| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:26:52 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 176,483 |
The vice-chancellor of Oxford University, Professor Irene Tracey, has
been giving some gloriously counterintuitive advice recently on how to >safeguard free speech in academia. On Tuesday, she claimed that teaching
the ethos of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) agoes hand in hand
with our commitment to academic freedom and free speech.A Yet diversity >training always has the opposite effect. The only things students
inducted into the race-obsessed, hyper-liberal doctrine of EDI are
likely to learn is what words not to say and what opinions not to air in >order to avoid ostracism, censure or cancellation
The next day, speaking at an academic summit in Saudi Arabia, Professor >Tracey continued in a similar vein. aWords matter and have an effect on >people,A she said, adding that akindness, courtesy and respect are
things we have to remind and educate our students aboutA. These
sentiments, suggestive of another woke canon u that words are
all-powerful u points to a further paradox: thereAs no easier way to
silence others than by making an appeal to akindnessA.
This has always been the crafty, winning tactic of hyper-liberalism: it >protests that itAs simply being nice. ItAs merely about agood mannersA, >abeing kindA, protecting the defenceless from discriminatory actions and >hurtful words. How could anyone disagree that ablack lives matterA? What >have you possibly got against aequityA? Only a hateful bigot or aphobeA >could oppose the right for transexuals to live as they please.
Yet akindnessA is the velvet glove covering the iron fist of >hyper-liberalism, a fundamentally intolerant, bullying and dictatorial >creed. Over the past decade the obligation for akindnessA and imperative
for acompassionA have invariably been the pretexts for censorship and >cancellation. aBeing kindA is the excuse needed to muzzle those who say >ahurtfulA or aoffensiveA things.
The tyranny of kindness has slinked its way into our society, laws and
our collective mindset. The evidence can be gleaned from the headlines >almost on a daily basis. Only yesterday, Southwark Crown Court
overturned the conviction of Hamit Coskun, a campaigning atheist, for >burning a Koran earlier this year. His original conviction had its >foundation in the opinion, now widely accepted, that being unkind is >unacceptable. But as Justice Bennathan reminded us yesterday: aBurning a >Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and >offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to
avoid people being upset, even grievously upset.A
Elsewhere, last Sunday we read that Portsmouth University has placed a >trigger warning on editions of Ian FlemingAs novel Dr No, because James
Bond novels contain aracism, misogyny and xenophobiaA. Indeed,
literature is particularly susceptible to the tyranny of kindness. That >newish phenomenon in publishing of the asensitivity readerA embodies >perfectly the intimate link between compassion and censorship, of caring
for peopleAs feelings and dictating what theyAre allowed to say. The
type of people who attach trigger warning to books u or have them >bowdlerised u are the same types who would like to codify
aIslamophobiaA. They have identical motives: to protect minorities from >nasty words and hurt feelings.
Despite its avowed good intentions from the start, the autocratic nature
of wokery doesnAt represent a perversion. Hyper-liberalism hasnAt
deviated from its atrue pathA. ItAs always sought to engineer and
enforce equality of outcome for minorities and presumed victims; thatAs
what it really means by aequityA. This necessarily entails the
penalisation of those not belonging to its intersectional spectrum of
the oppressed: whites, males and heterosexuals. ThatAs why most diktats
that reach us today, from the law courts to the universities, are aimed
at this demographic. EDI policies imposed in the workplace disadvantage
the same people.
Reasonable sounding pleas for adecencyA and akindnessA often mask
ulterior motives and entail invidious outcomes. That other
innocent-sounding watchword, ainclusivityA, is but one more misnomer
that conceals its opposite intent: to exclude certain demographics from
the public sphere, to exclude certain words and political beliefs from
the public domain.
Those who cry that society must be protected from impure thoughts and >upsetting ideas have always endorsed censorship. Even todayAs mainstream >progressives are less queasy about silencing dissenting voices. As
research carried out this week by the pollsters Electoral Calculus and
Find Out Now, 55 per cent of the lecturing class (teachers, academics
and culture workers) said that freedom of speech was often used to hurt >minorities and damage society, compared with 39 of the public in
general. Many progressives today routinely dismiss free speech is a
aright wingA cause.
We should have learnt by now to beware those who call for akinder,
gentler politicsA, as Jeremy Corbyn did with those words at the 2015
Labour Conference. Not coincidentally, his tenure saw a surge in >anti-Semitism in the British left. The reason is simple. Those who
believe they have good on their side have a licence to behave as they like.
Patrick West--
The vice-chancellor of Oxford University, Professor Irene Tracey, has
been giving some gloriously counterintuitive advice recently on how to safeguard free speech in academia. On Tuesday, she claimed that teaching
the ethos of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) rCygoes hand in hand
with our commitment to academic freedom and free speech.rCO Yet diversity training always has the opposite effect. The only things students
inducted into the race-obsessed, hyper-liberal doctrine of EDI are
likely to learn is what words not to say and what opinions not to air in order to avoid ostracism, censure or cancellation
The next day, speaking at an academic summit in Saudi Arabia, Professor Tracey continued in a similar vein. rCyWords matter and have an effect on people,rCO she said, adding that rCykindness, courtesy and respect are things we have to remind and educate our students aboutrCO. These sentiments, suggestive of another woke canon rCo that words are all- powerful rCo points to a further paradox: thererCOs no easier way to silence others than by making an appeal to rCykindnessrCO.
This has always been the crafty, winning tactic of hyper-liberalism: it protests that itrCOs simply being nice. ItrCOs merely about rCygood mannersrCO,
rCybeing kindrCO, protecting the defenceless from discriminatory actions and hurtful words. How could anyone disagree that rCyblack lives matterrCO? What have you possibly got against rCyequityrCO? Only a hateful bigot or rCyphoberCO
could oppose the right for transexuals to live as they please.
Yet rCykindnessrCO is the velvet glove covering the iron fist of hyper- liberalism, a fundamentally intolerant, bullying and dictatorial creed.
Over the past decade the obligation for rCykindnessrCO and imperative for rCycompassionrCO have invariably been the pretexts for censorship and cancellation. rCyBeing kindrCO is the excuse needed to muzzle those who say rCyhurtfulrCO or rCyoffensiverCO things.
The tyranny of kindness has slinked its way into our society, laws and
our collective mindset. The evidence can be gleaned from the headlines almost on a daily basis. Only yesterday, Southwark Crown Court
overturned the conviction of Hamit Coskun, a campaigning atheist, for burning a Koran earlier this year. His original conviction had its foundation in the opinion, now widely accepted, that being unkind is unacceptable. But as Justice Bennathan reminded us yesterday: rCyBurning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to
avoid people being upset, even grievously upset.rCO
Elsewhere, last Sunday we read that Portsmouth University has placed a trigger warning on editions of Ian FlemingrCOs novel Dr No, because James Bond novels contain rCyracism, misogyny and xenophobiarCO. Indeed, literature is particularly susceptible to the tyranny of kindness. That newish phenomenon in publishing of the rCysensitivity readerrCO embodies perfectly the intimate link between compassion and censorship, of caring
for peoplerCOs feelings and dictating what theyrCOre allowed to say. The type of people who attach trigger warning to books rCo or have them bowdlerised rCo are the same types who would like to codify rCyIslamophobiarCO. They have identical motives: to protect minorities from nasty words and hurt feelings.
Despite its avowed good intentions from the start, the autocratic nature
of wokery doesnrCOt represent a perversion. Hyper-liberalism hasnrCOt deviated from its rCytrue pathrCO. ItrCOs always sought to engineer and enforce equality of outcome for minorities and presumed victims; thatrCOs what it really means by rCyequityrCO. This necessarily entails the penalisation of those not belonging to its intersectional spectrum of
the oppressed: whites, males and heterosexuals. ThatrCOs why most diktats that reach us today, from the law courts to the universities, are aimed
at this demographic. EDI policies imposed in the workplace disadvantage
the same people.
Reasonable sounding pleas for rCydecencyrCO and rCykindnessrCO often mask ulterior motives and entail invidious outcomes. That other innocent- sounding watchword, rCyinclusivityrCO, is but one more misnomer that conceals its opposite intent: to exclude certain demographics from the public sphere, to exclude certain words and political beliefs from the public domain.
Those who cry that society must be protected from impure thoughts and upsetting ideas have always endorsed censorship. Even todayrCOs mainstream progressives are less queasy about silencing dissenting voices. As
research carried out this week by the pollsters Electoral Calculus and
Find Out Now, 55 per cent of the lecturing class (teachers, academics
and culture workers) said that freedom of speech was often used to hurt minorities and damage society, compared with 39 of the public in
general. Many progressives today routinely dismiss free speech is a
rCyright wingrCO cause.
We should have learnt by now to beware those who call for rCykinder,
gentler politicsrCO, as Jeremy Corbyn did with those words at the 2015 Labour Conference. Not coincidentally, his tenure saw a surge in anti- Semitism in the British left. The reason is simple. Those who believe
they have good on their side have a licence to behave as they like.
Patrick West
On 10/11/2025 10:10 AM, Julian wrote:
The vice-chancellor of Oxford University, Professor Irene Tracey, has
been giving some gloriously counterintuitive advice recently on how to
safeguard free speech in academia. On Tuesday, she claimed that teaching
the ethos of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) agoes hand in hand
with our commitment to academic freedom and free speech.A Yet diversity
training always has the opposite effect. The only things students
inducted into the race-obsessed, hyper-liberal doctrine of EDI are
likely to learn is what words not to say and what opinions not to air in
order to avoid ostracism, censure or cancellation
The next day, speaking at an academic summit in Saudi Arabia, Professor
Tracey continued in a similar vein. aWords matter and have an effect on
people,A she said, adding that akindness, courtesy and respect are
things we have to remind and educate our students aboutA. These
sentiments, suggestive of another woke canon u that words are all-
powerful u points to a further paradox: thereAs no easier way to silence
others than by making an appeal to akindnessA.
This has always been the crafty, winning tactic of hyper-liberalism: it
protests that itAs simply being nice. ItAs merely about agood mannersA,
abeing kindA, protecting the defenceless from discriminatory actions and
hurtful words. How could anyone disagree that ablack lives matterA? What
have you possibly got against aequityA? Only a hateful bigot or aphobeA
could oppose the right for transexuals to live as they please.
Yet akindnessA is the velvet glove covering the iron fist of hyper-
liberalism, a fundamentally intolerant, bullying and dictatorial creed.
Over the past decade the obligation for akindnessA and imperative for
acompassionA have invariably been the pretexts for censorship and
cancellation. aBeing kindA is the excuse needed to muzzle those who say
ahurtfulA or aoffensiveA things.
The tyranny of kindness has slinked its way into our society, laws and
our collective mindset. The evidence can be gleaned from the headlines
almost on a daily basis. Only yesterday, Southwark Crown Court
overturned the conviction of Hamit Coskun, a campaigning atheist, for
burning a Koran earlier this year. His original conviction had its
foundation in the opinion, now widely accepted, that being unkind is
unacceptable. But as Justice Bennathan reminded us yesterday: aBurning a
Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and
offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to
avoid people being upset, even grievously upset.A
Elsewhere, last Sunday we read that Portsmouth University has placed a
trigger warning on editions of Ian FlemingAs novel Dr No, because James
Bond novels contain aracism, misogyny and xenophobiaA. Indeed,
literature is particularly susceptible to the tyranny of kindness. That
newish phenomenon in publishing of the asensitivity readerA embodies
perfectly the intimate link between compassion and censorship, of caring
for peopleAs feelings and dictating what theyAre allowed to say. The
type of people who attach trigger warning to books u or have them
bowdlerised u are the same types who would like to codify
aIslamophobiaA. They have identical motives: to protect minorities from
nasty words and hurt feelings.
Despite its avowed good intentions from the start, the autocratic nature
of wokery doesnAt represent a perversion. Hyper-liberalism hasnAt
deviated from its atrue pathA. ItAs always sought to engineer and
enforce equality of outcome for minorities and presumed victims; thatAs
what it really means by aequityA. This necessarily entails the
penalisation of those not belonging to its intersectional spectrum of
the oppressed: whites, males and heterosexuals. ThatAs why most diktats
that reach us today, from the law courts to the universities, are aimed
at this demographic. EDI policies imposed in the workplace disadvantage
the same people.
Reasonable sounding pleas for adecencyA and akindnessA often mask
ulterior motives and entail invidious outcomes. That other innocent-
sounding watchword, ainclusivityA, is but one more misnomer that
conceals its opposite intent: to exclude certain demographics from the
public sphere, to exclude certain words and political beliefs from the
public domain.
Those who cry that society must be protected from impure thoughts and
upsetting ideas have always endorsed censorship. Even todayAs mainstream
progressives are less queasy about silencing dissenting voices. As
research carried out this week by the pollsters Electoral Calculus and
Find Out Now, 55 per cent of the lecturing class (teachers, academics
and culture workers) said that freedom of speech was often used to hurt
minorities and damage society, compared with 39 of the public in
general. Many progressives today routinely dismiss free speech is a
aright wingA cause.
We should have learnt by now to beware those who call for akinder,
gentler politicsA, as Jeremy Corbyn did with those words at the 2015
Labour Conference. Not coincidentally, his tenure saw a surge in anti-
Semitism in the British left. The reason is simple. Those who believe
they have good on their side have a licence to behave as they like.
Patrick West
The vanguard for our gay race communism are the pearl clutching nannies.