Censorship

Facebook’s “Review Board” has decided that Facebook should continue censoring former President Donald Trump (R). They also issued some pap about how Facebook wasn’t clear enough about why, or for how long the censoring should occur, but the bottom line is—keep on keepin’ on censoring.

This is Mark Zuckerberg continuing his censorship of those political figures of whom he disapproves. (The putative independence of Facebook’s review board from Facebook is an irrelevancy, since Facebook has a controlling role in appointing board members.)

This, also, is another example of why the big tech companies, of which Facebook is a canonical example, need to be disassembled and the separated pieces regulated as utilities or as public accommodations.

Apologizing to Bigots

A game show contestant won his contest last week. It was his third win in a row on that game show, and he bragged on it a little bit by flashing three fingers against his chest with his thumb and index finger forming a circle.

The Left has their collective panties twisted tightly. Flashing three fingers, they scream, isn’t a brag about winning three times. It isn’t even the standard “OK” sign that folks everywhere have used since forever.

No, it’s a White Supremacist sign. At least in their fetid, closed minds.

Worse, the winner wasn’t sufficiently contrite in response to the hysterical Left’s initial outcry.

“Most problematic to us as a contestant community,” they wrote, “is the fact that Kelly has not publicly apologized for the ramifications of the gesture he made.”

No, most problematic for the “contestant community” is the rank racist bigotry infesting that so-called community as they try so zealously to substitute their Newspeak dictionary for the standard dictionaries of honest Americans.

The response to the contestant’s abject apology, too, demonstrates that we cannot ever apologize to bigots; that only rewards them and eggs them on.

Apologizing to such as these actually is worse than useless—we can only counteract their bigoted assaults more forcefully than the attack.

The WSJ‘s final sentence in that editorial is spot on.

He has earned every penny, not least for giving a whole new meaning to Double Jeopardy.

Sexism of the Left

It’s written all across New York City politics, explicitly so in the contest for mayor.

Andrew Yang is running for the Progressive-Democratic Party nomination for mayor. So is Eric Adams. And so is Kathryn Garcia. Both of the first two have said they’d be glad to have the third as their Deputy Mayor should one of those two win the general election for mayor.

Oh, the hue and cry from Garcia. So desperate is she to make a name for herself (she’s down in the weeds, polling at 5% as of last Friday, while Yang and Adams are at 22% and 17% respectively, and five more candidates are between 11% and 7%) during her own campaign, she has chosen to manufacture a sexist beef out of the other two’s willingness to recognize, and to let New York City benefit from, her talents. She cries,

It’s totally sexist. Totally sexist.

And

Are you not strong enough to actually do this job, without me helping you? You should be strong enough. You shouldn’t need me[.]

It’s true enough that a New York City mayor doesn’t need Garcia in particular in the Deputy’s slot. NYC does, though, need a Deputy Mayor.

Yang says through “a rep” that he

has enormous respect for Kathryn Garcia and that’s why he’s often said he’d seek her partnership at city hall if elected mayor.

It could be that Yang is blowing smoke with his complimentary remarks about Garcia. It could be, too, that he’s entirely sincere.

It’s instructive that Garcia has chosen the one interpretation of Yang’s suggestion to push and not the other. (Adams has chosen simply to ignore Garcia’s…claim.)

It’s further instructive that Garcia doesn’t even acknowledge the other interpretation, much less explain why she’s chosen her sexist beef and rejected the sincere (potential) offers.

That’s Garcia’s sexist bigotry—the manufacture of her beef out of whole cloth and without deigning explain her bald claim.

Conversations about Race

Gerald Seib had an op-ed in Monday’s Wall Street Journal that centered on the race conversation that our nation needs to finish having and how Senator Tim Scott’s (D, SC) response to President Joe Biden’s (D) speech to Congress. Seib noted that, while our race conversation badly wants resolution,

in fact, that it may be getting harder rather than easier to resolve.

It’s especially getting harder because of the racists of the Left and the Progressive-Democratic Party’s resident politician racists.

There are the Left’s White Saviors carefully and solemnly explaining that a black man doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he talks about his black experience and about the black experience generally.

There are the black racists being shocked and embarrassed that a black man spoke for himself or calling him “a stone fool,” “slow-witted,” “a token.”

Party racists include the likes of Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D, IL) who said Scott’s police reform proposal was just tokenism and the studied silence regarding the Left’s racial slurs against Scott—Uncle Tim, Oreo, worse—inflicted by Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ) and Raphael Warnock (D, GA).

Not a single black Progressive-Democrat Representative in the House has spoken in condemnation, or even mild objection, to that racist treatment of Scott.

All because a black man dared leave the Left’s cash crop vote plantation and actually think and act for himself.

Racist Spew

Many of you may recall Senator Tim Scott’s (R, SC) response to President Joe Biden’s speech to a sparsely attended joint session of Congress last Wednesday.

Many of you may recall the vitriol and outright racist spew sprayed Scott’s way in response to the Senator’s statement

Hear me clearly. America is not a racist country.

There are a couple of things that really stand out about that shameful period.

One is that Jack Dorsey let that racism trend on his Twitter for 11 hours, carefully reaching for the trending’s peak damage before deciding to…detrend…the spew. That makes Dorsey’s and his social medium’s views on race and on blacks in particular crystalline.

Even more shameful, even more despicable than that, though, is this.

Even after all this time, neither black Progressive-Democratic Party Senator—Cory Booker (D, NJ) or Raphael Warnock (D, GA)—have said a word—not a syllable—in objection to, much less in condemnation of, that disgusting response to Scott’s statement.

Not a single black Representative in the House has spoken in condemnation, or even mild objection, to that racist treatment of Scott.

Not even any of the White Saviors of the Progressive-Democratic Party members of either house of Congress have spoken against the spew or in support of its target.

It’s clear that the Progressive-Democratic Party condones this blatantly racist behavior.

That’s disgusting, and it needs to be remembered in the fall of 2022.