CPS loses High Court bid to overturn Quran-burner's acquittal - "The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has lost a High Court bid to challenge the acquittal of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London. Hamit Coskun was initially convicted last June of a religiously aggravated public order offence after he held a flaming copy of the Islamic text aloft and shouted an expletive about Islam outside the Turkish embassy in February last year. The 51-year-old successfully appealed against his conviction, having it overturned by Mr Justice Bennathan at Southwark Crown Court in October. The CPS brought an appeal against that decision at the High Court and asked for it to be reconsidered... Reacting to the dismissal of the appeal, the Free Speech Union described it as a "humiliating defeat" for the CPS and called on the Director of Public Prosecutions to resign... Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, said after the decision: "The High Court has rightly rejected this wrongheaded attempt to introduce a blasphemy law by the back door. "However offensive some may have found the Quran-burning protest, it was lawful. "Criminal law protects people from harm, not from being offended. "This judgment makes clear that it is not the state's job to police religious sensibilities. A hostile – even violent – reaction to speech cannot be allowed to determine whether that speech is criminal. "There must now be a serious review of how and why the CPS originally came to charge a man with causing harassment, alarm and distress to the religion of Islam, and why it chose to pursue this case to the High Court. "Public confidence demands answers." Following the High Court's decision, Lord Young of Acton, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, said: "This appeal should never have been brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, just as Hamit should never have been prosecuted. "We have not had blasphemy laws in this country for 18 years and, for that reason, this prosecution was bound to fail. "Yet the CPS has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to bring one back via the back door – and one that just enforces Muslim blasphemy codes, not Christian ones. "In light of this humiliating defeat, I think the Director of Public Prosecutions has no choice but to resign.""
Another obstacle to Keir Starmer's attempt to impose blasphemy laws
The Free Speech Union on X - "Labour’s Islamophobia definition will suppress free speech even more than we expected. This Government hasn’t had many achievements — but the one thing it does seem good at is eroding our right to free speech. This week, the Communities Secretary published the long-awaited official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — and announced a new Islamophobia tsar. While the Secretary of State claimed it will not have a chilling effect on free speech, it is blindingly obvious that it will. Within 45 minutes of announcing the definition, pro-Gaza independent MP Iqbal Mohamed asked whether it could be incorporated into the Seven Principles of Public Life, which all MPs, as public servants, are expected to abide by. He was essentially asking whether MPs could be sanctioned for their speech in the House if it were deemed to be “anti-Muslim hostility”. Rather than remind the MP that everything said in the House of Commons and House of Lords is protected by parliamentary privilege, the Secretary of State said Iqbal was “right to point to the huge concern we should all share” about parliamentarians being “Islamophobic”. That will silence debate on matters such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. Following the publication of the definition, the Muslim Women Network UK issued a statement welcoming it and signalling how busy the new tsar will be. It read: “Approximately 4,000 incidents are reported annually and as 80 per cent are not reported, the actual figures are more likely to be 20,000 hate crime incidents. These numbers do not even include discrimination in the workplace or when accessing services.” We should probably point out that Baroness Gohir — who was a member of the now infamous Working Group tasked with drafting the definition — runs this organisation. She may well have her eyes on the new role as the “anti-Muslim hostility tsar”. While the definition is non-statutory, once it is adopted by public bodies it will likely be enforced zealously. It will become the new non-crime hate incident (NCHI). Even without an official definition, we effectively already had a cultural definition of Islamophobia. Employees across many sectors — as well as university students — are already closely monitored for the slightest signs of “Islamophobia”. Things will only get worse. The Free Speech Union currently has at least a dozen open cases involving members who’ve said something Muslims have taken offence at. Let’s be honest: this is a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door — 18 years after Parliament voted to abolish such laws. The Free Speech Union is launching a legal challenge against the Government’s decision because we believe it is unlawful. This is one of the most important fights we’ve taken on in our six-year existence. "
Connor Tomlinson on X - "Britain is about to get an Islamophobia tsar, appointed to police "prejudicial stereotyping" of Muslims in "divisive content" on TV or online. The Labour government have adopted a new definition of anti-Muslim hatred, as "the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them". It will be non-statutory, but will guide government policy, and have a chilling effect on both public conversations and the weakened Pakistani rape gang inquiry. The forthcoming paper defining the definition will also attack the Raise the Colours campaign for a "misuse of national symbols to exclude or intimidate", and turning the flag into "tools of hate". It also tries to reprimand Muslims for antisemitism and encourages them to "embrace LGBT rights". The government is desperate to play umpire between imported tribal minorities and the host majority, who never wanted them here in the first place. We have to pay for the privilege of being tone-policed in our own country when opposing Jihadist terror and race-based child abuse. Good scoop by @ShippersUnbound"
The Free Speech Union on X - "The Free Speech Union’s latest investigative briefing reveals that all five members of the Government’s Working Group tasked with drafting the official definition of Islamophobia have links to Islamist organisations. Let’s start with the Chair: former Conservative MP and Attorney General Dominic Grieve KC. The story is extraordinary. For many years after the 9/11 attacks, Grieve made a number of statements that were highly critical of Muslims — at times bordering on the racist — including comments about political corruption among Muslims in his former constituency. He also suggested that some Muslims were seeking to change Britain in ways incompatible with a pluralist democracy, particularly in relation to freedom of expression. So what changed? In 2017, Grieve was appointed to chair a citizens’ commission on British Muslims, which produced a report on the challenges of Islamophobia. Among the advisers he relied on were individuals with concerning backgrounds — including the then-chair of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation successive governments since 2009 have pursued a policy of non-engagement with due to concerns about extremism. Another adviser was linked to Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND). A year later, he wrote the foreword to the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s (APPG) proposed report that presented a definition of Islamophobia. Although he insists his views have not changed, the record suggests otherwise. Last year, then Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner appointed him to lead the Working Group tasked with drafting an official definition of Islamophobia — now rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility”. This definition risks stifling free speech and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion, its history and its practices. Watch FSU Director of Research and Policy @DavidRoseUK below 👇 Full episode is available on our YouTube channel."
Kiera Diss on X - "INTRODUCING THE BRITISH MUSLIM TRUST Sadiq Khan proudly launches the British Muslim Trust, declaring “Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred are rooted in systemic socioeconomic inequalities” that cause the “worst outcomes” in health, education, employment and poverty for British Muslims. This is just a grievance machine. It weaponises “hate” reporting (including non-crimes) while securing government funding and political backing from Khan. It’s a registered charity so will be raking in the financial benefits that come with that status I’m sure. Instead of focusing on our capital, rising crime levels and a rape every minute, the Mayor of London is busy screwing Londoners over for Islam. Khan must be replaced."
Councilwoman Vickie Paladino on X - "There is one rape per minute in London under its Muslim mayor, Sadiq Kahn. That is a real statistic. The vast majority of those rapes are committed by Muslim and North African men against English women and girls. Instead of focusing on these horrific crimes against women, he’s establishing a ‘charitable trust’ to further consolidate Muslim power. Kahn is someone our own Muslim mayor has said he’s looking to as an example. This is what the future of New York looks like."
British government announces new definition of anti-Muslim hostility : r/europe_sub - "'Jewish people faced the highest rate of hate crimes, according to the government figures, with 106 incidents per 10,000 population. Muslims were second, with 12 per 10,000 population.'
Hate crimes against Jews are more than 9 times more common per capita than hate crimes against Muslims. Remember that next time you hear someone try to deflect away from increasing antisemitism by asking "But what about Islamophobia!?!""
Fears anti-Muslim hate definition will hand Islamists perfect cover - "Britain's former anti-extremism tsar has reportedly broken cover to attack the government's newly minted definition of anti-Muslim hostility warning it hands extremists a ready-made tool to dodge accountability and silence dissenting voices within Muslim communities. The Express undertands Lord Walney said he was "deeply concerned" about the definition, which landed on Monday alongside a wider social cohesion strategy. His fear is that bad actors will seize on it to "deflect scrutiny from their quest to undermine our values and intimidate fellow Muslims."... the Prime Minister said the political class had "taken our eye off the ball" by allowing a culture to develop in which rights were emphasised while responsibilities went largely unchecked. He argued that Britain could no longer bank on communities staying naturally cohesive as economic pressure, rising migration and global instability continued to bear down. The strategy was candid about the role of immigration in fraying community bonds, with ministers acknowledging that the speed of demographic change in some parts of the country had been "too much, too quickly.""
Clearly, he's Islamophobic. Too bad by talking about mass migration hurting British society, Keir Starmer is too!
Muslim hate crimes twice as likely to be prosecuted as those against Jews - "The rate of the offences targeting Muslims that resulted in a charge or summons was 6.7 per cent in the year to March 2025, equivalent to one in 15 offences recorded by the police. However, just 3.8 per cent of anti-Jewish hate crimes led to a charge or summons in the same 12-month period, which was one in 26. It meant that Muslim victims were 76 per cent more likely to see their perpetrator prosecuted than Jewish victims of hate crimes... Separate statistics published annually by the Home Office show Jewish people are almost ten times more likely to be victims of religious hate crimes. There were 106 religious hate crimes per 10,000 population targeted at Jewish people compared with 12 per 10,000 of population targeting Muslims. Fiyaz Mughal, founder of the Tell Mama organisation that monitors anti-Muslim hate, said the discrepancy between charging rates for anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hatred was likely to widen following the government’s introduction of an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility. "
The cope that this is because anti-Muslim hate crimes are more serious doesn't work, because on all the types of offences, even "malicious communications", ones against Muslims were more likely to be prosecuted
Children’s drawings could be blasphemous under Islamic law, schools warned - "Schools have been advised that children’s drawings could be considered blasphemous under Islamic law. Guidance issued to teachers by Labour councils in northern England warns that images made by pupils in art lessons may be seen as “idolatrous” under sharia. The advice, designed to help teachers adapt to religious sensitivities, also warns that music and dance classes could be contrary to the teachings of Islam. It adds that diversity in the classroom can be “a great source of strength”, but that schools “will want to be flexible in catering for religious difference”. The guidance was issued by local authorities across the North of England, including Kirklees, the council area that covers Batley Grammar School. The school became the scene of protests in 2021 after a teacher showed an image of the Prophet Mohammed in a class. The staff member remains in hiding. The guidance document titled “Sharing the Journey” says that “for some Muslim parents, sensitivities may exist in connection with the teaching of aspects of art, dance, drama, music, physical education, religious education and RSHE”... “It is very important that the school understands this and is also careful not to ask its students to reproduce images of Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed or other figures considered to be prophets in Islam. Some Muslim pupils may not wish to draw the human figure.”... “schools should listen to any concerns, discuss the place of music in the curriculum and ensure that students are not asked to join in songs that conflict with their religious beliefs”. The prohibition on music is not supported by all Muslims, but has been advanced in certain movements, including the Deobandism espoused by the Taliban. Teachers are also warned that dance lessons could cause parental concerns over “physical contact between males and females”. This advice was first created in 2022 by councils in Leeds, Calderdale, Oldham, Wakefield, and was shared by local authorities including Sefton in Lancashire, and Tameside in Greater Manchester. It has since been reissued. The introduction to the guidance says that it can play a part in “building harmony and understanding” and fostering “cohesion” in local communities. This has become a major concern for the current Labour Government, which this week urged schools to monitor anti-Muslim hostility as part of a drive to maintain social cohesion... Similar advice has been issued by councils elsewhere in England, warning that some Muslim families may object to representational art or certain forms of music. Schools are encouraged to consider alternative activities where pupils feel participation conflicts with their religious beliefs... In the case of the most recent advice issued by councils across the north of England, other faiths are not frequently mentioned in relation to sensitivities around the curriculum."
The UK is moving towards Sharia Law
Time to abolish the Church of England to stop Theocracy!
Clearly, Christians must be stopped from pulling their kids from lessons because they want to indoctrinate their kids into Christofascism
HJB News on X - "Head of British schools Sir Mufti Hamid Patel said restrictions in British schools on art, dancing, music, religious education was necessary not to offend Muslim students or their families. Further changes are to be made later this year he said."
John Cleese on X - "My very existence is offensive to these strange people. Is suicide the only way I can calm them down ?"
Ranty Man on X - "This bloke becomes head of Ofsted and suddenly we're talking about not allowing kids to draw Jesus."
If your existence is offensive to Muslims and you don't commit suicide, that's Islamophobia
Neil O'Brien on X - "This is asymmetric multiculturalism in action again:
- Schools told not to depict Christ in case Muslims are offended
- Public bodies serve halal meat even though Sikhs cannot eat halal"
Muslim pupils ‘should be spared after-school detention during Ramadan’ - "A Labour council has advised teachers to avoid giving after-school detentions during Ramadan. Council guidance, issued to schools for the holy month, states that Muslim pupils facing punishment should be allowed to return home to break their fast. The Ramadan guidance states that teachers should “consider alternative sanctions during this period”. The guidance was drafted by a mosque with a history of controversy and shared with local schools by Lewisham council in south London... Shakeel Begg, the mosque’s chief imam, has been described by a High Court judge as an “extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions”. Meanwhile, Ashraf Dabous, the centre’s head of education, claimed in a sermon that anti-immigration rioters in the summer of 2024 were being “misled” and “manipulated” by Zionists. The guidance was created in partnership with the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (Sacre), a body that each council is required to establish... The advisory document notes that “many Muslim staff and older Muslim pupils” may wish to pray at prescribed times during Ramadan. The guidance says that appropriate prayer rooms – “where possible one for girls and one for boys” – should be provided, along with washing facilities. Schools might also “consider the provision of a larger room for prayers or contacting their local mosque to arrange for an Imam to lead Friday prayers”. Teachers are told they can take this opportunity to “be more inclusive by teaching the pupils about Ramadan and inviting guest speakers from the Muslim community”. The Lewisham Islamic Centre has offered to “be a liaison”... The judge concluded that when he was “speaking to predominantly Muslim audiences and/or audiences who might be receptive to his message, he has shed the cloak of respectability and revealed the horns of extremism”."
The new Islamophobia definition will make integration even worse - "For years, politicians have struggled to differentiate between a religion practised peacefully by millions of British citizens and those pushing a hardline agenda. And it is exactly that distinction which risks being blurred once again. “Islamist” was chosen to make that distinction clear, to separate extremists from ordinary Muslims, but even this 69-page report only spares two sentences discussing what the Islamist threat is. The Government says its new definition will condemn the “prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims” resulting in them being treated “as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics”. That sounds reasonable enough until you consider how easily such wording can be stretched and how universities, councils and police forces typically err on the side of caution whenever complaints arise. In recent years, police officers have spent hundreds of hours investigating tweets and recording so-called “non-crime hate incidents” that never resulted in any offence at all. For example, I was investigated after calling Hamas what it really is on social media: a death cult of Islamist murderers and rapists. Political opponents and extremists deliberately misinterpreted my comments, claimed my use of the word Islamists was Islamophobic or racist and caused a torrent of abuse and threats. That was to be expected, but I was shocked and appalled when the police became involved and told me it would have been recorded as a “non-crime hate incident” had the rules not been changed to raise the threshold. Thankfully, Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, has told the police to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents but it does not take much imagination to see how a new Islamophobia definition could revive precisely that same culture. And if officials armed with an expansive new definition of anti-Muslim hostility begin investigating people for criticising Islamist ideology, any attempt to tackle extremist ideology will quickly collapse under the weight of public sector anxiety. The origins of the definition itself only amplify those concerns. It follows work by a Government-appointed Islamophobia working group whose members have faced scrutiny over links to Islamist-aligned organisations and activists. Several previously supported the controversial 2018 definition of Islamophobia produced by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims."
In the push to be nicer to Muslims, Britain is walking into a trap - "The Working Group tiptoed away from “Islamophobia” and instead invented AMH. And when it published its 146-word definition this week, it surrounded it with stuff about the importance of freedom of speech (a freedom which, it admitted, included “ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief”). As you read, you can feel the poor old Working Group which, for some reason, kept their advice to government “private”, trying to square fundamental British freedoms with the demands of what are the largely self-appointed representatives of what may now be Labour’s biggest single voting bloc, Muslims. Trying, but failing – the circle cannot be squared. That is why I feel sorry for them. Is any harm done by the definition, though, some might ask. If the Government’s public doctrine is a. Be nicer to Muslims and b. Protect free speech, what is wrong with that? Nothing – although one might add that it would also be good to try to be nicer to Christians, who are suffering increasing hostility. And one would certainly want to add, much more strongly, about being nicer to Jews, who are subjected to ever more blatant intimidation, in our streets and in our universities. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. As the Free Speech Union, which is planning a legal challenge, points out, the AMH definition, though “non-statutory”, is “full of dangerous and serious contradictions”, some of which even conflict with existing law... Whatever is “reprehensible” is in the Government’s sights, and it will develop “a framework of understanding” accordingly. The definition will “evolve”, it says. How are these reprehensible things to be identified? Well, they will be reported. Then they will be judged under the supervision of the Government’s AMH “tsar”. And since the definition is so vague, the reporting, which will inevitably rise because it has been encouraged and will therefore be represented as an “epidemic” of AMH, will be subjective. This creates the same trap as was set by the disastrous Macpherson report into the failure to the catch the killers of Stephen Lawrence. Macpherson defined a racist incident as “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”. It thus allowed subjectivity to triumph over fact. Innumerable false or unprovable accusations ensued, ruining careers and reputations... what would the authorities do, if someone much younger than Professor Dawkins and making a career in academia or the public services, were to say much the same thing? Or suppose a bomb went off near you and you said to the police, “I heard this Muslim shouting ‘Allahu Akhbar!’ before he detonated his suicide vest”. Would you have been guilty, since you did not know that the bomber was a Muslim, of “prejudicial stereotyping”? Or what if schoolchildren tell their teachers, “My mummy says that Muslims repress their women”. Will she get a knock at the door? Or if residents say to a council committee, “We don’t want a mosque round here because it would disturb our peace and quiet”, would their objections to planning permission be overruled on the grounds that they were reprehensible people driven by AMH? Over 20 years ago, when a lot of this stuff was just kicking off, I wrote in this space that people should be free to call Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, a paedophile. I did not pluck that accusation out of the air, but because of the story, as stated by classical Muslim texts, that Mohammed married his last wife, Ayesha, when she was six. In my column, I added that I did not myself agree with the accusation of paedophilia because Mohammed lived in a culture when girls were married off very young. My point was simply that people should be allowed to make the claim. This disavowal did not protect me much. I received low-level death threats and an angry refusal to accept any difference between tolerance, which I advocated, and agreement. Since 1979, people in the West, especially Israelis, Americans and British, have been targeted, both specifically and generally, by the Iranian regime. Their death has been regularly called for in mosques and by the country’s theocratic leaders at rallies. Iran’s full title is the Islamic Republic of Iran. If someone here stands up and says, “I don’t like Muslims because those Iranians keep trying to kill us”, I would agree that he is not expressing the problem accurately: a large number of Muslims worldwide detest the Iranian regime. Would it be right, however, for him to be stigmatised, sacked or forcibly re-educated? His offence would be the same as someone who, between 1939 and 1945, failed to distinguish between Germans and Nazis. Wrong, but forgivable in the circumstances. To his critics, one might say, as people said back then, “Don’t you know there’s a war on?” Which leads me to my final point. Can you think of anyone in the world just now guiltier of anti-Muslim hostility than all those ayatollahs flying drones against their peaceful Muslim neighbours across the Gulf? How about that for your casus belli, Sir Keir?"
Prison guard union chief claims Islamic terrorists are exempt from sniffer dog searches at Manchester jihadi attack jail - "PRISON officer union bosses say sniffer dogs have been banned from the unit that held terror plotter Hashem Abedi — after terrorists complained they offended their Muslim faith. Officers at HMP Frankland used the hounds to search inmates as they returned from the exercise yard. But the head of the prison officers’ union says checks were axed after those held at the unit said coming into contact with the animals was against their religious beliefs. Mark Fairhurst, national chair of the Prison Officers’ Association, said: “When it first opened, every prisoner housed on that unit was thoroughly searched on the unit, and when they left the unit and when they returned to the unit. On occasion, dogs were used. “The prisoners complained that it interfered with their religious beliefs. “The management committee overruled the staff and removed the dogs from searching those prisoners. “We appease these prisoners and pander to them. Why? Why are we so obsessed with upsetting prisoners, terrorist prisoners, whose sole purpose is to murder prison officers?” Hashem Abedi, 28 — brother of Ariana Grande concert bomber Salman — threw hot oil and knifed staff with makeshift weapons at Frankland last weekend. Three officers, including a woman, were said to be injured but the toll had been updated to four... Among those held there, in the prison near Durham, was hate preacher Anjem Choudary... Ex prison governor Ian Acheson — who carried out a 2016 review into Islamist extremism — told The Sun on Sunday: “We are putting the security, safety and welfare of front-line staff constantly at risk because we’re pandering to people on the basis that staff fear being accused of racism, or bosses of legal challenge.” Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: “It’s pathetic if HMP Frankland has folded to Islamist prisoners and allowed them to circumvent security checks. “This would allow Islamist gangs to control prison wings across the country. Officers should not fear being labelled racist if they step in to restore order and control from radical Islamist prisoners.”"
Men under 24 returning to homophobic views of past generations, study suggests - "Polling from the Pew Research Center found that men aged 24 and under are far more likely to oppose same-sex marriage and even homosexuality generally than those born between the 1980s and 1990s. Men are also far less likely to support LGBTQ+ rights than women of the same age. In fact, women are consistently more likely to be LGBTQ+ allies than men across all age ranges. The 2024 study, highlighted in a report from the American Institute for Boys and Men (AIBM) in December, found that 71 per cent of men born in the 2000s believe same-sex marriage should be legal. Comparatively, 77 per cent of men born in the 1990s and 73 per cent born in the 1980s support same-sex marriage... AIBM noted the gender gap for those born in the 2000s was the widest in nearly every subject compared to every other decade. Trans rights were by far the most contentious subject among young people. 60 per cent of 2000s women said they believe trans people should be accepted by society, while just 44 per cent of 2000s men answered similarly – a gender gap of 16 per cent... Washington University professor of practice, Ryan Burge, argued the survey results prove that young men are increasingly influenced by “social-issue messaging”, particularly from right-wing religious groups... Research published in 2024 suggested that Gen Z are more likely to identify as LGBTQ+ than Republican compared to other generations. The Axios poll found that just 21 per cent of those aged between 12 and 27 describe themselves as Republican, while more than a quarter described themselves as LGBTQ+. It also found that young people are far more likely to be religious than other generations."
Clearly, young women are not affected by "social-issue messaging"
Iliftfordoughnuts on X - "I don't blame them. I called this in '22. Homophobia is on the rise because people are fatigued. Gays had it good. We were left alone. We were accepted. Until the T came in and told everyone they had to accept them or else. Until they wanted to teach your kids about gender studies. Until they painted Target in rainbows year after year. Until every show and film had the plot stolen by the they/them's. People don't want to give normal gays a chance anymore because we're so few and far between. They assume we're like the rest because the majority has gone bonkers."
Covfefe Anon on X - "The famous "aspects of whiteness" Smithsonian infographic was *embarrassing* because it showed what they believe and *did damage to the progressive cause* The idea of satire is to take the principles endorsed by someone and bring them to a logical endpoint that everyone recognizes as horrible or ridiculous - progressivism has a bunch of crimestop techniques that make it immune to satire If you try to satirize progressivism, progressives simply mentally check out because they have an instinct that tells them that they don't believe anything that is "too far" - in other words, if the satire bites, it's "too far" The reason this infographic is so telling is that it shows what the left believes and was released by an official organization so that the belief cannot be denied Of *course* it was embarrassing - but what it isn't is an inaccurate representation of leftist beliefs - the more you're a productive member of society, the more leftists think you should be a slave whose existence is only tolerated (temporarily!) because your existence supports their pets"
Róisín Michaux on X - "Berkeley gender and race studies students were given the task of creating and editing Wikipedia pages and filling them with critical theory/queer propaganda instead of submitting final papers — for over a decade. “It’s about who controls knowledge.”"
Meme - "Why are people who hate guns and can't handle seeing them in games, making games about guns?"
Nick *Pride flag* *Trans flag* *Palestine flag* Apr 29, 2023: "I honestly don't think I could work on game that glorifies or fantasizes modern guns (CoD, Battlefield, RB6). I've had moments I've struggled with Halo, but the weapons and world is pretty sci fi, which creates a large enough separation from reality."
"This is the new creative designer for Halo Studios (formerly 343 Industries). Is the future of the franchise in good hands?"
Devon Eriksen on X - "Why Wokies Can't Write
Did you ever wonder why wokies can't write good fiction? No, it's not just because they insist on making every story a soapbox to deliver a lecture from. They do that, but it's covering up a far deeper problem. That's why they write stories that suck even when they are compelled to stop preaching for five minutes by the threat of immanent bankruptcy. Even when they try to write a story that's just a story, they're no good at it, because they lack the one most critical skill that a fiction author must have. Empathy.
Yeah, you read that correctly. Wokies lack empathy. Yes, they say they have loads of it, they berate the chuds for lacking it, they talk about it constantly. But wokies are actually defined by their lack of empathy. Lacking empathy is the very thing that makes them wokies. And they are blind to this fact because they don't know what empathy really is. They think it means being nice to people or having sympathy for them or thinking well of them. But it means none of these things.
Empathy means the ability to understand someone else's point of view.
Doesn't mean you like him. Doesn't mean you trust him. Doesn't mean you want to invite him to your country or let him babysit your kids. Doesn't mean you want to excuse his crimes. It just means you know what he's thinking, how he feels, and why he does what he does.
Wokies are wokies because they have little or no empathy. They don't understand other people. They only understand themselves.
When they try to understand other people, they do so by assuming that everyone is like them. If they are nice, sweet, good-natured people, they will assume that George Floyd was just like them, and he only robbed people because he wasn't given enough money or hugs. If they are sociopathic thugs like George Floyd, they will assume that middle class professional are just like them, and the only reason they don't rob banks is because they are too scared to take the risk. But whoever they are, this is why they subscribe to blank-slatist theories of human nature. This is why they say dumb things like "there is only one race, the human race", when they would never say there are no dog breeds. This is why they want to invite Pushtun tribesmen to their nice middle class American neighborhoods and expect them to fit in. It's why they want to hug serial murderers and forgive them instead of hanging them from the nearest oak tree. It's why they insist every show on television has to include a character who looks and talks exactly like them. Because they can't identify with anyone who doesn't. It's why when they adapt, for TV, the story of a fantasy-world hedge knight, written by someone who actually read some medieval history, it's full of irrelevant brown people, childhood backstory inserts, saxophone soundtrack music, and snarky millenial dialogue. It's why when they have to write their own stories, they write snarky dialogue about minor Chinese-American intergenerational trauma that they have because their parents lacked empathy, too. This shit is fascinating to them, and they can't even conceive of the very obvious fact that everyone else in the room is stifling a yawn. And it's not just why they can't come up with interesting stories, it's also why they can't actually write.
Empathy is the primary skill of a fiction writer, because every moment that you are actually sitting at your desk, banging away on your keyboard, trying to write something compelling about a fictional guy in a fictional situation, what you have to do is empathize in two directions at once.
You must empathize with the character, who is a bit like you but not completely, to understand and convey what he's thinking, what it feels like for him to be where he is, and what he's likely to do.
And you must simultaneously empathize with the reader, who is a bit like you but not completely, and isn't there for you to observe, so you can present all of the above in a way that's interesting to him.
And wokies can't do either one, because they have no empathy, and can only understand themselves. So they write stories about carbon copies of themselves, for carbon copies of themselves. And no one is interested except carbon copies of themselves. Which is why even wokies don't consume wokie stories at anything like the rate that chuds read chud stories. Because wokies are not actually all the same except in their lack of empathy. They just think they are. So they get served stories that they ideologically approve of, and will write a social media post in support of, but they don't really follow those stories too much, because they're actually not that into it. After all, even if you choose to write a self-insert character, you still need the empathy to make that character interesting to someone who isn't a self-insert reader. Good authors can write stories about characters and situations that all compelling for people who like those characters and situations. Great authors can write characters who are understandable and interesting to readers who are totally different from both author and character. Wokies can only barely manage to entertain clones of themselves."
Left wingers are obsessed with "representation" because they have no empathy
