Old Salty Marine on X - "Personally, I never cared what Race you were until you started blaming MY Race for YOUR problems. I never cared about your Political Views until you started to condemn ME for MY Political Views. I never cared where you were Born until you tried to Erase MY History and Blame MY Ancestors for YOUR current problems. Now I care. Now my patience and tolerance are gone. And I'm not alone. Millions of us feel this way, and we have had ENOUGH."
Meet the Eureka Fellows building a more sustainable future - "Sylvia Okonofua was inspired to become a catalyst for change after learning just how dire the odds are for Black patients in need of stem cell transplants. In Canada, Black patients of all ethnic backgrounds only have a 16 per cent chance of finding a matched donor compared to 75 per cent for Caucasian patients of European descent... Driven by the systemic inequity she witnessed, Okonofua founded Black Donors Save Lives (BDSL), a non-profit to engage Black communities across Canada about the importance of blood, organ, tissue and stem cell donations."
Weird. We keep being told that there's no biological basis for race. This must be due to systemic racism, and racism among those doing the stem cell matching
Controversial Berlin street renamed over racist connotations - "Activists have long sought to rename Mohrenstrasse in the Mitte district, as the term "Mohr" was historically used in German to describe people of African descent in a derogatory manner. The word stems from the Latin "Maurus" ("Moor"), and it became associated with colonialism, slavery, and racist caricatures. The street is now set to be called Anton-Wilhelm-Amo-Strasse, after Anton Wilhelm Amo, the first known African philosopher and lawyer to obtain a doctorate at a German university in the 18th century."
Governments have 'failed white working-class students,' Bridget Phillipson claims - "It comes as a study from the Institute for Government (IfG) suggests ethnicity may be a factor in how badly poverty impacts on educational attainment. The think tank said disadvantaged white pupils have 'particularly poor educational outcomes' in terms of attainment in Year 6 Sats. Official data showed only 3 per cent of British white pupils from low income families attend a top university – one of the least successful groups."
How ignorant. She needs to be educated about white privilege
Jussie Smollett says he felt ‘emasculated’ by public’s reaction to alleged hate crime - "“I believe he wanted to be the poster boy of activism for Black people, for gay people, for marginalized people,” says Bola in the new documentary. Ola adds: “I thought it was crazy, but at the same time, I’m like, ‘It’s Hollywood.’ This is how it goes.”... a jury convicted him of five counts of disorderly conduct in 2021. He was sentenced to 150 days in jail — six of which he served before being freed pending appeal — 30 months of probation, and was ordered to pay approximately $130,000 in restitution. The Illinois Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 2024 because of a non-prosecution agreement he had entered into with the Cook County attorney’s office."
Performative virtue-signaling has become a threat to higher ed - "Between 2023 and 2025, we conducted 1,452 confidential interviews with undergraduates at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan. We were not studying politics — we were studying development. Our question was clinical, not political: “What happens to identity formation when belief is replaced by adherence to orthodoxy?” We asked: Have you ever pretended to hold more progressive views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically? An astounding 88 percent said yes. These students were not cynical, but adaptive. In a campus environment where grades, leadership, and peer belonging often hinge on fluency in performative morality, young adults quickly learn to rehearse what is safe. The result is not conviction but compliance. And beneath that compliance, something vital is lost. Late adolescence and early adulthood represent a narrow and non-replicable developmental window. It is during this stage that individuals begin the lifelong work of integrating personal experience with inherited values, forming the foundations of moral reasoning, internal coherence, and emotional resilience. But when belief is prescriptive, and ideological divergence is treated as social risk, the integrative process stalls. Rather than forging a durable sense of self through trial, error, and reflection, students learn to compartmentalize. Publicly, they conform; privately, they question — often in isolation. This split between outer presentation and inner conviction not only fragments identity but arrests its development. This dissonance shows up everywhere. Seventy-eight percent of students told us they self-censor on their beliefs surrounding gender identity; 72 percent on politics; 68 percent on family values. More than 80 percent said they had submitted classwork that misrepresented their views in order to align with professors. For many, this has become second nature — an instinct for academic and professional self-preservation. To test the gap between expression and belief, we used gender discourse — a contentious topic both highly visible and ideologically loaded. In public, students echoed expected progressive narratives. In private, however, their views were more complex. Eighty-seven percent identified as exclusively heterosexual and supported a binary model of gender. Nine percent expressed partial openness to gender fluidity. Just seven percent embraced the idea of gender as a broad spectrum, and most of these belonged to activist circles. Perhaps most telling: 77 percent said they disagreed with the idea that gender identity should override biological sex in such domains as sports, healthcare, or public data — but would never voice that disagreement aloud. Thirty-eight percent described themselves as “morally confused,” uncertain whether honesty was still ethical if it meant exclusion. Authenticity, once considered a psychological good, has become a social liability. And this fragmentation doesn’t end at the classroom door. Seventy-three percent of students reported mistrust in conversations about these values with close friends. Nearly half said they routinely conceal beliefs in intimate relationships for fear of ideological fallout. This is not simply peer pressure — it is identity regulation at scale, and it is being institutionalized. Universities often justify these dynamics in the name of inclusion. But inclusion that demands dishonesty is not ensuring psychological safety — it is sanctioning self-abandonment. In attempting to engineer moral unity, higher education has mistaken consensus for growth and compliance for care. Students know something is wrong. When given permission to speak freely, many described the experience of participating in our survey not as liberating, but as clarifying. They weren’t escaping responsibility — they were reclaiming it. For students trained to perform, the act of telling the truth felt radical. We do not fault students for perpetuating a climate that is hostile to intellectual integrity. We fault the faculty, administrators, and institutional leaders who built a system that rewards moral theater while punishing inquiry. In shielding students from discomfort, they have also shielded them from discovery. The result is a generation confident in self-righteousness, but uncertain in self. This is not sustainable. If higher education is to fulfill its promise as a site of intellectual and moral development, it must relearn the difference between support and supervision. It must re-center truth — not consensus — as its animating value. And it must give back to students what it has taken from them: the right to believe, and the space to become."
Preference falsification strikes again, because if you disagree with the left wing agenda you are a terrible person and an irredeemable bigot
Weird. We're told that there's no indoctrination in college and that young people are just being exposed to new ideas and new people and having their minds and perspectives widened. Clearly over 80 percent of students are just awful people and Nazis, which is why they need to lie to align with their professors
Nearly half of Canadian university students hide real beliefs: survey - "Nearly half of all Canadian university students are actively concealing their real opinions for fear of sanction or mistreatment, according to a comprehensive new survey published Wednesday by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy. Of 760 university students surveyed, 48.1 per cent expressed reluctance to reveal their opinions on a “controversial political issue.” The survey found that 27.5 per cent of students were somewhat reluctant and 20.6 per cent were very reluctant. And this wasn’t because the students were particularly reserved or shy in class discussions. When respondents were asked about giving their views on a “non-controversial” issue, 93.4 per cent said it was no problem. “Inescapable from our study is the recognition that classroom discussions on controversial topics on university campuses fail to reflect the actual cross-section of opinions of students in the classroom,” wrote researchers for the Calgary-based think tank. And fear of speaking out changed drastically based on a student’s identity. Some groups described campus environments in which virtually all of their opinions or views could be expressed without consequence. While others said campuses had become places where a failure to exercise proper self-censorship could risk lower grades, the opprobrium of peers or even investigation by campus authorities. “Liberals basically feel free to say anything they want on any subject, regardless of consequences — that’s not an overstatement — while moderates and conservatives and libertarians feel like they have to radically self-censor, if they want to avoid consequences for their beliefs,” wrote David Hunt, research director for the Aristotle Foundation, in an email to the National Post. He added, “we knew students were self-censoring and that some students felt their views weren’t welcome in class discussions … but the data was even more damning than expected.” This was particularly true when the Aristotle results were broken down by a respondent’s self-identified gender. Respondents who identified themselves as either “non-binary” or a non-specified third gender expressed the most confidence of any other cohort in airing their views without fear of reprimand or sanction. In one survey question, respondents were asked to imagine a scenario in which they’re discussing a “controversial gender issue” in class, and they hold back on their views for fear that they’ll get reported to campus authorities for an alleged act of hate or discrimination. Of the non-binary and third gender respondents, 87.1 per cent expressed confidence this would never apply to them. Male and female respondents were much more guarded. Only 31.4 per cent of men and 47.7 per cent of women said they could expect to tell the truth without risking getting into trouble... Self-censorship also varied wildly between racial groups. The ethnicities who expressed the most comfort with “speaking up in a class discussion” were students who identified as Middle Eastern or Indigenous. Only 27 per cent of Middle Eastern students indicated any reluctance to air their views on a controversial issue, with 31 per cent of Indigenous students saying the same. On the other side of the spectrum were white and Hispanic students. Fifty per cent of Hispanic students and 46 per cent of white students said they preferred to stay out of class discussions on hot button issues. The Aristotle survey is also one of several recent Canadian polls to reveal campus environments that have become increasingly unwelcoming for Jewish students. If a “controversial religious issue” was discussed in class, 69 per cent of Jewish respondents said they would be reluctant to speak up. At the opposite end of the spectrum were Muslim students, only 36 per cent of whom said the same. Jewish students also emerged as the largest cohort by far who reported suffering ill treatment “every day” because of their religion. Of Jewish respondents, 15.2 per cent of respondents reported daily incidents of discrimination, against 3.5 per cent of Catholic students, and 3.1 per cent of Muslim students. Only 15 per cent of Jewish students said they are never targeted... Surprisingly, however, the Aristotle survey revealed that moderate or conservative opinions now represent the plurality of student’s political views on Canadian campuses. Of respondents, 38.7 per cent reported having either “moderate,” “conservative” or “libertarian” opinions. This was against 37 per cent who reported their views as being on the liberal side of the spectrum. The other 24.2 said they either didn’t think about politics or didn’t want to answer. And this was despite the fact that the Aristotle survey respondents were disproportionately non-white and female; two groups that have historically leaned left in their political views. Just 47.8 per cent of respondents were white, and only 28.9 per cent were male (63.2 per cent were female). Despite moderates and conservatives now representing a plurality of the nation’s university students, the Aristotle survey found that they felt most besieged for their political views. For students identifying as “very conservative,” 85 per cent said they suspected they risked lower grades if they ever revealed what they believed. Among the “very liberal” cohort, meanwhile, three quarters said they were “not at all” concerned that the free expression of their opinions would land them in trouble. Just 17 per cent of moderates said they are not concerned. The survey found that 46.2 per cent of students said they were treated badly or unfairly because of their political views and 6.6 per cent said they are targeted more than once a week."
Opinion: Our universities need viewpoint diversity - "83 per cent of right-leaning students believe that professors advocate a left-of-centre view — and 45 per cent of left-leaning students agree with them. Forty-two per cent of right-leaning students say they experienced a classroom environment that limited questions and discussion on controversial topics to only one side of the argument. Only 29 per cent of left-leaning students felt the same way. To make matters worse, 50 per cent of right-leaning students said they sometimes felt uncomfortable expressing their opinions due to the views of the professors leading the class. Only 36 per cent of left-leaning students reported the same experience. When asked whether there was a “safe” point of view on controversial topics in university classes, a majority from both groups answered “yes” — with little difference between right-leaning students (58 per cent) and left-leaning students (51 per cent). When both sides agree there’s a “safe” side to the argument, and students holding minority views feel less safe, that’s worrying. A significant number of right-leaning students (37 per cent) also said they feared formal consequences for expressing honest thoughts or opinions or even asking questions in their classes. Among right-leaning students who expressed this concern, 74 per cent feared their professors would lower their grades for expressing the “wrong” opinion in class. When students feel their grades are at risk, they’re far less likely to express their genuine opinions or even ask questions during class discussions. Not only does this make classes less interesting, it also undermines the entire purpose of a university education. Other studies have also revealed the politically one-sided nature of university campuses. For example, a 2022 survey published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute found that 88 per cent of Canadian university professors vote for parties of the left, while only nine per cent support parties on the right. No wonder students feel their classroom discussions are consistently one-sided. A 2024 survey published by Heterodox Academy and College Plus found that more than half of students were reluctant to discuss issues such as transgender identity or the current Israel/Hamas conflict, while almost half were reluctant to even broach the subject of politics. More alarmingly, a majority of students favoured limiting free expression on campus. While many university professors are quick to describe themselves as strong supporters of diversity, their support seems not to extend to diversity of thought."
University indoctrination is a myth. If "minorities" fear being penalised, that's proof of discrimination, but if conservatives fear being penalised, they're just deluded, or that's "accountability" and is good
If 88% of Canadian university professors are white, that's proof of structural racism and they will definitely discriminate against "minorities", and we need affirmative action
Students demand 'free speech' for themselves, censorship for the rest - "Pro-Palestinian protests have been erupting on college campuses across North America for the past few weeks, led, rather prolifically, by Columbia University, followed closely by others such as New York University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale. Some demonstrators have not only set up tent encampments, but have clashed with police and other students, resulting in violence, rule violations, vandalism and ultimately arrests in the U.S. In Canada, tents have been set up in schools like the University of Toronto, McGill in Montreal, and the University of British Columbia. The protests have tested the boundaries of free expression, since many have taken place on private property against the rules of the institutions. While many protesters have participated peacefully, there have also been reports of harassment, intimidation, calls for violence and support for Hamas, which is a designated terror organization in Canada. In response, many schools have attempted to balance free speech rights with safety concerns and significant academic disruptions — with a number of schools moving to remote learning or cancelling exams. Columbia has even cancelled its commencement ceremony. On the one hand, where shouldn’t the free exchange of ideas thrive more than on a university campus? Yet, it’s been well-documented for some time now that numerous colleges have abdicated their commitment to free expression. In my recently published book, No Apologies: How to Find and Free Your Voice in the Age of Outrage, I cite a 2022 survey conducted by the Buckley Institute at Yale University, which reveals that 41 per cent of college students admitted that they favour using violence to stop “hateful” speech, and nearly half agree that some speech can be so offensive that it merits the death penalty. Contrast that with the scenes of clashes between protesters on campuses with police officers. Although the police action isn’t over speech, but rather illegal acts like trespassing, violence and vandalism, a number of people would argue — rightly or wrongly — that the protesters, too, are engaging in “hate speech.” Would violence be justified to stop their speech? Many of the protesters wear masks to protect their identities because they fear retaliation by those who find their views and actions abhorrent. They register complaints about the “cancel culture” that has come for some, after they were caught on camera uttering words that others found repugnant — at times even advocating for the murder of certain people, or justifying violence as “resistance.” There’s a terrific sense of irony here because not so long ago, the same people equated “cancel culture” with “accountability culture” and supported censoring certain speech they didn’t like. When researching this phenomenon, I discovered that a survey conducted in 2023 by the Institute for Global Innovation and Growth at North Dakota State University found that 74 per cent of students would report a professor for saying something offensive. Similarly, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which tracks speech tolerance on campuses in the United States, has ranked Harvard, Yale, Portland State, Columbia and New York University towards the bottom for free speech and open inquiry. Yet, these schools have been among the major sites for recent protests. The same students who actively shut down discourse, bred a culture of academic intolerance, targeted professors and campaigned to cancel guest speakers with whom they disagree … are now lobbying for their right to free speech... Unfortunately, on all sides, “free speech for me, but not for thee” seems to be the prevailing orthodoxy. And if we follow that creed, then we’re not at all for free speech — we’re just for free speech for he who can get the power to take it."
Free speech is to push the left wing agenda, not to be a "Nazi"
Meme - Adam Zivo @ZivoAdam: "Normal people: "Blinding women with acid and executing gays is barbaric."
Rachel: "Omg guyz that's such a racist and genocidal thing to say"
Rachel Gilmore @atRachelGilmore: "Creating a dichotomy of the "civilized" and the "barbaric" is an act of racist dehumanization that can be a precursor to genocide and other mass atrocity. Read a fucking book"
Left wingers keep telling others to "read a book". But if you cite them content from books they disagree with, they'll block you
EXCLUSIVE: Legacy media silent as pro-Sharia imam kicks off Canadian tour - "While legacy media and progressive politicians have loudly condemned Christian musician Sean Feucht for his Biblical beliefs on gender and sexuality as he tours Canada, establishment figures have been completely silent about the Canadian tour of a Salafi preacher who touts an extreme anti-Western ideology to his followers. Imam Ustadh Abu Tamiyyah will begin a national tour on July 31 with support from Islamic Relief Canada, whose parent organization has been accused of alleged links to terrorism. Abu Tamiyyah preaches a fundamentalist Salafi interpretation of Islam that promotes Sharia, demonizes Western ideals and Christianity. The radical imam’s “End of Times” tour will hit major cities including Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver and elsewhere."
Saskatoon to review policy on use of public spaces after controversial MAGA concert
Left wingers are violent, so we need to censor people they disagree with to reduce the risk that left wingers will riot
English Heritage labels Enid Blyton’s work ‘racist and xenophobic’ - "Enid Blyton's books have been linked to "racism and xenophobia" in updated blue plaque information produced by English Heritage... English Heritage vowed to review all plaques for links to “contested” figures following Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, stating that objects “associated with Britain’s colonial past are offensive to many”... Information on the plaque provided online and on an English Heritage app states Blyton’s work has been criticised “for its racism, xenophobia and lack of literary merit”. Visitors using the official app to learn about blue plaques they encounter in London will be told about the charges against Blyton’s work. These include the 1966 book The Little Black Doll, with its main character "Sambo", having racist elements because the eponymous doll is only accepted by his owner “once his ‘ugly black face’ is washed ‘clean’ by rain”. English Heritage’s updated information also cites the occasion her publisher Macmillan refused to publish her story The Mystery That Never Was over its “faint but unattractive touch of old-fashioned xenophobia”, as foreign characters were framed as bad in the book. Claims that Blyton was “not a very well-regarded writer”, as suggested by the Royal Mint committee for a commemorative coin in 2016, have also been added to the information... The vast bulk of her hundreds of publications was produced before 1960 and certain features such as the “Golliwogs” in Noddy have been changed in later editions to become “Goblins”."
We cannot reduce Enid Blyton to her prejudices alone - "She was not only prejudiced but couldn't write, apparently. Try telling that to the millions of children who gobble down her stories each year, furtively reading after lights out her tales of magic trees and midnight feasts, and islands full of buried treasure. Blyton was undeniably racist. There's no trying to hide that fact under a picnic blanket. Nor does the argument that “things were different back then” wash in her case, since a book she wrote in 1960, The Mystery That Never Was, was deemed so racist Macmillan refused to publish it. She's not too hot on class and gender, either. But should Blyton's views on race in particular – which in themselves are hard to excuse – diminish her significance as a writer?... if we are uneasy with writers whose books don't reflect affirmative values (and English Heritage's qualification on Blyton suggests we increasingly are) then Blyton deserves to be celebrated from the rooftops. Her books overflow with moral positivity. The Naughtiest Girl in the School is a text book tale about a spoiled, conceited little girl learning to overcome her flaws. The Famous Five and the Secret Seven glorify childhood independence. The Malory Towers series is full of stories about young girls working out how to become women. As a culture we ought to be sophisticated enough to celebrate a writer without having to simultaneously reckon with their flaws. (Flaws that have long since been eradicated from her work, too: the racist elements in Blyton's stories were removed from standard editions decades ago.) It becomes a terribly worthy exercise and I'm not sure it achieves much, either. Most readers are wise enough to understand that authors are complicated people. What matters is the stories. In Blyton's case, it's a no brainer."
Catholic sex-ed textbooks discontinued following accusations of 'homophobic,' 'transphobic' content - "The Canadian arm of an international textbook publishing company will discontinue some sex education books used by Catholic school boards in Ontario by March this year. The move follows accusations they contain homophobic and transphobic content, though the publisher has not indicated the reason it has stopped printing the books. Fully Alive, a series of textbooks and accompanying teachers' resources published by Pearson Canada, is aimed at teaching students in Grades 1 through 8 about sexuality, marriage and family through the lens of the Catholic faith. But Kyle Iannuzzi, a 2SLGBTQ advisory committee member and former student trustee at the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB), told CBC Toronto Fully Alive is not inclusive of anyone who doesn't identify as heterosexual and cisgender... The content deemed problematic by advocates occurs in Theme 3 of the Fully Alive books, a sexual education unit titled Created Sexual. Students are taught in Theme 3 "that sexual love should only occur in a male-female marriage (in which children should only be born or adopted) and that persons should identify by gender with the gender (male or female) attributed to them at birth," says a website run by Paolo de Buono, a TCDSB teacher. De Buono, who advocates for students outside of school hours, told CBC Toronto he stopped using Fully Alive in his lessons last year. "No Catholic teacher should be teaching this type of content to students," he said. Ian McCombe is a representative of Halton Parents for Change, a group formed in response to the Halton Catholic School Board's decision not to fly the Rainbow flag for Pride month in 2021 — a decision that was reversed in 2022. "We've heard from people who've graduated from the program that [Fully Alive] caused lasting harms," he told CBC Toronto. The books are potentially traumatizing for vulnerable young people who are still figuring out their identities or who may have family members who identify as LGBTQ+, McCombe said. They present a, "very narrow view of the Catholic faith," he added... Before discontinuing Fully Alive, Pearson Canada was accused by advocates of "pink-washing," the practice in which a corporation appears to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community publicly while profiting from the sale of products that promote anti-LGBTQ+ messaging."
This doesn't stop left wingers hating Catholic school system just for existing, even though they don't even push Catholic ideology
Weird. I thought book bans were wrong and evil
