Political Correctness

CUNY Tells Profs Not to Say 'Mr.' or 'Ms.' Because That's Offensive and Illegal-ish (It's Not)

This is political correctness right here, folks.


The Matrix

The City University of New York, a public institution bound by the First Amendment to grant the members of its community broad free speech rights, has issued a decree on the manner in which professors will now be expected to greet each other, as well as their students. More on that later.

But first: of all the bad responses to Jonathan Chait's recent New York magazine feature about the pernicious policing of language on the far left, none was as flatly wrong as Vox's, which claimed that "the truth about political correctness' is that it doesn't actually exist."

If political correctness doesn't exist, as Vox's Amanda Taub claims, then nothing is real and I'm living inside the Matrix. That's because I encounter and write about instances of political correctness run amok on a near-daily basis. These are not the kinds of trivial incidents Taub describes, mind you:

Political correctness isn't a "creed" at all. Rather it's a sort of catch-all term we apply to people who ask for more sensitivity to a particular cause than we're willing to give — a way to dismiss issues as frivolous in order to justify ignoring them. Worse, the charge of "political correctness" is often used by those in a position of privilege to silence debates raised by marginalized people — to say that their concerns don't deserve to be voiced, much less addressed.

Taub's definition of political correctness implies that the perpetually offended are "often" correct to feel that way. Fine. Are they justified in having their sensitivity codified and enforced as well? Because that's what has happened on college campuses across the country, where students and professors are not merely chastised for saying the wrong thing, but formally sanctioned. Professors have been fired and students have been suspended for thought-crime and word-crime—for saying something that didn't quite clear the unreasonably high offendedness bar of the modern leftist. This has created a culture of feelings-protection on campuses under which students increasingly feel entitled to emotional comfort; in response, administrators keep introducing rules to give them more of it.

On that note, let's dig into a prime example of something that supposedly doesn't exist.

CUNY's Graduate Center now believes the use of gendered salutations like "Mr." and "Mrs." might offend some students. What's more, administrators think federal non-discrimination law requires the university to prevent its faculty from inadvertently giving offense. Therefore, professors have been instructed to wipe the contentious words from their memories and cease using them in any and all forms of communication. According to The College Fix:

"Effective Spring 2015, the (graduate center's) policy is to eliminate the use of gendered salutations and references in correspondence to students, prospective students, and third parties," Louise Lennihan, interim provost, states to employees in a recent memo. "Accordingly, Mr. and Ms. should be omitted from salutations."

Lennihan instructs staffers to interpret the new policy "as broadly as possible," that it applies to "all types of correspondence, such as: all parts of any letter including address and salutation, mailing labels, bills or invoices, and any other forms or reports," states the memo, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by school spokeswoman Tanya Domi.

School spokeswoman Domi told The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the new policy, that it aims to work "within a regulatory framework to comply with Title IX legal principles."

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's Ari Cohn explains why this thinking is absurd:

But Ari Cohn, free speech lawyer and advocate at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, took issue with the spokeswoman's suggestion that Title IX requires or even encourages a policy similar to the one the graduate center has implemented.

"Title IX prohibits discrimination—nothing more," he said in an email to The College Fix. "Unfortunately, this problematic justification is emblematic of a pattern that FIRE is increasingly concerned by: Title IX is being turned into a Swiss army knife that can be used by colleges and universities to justify (and provide political cover for) virtually any academic or institutional policy even tangentially related to sex or gender."

It's wrong to tell professors at a public university how they should talk to their students—wrong in the legal, moral, and practical senses. But CUNY is doing it anyway, and the reason is something that doesn't actually exist. According to Vox.

For some better reactions to the Chait piece, read Elizabeth Nolan Brown's roundup here. I'm a fan of Freddie de Boer's response, in particular.

NEXT: No Fly List On Trial, Revenge Porn Versus the FTC, California Could Raise Legal Smoking Age: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I remember being told, in the space of a few weeks, that political correctness was the source of all social progress and that it didn’t exist. It wasn’t the same person, but still.

    1. Cognitive dissonance or “doublethink” was considered an essential component of political correctness by the man who first drescribed the phenomenon fully. Political correctness is largely about denying the existance of facts inconvenient to the prevailing ideology, like thr humans primary come in male and female varieties. Hell, certsin writers in this publicstion are uncomfortable with customs that explicitly acknowledge these types of facts.

      1. Isn’t Title IX itself gendered?

        Gotta love postmodernism annihilating itself.

      2. Academics who “police” speech are perfectly willing to resort to the violence of the law, i.e. the actual police, to silence the expression of facts they do not like and to impose their views of what is permissible and not. At places like NYU, for example, inappropriately deadpan parody “confessions” mocking well-connected department chairmen are considered prime candidates for policing, particularly when they are conveyed by email or, presumably, through media like Twitter. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal satire case at:


    2. “Do not mock Mohammed, and do not eat bacon or name a street ‘Bacon’ near a mosque.”

      “That sounds like PC crap to me.”

      “You are trying to silence our voice!”

      How can anyone deny the existence of political correctness only a month after the Charlie Hebdo incident?

  2. How about “hey, you there!”

    1. Or “Comrade”?

      1. “Pilgrim”?


    2. “Citizen” would be the correct answer as it gives the French Revolution vibe that the activists are striving for, but the “Differently Documented” would pitch a fit, so that too is unacceptable.

    3. Hey, fuckface!

    4. I guess, “Hey guy!” isn’t kosher?

    5. i think they are aiming for something more like:

      “special and precious autonomous human”

      we could shorten it to “sapah” and then mr and mrs jones could both be known as sapah jones.

  3. Worse, the charge of “political correctness” is often used by those in a position of privilege to silence debates raised by marginalized people ? to say that their concerns don’t deserve to be voiced, much less addressed.

    That’s funny. I was going to make that argument about the term “privilege”

    1. Now, now, political correctness itself would never, ever, ever be used to silence debates, ever.

    2. The left isn’t shy about using whatever political power they have to silence people they disagree with. That is, in fact, the whole point of ‘check your priviledge’. It entire purpose is to shut up people the left doesn’t want to speak.

      You have to understand that leftists, real leftists, are really serious about gaining power by whatever means necessary. That’s what revolutionary marxism teaches. There is no obligation in Marxism to be “fair” to the ruling class. The “system” is to be destroyed by any weapon available, and disingenuous bullshit about priviledge is a perfectly suitable one.

      1. There is no obligation in Marxism to be “fair” to the ruling class.

        Not only that, there isn’t even an obligation for the revolutionaries to be logical or internally consistent in their views. Marxism is nothing but a infintile cry of “GIMME” dressed up in nonsense language.

        1. It is a mistake to attribute this impulse to Marxism. Oh, Marxists certainly subscribe to it, but the dirty secret is that Marxists are no different than any other bunch of power-seeking bums in history. They have a fine sounding theory about why they should me rnning things? Well, so did the Social Darwinists, the Southern Planters, the Medeaval Monarchists, amd the Caesars.

          The Left are just another in a long list of concatenations of would-be Aristocrats. They have no intention of being “fair” to the present ruling class – or anyone else – because they fully intend to be the NEXT ruling class. And they intend to STAY the next ruling class.

          Guillotine bait, the lot of ’em.

          1. So no one but Marxists seek power? Whew! I was worried that it was some sort of widespread phenomenon! Instead, it’s the ludicrous practice of a tiny minority. I’m so relieved.

      2. Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. If you disagree with the left then you’re intolerant, and it is the duty of tolerant leftists to silence you.

        1. The left doesn’t give two shits about tolerance.

          Winning is about not tolerating their enemies, and convincing other people to not tolerate their enemies.

          1. My point was that the like to define words by their opposites. So when they say they are being tolerant they are in fact being intolerant. Same thing with social justice. Social justice requires institutional injustice. How else can you enforce equality? You must systematically and unjustly use the government to take what some have earned and give it to people who did nothing. So to them justice is injustice.

            1. Right. The whole point of adding the “social” is because they think there is something wrong with the regular kind.

              “Social” justice basically means “we’re going to do something unjust to individuals in order to rectify group inequality”.

              1. This is why I always add “ist” to “social”.

                Socialist Media. Socialist Justice.

                Bring the truth of them right out.

                Now if you’ll pardon me, I have an ice cream socialist to attend.

      3. That is, in fact, the whole point of ‘check your priviledge’. It entire purpose is to shut up people the left doesn’t want to speak.

        Someone on this board pointed out that that phrase is the ultimate ad hominem, because it’s purpose is to nullify any argument you make based on nothing more than who you are and/or the color of your skin.

      4. Shit like this makes us sound like aging conspiracy nuts; whatever happened to plain old incompetence and misguided idealism? And why would the new generation of young social liberal progressives follow an old and disproven economic theory?
        Even economic liberals usually don’t follow Marx, that’s too obviously a failure – they just follow a vague pinko philosophy of anti-capitalism.
        I wish more leftists admitted to following Karl Marx it would be easier to engage them in economic debates.

        Classical marxism isn’t completely accepted anymore by even radical leftists – even in my social justice warrior phase I’ve seen a hardcore internet marxist-feminist SJW blogger get made fun of by her peers for being so marxist.

        Social Justice Warrior leftists may have started out with marxism (especially radical feminism’s gender warfare against men) but what they’re really obsessed about is not ever actively or accidently oppressing anyone and fighting to end all oppression and perceived social injustice.
        They are the Anointed One on the side of the angels who fight demonized opponents.

        1. but what they’re really obsessed about is not ever actively or accidently oppressing anyone and fighting to end all oppression and perceived social injustice.

          I don’t call them Marxists, either, because really, most of them can barely spell Marx let alone have read anything but a Cliffs-Note-back-cover summary of anything about Marx.

          But I don’t think they give a rat’s ass about whether they oppress anyone. Case in point, the “rent control” debate in cities like SFO and SEA. The lefty kids stage protests and tantrums for absurdly-high minimum wages and super-cheap rent in chic apartments in trendy neighborhoods. They could give a soft shit if they trample on the rights of property owners; their goal is for government to seize other people’s property and hand it to them for little or no compensation or work.

          Leftists take up various anti-oppression causes until it touches the stuff that they want, then they lose interest. Occupy camps were supposed to be full of men who mumble platitudes about women’s rights blah blah blah, but somehow rapes still occurred in Occupy camps. Fancy that. Lefties drink booze, and would never give that up, despite the fact that alcohol ingredients like sugar and agave are harvested by low-wage workers. Lefties aren’t wearing all-American, union-made clothing, either.

    3. That’s funny. I was going to make that argument about the term “privilege”

      Before going off the deep end and deleting his YouTube account, TheInternetAristocrat had made the point in several of his Tumblr-themed videos that “privilege” was the secular left’s version of “original sin”.

  4. Ze. Soave,

    Please check your not-crazy-person-privilege.

    1. that’s basically it.

  5. catch-all term we apply to people who ask for more sensitivity…those in a position of privilege to silence debates raised by marginalized people

    The very notion of the above is, in of itself, “political correctness.”

    1. Always remember, everything a leftist says is a lie and the exact opposite of the truth. The truth is PC is the primary method the left uses to silence debate making competing ideas unacceptable to express. So of course, to the left anyone who objects to this is just trying to silence debate.

      It sounds like hyperbole to say everything they say is a lie. It isn’t. It is exactly how they are.

      1. It is literally straight out of Orwell.
        Control people’s minds by controlling what words they can use.

        Instead of not being allowed to use a trivial word like “plus” though, you are forced to use terms that sneak in political assumptions. It’s actually, if anything MORE sinister than what they were doing in 1984.

        1. What amazes me is how broken someone’s mind must be to get that sick and irrational.

          1. It’s pretty easy, actually. You just emote. Don’t think, emote. If it feels true then it is true. Don’t analyze or think critically, just feel. Go with your reactions. Don’t respond, because that requires thought. Just emote.

            Thing is, emoting is natural while thinking requires work.

            I know because I once felt as they do. Then I learned to think.

            1. The hole point is to hate. Hatred can be a great thing. It allows you to avoid responsibility for any of your problems because you can blame them all on the object of your hatred. It also is an endless source of self esteem and identity since hating someone necessarily implies you are better than they are.

              At his heart, it is an expression of profound narcissism, immaturity and inability to see the world and themselves as it is.

              1. “You want this, don’t you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.”


                1. Is that not out of the standard police weapons training manual?

            2. Don’t think, emote.

              Think just enough to firmly reinforce your emotional predispositions and conclusions.

              Anything to prevent yourself from realizing that the best option and the right option aren’t always the same and that everyone might make the decision(s) differently.

          2. It starts with pre-school. The minds are molded into this bullshit before first grade.

            1. Did you bring enough for *everyone*? No? Then you can’t have any either!

      2. The truth is PC is the primary method the left uses to silence debate

        They do this while espousing that the use of “offensive” language is what silences debate. It’s projection all the way down.

    2. The irony here is that they are using terms like privelege to silence debate among anyone that disagrees with them. WELL YOUR VOICE DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE YOU ARE WHITE AND PRIVELEGED!

      Nevermind that the person they are denigrating might come from the worst family background, poverty, etc., if you are white, then PRIVELEGE. The SJWs are by far the biggest racists and sexists of all.

      1. You say this like you think the left gives two shits about fairness. Wrong. it’s all about WINNING. If they can change the rules to bias things in their favor, that’s what they are going to do. Pointing out that it’s unfair is not going to be terrible effective, because they don’t think anyone should bother to be fair when it stands in the way of smashing the system.

      2. Facts do not matter. The whole thing is based on collective guilt. You are of the wrong race or economic class and therefore are guilty. What you may or may not have done doesn’t matter. Who you are makes you an enemy and a criminal.

        This is why Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same hideous coin. It didn’t matter if the individual Kulak had never exploited anyone and had in fact lived an exemplary life. He was a Kulak and therefore guilty the same way it didn’t matter if Jew or a lesser race wasn’t part of the conspiracy or hadn’t ever done anything wrong. The group they belonged to made them guilty and unworthy of living.

  6. There is one transman at work who recently “transitioned to a woman”. I really hope I don’t end up having to work on a project with him, because it would likely put me in the position of either lying to protect a crazy person’s feelings or getting fired to avoid a company lawsuit. I’d have to see if I could pull off avoiding using any pronouns for an extended period.

    1. If she transitioned TO female then she’s a transwoman.

      “lying to protect a crazy person’s feelings”

      How’s that assholery working out for you?

      1. He’s entitled to his feelings and opinions, Tonio. Whether or not his boss feels the same way is his problem.

        1. As I am entitled to mine, Susan. Right?

          1. When it comes to facts, no. He’s a man. Just like he’s a human. Just like he’s a mammal.

            1. No Auric, he’s *male*. That doesn’t mean he’s a *man*.

          2. As are we all. Okay, Auric is being kinda douchey and, this being Hit and Run, no one’s free from counter-comments.

            But I can respect that some people feel imposed upon by some things.

            1. Ya, it is very douchey of Auric not to want to work around a crazy person in a protected class. He should welcome the opportunity.

              1. When Fed government employees are supervisors they are instructted that if an underling come to them and tells them that they are LGBT of any stripe they must act excited and pleased, they miust be very enthusiastic. It is not ok to just say no problem, please go back to work.

      2. You mean listening to reality?

        When someone says they are a dog, we consider them crazy. When someone says they are Napoleon Bonaparte, we call them crazy. When a man says he is a woman, he’s crazy.

        1. So how come we don’t call people who claim to get messages from imaginary deities crazy?

          1. We don’t? I certainly do.

            1. And, by Crom, if *I* don’t insist (or forbid) that *you* read my Bible or say “God bless you!” to me when I sneeze then the two are hardly comparable.

              1. I say “God bless you” or “bless you” even though i don’t believe in god. It’s just a colloquialism at this point.

        2. It is only for the last that PC insists society must accept the person’s delusion.

          1. Exactly.

          2. We should call these rich, white leftists what they really are: transnuts

    2. I’ve worked with trans folks before, including, notably, one male-to-female-to-male.

      I call ’em by what they want to be called by, name and pronoun. No skin off my nose, and its simple politeness, no different than pronouncing “Koch” the way the person wants (“coke”? sure. “cotch”? no prob.)

      1. They’re nothing alike.

      2. It’s spelked K-O-C-H but it’s oronounced “VonSmasherton”.

        1. It’s spelled Raymond Luxury-Yacht, but it’s pronounced Troatwobbler Mangrove.

          1. H, should have been in there somewhere.

            1. I totally agree that Koch is like calling a trans the wrong gender. It annoys the hell out of me how Demi Moore thinks her name deserves non-english cadence. Yes its the same phonemes, but she insists on others violating basic rules. It’s like when a french person comes to america and expects ppl to say their name with a french accent. Go fuck yourself!

              You don’t get to tell others how you will be called. Language is a communal standard. No central authority mints words.

              Believing we should call a trans the wrong gender is like Dunphy coming on this website and demanding (and getting) a violence-backed ban on calling him a copsucker. You don’t get to dictate how you will be called, if that’s ‘he’, ‘Demi’, ‘Koch’, or hero cop.

              Reasonable persons negotiate mutually acceptable terms. Since trans don’t do this, they reveal themselves as complete assholes. They act like they are entitled, even if it disturbs others.

              Does it disturb your sensibility to call someone God? There was a college athlete, his birthname is God Shammgod. Do you think its reasonable to expect Deists to call him that?

              You don’t have a right to dictate how others will name you. Lots of the emotionally bullying types wish this weren’t true cuz they have been called pussy so much growing up. But if they could they would ban it. That is what is going on with trans ppl.

              I personally don’t believe in the gender reassignment as a reality change. Stop trying to control my beliefs by controlling my words.

      3. And that is what any decent human being would do.

        1. Decent human beings don’t lie.

          1. You, on the other hand, are a paragon of truth and virtue. You would never lie. Ever.

            Which does explain why, “Hi! I’m Sally” causes such angst for you. Poor wee lamb.

          2. I must respectfully disagree with you on that point – social niceties are largely a matter of polite lies and all decent people engage in it.

            (See what I did there? Simply by saying “respectfully” I have used the polite lie to indicate that I don’t think you’re a complete idiot.)

            1. What if hamster is a complete idiot? Likely, pussies be pussies and need protection like hamster.

              Fuck off, hamster.

          3. Decent human beings lie all the time.

      4. The problem RC is those that don’t tell you what they want get pissed off when you make an honest mistake and call for your firing.

        Those people can go to hell, if they aren’t there already.

      5. Since it’s far to complicated to perform a DNA text for a Y chromosome every time you meet someone, I just use the morphological definition of gender. If you have male reproductive parts you are male, if you have female reproductive parts you are female. There are exceptions for those with the parts of both, but otherwise I stick to my rule.

        Doesn’t matter if you want to be a woman, you’re not a woman until you actually become a woman. Bradley Manning is a male Bradley until such a day as he morphologically becomes a female Chelsea. Not one day before.

        1. You have to look down their pants, then. Rather forward of you, I would say.

    3. I sense anger.

      Here are boobs


      1. Uh…..what were we talking about?

  7. In my native culture it is considered offensive to address a stranger with a familiar pronoun. It is disrespectful to address someone with a salutation other than the equivalent of Mr. Mrs. Ms. Sir or Madam. CUNY’s policy discriminates on the basis of culture and ethnicity.

    1. They should just never speak to anyone for any reason. Then everyone would be happy.

      1. I, for one, would be ecstatic if Progtards never spoke.


        Of their own volition, of course.

        Never gonna happen … Proggies gotta prog.

    2. And what about a language like Spanish, where all nouns are gendered? Should we just tell 400 million people to stop talking and writing? Isn’t this whole thing a little… anglo-normative?

      1. When I pointed that out to a leftist Latino, he was not amused. Now, they replace the -o and -a gender endings with “@.” No, really.

        1. So how do I pronounce “senor@”?

          1. Senor-eh

            1. Se?or-meh-never-mind…

          2. So how do I pronounce “senor@”?


          3. Like this.


        2. How do you parody someone who’s already beyond it?

        3. How does La Progtardista say the word “Black” in Sp@nish?

      2. Turkish does not distinguish gender – it must be paradise there!

        1. The number of times a woman gets called “he” or “him” from a Turk speaking English, even after many, many, many, many years, is staggering.

          It’s sort of comical to see Turks struggle with even the minor language gendering in English.

    3. I hate the “my culture tells me to do X” argument.

      The best counter argument I ever heard was some guy who called in to a radio show back when we were having a big debate in Minnesoda about whether the Ojibwe should be able to net walleye in Lake Millacs because of their treaty rights.

      They caller said something along the lines of “I’m of Norewegian heritage, does this apply to me too? Can I cite my cultural heritage and traditional way of life to justify me getting into my boat and going across the lake to burn, rape and pillage my English-American’s cabin?”

      1. I hate the “speaking as a xxxx”

        It invokes privilege and is passively ad hominem. i.e. “you are not a xxxx, so you’re opinion is less valuable.

        1. What I hear when anyone says that is, “I’m not thoughtful and intelligent enough to form a substantial counterpoint to your statement, so instead I’ll leverage a completely irrelevant genetic trait that instantly grants me immunity.”

          1. Appeal to Authority Fallacy. That’s all it is. They’re holding themselves up as an authority because of their heritage, even though it has nothing to do with the validity or factual nature of their argument.

      2. A small part of the IT security community got chastised a few months ago after there was a campaign against ‘spearphishing’ (targeted phishing attacks). The Ojibwe community complained that we were stigmatizing them, or something.
        Apparently no other cultures engage in spearfishing.

    4. Because multiculturalism….unless we don’t like your culture. Very progressive.

  8. It is way past time that we called this stuff out as the Orwellian bullshit that it is.
    Really, how is erasing the word “Mr.” or “tranny” or “disabled” from the language any different from the language control that was imposed in 1984? Everyone knows that the *explicit* purpose of doing this is mind control. Yes, it is. The whole point of it is to control how people think, what they think, what their behavior towards others is, by controlling the WORDS they can use. It is NOT qualitatively different from the totalitarian policies that orwell wrote about. Which is not at all surprising given it’s origins of the far left and their long-standing obsession with sneaking political assumptions into the terms of every debate by controlling what words people are allowed to use.

    1. It is not. And it is also utterly idiotic and self defeating. Terms like “idiot” and “moron” and “retarded” were once scientific terms. Only later after they became pejoratives did science stop using them in favor of new terms like “handicapped” and “disabled” or “challenged” which of course became just as pejorative.

      Changing the language doesn’t change reality or people’s ability to comprehend it.

      1. Of course, it’s a perpetual treadmill, but if it works long enough to get themselves in power, do you think the left cares? Do you really think they will give a shit about disabled people in the socialist workers paradise? Disabled people are unproductive and not useful for society. Also why should a tranny selfishly demand a sex change operation when that money could be used for the betterment of all? Once you actually get to “common good” thinking, the disabled person and the transexual can’t even buy themselves treatment on the free market, because it’s stupid to let the free market cater to the needs of selfish individuals when their money can be used for whatever “the people” decide is most important.

        1. Very cogent, Hazel.

          1. And accurate.

    2. i always found it funny that “Paki” and “Aussi” are grammatically the same construct. The only difference is how it is received.

      1. Paki! Paki! Paki! Poi! Poi! Poi!

      2. Due to Reason commentators, I sometimes use the term “Canuckistan” in real life now.

        1. I started in real life when I worked on a helpdesk that covered the US and Canada.

          Of course, on the phone I was a professional, but after the call was over I joked to avoid facing the fact that I was making crap at a terrible job.

    3. No matter how many conservatives love to engage in this kind of hyperbolic conspiracy ranting in their own echo chambers, libertarians don’t nearly have enough of the popular vote to have this kind of strawman “analysis” ever taken seriously.
      This is like those Christian creationist fundamentalists who get together and think they have atheists and evolutionists all figured out.

      1. Please explain how political correctness as practiced today differs from what Orwell wrote about in ‘1984’.

        Really? What’s the difference. It is language as a tool of social manipulation. That is EXACTLY what Orwell was writing about.

  9. They should substitute boners and bitches.

    1. Pricks and twats.

    2. Pimps and Ho’s

      1. Gotta keep your pimp-hand strong, yo.

  10. When the world starts resembling *Life of Brian,* something’s gone seriously wrong.

    “I want you to call me Loretta!”

    “Jews of both sexes, and hermaphrodites!”

    1. On college campuses is doesn’t just resemble it. These people are stark raving mad and they have positions of authority.

      1. Perhaps Alice in Wonderland would be a better comparison.

        1. The Mad Hatter is like, “wow, those people are insane!”

          1. Barking mad, without even the excuse of mercury exposure.

  11. Alt text on picture. I lol’d.

  12. Good morning, fellow entities!

    What rubbish.

    1. I believe the prefered term for your fellows in academia is Purple Penguins.

  13. We have a window of time in which to mock – and sue – these people so severely that they back off. Who knows how long the window will last – eventually mocking the lunatics will itself become a career-killer.

    Online education can’t come soon enough.

    1. But the lunatics whine so when you mock them, right Eddie?

      1. Ah, Tonio, you’d miss me if I were gone, wouldn’t you?


  14. Am I the only one who read CUNT instead of CUNY?

    1. All right, time for the re-Ned-ucation!


    2. California University of New Technology.

      If such a place doesn’t exist, it should.

      1. There were a few library school that changed to College of Library and Information Technology without thinking it through. And changing “College” to “School” wasn’t any better.

        1. Poor Beaver College of Pennsylvania finally had to change its name a few years ago. People with minds like yours just ruin everything.

          1. I ruin everything.

            1. If by ruin you mean defile, you’re right.

        2. Still doesn’t beat the Butte County High School in Idaho.

          I know they don’t have a spiffy acronym, but their mascot is a pirate.

          Yup they are the Butte Pirates.


        3. I actually graduated from a school that for a very brief time in between being known as West Georgia College and University of West Georgia actually called themselves State University of West Georgia because apparently nobody ever thought to say the acronym SUWG out loud.

          The funny thing is, they actually offer a degree in wastewater treatment plant operation.

  15. A related point – this “punching down” nonsense that I first noticed in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings. It’s the same kind of method of silencing people. If you’re of a group considered by the left to be “privileged”, then you can’t criticize anyone from a supposedly “oppressed” group because that’s punching down, man!

    1. It is disgusting. The other thing they do is after they start oppressing the living hell out of some designated group, if that group complains, they just accuse them of playing the victim. Why can’t you stupid white males get over your victim complex and stop whining about due process in rape cases. That sort of thing.

      1. I do get such a chuckle at the word “white” being thrown around viturpatively by people with the skin a shade lighter than skim milk. See : Pareene, Alex.

        A fun fact from the past – super-sensitive man of the left Alex Pareene once made a crack about Michelle Malkin and ping-pong balls. See, Alex Pareene has a special dispensation to employ crude racial stereotypes against WOC so long as they’re of a different political tribe. That’s cool. The fucking left, man – they can make you sympathize for a shrill harpy like Malkin.

        1. I am pretty much convinced that most of the prominent male leftists are in fact the worst sort of misogynistic sociopaths who joined the left as a way to cover up and excuse their misogyny.

          1. +1 Jian Ghomeshi

        2. BTW I hope all will get that my use of WOC was with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.

    2. Equality!

    3. The only people doing any actual “punching” are the Islamist psychopaths.

  16. Of course, the picture is wrong. It should be Sidney Poitier, with the alt-text, “Call me. . .Tibbs.”

    1. No. Its. “THEY CALL ME MR. TIBBS”.

      That is one of the great scenes Hollywood ever produced. Rod Steiger as the redneck sheriff poking Poitier about “just what do they call you up in that big city police department” and Poitier finally losing his patience and barking “THEY CALL ME MR. TIBBS”

      Poitier was a bad ass. He was like Denzel Washington with Samuel L Jackson’s sense of cool.

      1. Oh, right, I left out the “the.” “They call me. . .Tibbs.”

        Has Poitier said anything about Bill Cosby? They were/are friends, I believe.

        1. I haven’t heard anything from him. He keeps a very low profile. He really is just too cool for this world. He kind of floats above it.

          1. I just saw him in Sneakers. He has been quiet, though he’s pretty old now.

            1. Little known fact – Sidney Poitier is the Bahamian ambassador to Japan, and has been for quite some time now.

              1. He’s a dual citizen, isn’t he?

  17. I thought it absurd when we visited UVA and they wouldn’t use the words such as “Freshmen” or “Sophomores” to label students. All the parents on the tour rolled their eyes.

    This is even sillier – and would make it even less likely I would spend money to have my children there to be indoctrinated.

    1. What the fuck did they call them?

      1. It’s a bit of UVA pretentiousness – they say first year, second year, and so on. Kind of like how you’re not supposed to call the campus a campus, it’s “Grounds”. I’m a UVA alum myself, and before the craven response to the RS bullshit considered myself a proud alum, but it’s more than a bit of a snobby and pretentious place.

        1. It is for my money, the most beautiful campus in America and Charlottesville one of the best small cities. I lived there for a year and thoroughly enjoyed it.

          1. Yes. I was close to tears when we entered Jefferson’s quad. I’ve seen most of the Ivy schools and none compare. It was Sullied only by the nonsense coming out of the tour guide.

            1. The only Ivy that looks like you would think an Ivy should look is Princeton. But even Princeton isn’t as pretty as UVA.

              1. Cornell had some pretty areas, but every time I walk through Harvard on the way to some bar I think “this whole place is boring”.

              2. Dartmouth is nice. A lot of Princeton is basically a town – with traffic running between buildings.

            2. Guess it was for the best that I never took the tour. I grew up an hour from Charlottesville and had been to UVA many times already, so I didn’t feel the need to bother before enrolling there.

          2. The only “Ivy” I’ve visited is Cornell and it’s beautiful too.

          3. Actually, I transferred to UVA from Pepperdine. Gorgeous as the Lawn is, it can’t compare to an ocean view in Malibu. All these years later, it still amazes me that I had a view from my dorm window that most people have to pay millions of dollars to have.

            1. True. But the buildings and actual campus isn’t near as pretty. It just has a fabulous location.

              1. I went to college in Maine for some impossible to remember reason. Pretty campus when it wasn’t fucking 20 below (September and May).

          4. I didn’t go to UVA but somehow I ended up in Charlottesville (officially a “townie” I guess) after I couldn’t take another fucking minute living in Northern Virginia.

        2. “It’s a bit of UVA pretentiousness – they say first year, second year, and so on. Kind of like how you’re not supposed to call the campus a campus, it’s “Grounds”.”

          Don’t they use similar terminology at West Point?

      2. They started doing that at UVM when I was there. I didn’t notice it when I was a freshmen, but my junior year I started dating a girl who did freshmen social event coordinating. She was very insistent on it being “first-year”.

        1. The thing is, though, at UVA it’s got nothing to do with gender or PC. It’s just an old traditional thing, probably from Mr. Jefferson’s day. And, yes, there really are people there who go around talking about “Mr. Jefferson” all the time.

      3. When i was at the Naval Academy, it was Plebes, Youngsters, 2nd Class, and Firsties. Wonder how that would go down at UVA?

  18. I’m old enough to remember when “Ms.” was not only acceptable, but politically correct and required when discussing a woman whose marital status was unknown. The politically-correct carousel does move quickly, doesn’t it.

    1. It can never stay still, because otherwise, how will you identify your social peers? And, more importantly, if there’s nothing to chastise others about, how will you feel good about yourself?

    2. Yes – we had a teacher in 5th grade who insisted on being called “Ms.” We thought it funny and pretentious.

    3. The whole point is to “other” people while at the same time being a warrior against “othering”.

      As has been said before: doublethink.

  19. If they agree to address me as “White Male Oppressor,” then I will be fine with not using Mr. or Mrs. when addressing them. Deal?

    1. That or why not just go with their motif and insist that everyone be dressed as “Citizen”. “Your term paper is a day late Citizen Raston Bot”.

      1. “Comrade” would be more honest, which is why they will never use it.

        1. Might as well go all the way – tovarisch!

        2. Maybe they’ll go with “Friend” – *shudder*.

          1. Friend Computer sees that you are not happy, Friend.

            1. I get “boss” or “chief” a lot – usually at a bodega. We could try those.

      2. Why are you othering illegal aliens and permanent residents?

    2. White dudes should insist on being addressed simply as The Man.

      1. You ‘da man, Jimbo!

      2. I didn’t spend 8 years at White Male Oppressor school to be called The Man, thankyouverymuch.

  20. I blame progress. The easier life gets, the more time people have to think up stupid crap like this.

    1. I thought the same thing a while ago. At some point just stop with all the new rules already. We’ve solved the serious problems. It’s time to give it a rest.

    2. This. I call it the Idle Hands theory. People have much more leisure time to sit around and get miserable and outraged over stuff, since they no longer have to scrape by every day for food, housing, and heat.

      1. And since other people aren’t toughened by scraping by, nobody punches these douches in the face as would have happened a century ago.

  21. It’s come t the point where I have nothign in common with these people. there’s no way to bridge the gap. I find them irrational, possibly insane, and potentially dangerous. I have little doubt that if in power, they’d trample rights and when met with any resistance, commit atrocities against the heretics. They aren’t much different than the fanatics and fascists throughout history. My only comfort is that while very loud, they are in the minority.

    1. Human nature has not changed. The only difference between people today and people living in caves ten thousand years ago is the toys. That’s it.

    2. I am that same point. I understand these people but I can’t comprehend why anyone would choose to be that way. It can’t be fun being that nasty, stupid and hateful.

      1. I can’t comprehend why anyone would choose to be that way. It can’t be fun being that nasty, stupid and hateful

        Sense of purpose. People care about sense of purpose more than feeling good. It is fundamentally the reason that most people are not libertarians — it does not provide them with any sense of purpose (only a set of negative duties), and the present-day US — and the rest of the West, for that matter — is so bereft of institutions which imbue people with purpose that politics has become a primary vehicle for self-actualization for many people.

        It is pathetic, but best accounts for the politics of red tribe/blue tribe.

        1. Aristotle said that if man is the highest being, politics is the highest purpose in life.

          A lot of it has to do with the decline of organized religion. A hundred years ago these people would have been at each other’s throats in church councils or out preaching the Gospel to the unwashed masses. People don’t do that as much anymore and the overflow has taken their obsessions to politics.

          1. Politics has become religion.

            1. We were better off when these sorts of people became missionaries or joined the temperance movement.

              1. No we weren’t. There no fucking difference. These people are a loony as the fucking temperance movements. The words have changed but the actions are identical.

                1. Finger,

                  The temperance movement just wanted your booze. These people want everything you own and every thought that crosses your mind. They want it all.

                  They are much worse than the Temperance movement. The Temperance movement were silly and ignorant. These people are pure evil.

                  1. The temperance movement didn’t cease once Prohibition was enacted, they merely moved on to other targets. They didn’t even CARE about alcohol, it was just a convenient excuse for their hatred. Yesterday’s temperance movement is today’s social justice.

                    1. Yes it is. And it is much more evil. That is my point.

          2. It’s a pet theory of mine that many of the problems we have in terms of politics and society are from removing various pieces out of Christianity and magnifying the rest to excess. Christianity is a complex system that doesn’t work at all when these pieces are pulled out.

            Socialism and the brotherhood of man is a good example of this. Pull out all of the God-authority, forgiveness of sins and leave in the universality, moral equality of man, and eschatology and you’ve pretty much got socialism and all of its bloody horrors.

            Libertarianism (particularly Rothbardian libertarianism) suffers from a similar flaw: it takes the Golden Rule and related concepts, blows them up to excess, and becomes a strange and strict moral system without much purpose to it — leading people to exit libertarianism and look for something that provides purpose (even if that something hurts others).

            Religion is really only one facet of the problem of post-WWII lack of societal confidence and vitality, but it is a big one IMO.

            1. Liberty means having the freedom to find your own purpose as long as it doesn’t harm others.

              1. Of course. And for most people, that answer is not going to be good enough if there’s no purpose to be found elsewhere.

                If vindictive politics is the primary instrument sucking in those who desire purpose, it shouldn’t be surprising to find that those seeking purpose will more often than not be attracted to vindictive politics. It’s not right, but it is predictable.

                1. You know why your life sucks, you’re poor, you’re stupid, you can’t find a date for Friday night? It’s because of you. You are the one responsible for holding yourself back from finding happiness.

                  You know why your life sucks, you’re poor, you’re stupid, you can’t find a date for Friday night? It’s because of them. They are the ones responsible for holding you back from finding happiness.

                  Which of these do you think most people want to hear or are willing to accept?

                  Rousseau said that Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains – but he missed the fact that a lot of Mankind crawls away from that scary, scary freedom toward the comfort of the chains. Slavery is indeed freedom, in that slavery frees you from accepting any responsibility for yourself while still leaving you free to bitch and moan about your slavery…and people will applaud you all the while.

                  All this PC shit is just a contest to see who can claim to be wearing the most chains. Winner gets awarded a big chain to drape about their shoulders and a big parade so we can all admire the size of the chain.

            2. That is a really good point. The problem Libertarianism is that it doesn’t do well with grey areas. Libertarianism loves principles and sees the slippery slope as the default position.

              The problem is that Libertarianism is not anarchism. So, they don’t deny that there should be some government and laws and by extension taxes and force and jails and courts and such. But if everything is principle and every slope slippery, how do you justify any government? Once we let the government forcibly take people’s property in the name of taxes, what can’t it do? Once we let government start locking people up, then where does it end?

              It ends somewhere. The problem is that where it ends is a grey area and not conducive to just applying straight principles.

              1. It ends when the people in government show restraint. Unfortunately those kinds of people are not attracted to power.

                1. But that’s the problem. Distilled to the core, Libertarianism For Dummies essentially tells people to have restraint when employing violence in certain circumstances, and it’ll all work out in the end. I’m not saying that’s wrong or inappropriate. I’m saying it’s insufficient. There are no other values in libertarianism: you could be a street bum who dies alone and friendless and never hurt anyone, and per libertarianism your life’s work is equivalent to any other person. That’s fine as far as it goes: the libertarian tells people “find your purpose elsewhere”.

                  In a vibrant society with a variety of institutions where people can do this non-violently, not a problem.

                  In one like ours, people will follow the libertarian’s advice to find their values elsewhere to their detriment: once they find those values and that purpose, for the most part they won’t come back to libertarianism.

                  1. I’m not saying that’s wrong or inappropriate. I’m saying it’s insufficient.

                    It’s only insufficient for people with unhealthy egos.

                    1. It’s only insufficient for people with unhealthy egos.

                      A purpose doesn’t need to be great in order to exist. It is not a matter of ego but rather of dignity: it is no more egotistic to seek purpose than it is to ask that one’s rights be respected; you are merely annoyed that your dogmatism is not accepted as sufficient.

              2. John, I agree with you. I’ve wrestled with my support of the non-aggression principle vs my support a limited amount of taxation. Yes, grey.

                So, even though I like to think my politics are deterministic, and derived in an almost mathematical way from foundational principles, they aren’t.

                The only way I have come up with to define the limits of taxation is that the taxation must be in service of an ultimately defensive purpose.

                1. If the government was limited to protecting the borders, providing courts to resolve disputes without violence, enforcing criminal law (as in crimes with actual victims), and levied taxes to pay for that and that only, then I would be satisfied. The problem of course is enforcing those limitations. That requires self restraint on the part of people in government, which is something power seekers generally do not have.

                2. Free Radical, no ideology is perfect or fits all circumstances. Life just isn’t that simple.

                  1. no ideology is perfect or fits all circumstances

                    It’s a starting point, not an end.

      2. It’s natural to emote. Thinking is hard, and it can be uncomfortable when thinking contradicts what you feel.

        For example lets say you hate some business owner because it’s just unfair that he has all this money. You feel that he must give back to the community and his workers. If you think about it though, you’ll see that he’s already given goods and services to the community, or he wouldn’t be rich. And he’s given jobs to his workers that they wouldn’t have otherwise had. His wealth is in fact a reward for what he has done for society, not something he has taken. That’s just uncomfortable. You want to hate him because it’s just not fair. At that point you must choose to emote or think. Most people take the easy way out.

        1. His wealth is in fact a reward for what he has done for society, not something he has taken.

          Amen, amen.

          I’ve frequently said that Sam Walton did more good for more people in a single day of becoming a billionaire than all of the Al Gores of this world have ever dreamt of doing in their entire lives.

          How do I know this is true? Just look at the people voluntarily lined up for the opportunity to exchange their money with Sam Walton – every damn one of them is cheating poor old Sam Walton by giving him something of lesser value in return for something of higher value.

          I think there should be a monument of some sort to Sam Walton in just about every medium-to-large sized city, perhaps a big building with a huge parking lot somewhere along the main highway on the outskirts of town.

          1. I made a comment similar to that to Tony, and you could see the spittle dripping down his monitor in his response.

          2. All but the comment about cheating Sam Walton. They’re giving him something he wants more than the stuff in his store….money. It’s win win, or it wouldn’t happen.

      3. John, it’s a combination of self-centeredness and desperate loneliness. Probably a product of institutional upbringing rather than familial love; institutions were their de facto parents and so they crave the attention of institutions. They often substitute the word “society” for “institution”, but this is only to hide their true feelings that they really want to use the word “mommy” or “daddy”.

        For example, it’s pretty clear to me that Hilary Clinton’s parents didn’t really give two shits about her. Fortunately, instead of choosing a life of crime she chose a life of institutional corruption.

        1. Fortunately for her not for the rest of the world.

    3. They’re pure fucking evil. I don’t like SoCons, but they’re pretty much like gnats. Annoying but basically harmless. Lefties are the scum of the earth.

      1. SoCons at least give lip service to liberty. Leftists are openly hostile towards it.

    4. My only comfort is that while very loud, they are in the minority.

      Minority, yes, but a very influencial minority; and one that is dictating the terms of how future leaders are educated.

  22. The City University of New York, a public institution bound prohibited by the First Amendment to grant from restricting the speech of the members of its community broad free speech rights

    C’mon, Robby. The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights. It restricts the government.

    1. That’s so quaint. In the real world the government has unlimited powers and we have enumerated rights that the government chooses to ignore when convenient. Get with the program.

      1. Never mind that 9th Amendment that enumerates every right not specifically protected by the first 8 Amendments.

    2. The fact that virtually no one gets that is one of the reasons we’re on this boat ride to Totalitarianland.

      1. Human nature sucks and history repeats.

      2. Citizen Libertate, your enthusiasm for the glorious future of gender-neutral pronouns is lacking. Report for reeducation.

          1. *BANG!*

            Progtardian head explosion or PL’s “re-educashun?

            You choose.

            1. I’ve already got plans to operate as King Rat in a re-education camp.

  23. Is it possible CUNY is afraid of getting sued over some imagined violation? Follow the money. It’s the only rational explanation for this.

  24. There is a pretty simple solution to the one issue though. Just use “M.” instead of “Mrs.” or “Mr.”.

      1. Why do you impose your Franco-centric prejudices on me?

        “M.” can mean what ever I want it to mean.

        1. It’s not me who will impose that. It’s the French. They’re everywhere. Waiting. Watching. Judging.

        2. Because they’re French and sophisticated and dreamy, that’s why.

          1. … and make great Freedom Fries.

        3. “M.” can mean what ever I want it to mean.


    1. I’ve seen “M.” in one or two sci-fi books.

      How about we start calling everyone “sir” like in Star Trek? The ladies will like that, right?

      1. I have it!!

        We’ll call everyone “Citizen”.

        1. Didn’t Batman (Adam West) do that?

    2. I prefer “W”. For “whatever”.

  25. I hereby declare that from this point forward everyone will be referred to as “Pat”.

    1. Maybe we should go back to titles. Lord Libertate. Sure, that sounds good.

      1. You joke, but caste is the actual goal of these people. This is why they are so quick to use the word “privilege”.

        1. If we’re going back to an aristocracy, then let’s at least bring back the concept of personal honor.

    2. What if your name actually is “Pat”?

      1. Then you shall be referred to as Pat the Bunny.

        1. Well, fuck me. I’ve been “Pat” since 1st grade, but I guess I’ll have to go back to using Patrick now.

            1. Why not change your name to Hatrick?

              1. Because I couldn’t stand having to wear sunglasses all the time just so I could pull them off like an action hero every time I introduced myself.

      2. Makes things easier for you.

  26. The real goal of all this ‘privilege’ stuff is basically to make it so that progressives can claim that their issues are incredibly important, no matter how objectively frivolous they are.

    So a woman can freak out and write an angry blog post about how stupid men spread their legs too wide on the subway, and if people point out that this is an irrelevant non-issue they claim that the only reason you can’t see its resounding importance is because of your privilege.

    It’s the same with microaggressions. It’s all a means of pretending to be a victim on par with ISIS sex slaves because one time someone asked you what Asian country you’re from even though ZOMG I’m from Cleveland and American you filthy patriarchal shitHitler.

    1. So a woman can freak out and write an angry blog post about how stupid men spread their legs too wide on the subway, and if people point out that this is an irrelevant non-issue they claim that the only reason you can’t see its resounding importance is because of your privilege.

      And isn’t she privileged to have a crotch free of dangly parts?

    2. Citizen Irish, you are clearly not expressing the correct level of sensitivity toward the needs of womyn for personal space on subway trains. Report to the counsellor for reeducation.

  27. That’s enough. If you won’t even let me say “Ms.”, I’m going back to “Jugs”.

    1. “Sugartits” is the preferred nomenclature, I believe.

      At least that’s what they call me, even though my tits are barely C-cup.

      As a straight, middle-aged white male, I am not in the least offended by the title, nor would anybody give a rat’s ass if I were.

      1. Why not Sugarballs?


    2. If any broad objects to me calling her “Miss” or “Mrs.”, then I’ll call her “bitch” instead.


  28. Just call everyone “Citizen” and be done with it!

    1. I will not call foreigners ‘Citizen’!

  29. Don’t know if it was mentioned elsewhere on HyR, but I saw a news item that the Tinkers (of the Tinker case involving the wearing by students of black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War) have filed a brief supporting the rights of students to display the American flag on Cinco de Mayo even if it does offend the people offended by people who are offended by the display of the Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo, contra a Ninth Circuit ruling upholding the supremacy of the heckler’s veto.

    (Full disclosure: I am offended by anybody who is offended on either side of the issue because I’m pretty sure Cinco de Mayo was invented by the beer companies as a way to move more product and therefore doesn’t mean a damn thing. Might as well argue over the display of PETA pins during National Hot Dog Month. And Mexican Independence Day is September 16, not May 5, just FYI.)

    1. Yes it was. But Progs and various Mexican fascists have taken the holiday from the beer companies and turned it into a political weapon to use against their enemies.

    2. Cinco de Mayo is a real holiday, but I believe it’s more of a regional one and not generally celebrated in Mexico. September 16, of course, is the date of their independence from Spain. A rather significant event.

      If I remember correctly, the Chicano movement in the U.S. started the whole business of celebrating May 5–no idea why they selected that date.

      1. The date is observed to commemorate the Mexican army’s unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of General Ignacio Zaragoza Segu?n. In the United States, Cinco de Mayo is sometimes mistaken to be Mexico’s Independence Day – the most important national holiday in Mexico – which is celebrated on September 16.


        1. Yeah, I knew it was about beating the French, but it’s no Independence Day.

          1. It is the final act of one of those bizarre pieces of history. A French plot to make Mexico a monarchy under a Habsburg dynasty

        2. I always wear a tricolor tie on May 5th.

          So far, nobody has gotten the joke.

      2. I’m assuming that it’s due to its proximity with May Day, filthy commies they generally are.

        1. It’s due to the fact that they needed a drinking Holiday between Saint Patrick’s Day and July 4th.

  30. Political correctness is why there is no City University of Nashville Tennessee

  31. By the way, someone posted this link about Belle Knox in AM links and I love this part:

    “She said her “favorite figures in liberty” are Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, porn star Nina Hartley, and the blogger and former call girl Maggie McNeill.”

    I’m thinking this girl might be legit. At first I thought she was just trying to keep her name in the news, but name dropping Friedman and McNeill isn’t something you’d do unless you’re at least moderately serious. McNeill isn’t exactly a household name.

    1. like her “idol” Gloria Allred

      Everything was great until that part.

    2. At first I thought she was just trying to keep her name in the news, but name dropping Friedman and McNeill isn’t something you’d do unless you’re at least moderately serious.

      A modestly serious… what?

      I won’t watch her porn because she knows who Milton Friedman is, I have no idea of the political proclivities of the porn starlets I do watch, and I don’t see any of them developing enough of a personality to develop a cult of personality and/or go somewhere politically.

  32. Romney is not running. That is actually bad news. With Romney not running, the establishment can line up behind Jeb Bush. It would have been better if Romney had cock blocked him. Now who does that? Fatso maybe?

    1. I’m not fucking voting for Bush, and I actually thought he was a decent governor.

    2. No republican has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected anyway. They might as well let Bob Dole take another run at it at this point.

      1. I think it’s quite unlikely the Democrats win, especially if the field on their side is Biden and Clinton, unless there’s a major GOP stumble. And it would have to be a substantial fall, as the Democrats have been absurdly bad for quite some time now. They’re scaring people they can’t afford to scare.

        1. unless there’s a major GOP stumble

          Unless? Come on. That’s what they do best.

          1. Case in point: Jeb Bush is not being laughed out of the room by major republican donors and party leadership.

          2. I’m thinking something more than the run-of-the-mill fuck up.

      2. Hillary’s poll numbers are collapsing and she might not even run. Who else do they have? Jerry Brown? Warren?

        Obama has so decimated the party, the Republicans may win by default.

        1. Cory Booker. I can’t wait for the self aggrandizing bullshit he’ll concoct for a national audience.

          1. Except Obama pretty much poisoned Booker’s niche.

          2. They will never admit it, but I think Obama has even soured Dems on having a black President. I don’t think we will see another black President for a very long time. That is really unfair and terrible, but it is probably true.

            1. Obama should not sour anyone on having a black president but it should give everyone pause to make someone president because they are black.

              1. Yes. But liberals would only elect a black President because he was black.

        2. If history is any guide, possibly Julian Castro. Hispanic is the new black.

        3. “…the Republicans may win by default.”

          Isn’t that every election? No one wins, the other side just defeats themselves. Least stinky turd syndrome.

      3. Yeah, completely disagree. Dems go down big this time.

  33. Rules hurt my feelings.

  34. You know, I’ve been thinking. Titles and even names are potential hurtful and help to perpetuate the oppressive aggressions built into our hegemonistic culture. I suggest that we simply dispense with names or any other kind of designation and simply refer to one another and ourselves as “Hey, You.” This goes for all purposes, so we all have access to one bank account, one credit card, etc.

    1. I’ve come to the conclusion that verbalizing is used for the purpose of lying. Maybe 0.5% of the time language is used truthfully.

      This is in aggregate of course. Most people only lie may 10% of the time while some people have diarhea at the mouth/keyboard.

      1. Okay, eliminate titles, names, and written and spoken speech.

  35. It always grates me when a cop on the news refers to some thug they’ve just captured as “the gentleman…” They’ll shoot you, and your dog, for little reason but once the tv camera is shoved in their face, you become a “gentleman.”

  36. I knew a UK professor who told me that anyone who use the phrase “political correctness run amok” earned an automatic *narrows gaze*. In her experience, people who think political correctness can run amok are merely closet racists longing for all those hate-filled conversations we had in ye olden times. She said it was amazing how often she was proven correct.

    I kept trying to figure out how a liberal professor in Britain knew such a huge number of racist haters. Did she join a KKK bowling league inadvertently?

    1. I get the impression that there’s a lot more racism in Europe than in the States.

      1. There is less racism in North America than anywhere else. Talk to an actual Chinese or African immigrant and the racism they describe in their lands is really eye-opening.

        1. Capitalism knows but one color: green.

        2. Talk to an actual Chinese or African immigrant and the racism they describe in their lands is really eye-opening.

          I’ve had some Western Europeans and South Asians say some pretty racist things about where I’m from here in the States. Praising the wisdom of previous generations for being less tolerant of lesser people sort of notions.

        3. Nonsense. Racism is solely a Caucasian attribute. Non-Caucasians have quaint local customs which display the vibrancy of their culture – not racism.

          See the difference?

        4. Whenever people I know are praising Sweden as some perfect socialist society, I always make sure to tell the story about the time I was in Stockholm arguing with two guys who thought America was more violent due to ‘black genetics’.

  37. my roomate’s mother makes $63 /hr on the internet . She has been unemployed for 10 months but last month her check was $18498 just working on the internet for a few hours. read the full info here……………
    ????? http://www.cashbuzz80.com

  38. Every time I read a story like this, I’m reminded of those lines from the immortal Gandalf, as the hordes of Saruman are marching on a defenseless Gondor:

    “The old wisdom that was borne out of the West was forsaken. Kings made tombs more splendid than the houses of the living and counted the names of their descent dearer than the names of their sons. Childless lords sat in aged halls musing on heraldry or in high, cold towers asking questions of the stars. And so the people of Gondor fell into ruin. The line of Kings failed, the White Tree withered, and the rule of Gondor was given over to lesser men.”

    The logic and reason that made Western civilization great is being squandered every day to make room for these precious nymphs.

    1. “The logic and reason that made Western civilization great”

      Uh, Classist AND Ableist?

  39. “I’m a fan of Freddie de Boer’s response, in particular.”

    Really, Robby? This = ?

    “Well, listen, you guys: I don’t know what to do. I am out of ideas. I am willing to listen to suggestions. What do I do, when I see so many good, impressionable young people run screaming from left-wing politics because they are excoriated the first second they step mildly out of line?”


    Freddie is grasping at straws because he’s unable to conceive how the very ideas he holds so precious actually has contained within them the seeds of their own destruction?

    I’m not sure what’s so admirable about that guy breaking down and begging his peers for forgiveness for daring to think that maybe the TEAM playbook isn’t written in stone…

    “. I don’t want these kids to be more like Jon Chait. I sure as hell don’t want them to be less left-wing. I want them to be more left-wing. I want a left that can win, and there’s no way I can have that when the actually-existing left sheds potential allies at an impossible rate. “

    its ridiculous. He still won’t entertain the notion that the problem isn’t just “some people” that suck so bad, but rather the very ideas he and they want to flog that are ‘problematic’ (to borrow their terminology).

    de Boer strikes me as one of the soppiest diapers of the left. He’s not ‘admirable’ = he’s embarrassing.

    1. Late here, but so much this!

  40. This is actually an attempt to make only professors and politicians be the only titled people ie: Senator X or Doctor X thus making them a higher class person above your average citizen the unlearned, unwashed and under the rule of laws.

    1. So, CUNY employees wish to be called Professor X.

      Now, this story makes perfect sense.

      1. They’re perfectly happy with titles of nobility!

  41. Help! I’ve been offended!

  42. “The City University of New York, … has issued a decree on the manner in which professors will now be expected to greet each other, as well as their students.”

    They get tired of “Comrade” yet?

  43. I noticed that blacks are enraged if one of their own resist the “African American” label. Even though there’s nothing remotely “African” about many blacks living here.

  44. Please tell me, wake me if necessary. The crap described in this article isn’t for real.

  45. Bottom line is that pronouns are speech. Asking someone to use a specific label to apply to you is a demand for a performance.

    If it was a right it would be a positive right. It’s about an individual controlling the behavior (language) of externals. How one calls themselves is about their own behavior. They totally have the negative right to not refer to themselves as something they dislike. They don’t have a right to others not referring to them unfavorably.

    This is basic negative/positive rights stuff. Instead of finding mutually agreeable terms for these new classes of ppl, they are telling everyone what the english language WILL BE by fiat. Interestingly this is so very much like the SSM debate–using state sponsorship of language to effect cultural norms.

  46. I remember when a previous round of feminazi harpies threw fits demanding to be called “mizz” instead of “Miss” or “Missus”. I’m through giving a shit what anyone WANTS to be called. I will address them according to MY inclinations.


  47. Perhaps the University can exorcise all books, art, literature and cinema, sculpture, names of boat and aircraft (have I missed anything) in which the offensive terms are used. A big fire should be built in the quad where the guilty can bring the items for a collective book burning.

    To Sir, With Love ?. is that you Mrs. Miniver? How about “Ladies and Gentlemen”? They won’t be happy until the only title is “Herr,” as in “Mein Fuhrer.”

  48. Start working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life….
    Open this link to get the opportunity , as like i did and i am feeling crazy.. it realy works,
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.