#racism

Starbucks works harder to alienate customers

7DE96057-6A10-4719-9B7E-D2878CAE54AD

This sort of in your face political correctness propaganda is becoming too much. Starbucks closed 8,000 stores on Tuesday and reached out to activists and bias training experts to put a curriculum together for its 175,000 workers to prevent “unconscious bias ”

While training staff is never a bad thing, do the human resources/ PR department at Starbucks honestly think that explicitly educating white people about their racism (if it truly exists on any scale to warrant the conscious bias based indoctrination) will do anything other than alienate more customers? What a smear on the majority of clientele and staff who no doubt exercise decency when transacting their skim milk doubleshot latte.

CM had an interesting chat earlier this year with a senior manager of a global corporation. He was recruiting but was told by his HR department that there is a risk he might have ‘unconscious bias.’ In order to mitigate those fears HR blanks out anything it deems might trigger it. Think of wartime correspondence from the front line to families at home.

Unsurprisingly he takes such things as a slight on his own character. That despite two decades of loyal service the company all of a sudden deems his judgement (which til then was never called into question) as something to regulate.

The irony of modern HR departments is that they seem to go out of their way to find out every detail on gender, race, religion and disability during the application process in order to enforce their own ‘conscious bias’.

Welcome to HR which is fast becoming the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.

Is yoga racist?

5197D77E-62FA-4049-807D-AB024E475245.png

A Michigan State University religious studies professor Shreena Gandhi has claimed that white people who do yoga contribute to a “system of power, privilege, and oppression… White Americans should learn yoga’s history, acknowledge the cultural appropriation they engage in and possibly reduce the cost of yoga classes for poor people, a group that often includes people of color and recent immigrants, such as Indian women to whom this practice rightfully belong.”

Wow. Who knew that those whites doing the downward facing dog were poking their posteriors to the poor and minority groups? How can whites overlook this? Why aren’t they donating to yoga scholarships or at the very least paying double their yoga lessons to subsidize them? Can we see the statistics or proof showing how the poor, people of colour and recently arrived immigrants value yoga as their highest priority injustice?

Every person who has done yoga in CM’s experience has done it for the health, meditative and stretching benefits. Anyway let’s see what minorities say about yoga.

According to an article in the Washington based  The Healthy African titled ‘Namaste : Black Girls journey to Yoga’ it noted the following,

In my journey to being a healthier individual I have come to realize that a healthy body cannot be attained without a healthy mind. Yoga is a practice that truly takes this holistic view of health . It is not about competition or singular priorities…I find that Yoga is a practice many more women of color should be looking to as a means of attaining a healthy lifestyle.

The author isn’t asking women of colour (presumably her audience) to even out the ethnicity imbalance in yoga classrooms but seek it for the health benefits. Perhaps Professor Gandhi should check that minorities follow the same guidelines on the history of yoga.

Afrogirl Fitness also wrote an article titled ‘Yoga for Christians’

As a Christian, I am always questioned about my yoga practice and its connection to my Christian faith. The question recently posed to me was “As a person of faith, are there aspects of yoga that you omit from your practice?” Currently, the answer is yes, simply because there are so many aspects of yoga that I am still learning and applying to my Christian faith. Yoga goes beyond the physical practice (asana) as stated in the yoga sutras, with the ultimate goal being self –realization.

No it doesn’t seem African American yogis that are Christians are crying out for equality in the classroom either.

Rina Jakubowicz was born in Venezuela to a mother from Cuba and father from Argentina. She moved to Miami at age 4 and now lives in Los Angeles. She noted that not many Hispanics were doing yoga due to language difficulties and has started to promote yoga classes held in Spanish. She said to Yoga Journal,

Well, a top priority for me was to get yoga out to people and use it to help inspire others and get them to incorporate it into their lives…Yoga hasn’t been presented to Latinos. They might feel like it is not accessible to them—there haven’t been a lot of Spanish yoga classes…If you make it available, people will start doing it.

Then there is the story of Rodney Yee who has been in the yoga game since 1980. He wrote on his homepage, “His appearance on Oprah in 1999 helped catapult Yoga into the mainstream. Other highlights in his long career as a premiere Yoga teacher include the co-owning of Piedmont Yoga Studio, his vast output of videos with Gaiam, and his eloquent workshops around the world.”

Surely Mr Yee is the root of the problem and the target of any attacks by the professor. Had he not catapulted yoga into the mainstream then we wouldn’t have as many whites doing yoga. Shame on Mr Yee for creating jobs and helping more people of all backgrounds access healthy lifestyles. Shame on Oprah for promoting him.

In summary it seems more and more  blacks, Hispanics and Asians merely embody yoga’s spirituality to help develop PERSONAL growth. It doesn’t appear to be anything else that’s driven it.

Perhaps Prof. Gandhi should be seeking her own personal growth by crawling out from beneath her own yoga mat before the Dean sees how completely lame her teaching methods are.

Liberalism: let’s find a cure.

It’s ok if Eddie Murphy does it

70E73163-85B6-4B4A-A92F-F2B9852CC86D.jpeg

Such is the double standards of the media these days. The amount of drivel that has been spewed over Japanese comedian Hamada’s skit which had him role play Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy) in Beverley Hills Cop. “Racist” is the most used word against Hamada but how many forget the accolades Eddie Murphy received playing multiple roles in the film Coming to America including that of a white Jewish man? Not a peep.

One can call Hamada’s humour as “insensitive” but get a grip. Japanese humour is what it is. Not many foreigners get it. Most of it is hitting soft hammers on the heads of celebrities and gags such as being shoved in a bag full of cockroaches to humiliate the star. I doubt that Hamada had the slightest intention to create a race based attempt at belittling blacks.

As for the Eddie Murphy skit it is unlikely that many Japanese would get the correlation of a Detroit Lions jacket and Axel Foley without the make up addition.

Still even Aussie kids can get vilified for dressing up as their favourite AFL stars like Nic Naitanui who just happen to be ‘coloured’. No bigger sign of praise to the player than to want to be as authentic as possible right down to skin colour. It isn’t shaming. It’s praising. Indeed skin colour is irrelevant to a player but a 9yo kid just sees an idol rather than identity politics. Yet the left think the bigger lesson is not to get kids to be dreamers and aspire to role models but smack them and their parents over the head for being bigots.

Poor comedy would be a bigger crime than poor taste in Hamada’s case.  I’m sure the Japanese won’t lose a wink over it as political correctness thankfully doesn’t exist there. Talk about cultural insensitivity- to understand Japan would be a first step before the social justice warriors went to war

The growing dangers of the Sanctimonious Society

IMG_0820.JPG

Welcome to the sanctimonious society. Social media has taken this to new levels. Given the superficiality of much of today’s internet posts, memes and rants, what it has done is destroy the need for serious debate over contentious issues. Before discussing the likes of Twitter or Facebook censoring certain bloggers, the discourse is self-evident. How often do you read a credible rebuttal to a topical post? Hardly ever is the answer. Usually the criticism is laced with sanctimony, expletives and ridicule. The aim of trolling is none other than to shut down debate and make fun of the person who makes the statement. The intensity of cyber-bullying is chronic. In some respects it is none too surprising we are dealing with words like snowflake, trigger warnings and safe spaces these days.

Take cyber bullying stats from the Association of Psychological Science in the US. In 2015 more than 16,000 young people were absent from school daily because of bullying. 83% of young people say cyber bullying has a negative impact on their self-esteem. 30% of young people have gone on to self-harm as a result of cyberbullying. 10% of young people have attempted to commit suicide as a result of cyberbullying. People who have been bullied are at greatest risk for health problems in adulthood, over six times more likely to be diagnosed with a serious illness, smoke regularly, or develop a psychiatric disorder compared to those not involved in bullying. In the US alone, suicides per 100,000 head of population since 2000 are up 38% according to WHO.

However the WiFi world is quickly escalating unreasoned stupidity in the real world. The internet is awash with so much ill-considered social media activity that if one chooses to breathe for 10 minutes the story will likely have changed 180 degrees from the initial knee jerk. Take the terrible events of Charlottesville this week. The driver that plowed into the crowd was initially reported as a white supremacist before other media reported he was Antifa. Regardless of his affiliation his actions were repugnant. Anyone with common decency can see that. Trying to justify the legitimacy of masked Antifa (many who were carrying baseball bats) staging a ‘peaceful’ protest was somehow morally superior to alt-right torch bearers or vice versa is almost like trying to say watering your lawn with gasoline is less harmful than diesel to kill off weeds.

While the tragedies of the lost lives and depraved acts of violence from both sides is impossible to ignore, the (social and mainstream) media was awash with one sided views. There was no debate and balanced reasoning was next to non existent. One could argue the media has always been biased and to some extent that is true however in the social media world clickbait means revenue and the more sensational and less accurate the reporting the higher the likely ‘hits’ which only exacerbates the problem. We only need to look at CNN’s admission that the ‘Russiagate’ story has been a fabrication for ratings. Integrity be damned. Sadly that is becoming almost an all too common thread of today’s society. Selfish, narcissistic and insensitive bullying.

The other problem nowadays is that almost everyone carries a video camera. It is as if many think they are behind the safety of their own computer screens, oblivious to what is going on. Only a few months ago, an armed SWAT team boarded a Malaysian Airlines flight to suppress a crazed passenger. Despite the screams to get down, multiple people could be seen standing as tall as possible trying to improve the angle of the altercation on their iPhones. There is a sick surrealism to it. Yet if we take this clickbait of someone’s footage at Charlottesville, disseminated to an audience already prejudiced, it only adds to the hysteria. The instant it hits the mobs’ feed it can lead to incorrect assumptions to what is actually going on, even worse hampering emergency services efficacy in controlling the situation. Yet, 10 minutes later, the unedited version of the same scene or one shot from a different angle can completely undermine that biased view. It might show how the violence really escalated rather than the deliberately cut version showing the evil of the unhinged. If we managed to get all of the collective footage from 1,000s of smartphones and objectively analyzed it all it wouldn’t be surprising to see both sides fueling the violence in different areas. Yet because it fits the picture of the ‘divided’ country narrative no attempts are made to seek balance which only fires up the misinformation.

Did Trump take too long to condemn the KKK, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacists? Perhaps. Was he waiting for a full debrief on what went on? Perhaps. Are all 63 million odd Trump voters that don’t openly condemn these acts of violence guilty of being white-supremacists by association? No. Are all Democrats responsible for what Antifa does? No. Internet trolls seem less intent on getting tacit admissions of guilt from their enemy. Think of the campaign which has identified some of the torch bearers leading several to get fired by their employers. Where was the campaign to identify the baseball bat wielding Antifa thugs? Was it because they were masked? Some might cynically claim they don’t have jobs to be fired from. However this idea that only one side is guilty serves no purpose and risks further division.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Both extremes are so caught up in their own views there is little scope for reasoning much less any desire to consider the alternative argument. This idea that Trump is all of a sudden responsible for unleashing this division is preposterous. Hate doesn’t surface in 6 months. It brews over longer periods of time. If anything Trump is a catalyst to it. His caustic manner is tipping an apple cart of decades of political correctness and walking on eggshells legislation that has sought in many cases to promote victimhood. The President’s actions now threaten many of these altruistic views and socialist ideals. They are upset. This isn’t to debate the rights and wrongs of policy set by previous administrations, rather seek to identify why this scourge is happening. It doesn’t justify any forms of violence but it highlights how tightly sprung things are. Just think of why a p*$$y grabbing vulgarian was able to defy all the odds in the election? Could it be that the underbelly of division has existed in America for so long? It finally reached breaking point and delivered him to the White House? The idea he has created this division is a complete falsehood. One might argue his tweets are stirring this hornet’s nest but the sad fact of the matter is that the problems have been brewing way before his inauguration. Ask yourself why hasn’t the mainstream media worked out the best way to cripple Trump is to ignore him? 18 months on since he won the GOP ticket they have not stopped hyperventilating which gives him more airtime than he deserves and ultimately makes them look foolish.

This bullying behaviour is only likely to get worse. The ever worsening cesspit of social media will only exacerbate the problem. Behind a keyboard, people feel they can afford to be 10 feet tall but seldom do they realize their actions could carry (un)intended negative reactions.

More laws are being created to clamp down on what is called ‘hate speech’ or discriminatory language. However we are witnessing more countries shut down free speech and innocent people are having their lives destroyed for expressing points of view that are completely acceptable and not even the slightest bit racist or bigoted (Australians will know the secret trial held by the AHRC of several QUT students expressing a fact). Seeking prescriptive measures to shut people up will invite exactly the sort of behaviour it seeks to prevent. One can call former EDL leader Tommy Robinson a bigot but he has two best selling books in the UK. Could it be there are more people in the UK that share his views than politicians are willing to admit because political correctness is easier for them to dodge discussing pertinent issues? Whether Tommy is right or wrong in his analysis is beside the point. He obviously represents a larger mindshare of the community. Shutting them up forces the movement underground. Do we ban his book? It doesn’t seek to address the problem which in his case is Islam. In some cases he has a point. The exposure of predominantly Bangladeshi/Pakistani rape gangs who have groomed 100s of innocent women across 18 British cities is an issue. Listening to Newcastle City Mayor Nick Forbes, one of the places impacted by this depravity, spent an entire interview dodging the question of these grooming gangs not wanting to discuss the M word. All it does is alienate more people against an optically biased system.

One can debate till the cows come home about whether the M word is the main factor but if it is not openly debated, it is not hard to see why some will grow prejudiced. It is hardly desirable. It doesn’t mean the thinking is right rather a growing number of people feel ignored. It doesn’t automatically make them racists or bigots. Some feel politicians are hiding from speaking openly of jihadi attacks on home soil, dismissing them as lone wolf attacks or the community’s fault for forcing them to commit such atrocious acts. If indeed the left leaning media is so assured of bigotry by Anglo Saxon Brits why not show the other side of the debate and broadcast hours of footage showing Muslim clerics speaking out against these attacks, everyday Muslims integrating with their non-Muslim communities and how they are actively working with authorities to weed the radicals that are demonizing their faith? No, it’s easier to point fingers at bigoted Brits who see no comfort offered by their elected leaders in what they see happening to their community. Once again bullying people for expressing what they perceive as legitimate concerns doesn’t solve the problem.

To put the shoe on the other foot, Robinson posted a video link of the start of an Oldham (a borough of Manchester) Council meeting. It showed the majority of Anglo-Saxon councillors with their heads bowed as the elected Muslim Mayor requested his imam to say prayers. Of course it easy to see why some might draw conclusions to the decline of centuries of British culture however looking deeper into the matter yielded interesting findings. Voter turnout at the last election in the 25% Muslim borough was around 30%. It was a fairly held election. Democracy. Whether local politics is too petty for some, if the residents of Oldham are so incensed by the idea of an imam saying prayers in Arabic and English after following the Serjeant at Arms carrying a mace bearing a Christian cross it is hard to have sympathy. If one is truly in fear of the cultural upheaval, why not use their democracy to change it? Expressing outrage at something that is controllable seems ridiculous.

Australia is in the midst of bullying as well. Same sex marriage (SSM) is on the table. A postal plebiscite is set to occur. Many argue that parliamentarians should vote on it and get it over with. Indeed there are far more pressing economic issues to deal with. Yet the Turnbull government lacks any moral authority and is beholden to so many internal factions to be able to pass so called marriage equality.

Still regardless of one’s views on SSM, the bullying is in full effect. Musician Nick Minchin created one of his hallmark curse-ladened parodies of a Peter Allen song called, “I still call Australia homophobic”. Sadly he is part of the problem, not the solution. One doesn’t have to be homophobic to be against SSM. Yet Minchin thinks it is ok to call these people ‘bigoted c*nts’. Such words have all the same traits of ridiculing Trump or Brexit voters in the lead up to the vote. It has the opposite impact at the polling booth.

A Tasmanian archbishop is being hauled before a tribunal for expressing his anti-SSM views on the grounds of spreading hate. Are his views old fashioned or just part of millennia of religion? A hotel was forced to cancel a lawful gathering of anti-SSM campaigners through intimidation. Is this the sort of behaviour (albeit at the fringe) that unites a nation on a subject?

Some argue it is a waste of $122mn to hold a SSM plebiscite for a government in a $750bn hole. Maybe it is but to many out there, they want a democratic vote to take place. Some feel lobby groups that ignore their concerns (however backward, ancient or stiff) on issues they hold dearly are the exact reason why a vote should be held. It doesn’t matter to them whether a Catholic country like Ireland passed gay marriage, these people don’t want to be brow beaten, attacked or pilloried for expressing an alternative view. I am quite certain that should ‘Yes’ get up in the plebiscite people will have had their say. Shouting down the views of others is wrong. Let their voices be heard and allow the marketplace for free speech settle the differences. Sadly this is not the case. Any polling done by Get Up which shows an emphatic victory should be discounted. Indeed if they are so sure of a ‘Yes’ outcome then they should be over the moon to let democracy back its findings. Secretly they think otherwise. What they view as a waste of money won’t be to others.

Some people fear (again we’re not debating the rights and wrongs of it) that should lobby group bullying win the fight for SSM by an act of parliament then what comes next? We only need to look at the Safe Schools Programme in Victoria which is nothing more than a way to enforce gender indoctrination under the guise of anti-bullying. Cross dressing/role playing, whichever bathrooms and other ‘progressive’ programs are not necessary for 6 year olds. Boys playing with Tonka trucks and Matchbox cars or girls playing with Barbie dolls is not something that requires the school system to enforce boys and girls to reverse toy box selections. When I was a baby my mother recalled I had a love for cars. Even from my pram I knew more car names than English words. I’m sure she wasn’t wheeling me around the Warringah Mall car park trying to force me to do male things. By the same token my daughters weren’t chained to the Bratz corner of Toys’R’us in order to force them to be girls. Seeing her mother apply makeup was something she wanted to do.

What this all boils down to is society’s growing intolerance for free and open debate. We do not lack the ability to talk but we’re incapable of listening. That alternative views must be mocked or banned. There are some with such inability to accept alternative views who suggest prison sentences for climate skepticism. Are the arguments for climate change so weak that alarmists believe the only way to force the end game is to legally ban freedom of opinion?

One imagines that if we put an Antifa and a KKK supporter in the same room unbeknownst to them both and asked a standard questions on a variety of topics they probably would agree on more than they would if within their representative groups. These experiments have been conducted before where complete strangers meet and by the end when identities are revealed there is an awakening. It isn’t forced but occurs naturally through cordial conversation.

I make no apology for my conservative views. One friend is an unabashed socialist. We debate intensely on a variety of issues we have polar views on. I recently wrote to him privately to thank him for broadening my understanding of his views. While I might disagree with him I certainly respect his right to debate his points, which he often does insightfully. Some points are indeed valid and on certain issues we see eye to eye. Others less so. However we listen.

Sadly sanctimony is becoming ever more firmly entrenched into our culture and it can have nothing but bad outcomes. Perhaps to end with a Jewish proverb – “slander slays three people: the spoken by, the spoken to and the spoken of”