ESPN pulls Asian-American announcer from Virginia football game because he has a Confederate general’s name
In the wake of the events in Charlottesville, Va., ESPN decided to pull one of its announcers from calling a University of Virginia football game — because his name is Robert Lee.
Lee, an Asian-American sportscaster who started with the network in 2016, was moved to a different game “simply because of the coincidence of his name,” ESPN said, referencing the Confederate general Robert E. Lee.
No. I am not kidding. Watch.
Yes, precisely. ESPN believes its audience is so inherently daft that it cannot possibly begin to readily differentiate between a young Asian sports commentator and a dead, old Confederate Army Caucasoid general with a beard and long hair.
If you think that’s wondrous — but wait. There’s more.
The American Media Maggots actually believed that on Tucker Carlson’s Monday show he was gravely serious when he said that President Trump looking at the sun during the solar eclipse was “perhaps the most impressive thing any president has ever done.” YGBFKM.
No. I am as deadly serious as the man in this video.
It’s a joke but it’s not a joke. No, it’s much more serious than that. Wait, it’s perhaps the most seriously insightful thing in months.
Nathan McDermott of CNN bit. Big time.
The UK’s Claire Phipps at the Guardian also chomped.
Binkowski is even more serious. This is her specific Tweet. Grok that.
At least the bald dude had a semblance of a clue, but not much. Wait until you see and hear the reactions of the American Media Maggots who were truly and nakedly beyond stupid. Who best to point out said stupidity but Tucker Carlson himself and Greg Gutfeld.
Just as the humorless Leftists have time and again proven themselves bereft of facts, much less compassion, they continue to subvert America hand-in-bloody-hand with the American Media Maggots, Antifa, anarchists and the willing complicity of Demorats.
I’ve said before and continue to say: “you can’t write this shite.”
Still, the Left-embracing American Media Maggots fundamentally cannot believe anyone would deign to possess the temerity to label them Fake News.
As they simultaneously bleed cash, readers, advertising and — Leftist journalistas themselves. I wonder why the AMM doesn’t dare to speak about the heinous, slashing cuts in newsrooms all across the fruited plain? And the fact that their ponderous corporations pay for shite?
Older man struck and injured by Antifa rioters in Berkeley, early 2017, for wearing a red baseball cap which read “make America great again.” Where would the American Media Maggots be if this were an older black man struck down during an “alt right” rally?
After the recent forcible and violent removal of various statues across the nation by elements of Antifa and aligned sympathizers — to include the City of Baltimore removing the Taney, Lee, Jackson and Confederate women’s statues in literally the dead of night . . .
. . . I and many others knew that we had to do what I term the Logical Extension: the waters will build to the point where one can only assume this will lead to the greater call for anything even remotely aligned with our Founding Fathers.
Just as President Trump suspected.
Because, after all, there was no blame on both sides. It was only the white supremacists who were fighting and becoming violent. Apparently they must have been fighting each other. To me, a startling revelation but good to know.
Tucker Carlson spoke about what I said on my radio shows this past Tuesday and Thursday. Where are we going?
Would it shock you to know that the bulk of America — 62% — doesn’t want anything done with Confederate monuments, as in “let them be?”
But, for Leftists, it’s just the beginning. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” As I said, the Charlottesville event is peripheral to their ultimate goals. Goals that at once are clear and foggy, simultaneously. Clear because we know where Leftists wish to go. Foggy because much of their rhetoric and hate-filled bombast is predicated upon everything but history.
As I also said and wrote directly following Charlottesville, yes, this is about racism but actually — only peripherally. This is but one step in a prior set of steps and a continuing series of steps by Leftists. It’s all pointing to a much larger issue involving — just as Barack Hussein Obama publicly stated he wished to do — the fundamental changing of America.
Leftists, Antifa and BLM members are cheering nationwide. Have no doubt.
This is direct reflection on the temper of the times and has been brewing the prior 8 years under Mr Obama, who both tacitly condoned and openly supported these eventualities. Would anyone dare to intimate that Mr Obama could not see the eventual results of his words writ large across the land? We’re suggesting he was that daft?
A condemnation of Cambridge Police “before all the facts are in” by Mr Obama as he and Professor Gates appear to “match.”
An equally biased support of Trayvon Martin before the case was in and prior to a verdict, in which George Zimmermann, not a Caucasoid but an Hispanic, was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. FDLE, DOJ and FBI cases were dropped for lack of evidence.
This is called a trend, one of many biased statements, identified as a pattern.
How would the press react if President Trump said, regarding a case involving a black police officer shooting a young white suspect, that “if I had another son, he’d look like ______”? There would be chaos for days if not weeks, aided and abetted by our favorite American Media Maggots.
I am certain, and you cannot convince me otherwise, that Mr Obama isn’t looking upon the events of the past two weeks or so and not applauding and smiling, calling like-minded friends and politicians, confident in knowing that what he set in motion, despite the loss of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is still in play to a growing extent.
Wait. So can eggs. Cow farts. A blue ringed octopus. Loose lug nuts. The cargo door from a 747. A bee. Bad spinach.
If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?
There you go. Speech is in fact violent. With that in mind, I wonder just what kinds of speech Leftists will consider violent because, after all, the author is quite the Leftist herself? Moreover, who will make these weighty decisions?
This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”
Ah, here we go. Safe spaces. Coloring books. Safety pins, trigger warnings and microaggressions. The only things truly required at universities any more are drool cups. And sippy cups.
The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.
Again: define “abusive.” In whose eyes? And who makes that ultimate determination?
What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.
Wait. Are these hateful words. Is this an advocacy of violence?
A history of violence? On whose side?
What of the loving and peaceful Diablo College professor Eric Clanton? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be actual violence committed by a Leftist on camera.
What does that sound like to you? Just a wee tinge of violent speech? Enough to nut up a snowflake? Not necessarily for, you see, it is all quite topic-dependent.
To me it sounds like the environment one customarily encounters on any given campus in the United States when any student, singly or in a group, begins speech which is conservative in nature. In this aspect Barrett makes a perfect point. But not the one she intended.
That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.
Let me unpack the obvious here, something few people point out. Milo is or isn’t anyone’s particular cup of tea. Frankly, I enjoy his willingness to display pushback right in the revered houses of “education” so unfailingly determined to restrict speech. But the reason debate isn’t generally acquired in a Milo campus presentation is because of two aspects: 1. He thinks on his feet with remarkable rapidity, and 2. He is quick to throw facts and situations back at the commenters and questioners in the audience. Leftists don’t operate in the sphere of facts but instead of emotions.
That was pretty emotional, I’d wager. Thanks, professor. Nice advocacy of violence.
By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.
Then Barrett encountered a problem. She appeared on the Tucker Carlson show.
Leftists are at least nothing if not consistent. They only deign to answer questions fitting their narrative. And certainly not the questions I posed as did Tucker: define abuse and tell me who becomes the ultimate determinant of same?
Leftists would resoundingly answer in unison to the one question: government should be the determinant by way of laws restricting speech. Damn that First Amendment.
Stop Telling Students Free Speech Is Traumatizing Them
by Jesse Singal
One fairly common idea that pops up again and again during the endless national conversation about college campuses, free speech, and political correctness is the notion that certain forms of speech do such psychological harm to students that administrators have an obligation to eradicate them — or, failing that, that students have an obligation to step in and do so themselves (as has happened during recent, high-profile episodes involving Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, which turned violent).
Agreed. Just ask snowflakes. I love that word. It’s so apropos.
So it’s weird, in light of all this, to see the claim that free speech on campus leads to serious psychological harm being taken seriously in the New York Times, and weirder still to see it argued in a manner draped in pseudoscience. Yet that’s what happened. In a Sunday Review column headlined “When Is Speech Violence?” Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, explains that “scientifically speaking,” the idea that physical violence is more harmful than emotional violence is an oversimplification. “Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.” Chronic stress can also shrink your telomeres, she writes — “little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes” — bringing you closer to death.
This is a weak and confused argument. Setting aside the fact that no one will ever be able to agree on what’s “abusive” versus what’s “merely offensive,” the articles Barrett links to are mostly about chronic stress — the stress elicited by, for example, spending one’s childhood in an impoverished environment of serious neglect and violence. Growing up in a dangerous neighborhood with a poor single mother who has to work so much she doesn’t have time to nurture you is not the same as being a college student at a campus where Yiannopoulos is coming to speak, and where you are free to ignore him or to protest his presence there.
Thank you. Finally, someone points out the Captain Obvious aspects of campus speech and pretty much speech everywhere.
And that’s this. You have two legs and at least something of a brain. You can decide to leave the room, turn off the television, stop reading, leave the website, put down the magazine, turn off the iPad, etc. Any number of logical adult decisions can be made. Logical. Adult. Decisions.
This is apparently a concept with which Leftists, snowflakes, raindrops and all makes and models of emos are stultifyingly unfamiliar.
Nowhere does Barrett fully explain how the presence on campus of a speaker like Yiannopoulos for a couple of hours is going to lead to students being afflicted with the sort of serious, chronic stress correlated with health difficulties. It’s simply disingenuous to compare the two types of situations — in a way, it’s an insult both to people who do deal with chronic stress and to student activists.
Thank you. Again more shocking clarity and honesty.
Now, it would be just as much of a stretch to say that a single column like Barrett’s could cause students to self-traumatize as it would be to say that an upcoming Yiannopoulos appearance could traumatize them. But in the aggregate, if you tell students over and over and over that certain variants of free speech — variants which are ugly, but which are aired every moment of every day on talk radio — are traumatizing them, it really could do harm.
Yes. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
And there’s no reason to go down this road, because there’s no evidence that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus is harming students in some deep psychological or physiological way (with the exception of outlying cases involving preexisting mental-health problems). This is a silly idea that should be retired from the conversation about free speech on campus.
From whom does trauma occur to others? Leftists.
From whom does violence on campus occur? Leftists.
Who cannot brook or tolerate opposing viewpoints, thoughts or exposition?
I, of course, will be commenting on the event that occurred last night at the Manchester, England concert of Ariana Grande which killed 22 and wounded at least 119 others.
Additionally, I will be featuring the East Coast Political Goddess, Kari Baxter Donovan, as a guest. She’ll be speaking on the Manchester event, as well as monuments, whiskey, the Indy 500 and belly-dancing. Eclectic, yes?
Don’t miss it, tonight, live, on the SHR Media Network. Click ON AIR to listen from the home page, and you can also log into chat and partake of the buttery give-and-take in the chat room.
Remember, tonight at 11 PM Eastern and 8 PM Pacific, the Bloviating Zeppelin’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon radio show, on the SHR Media Network!
My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.
This was BZ’s first night running the new SHR laptop, bristling as it does with a full 16 gigs of buttery RAM goodness and a nice sound card. Not particularly adept at technology (but better than Sack Heads Clint), BZ found himself challenged this night.
Tonight in the Saloon we discussed:
BZ has to deal with a new laptop, Windows 10, and trying to make Skype work;
BZ admits to being your basic Mark I, Model I Techno Luddite;
The studio is, oh joy, hot as hell once again;
Happy Stories: CCW holder in Texas kills man who murdered a bar employee;
Let’s larf our arses off at Leftists: revisiting liberal tears shed on November 9th;
President Trump signs religious liberty EO on the National Day of Prayer;
House passes AHCA by a squeaker; the good and bad of it all; 20 Republicans vote against it as did every Demorat;
Freedom Caucus member Tom Garrett voted for the ACHA; why would he?
Will the GOP ACHA screw over employer healthcare accounts?
Mike Pasqua and I talk comic books; who is better? DC or Marvel? Marvel, of course;
James Comey: “Lordy, that would be really bad;” we need to REMOVE James Comey;
I instigate official BZ Overtime in order to make my quite necessary point;
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin(on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast. My apologies for not monitoring the chatroom because the second screen wasn’t working yet; it will next week.
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here.