American Elephants


Jack Dorsey Has Banned Political Advertising From Twitter by The Elephant's Child

What precisely is “hate speech”? Everybody talks about it, but it seems to boil down to — speech you don’t like. It is mentioned all the time, but what makes it hateful? We have had a fairly new entrant in the judging speech area in the popular name of Twitter. Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter has announced that he is going to ban all political ads from the platform. This follows a long discussion about political ads in general and the Twitter workforce apparently wanting to ban all Republican ads. Law and Liberty.org made fairly short work of that.

Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, is basking in accolades for his decision to ban all political ads from his platform. That is Twitter’s call to make, but if Dorsey is going to wrap himself in a populist defense of the common man’s voice, he might conjure a justification whose posture toward that man is less condescending.

Dorsey argued that the reach of political messages “should be earned, not bought.” To what extent anything on Twitter is “earned” through 280 characters of substantive, nuanced political conversation is questionable. Shallow outrage is likelier to “earn” retweets, which is not to say that Twitter—which can encourage concision, a precondition of wit—does not have its place. Regardless, Dorsey’s claim is the populist celebration of social media: Anyone can speak and, with a sufficiently compelling message, reach a limitless audience.

Yet Dorsey’s reason for pulling political ads is that the same everyday people whose voices deserve projection are so easily duped by readily disprovable claims that they must be protected from seeing them in the first place. A people that cannot exercise sufficient discernment to separate propaganda from information has no business governing itself. Why a people Dorsey so characterizes is qualified to participate in his call for “more forward-looking political ad regulation,” which he acknowledges is “very difficult” but which is actually very unconstitutional, is unclear.

The United States of America was founded on the idea of freedom of speech, but the current generation is a little short in the history department, and doesn’t seem to understand the meaning. What Dorsey means by his statement that “political messages should be earned, not bought” is another mystery. How do we have free speech while calling much of the conversation out there “hate speech?” Does calling the winner of the last election and the people who voted for him “Deplorables” count as “hate speech”or do you have to add in her conclusion that God had picked her out to be the president of the United States? Or just the names she called those who voted for the other side?

Free Speech is hard to understand. You are free to disagree, but you don’t get to demand that you not be allowed to say your piece. You are, of course, responsible for what you say, but you don’t get to be banned.

“There is no such thing as government regulated free speech.”

That’s from Barry Brownstein writing at FEE. “Without Free Speech, All Speech Becomes Government Speech.

When I viewed this video, I wondered if it was a hoax. I thought it must be a group of actors trying to make a point about how far restrictions on speech have gone. Unfortunately, the video captures reality in Scotland in 2019.

The video picks up an exchange between a Scottish high school teacher and a student. The class was asked to sign up for a website, and according to the student, the teacher commented on how old fashioned the website was for listing only two sexes. The student, Murray, remarked, “But sir there’s only two genders,” and the teacher insisted they continue the discussion outside the classroom.

Much of the problem is located in our schools, and though this example took place in Scotland, you probably could have found the same conversation on any one of a good many American campuses.

There is a clear reason why the very first Amendment to the Constitution says Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…Too bad the folks in Silicon Valley don’t seem to get it. Or understand why it is needed.



Free Speech vs. Preferred Pronouns by The Elephant's Child

Well said. Attempting to make what is classified as a mental disorder called gender dysphoria into a casual choice is confusing a lot of parents, who don’t know where to turn. The Left carries things too far.

They hate President Trump, fear his accomplishments, and hope to defeat him with a web of identity politics. With luck they can make those confused parents be afraid of Trump, or find him too mean to win reelection in 2020. The current biggest evil is wrong-think, or offending fearful snowflakes. We had someone, local, I think, who ‘identified’ as a cat, domestic, I believe.  Had whiskers implanted. Dunno what happened.

I fail to understand why those who are confronted with an idea that they do not understand, fail to study up. Researching ideas is why we have computers. But we have somewhere around 24 Democrat presidential candidates spouting ideas that sound good, they think, but have never investigated at all. If they cannot take the time to study up, and know why they are supporting the policies they claim to favor, they should not be wasting our time. I call it doing your homework.



Jordan Peterson Talks About Free Speech in Canada by The Elephant's Child

Here’s another approach to the strange twist our modern societies have taken. Canada’s laws are a little different than our Constitution, and not as old. Very interesting., and very complicated.



Tucker Carlson on Free Speech and How the Left Uses Tragedy For Their Own Ends by The Elephant's Child

Tucker Carlson tackles today’s free speech problem. The problem is that the Left wants to decide what is and is not free speech, and eliminate the speech they don’t like. Which throws the whole idea of real free speech out the window. They are using tragedy to fuel their own ends. There was a mass shooting at a synagogue in Philadelphia. The Left immediately  twisted it so it is the fault of President Trump because they don’t like President Trump. They are offended when he wants to pay his respects at the synagogue, apparently unaware that his son-in-law, daughter, and his grandchildren are members of the Jewish faith. Leftists have said that Trump’s moving the embassy to Jerusalem “doesn’t let him off the hook for this shooting.” That  is absurd.

The man who committed the shooting was an anti-Semite who hated Trump, and is solely responsible, and has been charged and will pay for the crime. The deranged man who shot Steve Scalise at the Congressional Softball Game was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Bernie Sanders had no responsibility for his act. The man who sent pipe bombs to a number of Democrats was solely responsible for his actions.

The woman portrayed in this video, blaming President Trump’s unwelcoming comments on the Honduran Caravan, was incorrect on everything she said. The “Caravan” are not “refugees”. “There is a specific legal definition of a “refugee.” Immigration Lawyers often coach their clients in what to say to get admitted under the refugee laws. Hollywood types have adopted the illegal alien saying “No human being is illegal.” which is a nonsense phrase. We are a country with immigration laws. Those who break the law by trying to enter the country without permission, are by definition criminals. Those who owe their citizenship to another country are by definition, aliens. The Left’s ideas of such subjects are based on ‘feelings’, not on law, and for the Left, ‘feelings’ trump law every time. Unfortunately, you cannot run a government on ‘feelings’.

You cannot have a government nor a country that censors speech, where those in charge decide what may or may not be said. The technology people who dreamed up the ideas and algorithms of social media, with their backgrounds in math and electronics and engineering assumed that people would welcome the opportunity to share their lives with their friends and relatives online. They missed the understanding of human nature that you get from wide reading in history and literature. They expected to learn from what their customers did and said on the internet enough to be able to tell advertisers what they might be interested in. Advertisers jumped at the chance, and the technology people got very rich indeed.

We are seeing something quite new in the reaction to Donald Trump’s election, and it has a lot to do with social media. I would love to see some analysis of how things seem to be “catching”, and get repeated endlessly. The technology people like to feature celebrities, who people follow because they think they know them, because they have seen them on TV.

I thought Kathy Griffin’s severed head trick so disgusting that it should have ended not only her career, but anything in that line. Instead  it started some sort of “can you top this” contest, in which celebrities try to outdo one another in Trumpian insult. The trouble with being a celebrity is that you have to stay in the public eye,  or people might start thinking you are a has-been.

We are gradually learning that social media is damaging for kids. The social media people are gradually learning about the monster they have created, and don’t know how to fix it other than banning people from its use. Which places them in control of what is acceptable speech and what is unacceptable, which is a role that they are completely unqualified to fill.

They talk about “hate speech” which has no real definition, and depend on sources like the Southern Poverty Law Center or Snopes to tell them what is hate and what is false without any recognition that half the people in the country, at least, find that dependence laughable.

There has been an enormous decline in the civility of language. The comments on many popular websites are filled with profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, and scatology that used to be unacceptable, not just in polite society, but in public anywhere. But that speech was not limited by ‘elites’ who have appointed themselves as the arbiters, but by a general recognition that you just didn’t talk that way in public, because it wasn’t nice. That time seems very distant.



The Right-Wing Strikes Back Joyfully by The Elephant's Child
August 11, 2017, 8:10 pm
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Free Speech, Freedom, Politics | Tags: , ,


Liberal protesters set up a 30-foot tall inflatable chicken on the mall in front of the White House. Must have cost a bundle to create this balloon. Trump supporters joyfully appropriated the image for their own memes. Don’t neglect to click on the links.

The conservative folks on the right side of the political spectrum are getting a little fed up with the social justice warriors out there. Tired of competitive victimhood. There are some serious problems in the world, and the left just doesn’t want to discuss them, let alone deal with them.

North Korea is threatening the United States with nuclear weapons. China is building artificial islands in the South China Sea for military installations. ISIS just nearly blew up an airliner heading into Australia. Venezuela is nearing a revolution and its people are starving. More terrorist attacks throughout Europe and boatloads of migrants are streaming into Italy and Spain—those who don’t drown in the attempt. So it’s kind of nice to see the Right gently pointing out the stupidity, and the attempts to destroy free speech.

Right-wing street artist Sabo posted this anti-Google advertisement outside the Google offices in Los Angeles following the firing of former Google engineer James Damore.

On January 12, 2017, the New York Times editorial board claimed that “the grim truth is that concealed-carry permit holders are rarely involved in stopping crime.” That same day a concealed carry permit holder in Arizona used his gun to save the life of a state trooper who was under attack on I-10.Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s research shows that the minimum number of defensive gun uses are around 760,000 annually.

Brand new Senator Kamala Harris is calling for more gun control, interestingly enough at the same time that ISIS is giving up on guns and telling their adherents to attack with knives—which has hugely increased stabbing attacks in London and in Europe, and to drive vehicles into crowds to kill the most people possible. Nuclear Weapon Protesters are calling for the “Total Abolition of Weapons”,  but the knives used in stabbing attacks seem to be ordinary kitchen knives for the most part.

Denmark’s second largest city is attempting to tackle terrorism by offering jihadists “empathy” in a programme dubbed “hug a terrorist”.

Whilst Danes who have fought against Islamic State have been threatened with jail on their return from Syria, terrorists are being offered enormous privileges, including apartments, education, and jobs, to encourage them to rejoin society.

Proponents of the police-run scheme in Aarhus say that jihadists are “isolated” and struggling to integrate, and claim that offering them kindness and forgiveness will deter them from their murderous ideology.

Tackling terrorism by assuming that jihadists are victims of a cruel world does seem to be missing the point, but when you look at things seriously the absurdity becomes fairly clear. California wants to secede  from the union, apparently with no historical knowledge of the South’s attempt to secede and the ensuing disastrous bloody war.

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, had no idea what he was opening up by firing a Google engineer for offering a perfectly reasonable criticism of Google’s social justice policies. Didn’t take long for Amazon to start carrying the tee shirt.



A Small Lesson in American Exceptionalism. by The Elephant's Child

2d1f368305fccf3ce5a208289b8c1e78
In Holland, a 44-year-old man  has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for intentionally insulting King Willem-Alexander, according to a court ruling. The man, from the city of Kampen, had posted a message on his Facebook page in April, 2015 calling the king a murderer, rapist, “oppressor” and thief.

“Hereby the defendant damaged the dignity of the King,” wrote judge Sylvia Taalman in her decision. “This behaviour is not acceptable in our society.”

Many Dutch consider the law “Insulting the Majesty” to be an antiquated relic that should be scrapped, but it has never featured high on the country’s political agenda.

The crime carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a fine of 20,000 euros.

The royal family is generally popular in the Netherlands. Willem-Alexander ascended to the throne in 2013 when his mother Queen Beatrix abdicated. She had reigned for 33 years. The King is not yet as highly regarded as his mother.

It seems worthwhile reminding Americans that free speech isn’t free everywhere, and that our Constitutional rights are worth fighting for. Democrats, naturally, oppose any free speech that criticizes them, or disagrees with their ideas—which are, of course, right, and should be recognized as correct.

Just think how many people would be in prison here, if our comments on social media were monitored for “offensiveness.”esson in



Quotation of the Day: How Times Have Changed! by The Elephant's Child

trumanpicBOnce a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

–Harry S. Truman, Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, 8 August 1950
(h/t: The Global Warming Policy Forum)



Schooling the FDA On The Meaning of the First Amendment by The Elephant's Child

_78425952_517716225I’m afraid I’m becoming something of a crank, grumbling constantly about the depredations of bureaucracy. The Food and Drug Administration has believed its powers so encompassing that it can even prohibit drug companies from making true statements about their products unless they are approved by the FDA.

A federal judge has just called this political control a violation of the First Amendment. Once the FDA has approved a new drug for FDA specified uses, physicians often repurpose them in other doses, or for other diseases, or for entirely different patient populations. A drug designed for breast cancer might prove effective against tumors in other parts of the body, or a medicine for adults may prove effective for pediatric care. About one of every five U.S. Prescriptions is for non-FDA approved uses.

In a small miracle, these off-label experiments are legal, and they drive innovation. The artificial conditions that the FDA demands for clinical trials are increasingly divorced from how medicine is practiced, and modern care advances far faster than the FDA’s regulatory molasses. Off-label use is vital for complex conditions like cancer and psychiatric disorders that require trial and error for individual patients, who can’t wait years for the FDA’s blessing.

But the FDA and Justice Department are targeting off-label prescriptions as a threat to their hegemony. Their goal is to force drug makers and physicians to seek FDA approval for every new real-world use, as if it were an entirely new drug. Until recently, drug makers were banned from making off-label claims backed by solid evidence or even from distributing peer-reviewed journal articles.

Prosecutors have also become increasingly aggressive. In 2012 GlaxoSmithKline paid $1 billion for encouraging doctors to use Paxil to treat depression in patients under 18, which research shows helps although the FDA has not endorsed this conclusion. The FDA construes some forms of off-label promotion as crimes, and people are serving jail time.

The nature of a bureaucracy is to grow, prosper, be better rewarded monetarily and extend its reach. Was there ever a bureaucracy that thought that much that they did was unnecessary, and they should probably downsize for the benefit of the taxpayers? I rest my case.

Judge Paul Engelmayer explained to the FDA that if they believed that a different use of a drug gravely undermined the drug approval process, it should have sought review of that decision, not tried to liken distributing information to an assault on their drug-approval authority, and tried to compare it to illegal speech such as blackmail or insider trading. Free speech wins one!

 



Quotation of the Day from Theodore Dalrymple by The Elephant's Child

quote-the-appeal-of-political-correctness-is-that-it-attempts-to-change-men-s-souls-by-altering-how-they-anthony-daniels-psychiatrist-222584(click to enlarge)

Theodore Dalrymple is the pen name of British psychiatrist Anthony Daniels. He was, for many years, a psychiatrist who treated the poor in a slum hospital  and a prison in England. One of his books, (essential), is Life At The Bottom: The Worldview that Makes the Underclass. (2001)  in which he suggests that long term poverty is caused, not by economics, but by a dysfunctional set of values, one that is continually  reinforced by an elite culture searching for victims. This culture persuades those at the bottom that they have no responsibility for their actions and they are not the molders of their own lives.  He writes often at City Journal, where he is an editor and a  fellow at the Manhattan Institute.



Why Is Freedom of Speech So Hard To Understand? by The Elephant's Child

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, naturally, Hillary Clinton, who has desperately wanted to be President ever since she failed to be co-president with Bill (because the people of the United States reminded her that she was not elected) announced as the item of first importance in her quest to be the first woman president 23 years later, that she wants to rewrite the First Amendment to get rid of that annoying bit about “freedom of speech.”

If you need extreme evidence of the failure of our schools to teach the history of our country — there you go. Were you taught why the founders came to believe that the Bill of Rights was an essential part of the Constitution that had, at first, been overlooked?  That’s a dramatic story in itself.

The clear lesson of history is that individual liberty,
the basic underpinning of American society, requires
constant defense against the encroachment of the state.¹

Far too many people simply do not understand what the First Amendment is about. They like the idea of free speech until they find out that it means that people can say unpleasant, offensive or even hateful things, and you can’t get the police or the government to force them to stop. (The faculty will probably help). But “hate speech?” Triggering? Free-Speech Zones? Have American universities become only places of indoctrination rather than citadels of free thought?

The Left today has little use for free speech. After all, they used to be plain “Democrats,” then they became “Liberals,” and when that name fell into disrepute they became “Progressives.” They are deeply concerned with the use of language to sway minds. That’s why they are so careful about “talking points.” They don’t want anyone to foul up the conversation by not using the approved words. They get very annoyed when conservatives respond with pure logic, or even facts.

You have probably noticed that Leftists don’t like to be disagreed with. It depends on the particular subject, but in general, the Left approaches problems emotionally. They are deeply troubled by inequality, overflowing with empathy, and want to take all the extra money the rich have tucked away and give it to the unfortunate.

Free speech is under threat today as never before, especially on our college campuses, where students are often too fragile to hear a speaker who might deliver words uncomfortable to tender ears. Banned speakers have been George Will, Condoleeza Rice, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali — brilliant people who have important things to say.

Pamela Geller is a courageous woman who is trying to expose the reality of radical Islam. She helped to plan a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that was attacked by two gunmen in Garland, Texas over the weekend. Organizers knew they’d be targeted, but refused to back down.The contest was designed to show the importance of freedom of speech and the savagery of the Islamic State. A policeman was shot, and the two shooters were killed by the police.

Pamela Geller has been threatened with an anonymous message boasting of “71 trained soldiers in 15 different states, ready at our word to attack.”  That’s serious. Judicial Watch has identified an ISIS training camp just 8 miles south of the border in Mexico. Homeland Security denied any such camp, though Mexican authorities authenticated it to Judicial Watch.

What is particularly disgusting is the American media, who attacked Pamela Geller for staging a contest that would offend Muslims, rather than attacking the shooters who claimed to represent ISIS.

That the American media should be so lacking in understanding of the importance of free speech is astonishing, for they are extremely conscious of the freedom of the press, another part of the First Amendment, and depend on it for their livelihoods. But conformity with Leftist talking points trumps liberty every time.

And certainly they are aware of the Charlie Hebdo murders, and the beginning of the cartoon controversy in 2005 as the Danish newspaper published a series of cartoons on September 30, some depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist with a bomb. If you missed that whole thing, or didn’t understand what the fuss was all about, The Telegraph has published a complete timeline from the beginning at Jyllands-Posten down to today and the shooting at Garland, Texas.

Here’s where it gets really interesting. “The belief that Islam prohibits drawing Prophet Mohammed pervades public debate over what causes “cartoon” violence.

At the root of Muslim protestations is the false belief that Islam prohibits the depiction of Prophet Mohammed. There is no prohibition on creating images of Prophet Mohammed in the Qur’an. Up until the 14th century; such depictions were common in the non-Arab Muslim world. On my website, www.tarekfatah.com, I have posted many depictions of Prophet Mohammed, drawn mostly by Muslim artists. Even if it were true that such depictions were prohibited, the prohibition would not be applicable to non-Muslims.

That article was published in The Toronto Sun, not in the “mainstream” American press. Do read the whole piece from the Middle East Forum. The key sentence: “On the contrary, many Muslims rejected Geller’s right to freedom of expression, admitting that even as Americans they believe there should be limits to free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.”

“Here is the hard truth; that the world contains many cultures inured to tyranny from time out of mind. There are peoples who may long for freedom, but have no practical idea how it can be got and maintained; or if they know, no energy for the task.” ²

¹ Walter Wriston: Risk and Other Four Letter Words
² David Warren
three-man-imprisoned-nearly-40-years-thanks-teenagers-lie


George Will, Who Was Disinvited, Spoke at the Disinvitation Dinner by The Elephant's Child

The William F. Buckley Program at Yale University, sponsored a “Disinvitation Dinner,” in honor of those who our American universities had invited to speak, and then disinvited because some of our precious students had been frightened by the possibility they might hear some words spoken which disagreed with their own. Excellent idea. The dinner, not the disinvitation. Students are enrolled in our colleges and universities because they don’t know much of anything, a fact of which they need be reminded.

George Will gives an excellent speech that is very funny about the very serious matter of freedom of speech, which is under threat today as never before. Make time for this when you can. You will enjoy every minute.



Free Speech Has Been Expelled From Our Universities. Students Must Be Shielded from Uncomfortable Ideas. by The Elephant's Child

2012-11-17T015520Z_01_BOS115_RTRMDNP_3_USA

The cries of pain from our coddled college students grows ever more shrill. It would be helpful if the media stopped paying attention. It is not newsworthy. It is largely about a misunderstood First Amendment to the Constitution with which they are seriously, deeply, unfamiliar. Clearly, they have not the slightest understanding of freedom of speech, human nature, nor real life. No wonder they don’t seem to know anything.

The problem is that they are easily offended, and not just that, but they somehow have the idea that they have a right not to be offended. And even beyond that, there is an expectation that they shouldn’t encounter opinions that conflict with their own. And these are supposed to be institutions of higher learning? Jack Kelly wrote at Real Clear Politics:

The Center for Campus Involvement at the University of Michigan recently cancelled a screening of “American Sniper” the Clint Eastwood film about Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. It was cancelled after sophomore Lamees Mekkaoui gathered “roughly 200” signatures (out of a student body of 42,700) on a petition alleging that the film “promotes anti-Muslim rhetoric and sympathizes with a mass killer.”

The Center for Campus Involvement said in a statement “We deeply regret causing harm to members of our community, and appreciate the thoughtful feedback provided to us by students.”

In a recent essay for the Weekly Standard, historian Gordon S, Wood wrote about his own history professor and mentor Bernard Bailyn and the state of history in our colleges and universities. Bailyn got off on the wrong foot from the outset with his “Peopling of British North America Project.” Didn’t he know, his critics carped, that there were people, indigenous people already here before the English came?”

College students and many historians have become obsessed with inequality and white privilege in American society. And this obsession has seriously affected the writing of American history. The inequalities of race and gender now permeate much of academic history-writing, so much so that the general reading public that wants to learn about the whole of our nation’s past has had to turn to history books written by nonacademics who have no Ph.D.s and are not involved in the incestuous conversations of the academic scholars.

But a new generation of historians is no longer interested in how the United States came to be. That kind of narrative history of the nation, they say, is not only inherently triumphalist but has a teleological bias built into it. Those who write narrative histories necessarily have to choose and assign significance to events in terms of a known outcome, and that, the moral critics believe, is bound to glorify the nation. So instead of writing full-scale narrative histories, the new generation of historians has devoted itself to isolating and recovering stories of the dispossessed: the women kept in dependence; the American Indians shorn of their lands; the black slaves brought in chains from Africa. Consequently, much of their history is fragmentary and essentially anachronistic—condemning the past for not being more like the present. It has no real interest in the pastness of the past.

Back at the University of Michigan, the screening was back on a day later. Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh said he would show “American Sniper” to the football team.”Proud of Kris Kyle and proud to be an American,” Mr. Harbaugh tweeted. “if that offends anybody, then so be it.”

Denying free speech is “a horrible betrayal of everything universities are supposed to be about” wrote Walter Russell Mead, a professor at Bard College. But the worst thing about “PC stupidity and mandatory cocooning on campus is…the catastrophic dumbing down of a younger generation that is becoming too fragile to exist in the current world.”

If you expect to get through life without being offended, you’re going to have a hard time of it. Colleges are offering “safe spaces” to students who are traumatized by “microaggressions.” Smith College President Kathleen McCartney apologized for causing students to be “hurt” and “made to feel unsafe” because she didn’t object when a fellow panel member uttered the “N word” during a discussion about teaching “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” Free speech advocate Wendy Kaminer, wrote “It’s amazing to me [students] can’t distinguish between racist speech and speech about racist speech.”

Back at Michigan, the CCI scheduled an alternative film for those who objected to “American Sniper,” a children’s movie about a stuffed bear. When “American Sniper” was screened, the 150-seat room was filled to near capacity. Most applauded as the credits rolled. Only seven students chose to watch “Paddington Bear.”

It is interesting, if appalling, to pay a little attention to the whining students to see just what subjects or what speakers draw the outrage and offense of students, and just who those students seem to be.The Media will not touch that question.They remain unidentified.

ADDENDUM: Christina Hoff Summers of the American Enterprise Institute, also blogs as the “Factual Feminist.” An outstanding scholar, she took on a misleading ad campaign by Verizon which portrays girls as victims of sexism in math and science. Actually, girls are thriving in math and science, and it has nothing to do with sexism. But the precious little girls at Georgetown were “invited to a “Safe Space” if they feel triggered or upset by today’s events. Hate speech will not be appreciated in this space.” Can’t have their ideas questioned. They are victims, and proud of it.




%d bloggers like this: