Coleman Hughes Reacts to CNN’s Meltdown over Joe Rogan’s Mention of the N-Word

There is no evidence that Joe Rogan has ever used the N-Word as a racial slur. He has discussed the word and joked about the word, but there is no evidence he has ever used the word as a racial epithet.

CNN hires writers who refuse to acknowledge the use/mention distinction. It's a very bad thing to use the N-Word as a racial slur. There are valid and admirable reasons for mentioning the full N-Word. For instance, professors should be admired for mentioning the N-Word when teaching the brutal and despicable history of American slavery. Or when discussing language or culture. CNN must certainly understand this distinction between using a word and mentioning it, but acknowledging this very basic thing doesn't fit CNN's mission: dismantling Joe Rogan's big audience by pandering to CNN's increasingly woke but numerically dwindling audience. Many have suggested that CNN is doing this out of jealousy, given CNN's paltry audience numbers.

Or maybe CNN finds it much easier to attack Rogan for something trivial than to do the hard work of reporting real news, something CNN used to do.

Here's Coleman's tweet. I agree entirely with this sentiment and I enjoyed the entire thread of comments. Use of the N-Word as a racial slur is (and should be) socially and morally abhorrent. Mentioning the N-Word where it is not being hurled as a slur should not a big deal, but it is a big deal to those who believe in religious taboos. CNN apparently believes that the N-Word is like the word "V------." OK, I'll actually risk death by writing it out: Valdmort.

For an in-depth, riveting and enjoyable discussion of the use of the N-Word through U.S. history, consider reading linguist John McWhorter's excellent book, Nine Nasty Words (2021). Here is the description from Penguin's website:

One of the preeminent linguists of our time examines the realms of language that are considered shocking and taboo in order to understand what imbues curse words with such power–and why we love them so much.

Profanity has always been a deliciously vibrant part of our lexicon, an integral part of being human. In fact, our ability to curse comes from a different part of the brain than other parts of speech–the urgency with which we say “f&*k!” is instead related to the instinct that tells us to flee from danger.

Language evolves with time, and so does what we consider profane or unspeakable. Nine Nasty Words is a rollicking examination of profanity, explored from every angle: historical, sociological, political, linguistic. In a particularly coarse moment, when the public discourse is shaped in part by once-shocking words, nothing could be timelier.

BTW, I highly recommend the podcast of Coleman Hughes. He seems entirely too young to be as wise as he is on so many topics. Check him out!

Continue ReadingColeman Hughes Reacts to CNN’s Meltdown over Joe Rogan’s Mention of the N-Word

The Moment of Institutional Capture: ADL

Andrew Sullivan points out ADL's decision to take a reasonably clear and understandable definition of racism, replacing it with Woke mush that invites eternal confusion and strife:

I spotted Sullivan's tweet the day after Joe Biden promised that his nominee for the next Justice of the Supreme Court would be a black women. Hmmm. That's the equivalent of telling all highly qualified Asian-American, Latina-Americans and many other highly qualified potential candidates that they will categorically not be considered for this upcoming job opening because of their race, color . . . sex, or national origin.

Oh, one more thing. In this country it is

an unlawful employment practice for an employer -(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices. In my opinion, it would be a wonderful thing to have a black woman Justice on SCOTUS. That person should be appointed for only one reason, however: Because they would make an excellent judge. Their skin color is irrelevant to me and it should be irrelevant to any person filling any job in the United States.

It is sad and destructive that so many people in the U.S. are working so hard to roll back the clock to earlier destructive times when we should pay attention to a person's skin color. I look forward to the day when a person's skin color is arguably the least interesting thing about them.

Looking forward, it will be crystal clear that the person who gets Biden's appointment was chosen because she was a woman and because she was black. Colin Wright is spot on:

Continue ReadingThe Moment of Institutional Capture: ADL

Misdirected Vax Anger Loses Sight of Unmistakable Corporate Looting

Matt Taibbi points out that we are too busy arguing with each other about masks and vaccinations to notice major league corporate theft. His Substack article at TK is titled "Vaccine Aristocrats Strike Again: As yokel-bashing reaches impressive new heights, reports of yet another year of record profits and a widening wealth gap go unnoticed." Here's an excerpt:

[W]ithout constant drumbeats about the treacherous stupidity of anti-vaxxers and “domestic terrorists,” at whom would the bulk of Americans’ anger be directed now?

A good guess would be people like the Fed-fattened private equity takeover artists who were just reported to have swallowed a trillion dollars in companies last year. These are people who force conquered companies to issue reams of new debt to pay them bonuses (taking advantage of a massive public bond-buying program intended as emergency aid) while doing things like cutting shifts for E.R. doctors and nurses in the middle of a pandemic. Even grandfatherly billionaire Warren Buffett’s company Special Metals is currently asking 450 striking steelworkers to accept pay cuts and take on $725 more a month in health premiums, while Buffett himself just floated on our increasingly phony stock market to increase his personal wealth by $1.6 billion in a single day.

. . . “Banks so far have been using profits to invest in technology, pay bonuses and buy back their own stock,” the FT wrote. Meaning, the bulk of this new wealth — most fueled by roughly $5 trillion in Fed spending since the beginning of the pandemic — is being converted into compensation for a handful of executives. Buybacks have also been rampant in defense, pharmaceuticals, and oil & gas, all of which also just finished their second straight year of record, skyrocketing profits. We’re now up to about 745 billionaires in the U.S., who’ve collectively seen their net worth grow about $2.1 trillion to $5 trillion since March 2020, with almost all that wealth increase tied to the Fed’s ballooning balance sheet.

Continue ReadingMisdirected Vax Anger Loses Sight of Unmistakable Corporate Looting

John McWhorter: Beware “Anti-Racism” Programs that do not Diminish Racism

John McWhorter urges all of us to do real work instead following the suggestions of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram Kendi to lower standards, which has the effect of infantilizing those who have fallen behind. Just because someone calls a program "anti-racism" does not mean that it actually helps to eliminate racism.

The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding and humanity. McWhorter is one of the many dedicated people serving on the FAIR Board of Advisors.

Continue ReadingJohn McWhorter: Beware “Anti-Racism” Programs that do not Diminish Racism

Professor Sheena Mason: Simultaneously Eliminate Racism and the Idea of Race

In the Journal of Free Black Thought, Professor Sheena Mason argues that the only way to do away with racism is to do away with the concept of race. Here's an excerpt:

Theory of Racelessness, in contrast to traditional antiracism, operates from a metaphysically skeptical and normatively eliminativist position. Thus, it constitutes a true antirace(ism) by seeking to undo not only racism but also “race.” It holds that “race” does not exist except insofar as it is imagined to exist, and that, therefore, the sooner we stop imagining it in our language and discourse, the sooner it will vanish. In eliminating “race,” the Theory of Racelessness helps people recognize and imagine themselves outside of race(ism). It enables people to see themselves and others more clearly, without the distorting filter of “race.” In this way, the theory also helps people become more astute at recognizing and solving race(ism). Importantly, the theory’s core is bringing our shared humanity to the forefront in ways that the divisive presence or insertion of “race” ideology precludes. Together, we can do anything, including uphold race(ism). But we can also reconcile, heal, resolve, and eliminate the problem, too.

Mason's Biography includes the following:

Sheena Mason is assistant professor of English at SUNY Oneonta. Her forthcoming book, Decolonizing the Raci(al/st) Imagination in Literary Studies: An Interrogation and Critique of Antiracist Discourse (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), presents a skeptical eliminativist philosophy of race and racism that results in her signature “theory of racelessness.” The book argues that African-American writers across time have created art that resists racism through their resistance to and rejection of race. Theory of Racelessness is Prof. Mason’s educational consulting business. With the rise of antiracist discourse and initiatives, many organizations unintentionally promote racist ideas and miss opportunities to identify and celebrate genuine diversity of thought over perceived variety, based mainly on phenotype and social constructions (i.e., concepts of race).

I like this approach. I have often expressed the idea that our approach to "racism" should be twofold. "Race" itself is a destructive idea, an often well-intended miscategorization of people that assumes that people can be accurately judged (as to things like character, intelligence, education, moral character) by their looks.This means that the concept of "race" has no more validity than astrology. You cannot judge anyone's character by immutable characteristics like phenotype or birthdate. Skin doesn't think. On the other hand, many people we need to vigorously fight those who do want to judge others by immutable characteristics. We need to vigorously confront these people in the public square. Whenever someone is harmed by others' willingness to engage in racecraft, we need to be especially vocal, resorting to the court system to oppose any discrimination based on "race." We need to ostracize anyone disparaging anyone else based on looks, even if done with allegedly good intentions.

As Sam Harris has suggested, we should be working toward a world where "race" is the least interesting thing about another person.

Continue ReadingProfessor Sheena Mason: Simultaneously Eliminate Racism and the Idea of Race