Showing posts with label PC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PC. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

You Have to Read This Letter

  New York father pulls his daughter out of Brearley with a message to the whole school. Is the dam starting to break?

I was planning to publish a roundup today of the many thoughtful responses to Paul Rossi’s essay. I’m going to save that post for Sunday, because I was just sent this letter that has my jaw on the floor. It was written by a Brearley parent named Andrew Gutmann.

If you don’t know about Brearley, it’s a private all-girls school on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It costs $54,000 a year and prospective families apparently have to take an “anti-racism pledge” to be considered for admission. (In the course of my reporting for this piece I spoke to a few Brearley parents.)

Gutmann chose to pull his daughter, who has been in the school since kindergarten, and sent this missive to all 600 or so families in the school earlier this week. Among the lines:

If Brearley’s administration was truly concerned about so-called “equity,” it would be discussing the cessation of admissions preferences for legacies, siblings, and those families with especially deep pockets. If the administration was genuinely serious about “diversity,” it would not insist on the indoctrination of its students, and their families, to a single mindset, most reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

I’m pasting the whole thing below.

Read More: If you hate bullshit, you'll surely enjoy it

(with thanks to the Maverick Philosopher)

Related:

DM: 'This is not a rich person issue, this is not a NYC issue, this is an American issue': Parent and teacher who spoke out against 'woke' antiracist doctrine in their expensive NY private schools warn it is infecting all US schools


Wednesday, September 4, 2019

How Britain's Friendly Police Constable, or PC, Has Become the Neighborhood Twitter Spy and PC Oppressor of Free Speech

Daily Mail, February February 9, 2019: A mother was arrested in front of her children and locked up for seven hours after referring to a transgender woman as a man online.

Three officers detained Kate Scottow at her home before quizzing her at a police station about an argument with an activist on Twitter ...

The 38-year-old, from Hitchin, Hertfordshire, had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken and remains under investigation.

More than two months after her arrest on December 1, she has had neither her mobile phone [n]or laptop returned, which she says is hampering her studies for a Masters in forensic psychology.

Three officers detained Kate Scottow, 38, of Hitchin, Hertfordshire, at her home before questioning her at a police station on Dec. 1 over a Twitter exchange with transgender activist Stephanie Hayden ...

Writing on online forum Mumsnet, Mrs Scottow – who has also been served with a court order that bans her from referring to her accuser as a man – claimed: 'I was arrested in my home by three officers, with my autistic ten-year-old daughter and breastfed 20-month-old son present.

'I was then detained for seven hours in a cell with no sanitary products (which I said I needed) before being interviewed then later released under investigation ... I was arrested for harassment and malicious communications because I called someone out and misgendered them on Twitter.'

Read more
...served with a court order that bans her from referring to her accuser as a man...

What if her accuser had a Y chromosome and a penis? Would it still be a criminal offense to call him (her? it?) a man?

The Brits used to say:
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me
Now, apparently, free speech is not a virtue and your friendly local PC sees it as a prime function to oppress users of un-PC speech. [Does anyone still deny that Political Correctness is the new religion of the West?]

I suppose that makes sense in a practical way. Unlike dealing with knife criminals or acid throwers, you're unlikely to lose blood or eyesight arresting a word criminal.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Damn Fool Atheists

Atheists pride themselves on their rationality. Most claim that God has been debunked by science and, in particular, by Darwin's theory of evolution. There is no need for a creator, they say, mankind was not created, humanity simply emerged from the slime by the process of natural selection among random variants of earlier life forms.

And if you ask these rationalists where the primeval slime came from they tell you it arose through the chemical and physical processes that in the course of billions of years shaped the earth, its climate and oceans.

And if you ask them where the earth came from they tell you it arose through evolutionary processes in the galaxy, involving star formation and supernova explosions and stellar nucleosynthesis and other events occurring over the 14 billion years since the birth of the universe in the Big Bang.

And if you ask them who set off the Big Bang, they tell you it was the result of a quantum fluctuation in the vacuum.

And if you ask them who created the vacuum and who wrote the rules that caused this Mother-of-All quantum fluctuations to occur in said vacuum they tell you, um, well, we've not yet worked that out, but obviously it wasn't a being in the form of a man with a gray beard, who set the thing going solely for the purpose of creating Planet Earth and its residents amazingly evolved in the image of the Creator.

So the atheist boasting of their scientific rationality and their evolutionism can tell you nothing whatever about the ultimate origins of the World or, therefore, of humanity. Or as Stephen Hawking wrote in a moment of candor about the physicists' Holy Grail, "the theory of everything," we don't know what it is "that breathes fire into the equations" or why "the universe goes to all the bother of existing."

Which means that for all their scientism, the atheists have no more idea than anyone else about why the universe, or hence humanity, exists. In reality, therefore, the position of the atheists is simply this: they reject as meaningless and worthless rubbish the Bible, the Koran and the Gitas and other Holy writings of the World's religious faiths because they are not founded on science, which as we've just established, has nothing to say about the creation of the world.

But there's no reason for intellectual conceit in rejecting the truth of the Holy books. Obviously, as a literal account of the origin of the World, Genesis is bunk. Equally, as the portrait of an omniscient and benevolent creator, the Old Testament fails totally. On any objective reading of the Bible, Yahweh is a vain, ignorant, sadistic racist. But so what? Who's claiming the Bible represents historical truth, or the morality of America's new religion of Political Correctness? Well some ignorant people exploited by television evangelists may believe the former, and some crackpot liberal Christians, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, may try to believe the latter. But any half educated person or reasonable intelligence knows that Holy scripture is neither history nor an old fashioned version of political correctness. Rather, it is a collection of myths, rules of conduct, songs, poetry and words of wisdom that promote group survival and facilitate collaboration among strangers within a faith community. The great religions embody the codes of conduct that created the moral framework within which the World's great civilizations have survived over the course of the last several thousand years.

But atheists, apparently, cannot tolerate the telling of myths, or they hate moral rules, or they have no ear for poetry, or they loath to hear words of wisdom from a former time. More seriously, they fail to grasp, or they seek to deny, that religious narratives are neither historical nor scientific, but simply part of a vital mechanism of social organization. Anti-religious atheism is thus based on the failure to understand two fundamental features of human society; namely, the universality of religious belief, and the necessity of religion as the basis of a society-wide ethical code upon which the prosperity and the survival of a human community depends.

The universality of religion arises from the human propensity to endow moral rules with great emotional significance. This propensity is undoubtedly the result of Darwinian selection. Groups unable to uphold a system of moral rules were wiped out by better adapted groups, which is to say groups more susceptible to religious faith. By exploiting the human susceptibility to religious faith and the moral rules that religion embodies, the institutions of religion imbue all members of a society with the same moral values. It is the sharing of a moral code that ensures social cohesion and provides a basis for collaboration among strangers, rather than merely among immediate relatives and acquaintances as in the pre-civilizational mode of human existence. The importance of myths, music, poetry, prayer, fasting, etc. is that they add to the emotional significance of the moral code that the faith imbues.

In their contribution to the well-being of society, not all religions are equal. Many have failed, their adherents destroyed or converted to other faiths by groups with better religious institutions. Moreover, there is nothing universal about the myths and rituals of religion. God is not necessary to religion as the Communists demonstrated following the Russian revolution. Instead, as in Ancient Rome, people may be expected to worship an all powerful human ruler, a Caligula, a Stalin, or an Obama. In general, however, godless religions serve their adherents poorly. Rome under the divine-emperors became decadent and fell to the barbarians; Communism became decadent and fell to the Americans; and today, the American empire and its vassal states, which in accordance with the godless and supposedly rational religion of Political Correctness are committed to the destruction of their own peoples and cultures through the suppression of reproduction of the native population, the mass killing of the unborn, combined with the promotion of immigration of more fertile aliens of a different race and religion, are both decadent and apparently on the brink of implosion.

So, of course, God, as portrayed in Holy scripture of this or that religious faith, does not exist. But the myth of God the lawgiver still exists for the majority of the World’s population. Moreover it will be those of the more robust, god-fearing religious faiths who will inherit the earth, not the damn fool atheists and their brainwashed politically correct followers who take pride in destroying the religious faith of their own community.