On the Jan. 27 episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the eponymous host burst into a montage of situations where celebrities were forced to apologize for comments and actions which were viewed as being culturally insensitive.
He began by saying, “Republicans apologize for nothing, Democrats for everything. Can’t we find a balance?”.
Maher is absolutely right.
Political correctness has gone awry in America.
What was once believed to be an instrument to bring us all together, to blanket our society in expressions that brought the marginalized into the fold has only deepened the divide among liberals and conservatives.
It is also apparent that the 2016 election was the battlefield on which this separation raged on.
The main problem is the restriction on language that follows the insistence on political correctness, and college campuses have become its overwhelming stomping ground.
Political correctness places rules and procedures on the way we communicate, which is only to lead to a skewed and incomplete form of dialogue.
Currently, there are things that you can say, and things that you can’t.
Unfortunately, the things you can’t say haven’t been deemed incomprehensible through debate.
No, they have been shut out completely in an attempt to eradicate them forever.
Instead of having individuals discuss opposing opinions, one view tends to be accepted as fact and the other is pushed underground because the surface is now inhospitable to a civil disagreement.
If some views are incomprehensible, shouldn’t it be simple to defeat it in debate?
If so, why the need to stop the conversation instead of using it to prove the point?
We all know what some of these disavowed ideas are.
Have a not-so-liberal opinion on the transgender bathroom issue?
You’re transphobic.
Want a tightened immigration system?
Don’t talk to me you xenophobe.
Are you a big believer in capitalism?
It sucks that you hate working class people.
It’s a perfectly democratic notion to disagree with someone on political issues because the very nature of these questions show a lack of consensus.
Their elimination from civil discourse is tyrannical.
These responses, or ones with similar sentiments, have succeeded on campuses for a number of years.
However, I believe it has come back to haunt the liberal cause.
These politically correct attitudes have backed people into a corner and micromanaged them into submission.
This leaves them no political escape other than doing exactly what they were told not to do.
Photo Credit: Pug50/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
We have all done things simply because we were warned against them and, at times, we have all wanted to be the person that is completely rebellious to a status quo we don’t like.
We listen to music that asserts no remorse for their honest lyrics, we watch movies in which recalcitrant characters are respected, and we look up to individuals who never change their resistance even with the strongest of winds in their face.
Yet, you may not express a politically incorrect opinion because you were told not to.
It’s quite obvious why our generation is splitting at the seams.
I can’t even count the amount of people I know that have rejected many a liberal cause not because they disagree with it, but because the way they felt forced into the belief.
Political correctness has stripped the human element from conversation.
Our conversations have become robotic, mechanical, hierarchical, something relegated to you at the permission of someone else.
People do not give their honest opinion because we have branded those that disagree with us as bigots, or ideologues, or fascists, or mentally ill.
This is where the difference Maher referred to becomes relevant. The two major parties differ on this topic in vast ways.
Donald Trump, whether you love him or think of him as an evil ruler, is clearly the antithesis to a politically correct way of speaking.
Other Republicans aren’t very cozy with it either.
To many average college students, the Democrats demand an apology before they seek safety for your family, a truthful media, or accountable governance.
To a rather aloof millennial, they very well may see Democrats as the party of political correctness.
Some of these young people found solace in a candidate like Trump. Not because they like him or his policies or what he speaks of, but because they saw the majority of elected Democrats and those running for office as the enforcers of this PC mindset they are disgusted by. A mindset that is omnipresent and affects them on a daily basis.
This drug was initially meant to numb the pain of the oppressed, which is an effort worth respect.
Unfortunately, it has done serious damage to the language we use to express ourselves.
Language is the waterway on which humans explore the unknown; it’s the mechanism from which society breathes.
The greatest conversations about life, religion, politics and love occur when, in that moment, our words have no filter.
It’s just your free flowing thoughts and emotion that unleash the truth.
People love Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction” because it’s raw and unflinching.
We read Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum est” because it is bold and shakes us to the core.
Honestly, how can you describe the horrors of the First World War while using a filter? You can’t.
The truth is ugly.
It stings, it’s chaotic, and at times makes us writhe.
But we won’t solve anything if we refuse to listen to other arguments.
It is how we find the truth.
Without it, who knows where it will lead.
For the time being, this is an issue met with warm applause and visceral condemnation, sending many into the ballot box aiming to remove it from their lives entirely.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Nicolas Raymond/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Sandy Hook Denying Professor Was The Best Sort Of Teacher Imaginable According To This Former Student
The following is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of RISE NEWS.
By Chuck Forbes
The decision to fire James Tracy, a professor at Florida Atlantic University, has stirred up a lot of buzz in South Florida and amongst the FAU community.
Tracy was let go by the University for claiming that the 2012 massacre of 26 people- including 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut was a staged hoax designed to pass gun-control legislation.
Even more outrage took place when Tracy sent a letter to Lenny and Veronique Pozner, parents of a six-year-old boy named Noah, who was killed in the shootings demanding that they show proof that he was indeed their son and that he ever lived in the first place.
The Pozner family never replied, claiming Tracy’s actions were outrageous and unsettling and filed a police report for harassment.
Upon not hearing back from Noah’s parents, Tracy took to his blog called Memory Hole and labeled the Pozner’s as “alleged parents,” ultimately leading up to his firing.
At the surface, this story is sad. A professor claiming a national tragedy as a hoax and going as far to call out the parents of a boy who passed away in the shootings.
But, if you always look at the surface you will never know how big the ‘iceberg’ really is.
The rest of this article may offend a few and cause comments to follow, but I am too passionate about this subject – because it has changed my life – to not speak about it.
Everything below is completely true and my hope is at the end of this article you are able to see below the surface and understand how Tracy’s way of thinking is what college students need more of.
Everything below is completely true and my hope is at the end of this article you are able to see below the surface and understand how Tracy’s way of thinking is what college students need more of.
While getting my degree in Marketing/Communications at FAU, I took three courses that James Tracy instructed.
I remember the first one was a three-hour class once a week. Within the first 30 minutes it was very apparent that Tracy did not teach like and was not like other professors. You could tell a million thoughts were racing through his mind during discussions. We would align our desks into a huge circle for group forums discussing politics, theories and the media.
Tracy would challenge students directly with questions and asides to comments. He would challenge students on their views so much, sometimes you could feel the anger boiling inside a student. We had a lot of awkward moments in class and a lot of times where Tracy would say something or make a point and leave us scratching our heads.
I remember after the first few classes I would leave with other students and we would make remarks walking down the breezeway like “What is that guy thinking?” or “I don’t know he seems really egotistical.”
I knew that Tracy had to be digging at something more, he had to have a purpose behind his madness. It wasn’t until a good month into his class that I realized why he did what he did.
James Tracy had his syllabus set up for students to grow their critical thinking skills. He challenged students with questions we couldn’t answer on purpose because he knew once we figured out where his counter-question came from we would open another point-of-view we never had before.
James Tracy taught us that if you only receive information, you will never be able to make a change, be a leader or think for yourself. You must receive, analyze and then counter back further explanation or questions.
This type of teaching and critical thinking is so important for personal development into your career. Up until college, I dominated grade school because the curriculum was a simple foundation. You learn a subject and take a test that spits the same information back at you. What is the freezing point for water? When did World War II start? Who was our 12th president? Etc.
This laid the foundation for what I needed next, the type of learning Tracy provided. When you learn how to think critically and look beyond what is being told to you, your brain opens a whole new world. No longer did I just accept something to be true because a source told me so.
No longer did I believe the initial purpose of an event just because everyone else thought so too. No longer did I think that actions, events and words couldn’t have a mass effect on our society, government and globalization. I began to think in layers. I began to control multiple scenarios in my head. I began to pick up on social and economical cues that I never did before.
I remember watching TV when FIFA chose Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup. I had friends next to me say exactly what the media did, “they’re trying to expand the game to new parts of the world.”
I looked at them and laughed and said, “No, they’re trying to extend their pockets to own the world.” The FIFA scandal came out shortly after.
Tracy taught our class to ask questions. Simple as that. Why are commercials louder than TV shows? Why does my technology break down after a certain point? Why is instilling fear in a society good for a government?
There has never been and will never be a crime to ask a question. Do not just receive – you must also analyze and figure out more. This mentality has allowed me to be great at proofing work, finding better solutions, communicating items through multiple departments of a company, and keeping a loyal circles of friends.
Thinking critically and asking questions as Tracy taught, is not just what conspiracy theorists do – it’s what successful, keen people do.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not agree with all of James Tracy’s actions.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not agree with all of James Tracy’s actions. However, I will ask questions, I will break down a situation, I will try and uncover motives of the parties involved, I will look at history to predict your next move, I will ask you to prove necessary items, I will not be naïve and think that I am the only one who knows something, I will not take anything for face value, I will analyze information given and plot all angles of the situation – all traits that are brewed from learning what Tracy teaches.
For example, too many people focus on the conspiracy theorist’s physical being – honestly if you don’t like someone, who cares?
It’s the system in which they think that is the real gold mine. If you don’t want to believe 9/11 is a conspiracy – don’t! But at the same time, if you’re not willing to take their thinking into account and apply it to what you need in life – you may find yourself walking the same path as others. You will never challenge yourself, never grow and never be innovative. All traits that people strive for everyday.
I shared my feelings about this subject, as I always do with my people I knew from my Alma Mater, on Facebook.
Below are real comments from people (names excluded) from a post I made on the subject.
The comments and my responses to them will hopefully shed more light into my thinking on this.
“He is disgusting for ever even saying what he said. Vote for whoever you want, say what you want (to an extent) don’t bring innocent lives lost and their families into more of a heartache…”
This comment leads to the point of not having the ability to ask questions. Again, I don’t believe Tracy’s actions in sending a letter to Noah’s parents is right. However, if you lack the capacity to even think or understand why someone would – you’re missing another side of the story. Tracy doesn’t care about embarrassing a family, he cares about opening people’s eyes to realize that sometimes there is a larger purpose behind tragedies. Sometimes events are staged. And sometimes it’s OK to ask if they are, because if you abandon that thinking all together, you leave yourself vulnerable to manipulation.
“He might’ve been a good professor, but he might also be a sociopath. So yeah, I think he deserved to lose his job.”
He might be a sociopath? So, it’s not OK for someone to ask or even claim (which is an opinion) that Sandy Hook is a hoax, yet it is OK to generalize people into categories because we don’t understand how they think? Got it…
“The name of the class was ‘Conspiracy Theories’. Then he got fired for talking about conspiracy theories lol. God bless America. I took this guy for a semester. The first thing he says to the class is to open your mind and not be a sheep. He then explains that these are just theories and none of it is proven facts.” I can also confirm this is true – first day of every class he clearly said that we were diving into sensitive issues and what would be talked about is theory, opinion and the media.
Perhaps it’s different for others, but when I was in college I longed for lectures and classes like I read about in books or saw in movies. Classes that students were so engaged with and concerned about. Classes that made you feel like a new person afterwards. Classes that were so different they were borderline crazy! That was Tracy, I knew every time I would leave with a deeper understanding of new ways to think. James Tracy never tried to turn anybody into a conspiracy theorist. He could care less what you thought. He taught class to give you that “awe” moment, to make the light bulb go off and say “Wow! I never thought of that but it could make sense.”
Sending a certified letter demanding proof of the Pozner’s child was too far. However, instead of filing a police report I wish they would have used that time to write Tracy back, document it on social media and show that he is wrong. That would have ended his whole theory and shown his students that his way of thinking is just that – an opinion.
Then we could have shed light on what matters – asking questions about events that have a large impact, even if you’re proven wrong. At least you then know the truth and you set a foundation that hoaxes, lies or anything of the sort will not go unnoticed.
FAU may have lost a ‘crazy person’ but they lost an even better professor.
Cover Photo Credit: Florida International University
What Do You Think?
-
Background Checks Don’t Work. Why? Blame The Bureaucracy
In light of the recent terrorist attack in Orlando, one subject has dominated American political discourse: the subject of gun control.
One of the most common arguments made by advocates of gun control is that we need better background checks.
While in some cases that may be true, as loopholes do exist in current federal gun laws that allow criminals to obtain their weapons (such as dealer license exemptions for gun sellers who sell weapons for the purpose of buyers collecting them as hobbies), the goal of reducing gun violence through mandated background checks will be virtually impossible to achieve through legislation alone.
There is a second, much more serious problem that would need to be addressed prior to the passing of any new laws, and that is an incompetent bureaucracy.
Per the Daily Beast:
“…(Omar) Mateen had purchased a Sig Sauer .223 caliber assault rifle at a firearms shop near his Florida home, St. Lucie Gun Sales, on June 4 and then a Glock 17 at the same store on June 5. Mateen had returned to the store a third time on June 9 to buy magazines for his weapons. The store is a federally licensed firearms dealer. Under law, the seller would have had to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Mateen’s purchase so that his name could be checked against the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.
Mateen was actually listed on two federal watch lists, a U.S. official tells The Daily Beast: The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, which contains classified information, and the Terrorist Screening Database, which is the FBI’s central watchlist. The gun background check would have run Mateen’s name against that second database, but he had been removed from it in 2014. The sales were approved and early Sunday morning he used the weapons to fire round after round after round at defenseless people at the Pulse nightclub. Mateen left a third weapon, a revolver capable of firing only a mere six shots, in his van.
An FBI spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment about whether the gun seller made the required check. However, it’s unlikely it would have raised any red flags.”
Assuming that the gun seller did make the required check, it would have been impossible for him or her to have received any information regarding terrorism-related investigations, as Mateen had been removed from the TSD, and the TIDE would have been inaccessible due to its possession of classified information.
This right here should be a red flag.
According to the National Counterterrorism Center:
“Each day analysts create and enhance TIDE records based on their review of nominations received. Every evening, TIDE analysts export a sensitive but unclassified subset of the data containing the terrorist identifiers to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) for use in the USG’s consolidated watchlist.”
In other words, there are two possibilities explaining the fact that the FBI did not keep investigating Mateen after 2014: either it ignored unclassified subsets of data regarding him that was forwarded by TIDE, or TIDE kept Mateen’s files as classified information. Either one of those possibilities reflects poorly on the state of our bureaucracy, and are problems that need to be remedied as soon as possible.
I’m not a government insider, so I have no proof as to why this breakdown in communication between different federal agencies has occurred, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it was just another instance of agency rivalry, which has been a defining factor in relations between federal agencies (particularly the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA) for decades.
This factor is perhaps best summed up in Mark Riebling’s book Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, which highlights examples of national traumas that could have turned out differently if cooperation had existed, from Pearl Harbor to the McCarthy investigations to the mishandling of Soviet spies and defectors to the JFK assassination to Watergate to 9/11.
This book was first published in 1994 (an extended edition was later published in 2002), but if the events of the last few days have proven anything, perhaps little, if anything at all, has changed regarding this matter over the last 22 years.
I have one question to ask: How many more people must die before we take action to reform our bureaucracy?
If we are to have gun laws, or any laws for that matter, we must make sure they are enforced properly before we take action to create new legislation.
It is not enough that the legislative branch works to keep us safe.
The executive branch must do its part as well.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: mrwynd/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
How Donald Trump Is An IRL Internet Troll
The following is an opinion piece that does not necessarily reflect the views of Rise News. It was originally published in Rise Miami News.
By Fred Russell
In watching the almost continuous news coverage of Donald Trump’s recent gaffs, I started to notice a pattern developing. There was a word for how this man was acting.
I had my suspicions about what he may have been doing, but I couldn’t be sure. It all started when he made openly bigoted statements about Mexican immigrants, suggesting they were “rapists” and “criminals”.
Then, at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, he disrespected Senator John McCain by suggesting that he was not in fact a war hero, because he had been captured. At this point it was starting to become clear that Mr. Trump was saying these things purely to gain attention from anyone who would look in his direction.
This type of behavior is known among some internet users as “trolling”. At least that’s what it seemed like to me. Urban Dictionary defines the word “Internet Troll” as: “Someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”
I woke up a few days later, flipped the television on to watch the news with some coffee. My suspicions were confirmed in such spectacular fashion, I did a spit-take and sprayed Mr. Trump directly in the face with my morning cup of joe. Donald Trump had publicly listed the cell phone number of a U.S. Senator, and encouraged millions of viewers on live television to give him a call. A video surfaced the next day on the internet of Senator Lindsey Graham destroying his cell phone by throwing it at a wall.
So there it was. Doxing. Wikipedia defines doxing as: ”Doxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents), or doxxing, is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual.”
They go on to explain: “Doxing may be carried out for various reasons, including to aid law enforcement, business analysis, extortion, coercion, harassment, public shaming and vigilante justice.”
In this case, I would say that Donald Trump had doxxed his fellow Republican presidential candidate for the purpose of harassment. In true troll form, he had inconvenienced someone simply because it garnered attention for him.
I am sure some will suggest that if I know he just wants attention, I should probably refrain from writing about him and stop giving him what he wants. However, anyone familiar with the garden-variety internet troll knows that in any argument, there will be one person who points out the troll and makes a great suggestion. I am that guy.
Most internet message boards and social networks come with a special option, which allows users to break contact with anyone who bothers them. Hit the block button. Ignore him, America. Put this bigoted, antagonistic ass behind you. That is where asses belong.
Cover Photo Credit: Sarah Russell
What Do You Think?