The New Pitchfork Persecutors

Great article that sums up the intolerance of the left but more specifically the gay community.



Let’s face it. Brendan Eich is large, white, and rich, and a computer geek — not the kind of profile that automatically elicited sympathy last week when the CEO of Mozilla was forced to step down for contributing $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, a 2008 measure stipulating that marriage in California could be only between a man and a woman.

But all of us should care about the political orthodoxy that forced out Eich and that is taking hold in our country. “I don’t believe this is a question of suppressing free speech,” Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, a key gay-rights group, told the Associated Press. The AP quoted Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, as saying, “It seems to me when a society makes a determination that something is wrong, for example racial hatred, then somehow it’s not intolerant to insist upon that understanding.” Good-bye to tolerance for diverse opinions.

Eric Dezenhall, who heads a prominent crisis-communications firm in Washington, D.C., told Forbes magazine: “There is a very specific narrative today on certain issues, and if you step an inch out of bounds, you’re going to get fouled or worse. [Eich] stepped on one of the three great land mines: gay rights, race, and the environment. You don’t have to have made flagrantly terrible statements to get into trouble now.”
Indeed. Consider the case of Angela McCaskill, the first African-American woman to earn a Ph.D. at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing. In 2012, she was one of 200,000 people to sign a petition in support of a referendum challenging a law that recognizes gay marriage in Maryland, where she lived. The anti-same-sex referendum made the ballot and lost 52 percent to 48 percent that November. But 54 percent of African Americans in Maryland opposed same-sex marriage, according to an exit poll conducted by the Associated Press.

Even though Maryland’s gay-marriage supporters won, some of them were not exactly magnanimous. McCaskill’s signature on the petition became public when the Washington Blade posted a database online “outing” all those who had signed it. Even though her signature indicated only that she wanted the decision on gay marriage to be made by the people and not by the legislature and the governor, her critics declared it showed “bias” on her part. She was placed on administrative leave by Gallaudet University’s president, T. Alan Hurwitz. In a statement announcing her leave, he wrote, “It recently came to my attention that Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer.” Just the year before, Hurwitz had praised McCaskill as “a longtime devoted advocate of social justice and equity causes.”


The uproar over her being punished for private political views resulted in her reinstatement three months later. But she quickly found things weren’t the same. Her pre-controversy title had been “Deputy to the President and Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer.” When she returned to her office, she came back only as Chief Diversity Officer, with reduced authority. She has since filed a lawsuit against the university alleging that it violated anti-discrimination laws.

Nor is McCaskill the only heretic to have run afoul of the PC Police. After Proposition 8’s passage in 2008 (it has since been invalidated by the courts), Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theater, the state’s largest nonprofit performing-arts company, was forced to resign after gay-marriage activists learned that he had donated $1,000 to the Prop 8 campaign. Similarly, Los Angeles Film Festival director Richard Raddon was forced to step down after his donation of $1,500 to Prop 8 was made public.

This modern-day blacklist is not confined to computer geeks, university employees, and show-business types. Marjorie Christoffersen, manager of the famous Los Angeles restaurant El Coyote, resigned after El Coyote was subjected to a month of boycotts and demonstrations because she had contributed $100 to Prop 8. Fellow employees at El Coyote vouched for her kindness to gay employees — when one of the restaurant’s employees died of AIDS, for example, she had personally paid for his mother to fly to Los Angeles to attend his funeral. That didn’t matter either. And neither did the fact that El Coyote sent $10,000 to gay groups to “make up” for Christoffersen’s contribution. The boycott continued, and Christoffersen was forced to leave.

These purges prompted Charles Karel Bouley, a former columnist for the gay publication The Advocate, to call for calm and moderation. “Barack Obama said marriage was between a man and a woman at a time when we needed his voice on our side about equality,” Bouley wrote in the aftermath of Prop 8’s victory. “He let us down, too, remember, and many of you still gave him a job.” Indeed, Obama publicly declined to endorse gay marriage until May 2012. But Bouley’s point has obviously fallen on many deaf ears.

Perhaps it’s time to revisit the practice of publicly disseminating the names of people who donate to support ballot measures. Brendan Eich was “outed” after the names of all contributors to Prop 8 — which could be found in public records — were published in the Los Angeles Times in a searchable database. There is some precedent for privacy in this area. In a unanimous 1957 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NAACP did not have to release lists of its donors and members lest such a disclosure be used to target and discredit the civil-rights group, thus suppressing the right of legal association.

Bruce Chapman, a former director of the U.S. Census Bureau who is now with the Discovery Institute, told me that today’s climate could similarly “chill democracy.” “We don’t make the votes of people public, we don’t make how jurors vote public, and we keep Census data private for 70 years,” he says. You would think that liberals who like to rail against the publication of anti-Communist blacklists in the 1950s would appreciate such arguments. But some of them are cheering on the pitchfork persecutors or, as happened a lot during the days of the Hollywood blacklist, simply remaining silent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375159/new-pitchfork-persecutors-john-fund
 
You can't reason or negotiate with bullies, nor can you submit to them if you want any peace.

Their attitude was clearly expressed by that gay "bishop." "We will tell you what you can think, and if you resist, we will try to destroy you."

Yet the media and politicians see Vlad Putin as the threat to our values.
 
It's ok. The rabid "PC" crowd will eventually bring about their own demise as the majority of sensible individuals have enough of the crap they dish out and no longer listen to it.

It's like all the racial hustlers. Say it often enough and it loses it's power, and they become irrelevant. Self destruction.

Justice.
 
It's ok. The rabid "PC" crowd will eventually bring about their own demise as the majority of sensible individuals have enough of the crap they dish out and no longer listen to it.

It's like all the racial hustlers. Say it often enough and it loses it's power, and they become irrelevant. Self destruction.

Justice.
I sure hope you're right. How much longer before it actually starts happening here?
 
It's ok. The rabid "PC" crowd will eventually bring about their own demise as the majority of sensible individuals have enough of the crap they dish out and no longer listen to it.

It's like all the racial hustlers. Say it often enough and it loses it's power, and they become irrelevant. Self destruction.

Justice.


Seems like we have been waiting an awful long time for common sense to win out, and every time we think we have seen the bottom, the gestapo takes it a step further.
 
I sure hope you're right. How much longer before it actually starts happening here?

That's a good question. But these type of events tend to occur slow at first, and then pick up speed exponentially, with each event having a half-life shorter than the one before. I can't remember the name of the theory that defines the behavior.
 
It's ok. The rabid "PC" crowd will eventually bring about their own demise as the majority of sensible individuals have enough of the crap they dish out and no longer listen to it.

It's like all the racial hustlers. Say it often enough and it loses it's power, and they become irrelevant. Self destruction.

Justice.

I think part of the justice with be the loss of power by the senate nazicrats in November. And deservingly so.
 
It's ok. The rabid "PC" crowd will eventually bring about their own demise as the majority of sensible individuals have enough of the crap they dish out and no longer listen to it.

It's like all the racial hustlers. Say it often enough and it loses it's power, and they become irrelevant. Self destruction.

Justice.

I hope you're right, but what about all the lives they ruin in the interim.

What they do is not all that different from the radical muslims. Step on their toes with some remark, and one group will try to kill you. The other, merely ruin your life. Both are trying to send a message. They know for every victim, there are hundreds or thousands others who will take notice and decide to self-censor to avoid the risk.
 
Nice work liberals, way to screw those kids with autism over!


Chili’s Cancels Fundraiser After Backlash for Group’s Anti-Vaccination Views

On Monday, the Chili’s Grill & Bar food chain was set to donate 10% of its customers’ checks to the National Autism Association (NAA), as part of National Autism Awareness Month. As it turns out, the NAA suggests that childhood vaccines have a causal relationship with triggering autism in “some, if not many, children.”

While the NAA doesn’t definitively claim a causal link, they sent their visitors to the National Vaccine Information Center (NCIV), which has been called “the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.”

And so began the backlash against Chili’s from those who understand that this is dangerous junk science. To be clear: there is no causal link between vaccines and autism.

Critics poured onto the Chili’s social media sites to lambast them for donating to the anti-vaccination crowd. At first, the restaurant chain got defensive, issuing a statement on their Facebook page:

But the negative comments kept coming. In overwhelming numbers. And so eventually, Chili’s gave in and canceled all plans to donate to NAA. They issued another statement:

Chili's is committed to giving back to the communities in which our guests live and work through local and national Give Back Events. While we remain committed to supporting the children and families affected by autism, we are canceling Monday's Give Back Event based on the feedback we heard from our guests.

We believe autism awareness continues to be an important cause to our guests and team members, and we will find another way to support this worthy effort in the future with again our sole intention being to help families affected by autism. At Chili's, we want to make every guest feel special and we thank all of our loyal guests for your thoughtful questions and comments.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chilis-c...r-backlash-for-groups-anti-vaccination-views/
 
Nice work liberals, way to screw those kids with autism over!


Chili’s Cancels Fundraiser After Backlash for Group’s Anti-Vaccination Views

On Monday, the Chili’s Grill & Bar food chain was set to donate 10% of its customers’ checks to the National Autism Association (NAA), as part of National Autism Awareness Month. As it turns out, the NAA suggests that childhood vaccines have a causal relationship with triggering autism in “some, if not many, children.”

While the NAA doesn’t definitively claim a causal link, they sent their visitors to the National Vaccine Information Center (NCIV), which has been called “the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.”

And so began the backlash against Chili’s from those who understand that this is dangerous junk science. To be clear: there is no causal link between vaccines and autism.

Critics poured onto the Chili’s social media sites to lambast them for donating to the anti-vaccination crowd. At first, the restaurant chain got defensive, issuing a statement on their Facebook page:

But the negative comments kept coming. In overwhelming numbers. And so eventually, Chili’s gave in and canceled all plans to donate to NAA. They issued another statement:

Chili's is committed to giving back to the communities in which our guests live and work through local and national Give Back Events. While we remain committed to supporting the children and families affected by autism, we are canceling Monday's Give Back Event based on the feedback we heard from our guests.

We believe autism awareness continues to be an important cause to our guests and team members, and we will find another way to support this worthy effort in the future with again our sole intention being to help families affected by autism. At Chili's, we want to make every guest feel special and we thank all of our loyal guests for your thoughtful questions and comments.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chilis-c...r-backlash-for-groups-anti-vaccination-views/

Good for chili's that radical anti science anti vaccine crowd is a threat to children's safety. Chili's is making a good decision. IMO.
 
Back
Top