, liars, trolls, bots, hacks, marketers. There’s a cherished liberal piety that says free inquiry always gets to the truth, sometimes with the qualifier “eventually” or “ultimately” – which is meaningless, because there is no “eventually” or “ultimately,” there’s only this moment then this one then this one. The cherished liberal piety is wrong.

And back to the specific, PEN points out that Trump is no friend of free speech and inquiry in any case.

The First Amendment protects all speech regardless of political party or ideological leanings. Yet this Administration has a pronounced pattern of using its muscle to protect certain viewpoints, while either encouraging or even exacting reprisals against speech it finds objectionable or critical. Whether it is in response to protesters at a campaign rally, NFL or college football players taking a knee on the field, or journalists asking tough questions, the Administration has resorted to taunts and intimidation in order to suppress the speech of those with whom it disagrees. The President has even crossed the line into threats and acts of retaliation against journalists whose news coverage he disapproves of, violating the First Amendment (see PEN America v Trump). The President’s decision to announce this Executive Order at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee underscores the concern that it represents an effort to put an ideological thumb on the scale of federal free speech protections.

Remember when they took Jim Acosta’s press pass away? Remember how Trump simply stopped doing press conferences? And Sarah Sanders has mostly stopped doing press briefings? Remember Trump’s calling the news media “the enemy of the people” repeatedly? Yeah, Trump as guardian of free inquiry is laughable.



Seeking men and female-identifiers

Mar 22nd, 2019 7:42 am | By

More language creep.

Why “who identifies as”? Why not just ask “are you a mother?”?

Oh look, they gave it away completely there. Women are “female identifying” while men are just male. I guess that’s because men are real people while women are just some kind of figment of every passing imagination?



Every right

Mar 21st, 2019 5:52 pm | By

Devin Nunes in 2010:



But his WhatsApp

Mar 21st, 2019 5:27 pm | By

Oh, huh, that’s interesting: Jared Kushner is using WhatsApp to talk to foreign contacts.

Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, uses the online messaging service WhatsApp for official business – including communication with foreign contacts, according to a new letter from congressional investigators.

The letter, sent to the White House by the House oversight committee chairman, Elijah Cummings, on Thursday, also says Ivanka Trump, Kushner’s wife and the president’s daughter, is not preserving all of her official emails, as required by federal law.

The new disclosures came in the letter to the White House counsel Pat Cipollone, and demands documents related to the use of personal email and messaging accounts by White House aides.

Maddow’s first segment yesterday was about the fact that Trump and his gang are refusing to send any documents to Congress or to allow any staff to testify. Any at all. This is unprecedented, she said. Presidents have resisted on specifics before, but no president has ever just said No, nothing, forget it. Again, he’s acting like an emperor in a system that doesn’t have emperors and does have a constitution.

“The White House’s failure to provide documents and information is obstructing the committee’s investigation into allegations of violations of federal records laws by White House officials,” Cummings, the Maryland Democrat, wrote.

The Presidential Records Act prohibits senior White House officials from using non-official email or messaging accounts for government business, unless they send copies of the messages to their official accounts.

Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Kushner and Ivanka Trump, told the committee in December that Kushner was still using WhatsApp as part of his official duties at the White House, including for communications with people outside the United States.

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1108843491814182921

Kushner is an ignoramus and a crook, and this is what he’s doing. Grotesque doesn’t even cover it.



Men bullying women cont’d

Mar 21st, 2019 11:06 am | By

Kimberly Nixon hopes it will send a message.

A transgender woman whose case against Canada’s oldest rape crisis centre was dismissed by the courts says she hopes the City of Vancouver’s decision to refuse the shelter funding will help change policies.

Kimberly Nixon, 61, filed a human rights complaint against Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter in 1995 after she was refused training to work as a volunteer peer counsellor on the basis she did not share the life experience of someone born female.

And lost the case, and was ordered to pay costs to Vancouver Rape Relief ten years ago, and still has not paid a cent.

Hilla Kerner, spokeswoman for Rape Relief, said women who are born female and socialized to submit to male domination do not feel comfortable around women who may appear and sound like men and don’t share the same life experience.

And men who claim to be women should get that, and see the force of it, and sympathize, and not want to brush it off for the sake of their own Validation. It’s very male to brush it off for the sake of their own feefees.

Morgane Oger, who chairs the Trans Alliance Society, said she has been advocating since 2013 for Rape Relief’s municipal funding to be stopped.

And he’s proud of it.

Adrienne Smith, a human rights lawyer in Vancouver, said all of Smith’s clients are transgender and some of them have said they have been turned away from Rape Relief after a sexual assault.

“Rape Relief takes the position that transgender women are men in dresses and that there’s something inauthentic about them,” Smith said. “Their followers repeat this messaging and it’s fundamentally hurtful to my clients and to trans and non-binary people.”

Smith said Rape Relief has stuck to the same message even as society has changed.

Trans women are sexually assaulted at four times the rate of non-trans women, often by other women, Smith said.

Women often sexually assault trans women? Really? Any examples? Any at all?

British Columbia provides about $600,000 in annual funding to Rape Relief, which has a budget of about $1.1 million and opened its doors in 1973.

Nixon said provincial funding should also be reconsidered.

Nixon owes them money.



Anything about mxn?

Mar 21st, 2019 10:41 am | By

They’ve whatnow?

A platform for #films by womxn – meaning what? A platform for films by women and trans women? Then say that – or better, don’t do that. Don’t make women share everything with trans women. Have a platform for films by women and one for films by trans women or trans people. Above all, stop erasing women by using that stupid stupid stupid not-word.

Fool responds:

Government is for all citizens; well no shit, why is that a reason to stop naming women?



Timing

Mar 21st, 2019 10:18 am | By

I don’t know…I see why they had this impulse, but I’m not sure it was a good idea. A university in Calgary canceled a talk by an ex-Muslim, though it said it would welcome him at a later time.

Armin Navabi, who lives in British Columbia, was being brought in by the Atheist Society of Calgary to share his journey and discuss the reasons he doesn’t believe the Islamic faith can be reformed.

But now he says he’s disappointed he won’t get a chance to engage in some passionate discussions with staff and students, including those who still practice Islam, because of MRU’s last-minute decision.

But it’s not even a week yet. Emotions are raw. I get that. I don’t think I would have felt very comfortable giving an atheist talk in Charleston a week after that massacre. But I’m not sure cancellation is the right move.

The Atheist Society of Calgary says it was hoping to provide a safe space for open communication and a chance for people to learn more about atheists, from Navabi’s perspective.

The group says it was also an opportunity to let some people know they are not alone.

“There are people that really resent the ex-Muslims, the ones who have been Muslim and left, they are in a really tough position, and we just wanted to give them, and students that might be in the same position, in the closet, an opportunity to communicate and to explain to people where they are coming from and why,” said Lois Edwards, who is a board member of the Atheists Society of Calgary, and an atheist contact with the Interfaith chaplaincy at MRU.

In other words atheists and exes can have raw emotions too.

Navabi says he always struggled with his Islamic faith growing up, even attempting suicide at age 12, as a way to try to escape his fears.

Eventually he left Islam, became an atheist, and began sharing his journey with others through his podcast, a book, and talks across the globe.

He says his goal is not to convert people, but to show them that people can disagree and still get along.

“If I don’t really don’t like Islam that means I hate Muslims, that’s what people think. But we show them, no we are very much against Islam but we get along with Muslims the same way they very much dislike atheism but they can get along with us. And by showing them that they say, like, ‘Hey look, disagreements are just that[:] disagreements,'” said Navabi.

A statement to CBC News reads: “Universities are diverse and inclusive places where people should always feel respected and where there is free exchange of ideas. The tragic event that occurred in Christchurch less than a week ago has had a large impact on many members in our community. We made this decision in light of that impact and we would absolutely have the speaker come to our campus at another time.”

Navabi is still scheduled to speak at C-Space King Edward, an arts centre at 1721 29th Ave. S.W., at 7:30 p.m. Thursday night.

If people could stop massacring others that would be great.



What I tell you three times is true

Mar 21st, 2019 9:41 am | By

Trump says the same damn thing three times in the first 23 seconds of this clip: he uses Twitter to get the word out because the news media are fake. Three times.

I didn’t listen to the rest of the seconds, which are Fox News.



What’s a little throat-punch among friends?

Mar 21st, 2019 8:38 am | By

Now here’s a surprise: for once it’s the violence-threatener who has backed out.

The headline act of a transgender event in Dundee has pulled out after calling on people to “throat-punch” radical feminists.

Peyton Rose, a transgender singer-songwriter from Edinburgh who was to top the bill at the Trans Pride Scotland event in Dundee next week, posted the tweet last Friday.

Above an image of a leaflet distributed last summer by For Women Scotland, a women’s rights group, she wrote: “If you catch one of these assholes in the act, please undo their work or throat-punch them.”

She deactivated her Twitter account afterwards and has since withdrawn from performing at the event.

A spokeswoman at For Women Scotland said that “gender-critical feminists”, who campaign against people being able to self-report their gender and highlight conflicts between the rights of biological and transgender women, often receive such threats.

Including on the walls of an exhibit at the San Francisco Public Library.

Ms Rose described the tweet as a “tongue-in-cheek comment” written in anger and retracted the use of “terf”, although she declined to say whether she still considered For Women Scotland transphobic. “I have decided not to do Trans Pride and will be taking a step back for the foreseeable future to work on my mental health,” she said.

Saying it was tongue-in-cheek and saying it was written in anger is contradictory. It can be one or the other but not both. If it’s in anger it’s not really jokey.

A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “On March 19 police in Edinburgh received a report of threats being made via social media and email, and inquiries are ongoing.”

Trans Pride Scotland did not respond to a request for comment.

You astonish me.



The fingerprints of divine providence

Mar 21st, 2019 8:16 am | By

If the Smithsonian declines to display your enormous lurid ugly painting, do you have a legal case against it for declining? My guess would be no, because there is no obligation in law to display all paintings that are offered. Just think what art museums and galleries would be like if there were.

An artist called Julian Raven thinks otherwise.

A Trump portraitist whose lawsuit against the Smithsonian Institution and National Portrait Gallery director Kim Sajet was thrown out in December is appealing the district court’s decision, arguing that his work deserves to be shown in the hallowed institution.

Yeah see I don’t think that’s something you can argue in a legal sense. I don’t think that’s a legal category.

“It’s remarkable. It is dramatic. And I believe it has the fingerprints of divine providence upon it,” said artist Julian Raven in a homemade video explaining why he was inspired to create a 300-pound, 16-foot-long painting of president Donald Trump.

Well there you go – what if the Smithsonian doesn’t have 16 feet of wall space available? What if the floors aren’t up to a new 300 pounds? Fingerprints of divine providence notwithstanding?

After 600 hours of labor, Raven’s opus, Unafraid and Unashamed, was complete, and it has been making the rounds at Republican rallies for the past few years. Most recently, it appeared at last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) where it lit up the Twittersphere, served as the literal backdrop for the right-wing meetup.

Raven believes that his work deserves national recognition, and should hang alongside paintings of other presidents in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC. The artist has been mired in a legal battle with the Smithsonian since 2017, claiming that the government institution is violating his First Amendment rights.

No. I’m not a lawyer, obviously, but I know the First Amendment ≠ national museums are required to display everything that is offered to them. Everybody knows that.

According to court documents, Raven first applied to have his portrait displayed as part of Trump’s inauguration in 2017. When he was rebuffed by the Rockwell Museum (an affiliate of the Smithsonian), he contacted the National Portrait Gallery’s director, Kim Sajet.

In the filings, Raven describes a hostile conversation that ended with rejection on the grounds that his magnum opus painting was too big, too pro-Trump, and not a very good painting.

That’s putting it very politely. It’s a hideous painting.

See for yourself.



Nixon has not, to this day, paid a cent

Mar 20th, 2019 4:47 pm | By

Julie Bindel on why abused women need women-only shelters:

My first ever volunteer post was back in 1980, at a Women’s Aid refuge for victims of domestic violence. I will never forget the sight of those women coming in through the doors, crying with desperate relief at having escaped abusive husbands; finding comfort in the company of other women who had experienced the same.

Those services saved many lives, Julie says, but now, between the Right defunding them and the Left forcing them to serve trans women, they’re in peril.

This is not actually [a] new problem. It may be a new front in the transgender turf wars in the UK. But Vancouver Rape Relief (VRR) a women’s support and campaigning NGO in Canada, has been victimised by transgender activists since the mid 1990s. Now after their long struggle, this small, grassroots, volunteer-led organisation is under threat of losing its funding.

I first heard of VRR in December 2003 when I saw a news report about a long-running legal battle that the organisation had with a transgender person, Kimberly Nixon.

In 1995 Nixon, a former airline pilot who had lived as a man until the age of 33, applied to VRR to train as a counsellor for women who had experienced sexual violence. Nixon was rejected because, since she had not had the experience of growing up as a girl, she would not understand the impact of male violence and misogyny on the lives of the women who sought support from VRR.

So she filed a formal Human Rights Complaint supported by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. VRR tried to appease her, to no avail.

Nixon rejected the offers, and pursued the group through various stressful and expensive legal proceedings until it was finally resolved in 2007. In 2009, the Supreme Court awarded VRR costs, but Nixon has not, to this day, paid a cent.

I didn’t know that.

What’s the difference between that and common or garden misogyny? I can’t see any, myself.



How do you know when it’s malicious?

Mar 20th, 2019 4:23 pm | By

Some are more equal than others:

Green and other activists for transgender rights view it as deeply offensive to deliberately use the wrong pronoun for a trans person. Doing so could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act, which makes it a crime to send messages that are indecent or grossly offensive, threatening, or contain information which is false or believed to be false, if the purpose for sending it is to cause distress or anxiety.

People can view anything as anything; that doesn’t make it true. People can “view” something as deeply offensive when it isn’t, or when reasonable people would agree it isn’t, or when reasonable people would disagree over whether it is or isn’t, and so on. “Deeply offensive” is an opinion word, and also an emotion pump. We’re supposed to feel an extra flush of anger because of the “deeply” – the offensiveness must be at the level of blasphemy or similar.

The reality is that many activists for transgender rights have made a lot of things “deeply offensive” by shouting about them for a long time without stopping. Sometimes when people do that it’s a good thing: slavery is “deeply offensive”; genocide is “deeply offensive”; white supremacy is “deeply offensive”; rape and sexual abuse are “deeply offensive.” But other times when people create a new category of “deeply offensive” it’s not a good thing. Whether and when and in what circumstances and for what reason someone “uses the wrong pronoun for a trans person” can vary, plus of course the claim that the pronoun is “wrong” is already debatable.

With all that, and more that one could say, it’s a little dubious to accept the claim that it in fact is “deeply offensive” to use a disfavored pronoun in a world where calling women cunts is laughed off.



You think he should just take that sitting down?

Mar 20th, 2019 12:39 pm | By

Now that’s funny – Kellyanne Conway is defending Trump’s insults aimed at George Conway.

Kellyanne Conway on Wednesday defended President Donald Trump’s attacks on her husband George Conway saying he’s “a counterpuncher” and asserting that the president is free to respond when he’s accused of having a mental illness.

“He left it alone for months out of respect for me,” Conway, a senior Trump aide, told POLITICO in a brief telephone interview. “But you think he shouldn’t respond when somebody, a non-medical professional, accuses him of having a mental disorder? You think he should just take that sitting down?”

Oh no, definitely not, he should definitely get on Twitter and call him Mister Wife’s Name and a loser and a husband from hell, as presidents so normally do. Definitely. The fact that you’re married to him is neither here nor there.

(By the way the expression is “take that lying down.”) (Maybe she’s nervous of using the word “lying” in connection with her boss.)



Alexander Pope, eat your heart out

Mar 20th, 2019 12:11 pm | By

New level achieved:



Some of the language was extraordinarily overheated

Mar 20th, 2019 11:42 am | By

Meanwhile in another part of the forest

The Open University was forced to cancel a conference on prison reform following threats from the transgender lobby, it has emerged.

Is there really such a thing as the transgender lobby? Not exactly, but there is a mandatory orthodoxy and a large group of people eager to enforce it, so maybe that’s an okay label for it.

The CCJS, an educational charity, has been accused of “transphobia” for its stance that transgender female prisoners should be incarcerated separately from female prisoners.

“The Open University faced quite significant pressure from transgender activists. They received a number of emails where some of the language was extraordinarily overheated,” a source told The Telegraph.

It’s odd that that’s what trans activists want to be known for – overheated language filled with threats and absurd claims. Maybe it’s inevitable when the core mandatory belief is so very…what to call it…counter-reality.

Last month, the CCJS released a statement on transgender prisoners which said that prison service has “a duty to provide fair, decent and respectful provision for trans prisoners”.

It went on: “Given the current state of the prison system, in the case of trans women prisoners, we consider that this can best be achieved through the provision of accommodation that is separate from female prisoners.”

But the lobby is adamant that female prisoners have to put up with that so that any male who says he is female can be Validated by the prison system.



An abnormal moral context

Mar 20th, 2019 11:13 am | By

Justin Weinberg at Daily Nous, part 2:

There did not appear to be many such calls to pull the interview, though. This is not to suggest that a certain number of such calls, itself, is sufficient reason to pull an interview, but it does speak, perhaps, to concerns editor and owner Andrew Gallix might have about the survival of his publication.

Besides the feedback on social media, four of the magazine’s editorial board members resigned in protest of the publication of the interview. [Update: they are Eley Williams, David Winters, Hestia Peppe, and Joanna Walsh; for those curious, none of the four is an academic philosopher.]

So four members of the editorial board resigned in protest of the not-silencing of Holly Lawford-Smith.

It would be a significant loss to the philosophical community if this led to the end of Marshall’s interview series, which has included philosophically substantive conversations with an incredibly wide range of philosophers. Marshall has been with 3:AM for 19 of its 20 years in existence. In an email, he writes that he has had “absolute freedom” to conduct and edit his interviews as he sees fit and won’t continue “if I can’t guarantee that when I publish it it will remain published no matter what the response.”

It’s interesting that he had that freedom for 19 years and lost it over this.

Someone (I’m sorry I’ve forgotten who, or where)* recently borrowed Cheshire Calhoun‘s idea of an “abnormal moral context” to characterize the current public understanding of various matters related to transgender persons. In her essay, “Moral Failure,” Calhoun describes an abnormal moral context as one in which “some segment of a society produces advances in moral knowledge that outrun the social mechanisms for disseminating and normalizing that knowledge in the society as a whole.” In these circumstances, there is a gap between “what from a (presumably) advantaged epistemic position is viewed as the right thing to do” and what everyone else thinks. “The gap, of course, will be obvious only to those who take themselves to be reasoning from a more advanced, socially critical point of view.” Those who act on this “more advanced” view Calhoun calls “moral resisters.”

Of course. We know that. It’s Owen Jones constantly saying we’re “on the wrong side of history.” There’s a pattern, which we’ve noticed many times: people tend to be morally blind to a lot of stuff they should see. John Stuart Mill was considered loony for writing The Subjection of Women. Abolitionists were considered dangerously loony by almost everyone. Post-abolition racism and legalized slavery (vagrancy laws and the like) were taken for granted. Lesbians and gays were considered freaks. But, you know…both can be true. We can be morally blind until a new generation of radicals takes our blinders off, and some new generations of radicals can be just wrong (anti-vaxxers, recovered memory apostles, Goop fans). Trans ideology could be the latest form of awakening, or it could be the latest blind alley of bullshit and magical thinking.

JW isn’t allowing comments on that post.