A bit ago five Black police officers beat a Black man, Tyre Nichols, to death during what may be a unwarranted traffic stop. The five officers involved were all hired under the new, lower standards program that allows for even felons of color (FoC) to join law enforcement.
But, of course, the screeds from the Blacks and #Woke enablers went immediately to “Systemic Racism” and “White Supremacy.” And that in spite of the fact – or because of it – that the body cam video shows what looks far more like gang-style violence than police brutality.
But hey! They found a White scapegoat – Officer Preston Hemphill, who was present at the initial contact with Nichols, but not present or involved in the later, eventually fatal beating of Nichols. So now these Blacks and the enablers are going after Officer Hemphill and the Memphis PD for “shielding him” 🙄
Then, this is all to be expected. When a Black dies in police custody, they always go with the White Supremacy Narrative. It’s the singularly best way for them to get attention, weaken law enforcement, and get a bigger payout from their lawsuits.
This is a sadly apt visualization of Democrats’ Police Reform, especially in regards to the endemic intersectionality of Black males and violent crime. In the name of #Equity, this is how Democrats expect law enforcement to treat Black violent offenders. After all, like everything else done under the warbanner of Equity, the only only way to get the results – and the Blacks’ votes – Democrats want it to not enforce laws or standards upon Blacks.
Stamford’s Attempted Elimination of “Harmful” Language Initiative Or Liberal Newspeak For A Degenerate Era
Stanford University’s IT department in collusion with the local activist group, People of Color in Technology (POC-IT) have created and published a list of terms and phrases that they’ve deemed offensive accompanied by alternative recommendations to be now used in all Stamford University IT publication and discourses. It’s part of the university’s new Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI), a multi-phase, multi-year project to reshape language and idiom in IT at Stanford in order to meet new #Wokespeak standards.
I’ve included the actual document in this post because people “picked on” Stamford so much that they no longer make it publicly available for download and perusal.
The list itself is divided into 10 sections: ableist, ageism, colonialism, culturally appropriative, gender-based, imprecise language, institutionalized racism, person-first, violent, and additional considerations. Each one seems to go farther afield and farther down the rabbit hole of #Woke insanity.
But, I’ll let the folks at Stamford’s own student newspaper, The Stamford Review provide a better preface to this:
Stanford’s IT department recently launched its Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, created by the Stanford CIO Council (CIOC) and People of Color in Technology (POC-IT). Stanford IT took a stab at putting together a master list of ‘harmful terms’ and suggested alternative phrases to use instead. Ironically, according to the guide, POC-IT should change its name, as people of color (used generically) is “imprecise language.” We at the Review are ballsy, therefore we’ve committed numerous violations of the ‘harmful language standard’ throughout the text — they are all bolded to show that we know the new rules, but choose to ignore them.
Really, go read the article in its entirety! It’s a no holds barred, snarkilicious send-up of this idiocy and self-unaware insanity promulgated and seen to be enforced by the university’s administration. The ladies and gentlemen of the Review have done a laudable job of lampooning this attempt at newspeak.
But, While Laughable, This Is Well-Crafted Thought Policing
Humor is a fine weapon, if not the most effective on, against misused authority. But, even while laughing at the fools, one must respect their capacity to commit great harm. That’s important in cases like thought policing and speech control, especially when the guidelines thereof are, as in Stamford’s case, well-crafted from an indoctrination and social engineer standpoint.
It’s important to note that 10 sections: ableist, ageism, colonialism, culturally appropriative, gender-based, imprecise language, institutionalized racism, person-first, violent, and additional considerations – mixes terms that have long fallen out of the vernacular, e.g., spaz, retard, and Pocahontas, with the more egregious attempts to craft newspeak. Additionally, it category seems to go further and for more “esoteric” reasons in restricting and rewiring speech.
That’s actually how you achieve this sort of thing. You mix the either no longer popular or accepted already as offensive phrases in with, preferably near the beginning, with the more radical ideas. It builds acceptance in the subject’s mind by linking a certain level of equivalency between points. And then, you incrementally accelerate the process, as POC-IT has done in this document section by section, each building upon the ones before.
And some of their choices and rationale thereof are stupid and show an intrinsic bias based upon their preferred “demographics.”
Black Hat, White Hat, Grey Hat
Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term; Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized; This term combines black hat and white hat, which both hold racial connotations.
Yeah, they just went with the colors involved – because Blacks are their preferred people and Whites are their preferred “oppressors.” Simple, easy, of far-reaching consequence… and ignorant and arguable racist. 😆
I mean, they could have gone with the the fact that Black Hat and White Hat both have their roots in the older American Westerns – movies which arguably romanticized our conquest of the West and eradication of the majority of the Amerindian Tribes. But they went with Black and White instead, which shows a specific bias and racial preference.
So too does those “esoteric” reasons as to why a world or phrase – e.g., rule of thumb – is to be deemed offensive and prohibited from use. It plays on the subject’s ignorance with the goal of them “realizing” that the word or phrase had at some point a dark history that the subject never knew about. This removes guilt from them for previous uses but instills guilt for future use and, given people egos, makes them more likely to call out others as much to show their knowledge of that bit of history as anything else.
But, since I brought it up, here’s a good example:
Rule Of Thumb
Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.
Actually, this phrase originated during the Medieval period’s explosion of construction of cathedrals and castles. All measurements were predicated directly or indirectly upon the length of one person on the site’s thumb. It later became part of normal vernacular because millers tested the fineness and consistency of the flour the ground by rubbing it between their fingers and thumb.
So, not only is their rationale undocumented, as they admit, if it was used as measure in men beating their wives, this is a later use of a long established measurement.
But, if you “inform” people that it is associated with state sanction wife beating, some of them will go, “Oh fuck! I never knew that,” stop using the phrase, and cheerfully show off their “knowledge” by castigating others for using it in their presence, thereby extending the reach of the indoctrination.
So, while extremely laughable and even more extremely worthy of being pilloried, Stamford’s Harmful Speech regulations are, in fact, dangerous and Americans need to keep that firmly in mind.
Yeah. Have a very green Christmas indeed. At remember, all you good folk, the Eco-Fascists of the Climate Change crap would be A-OK with this, just as their always A-OK with all the real deaths caused by their non-fossil fuel energy ideas. And, of course they are. They would never accept any solution to their proclaimed problem that didn’t harm the wealth, basic lifestyles, and health of Whites, especially White Americans.
This has never really been about lowering global temperatures. It’s always been about reducing the economies and populations of White nations for the sake of “Diversity” and “Social Justice.”
OK. So, it’s The View‘s co-host Sunny Hostin – a rabidly White-hating Blatino – who said it. Hence, it neither too surprising nor important. Yet, this is a level of insult and disdain that is both beyond the pale and just cause for retribution.
I read a poll just yesterday that White, Republican, suburban women are now going to vote Republican.
It’s almost like roaches voting for Raid.
They’re voting against their own self-interest. Do they want to live in Gilead? Do they want to live in The Handmaid’s Tail’?
Yes, that’s right. This Trigueño scag called our women cockroaches or, at least, strongly implied the comparison, most likely in response to a recent Wall Street Journal poll that showed that White, suburban women now favor the GOP by15 percentage points, which is a hefty 26-point upswing from August. She really seems to despite the simple fact that White women, who rarely kill their unborn children, are more concerned with the economy than the SCOTUS’ decision in Dobbs.
Sunny Hostin – born Asunción Cummings – is also seemingly totally unaware of her Black heritage and the intrinsic and unavoidable link between Blacks and cockroaches in America, their both being brought to our shores from Africa. Or maybe she is aware of this and is chortling over insulting our women even worse in her mind than most realize.
But, of course, aside from some useless ire on our part, nothing will likely come of this and no acts of just reprisal will be enacted upon Hostin by either her employers – who pay her to say things like this – or the People. Hostin’s view of our wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers will stand unchallenged in any meaningful and/or lasting manner.