Search Results

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Who or What Exactly Is Running Against Trump? “The inner-Biden at 77 is turning out to be an unabashed bigot in the age of ‘cancel culture’ and thought crimes that has apparently declared him immune from the opprobrium reserved for any such speech.”

Related: Deroy Murdock dubs Biden “a Left-wing Archie Bunker, the stereotype-spewing lead character of the brilliant 1970s comedy series ‘All in the Family.’ Producer Norman Lear’s top-rated show was a high-water mark for ethnic humor, which was how Americans once cheerfully addressed and overcame racial differences, unlike today’s corrosive techniques of in-your-face confrontation and Maoist re-education. Like Archie Bunker, Biden is White, seems vaguely blue-collar and routinely says racially disturbing things, but without the legendary writers who made Bunker’s remarks hilarious. Anything funny that Biden says on race is strictly unintentional.”

DON’T YOU DARE BE THE FIRST TO STOP CLAPPING AFTER STALIN’S SPEECH:  Theater Prof Faces Termination Petition for Allegedly Falling Asleep During Online Anti-Racism Meeting.

Thought crime? So 2019.  Sleep crime is the new hotness.

WHEN THE LEFT TAKES OVER, THE ONLY CRIME IS THOUGHT CRIME:  In Britain, the anti-racist thought police have come for the children.

DOUG ROSS: Google Declares Me Guilty of Thought Crimes, Sends My Blog Posts to the Memory Hole. “Google has a great search engine when they’re not squelching conservative and GOP (not the same thing) content. I recommend using DuckDuckGo; here’s why.”

WORLD’S SMALLEST VIOLIN: The Washington Post cancelled its number one canceller. “What they don’t seem to understand is that the plight of Felicia Sonmez is an object and abject lesson about cancel culture. She has done this to others. She has called for the suspension of due process and the termination, of her own peers. Her voice has loudly denounced those who have been hit with allegations without evidence. Sonmez has helped us get used to the idea that accusations are enough to take you down. It’s a commonplace idea, now, thanks to her and her peers in thought crime. Once we are so long immersed in the sludge of it, turnabout seems like fair play.”

Fair or not, as a creature of the left, cancel culture eventually eats its own.

WHEN A REPUBLICAN HAS THEM, YES: Are Thought Crimes Impeachable?

CHRISTIAN TOTO: Why Woke Comedy’s ‘Punching Down’ Rule Is a Joke.

Trump fans aren’t rich. They often hail from cobalt blue collar backgrounds and have little political clout. In short, they’re low on the cultural ladder and, therefore, shouldn’t be targets of ridicule.

Yet they are, both in this sketch and across the comedy landscape. Earlier this year far-left comedian Jimmy Kimmel uncorked this screed.

“Like many Americans who have been repeatedly punched in the head, Colby Covington is a big Donald Trump supporter. And there’s nothing Donald Trump loves more than people who love Donald Trump.”

So where’s the outrage? Is anyone more marginalized than Trump supporters these days?

They’re repeatedly beaten up, mocked on national TV and some higher profile supporters are chased out of restaurants.

Meanwhile, today’s woke comedy police cite “punching down” as the biggest thought crime on the books.

To be fair, woke comedians say a lot of stuff, none of it funny.

JOHN KASS: Democrats might win census citizen question in courts but lose at the ballot box.

So why can’t Americans ask it of people in our country? Why can’t we ask people in this country — on the 2020 census — if they are citizens of the United States?

But if you dare ask it, or support the idea that it’s a reasonable question, you’ll be denounced by the Democratic left as a racist, a tool of Trump, and you’ll be exiled for your sins.

Is it racist and evil for a nation to ask if its residents are citizens of that nation?

No. Every citizen should have the right to know how many citizens are here. We are not the subjects of the government. We are citizens. And for now, at least, citizenship still counts. You must declare your citizenship if you wish to get a U.S. passport. So why shouldn’t the 2020 census be able to ask if you are a citizen?

Polls aren’t everything, but a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released the other day shows that 67 percent of people agreed that the question, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” should be allowed on the 2020 census. Eight-eight percent of Republicans, 52 percent of Democrats and even 63 percent of independents said it was a legitimate question.

If those who agreed to the question are wise, they’ll keep their mouths shut, lest they be denounced for Thought Crime.

Dems, however, are trying to tilt things so that they never lose at the ballot box again.


If the pastry chef were involved in the Trump campaign or other politics, perhaps there would be some news value. But there is nothing in the newsletter or The Daily Beast article that indicates that the pastry chef played such a role. She’s not a political staffer or involved in policy, and there’s nothing in the coverage to indicate she aspires to those goals.

Nothing in the story indicates she used her politics to harass or intimidate co-workers or subordinates. She simply posted her political conspiracy theories on her personal social media accounts, which is a lot less than hundreds of blue-check-mark journalists  and anti-Trump nutters do every day on Twitter with their Russia collusion conspiracy theories.

The ONLY reason she has been singled out by The Daily Beast is that she works at a Trump property. That’s it. It’s not about the pastry chef, it’s about media hate of Trump and an eagerness to take down anyone associated, even remotely, with Trump.

Yet that pastry chef’s name, image and work details now are exposed to millions of readers of The Daily Beast for one reason only — she works at a Trump property.

What’s next for The Daily Beast? A deep dive into the personal political views of Mar-a-Lago groundskeepers, bellhops and janitors?

How about we leave low-level employees, who have not joined the political battle, alone?

As Stephen Miller tweets, “If you’ve ever worked around chefs, believe me QAnon is towards the bottom of the list of crazy shit they believe. But go chase your clicks guys.”

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED. THIS IS MY SHOCKED FACE:  Lawsuit Claims SPLC Abetted Theft, Spread Lies to Destroy Lawyer for ‘Thought Crime’.

ALMOST LIKE SOME SORT OF ONGOING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE: Lawsuit Claims SPLC Abetted Theft, Spread Lies to Destroy Lawyer for ‘Thought Crime.’

WOKE PIETY AND ITS CONTRADICTIONS: Impossible To Satisfy, By Design.

A positional good is a good that people acquire to signal where they stand in a social hierarchy; it is acquired in order to set oneself apart from others. Positional goods therefore have a peculiar property: the utility their consumers derive from them is inversely related to the number of people who can access them… PC-brigadiers behave exactly like owners of a positional good who panic because wider availability of that good threatens their social status.

The PC brigade has been highly successful in creating new social taboos, but their success is their very problem. Moral superiority is a prime example of a positional good, because we cannot all be morally superior to each other. Once you have successfully exorcised a word or an opinion, how do you differentiate yourself from others now? You need new things to be outraged about, new ways of asserting your imagined moral superiority.

And he we go!

Now #MeToo is coming for your thought crimes
The Next Step for #MeToo Is Into the Gray Areas
How close is #MeToo to full riot mode?

The Bookworm Room blog had a post last year titled “The Sexual ‘Reign of Terror:’ How we got here and where we’re going.” The left seems determined to make that headline not just a metaphor.

DIAL 911 FOR THE DNC-MSM DOX SQUAD: Are Families of Those Guilty of Thought Crimes Fair Game?

If Andrew Breitbart were still alive, I’d like to think he’d be shouting “Behave yourself — stop doxxing people” at what’s become of today’s media.

Related: In the middle of a Twitter thread on the MSM’s increasing penchant for doxxing, a Twitter user who goes by the handle “Thomas H. Crown” writes, “Journalists have happened on the fastest way I can identify to drive Americans to say, ‘No, please, rando with a webpage, tell us all about this journalist’s family so we can complain every time he writes a bad article,'” adding, “I will say this: The last few years have convinced me, more than ever, that social norms are the most powerful and at the same time the most delicate things in the world; and we are hurting ourselves by tearing them asunder.”

Read the whole thing.

SO IT GOES: Six Months in, #MeToo Has Become Infantilizing and Authoritarian.

#MeToo has become an orthodoxy intolerant of criticism or even question. Women who have suggested that it may have gone too far, that conflating rape with crude flirtation risks trivializing serious incidents and falsely demonizing innocent men, have been hounded for thought crimes. Katie Roiphe prompted outrage when it was rumored she might go public with a list of “shitty media men” that had been widely circulated among writers and journalists. Roiphe recalls that “Before the piece was even finished, let alone published, people were calling me ‘pro-rape,’ ‘human scum,’ a ‘harridan,’ a ‘monster out of Stephen King’s “IT”‘ a ‘ghoul,’ a ‘bitch,’ and a ‘garbage person.’” Catherine Deneuve and over 100 other prominent French women were met with a similar tsunami of name-calling and criticism following their public letter comparing #MeToo to a witch hunt. The result has been a censorious closing down of debate through a crude division between “good women” who stick to the #MeToo script and “bad women” who digress.

Criticism of the wrong kind of women respects no limits. Film producer Jill Messick, best known for her work on Mean Girls and Frida, committed suicide in February. Messick worked for Weinstein’s Miramax between 1997 and 2003 and was manager for Rose McGowan in the late 1990s. As #MeToo gained ground, McGowan alleged she was raped by Weinstein and that Messick knew but did not take appropriate action. Messick was reportedly already suffering from depression; it seems unlikely that finding herself caught between McGowan and Weinstein, between claim and counterclaim, can have done much good for her mental health. The speed with which Messick was written out of history makes clear that to the #MeToo activists, some people’s lives are worth more than others.

#MeToo is a moral crusade where facts are readily sacrificed for the greater good of the cause. When it comes to declaring rape, sexual assault, or harassment, what matters to activists is not objective evidence that can be proved or disproved but the subjective feelings of the accuser. #MeToo has redefined sexual misconduct as unwanted behavior. As the case against actor Aziz Ansari showed, defining abuse as unwanted behavior takes us into the realm of the bad date. Leaving a restaurant too early, pouring wine without asking, even attempting a kiss might all be considered rude, but they are only violations in the mind of the most zealous #MeToo crusaders. Women in such scenarios are robbed of all agency; apparently unable to say no, they are forced to rely on men’s presumed mind-reading skills to protect them from the unwanted. Not only does this pave the way for miscarriages of justice, it makes all interactions between men and women inherently risky.

I witnessed this same thing in action a quarter century go, during a sexual harassment seminar required by all employees of the large corporation I was working for at the time. We were told, in no uncertain terms, that harassment was defined by the feelings of the victim. That’s no standard of justice, but it’s a great way to subjugate men to the whims of women.

EXHIBIT A IN THE NEW HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST: Hollywood Blacklisted Lee Ermey for Thought Crimes Against Barack Obama.

Why, it’s like five decades of anti-Blacklist movies was just the world’s longest modified limited hangout or something.

COLUMBIA: College Republicans under investigation for ‘thought crime.’ “They want to silence the speech of anyone who’s Christian, conservative, who believes in free market values.”


Nationalism and “healthy” family values are in, say the Chinese censors, while homosexuality and references to China’s past use of force against neighbors are out. And lest one think the guidelines were mere suggestions, the authorities have already begun to enforce them with severe force. As the FT reported last month, the government has already coerced top tech groups into deleting 300 mobile video platforms and firing 10,000 journalists who were in violation of the rules.

China has lately earned plaudits among Western liberal bien pensants for its paeans to the Paris agreement and rhetorical opposition to Trump’s protectionism. But China’s role as the liberal darling isn’t likely to last long as Xi turns key liberal beliefs into thought crimes.

To be fair, lots of people here — *cough* CNN *cough* — are going after “thought crimes” too.

QUESTION ASKED: At What Point Is Islamist Rhetoric a Crime?

Jim Geraghty:

Yesterday on Twitter, Sam Hooper gave me a little grief – perhaps deserved – for my comments on the day’s Three Martini Lunch podcast generally supportive of U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposal of new measures in response to the recent Islamist terror attacks.

Hooper asked, “should someone be arrested for saying ‘I want to overthrow the US government and establish an Islamic state?” Not for actually doing it, mind you, but merely for saying the words. Are saying those words aloud a crime? If so, aren’t we getting unnervingly close to the concept of “Thought Crimes”?

It’s fair to ask that question; it’s entirely possible that my perspective on terrorism right now is emotionally clouded by the thought of those ten children, and 22 people overall, went to an Ariana Grande concert one night and never came home. Indeed, it would be odd and unnerving and inconsistent with our traditions of free expression to arrest and imprison someone for the mere expression of the thought.

(On the other hand, if you’re going to have a hate crime law the way the United Kingdom does, it’s pretty ridiculous to not apply it to someone who’s preaching violence against infidels.)

But when we’ve witnessed and endured Islamist terror attack after Islamist terror attack in one Western city after another, isn’t it fair to ask how many who call for an Islamist overthrow of the government and imposition of Sharia law are truly harmless?

This is a gray area for liberal (in the classic sense) governments. But perhaps it would clarify our thinking if we imagined what steps would be permissible and advisable if parts of the Islamic world were at actual war with the West — which they are.

MARK BAUERLEIN: No Guilt This Time. “Which brings us back to Donald Trump. Why do people hate him so? Because he won’t accept this appointed condition. He has no white guilt. He doesn’t feel any male guilt, either, or American guilt or Christian guilt. He talks about the United States with uncritical approval—’America First’—and that’s a thought crime in the eyes of liberals.”

He rejects their assumed position of moral and intellectual supremacy. Which is both fair, and painful, because that position has always been a lie.

BRIAN LEITER IS UNHAPPY: Thought crimes watch: comparing trans-racialism to transgenderism verboten! It’s a feminist journal, so I love his reference to “whatever passes for peer review” there. Ouch! Plus:

Apparently the “harm” to Prof. Tuvel of a public apology by the majority of the editorial board of the journal that published her article was outweighed by the “harm” of her thought crime to transgender people. (Addendum: no thought crime is complete without a public letter of protest. What is chilling about this is that instead of this campaign of vilification of a junior faculty member and demand for “retraction” of her article, someone could have written a response piece and sent it to the same journal. But this is obviously not a scholarly community, but a political one. Those familiar with the history of 20th-century Marxist movements will recognize what’s going on here, and it isn’t a happy sight.)

Well, leftist autophagy isn’t an entirely unhappy sight. (Bumped).

A REAL “UP YOURS” TO TRUMP: Obama taps Harvard for new “War on Men” Czar.

College men, meet Mia Karvonides, your new worst nightmare.

Currently she’s the head of the “Title IX and Gender Equity” office at Harvard University, charged with ensuring there is no safe space for men anywhere at Harvard.

For example, recently Ms. Karvonides helped persecute the members of the men’s soccer team for their “thought crime” of (privately, in a document circulated only amongst themselves) evaluating members of the women’s soccer team based on their sex appeal. (For critical takes on the persecution, which included the cancellation of the rest of the men’s soccer season based on events that had occurred years earlier, see Breitbart, Legal Insurrection, College Fix, Daily Caller, Total Frat Move, and Reddit.)

Intent on taking this “War on Men” national, President Obama and his minions have engineered the appointment of Ms. Karvonides, effective Jan. 17, to serve as the federal government’s top official in charge of enforcing Title IX against all colleges and universities, according to a Harvard Crimson story broken about 5 p.m. (Eastern time) today: “Title IX Officer Mia Karvonides to Leave Harvard.”

Under the direction of Ms. Karvonides soon, in the immortal words of David Burge, all college students born with the shame of having a penis — not just those at Harvard — may have new hope of being reeducated not to be a man.

Trump should just fire her and let her fight him in court if she wants. As one of my law professors said about the big case on Presidential removal power, Humphrey’s Executor, the name of the case tells the real story.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ON THE GREAT REGRESSION: “Today, it seems that Orwell’s 1984 would better have been titled 2016,” VDH writes:

Orwell was wrong only on his dates. Had he entitled his novel 2016, we would immediately have recognized his parallels to the present “overseas contingency operations,” “violent extremism,” “undocumented immigrants,” and “man-caused disasters.” The campus diversity czar is our Big Brother. Imagining that all lives matter is a thought crime. Due process on a campus today is counter-revolutionary, and proper sexual congress among students is to be scripted as a politically correct act, as if we were all Orwell’s Winston Smith and Julia. Is the Junior Anti-Sex League with its red sashes far behind?

As the London Guardian lamented on Sunday, “Goodbye to sex: a short and heartfelt eulogy.”

Hey, the Washington Post wasn’t kidding when at the start of 2009, via their then-owned magazine Newsweek, they declared “We Are All Socialists Now” – evidently, they didn’t realize (or care) that the result would be something akin to East Germany, albeit with Justin Bieber and the Kardashians for entertainment, rather than ‘60s London with socialized medicine and the Beatles. (Or Sweden and Abba for that matter.)


Take the illiberal New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, a proponent of censorship who is considering using racketeering charges against global warming skeptics. A government official who wants to punish people for thought crimes now has the temerity to talk about freedom of the press. Gawker, by the way, once favorably wrote about arresting climate change deniers. Unlike Michael Mann and Bill Nye and a bunch of AGs, there are those who believe political speech should be protected, and yet also that media organizations should not be immune from the law.

It’s worth once again pointing out that the trial was okayed by judge, the verdict was rendered by a jury, and the decision was upheld by a circuit judge. In no sense does this suit fall under the concept of “frivolous.” Yet liberal writers do not like the outcome mostly because Thiel is politically unacceptable to them and because they don’t like that he was driven by revenge.

Read the whole thing.

OH, THAT DEATH OF THE GROWN-UP: The New Thought Crime: ‘Adultism.’

WHEN WITCH HUNTS ARE LED BY WITCHES: How free speech became a thought crime: A chilling warning after feminists hound a Nobel winner from his job for ‘sexism.’

JOHN FUND: The Rudy Gotcha Game: The Double Standard For “Perceived Thought Crime.”

HOW BUREAUCRATS THINK: Thought Crime: UK Leadership Wants To Ban Predicted ‘Extremists’ From Social Media, TV, Events. The way they handled the Rotherham rape scandal should give you some idea of what that will involve.

Say, did any of the officials responsible for Rotherham get prosecuted for anything? . . .

SCOTT JOHNSON: “There is a disturbing undercurrent in Obama’s campaign-style speech on behalf of Obamacare at the White House today. Obama never credits opponents of the law with the substance of their criticism. He does not attribute decent motives or good faith opposition to them. Rather, he treats them as ‘wreckers’ (as they were deemed in the Soviet Union) guilty of destructive thought crime.”

Hey, as I wrote back in 2010, “They’ll be going after ‘hoarders and wreckers’ next!” Can I call ’em, or can I call ’em?

AT POPEHAT: Pax Dickinson: Thought Crime, Public Shaming and Thick Liberty in the Internet Age. Mostly I’ll note that going after people’s jobs is often lefties’ first resort.

WAS THE CANNIBAL COP convicted of a thought crime?

JOHN KASS: City Hall turns chicken sandwich into thought crime. “So if a business owner makes public his personal views, it won’t be the public that decides whether to patronize the establishment. Instead, politicians will decide for us and swing the government hammer to knock the business down. The message from Chicago’s City Hall is simple: Speak out of turn and we’ll crush you.”

See, I support gay marriage — though I think it should be arrived at legislatively, not through judicial fiat — but the thuggish behavior of gay-marriage supporters is a real turnoff. There’s a good chance it will inspire a backlash.

UPDATE: Reader Nick Osborn writes: “New Chicago civic motto: Clinging bitterly to gun control and religious bigotry.”

AUSTRALIA VS. ANDREW BOLT: “Andrew Bolt has been dragged before a judge and accused of thought crimes against the high church of political correctness.” I’m betting on Bolt.