USC Bans the word "Field" plus 16 more offensive words that gives folks the vapors

The following is not meant to be taken seriously, at least in total. After you read the satirical reasoning, it's hoped that you will come up with your own crazy leftist censorship of common everyday language. Please do not be offended by my sarcasm/satire, but the Left has finally lost what was left of its collective mind.

The University of Southern California's Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work (GO PECKERHEADS!) is banning the following racist or sexist words:

mankind, field, black, brown, color, thug, bro, brah, s'up, grades, defendant, monkey, ice skating, cotton,  nap, "pull the trigger," manly, mankind,  American, abort.

Now let's look at why these words should never be used by those of us with true sensitivity to our species

1. mankind: don't be stupid--I already used "species" as a substitute and don't you feel better already that I didn't offend your sensitivities? 

2. field: according to the Peckerheads of USC's Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, field is "anti-black" and "anti-immigrant." This is mainly due to the way the fightin' Peckerheads see these two groups: as people only capable of maintaining menial agricultural work bailing hay, using a manure spreader, shucking corn, picking cotton and the like.

3. black: should never be used by whities, but people of color and LGBTQI+&498 folks can use the word.

4. brown: see 'black'. 

5. color: if you use the word color it proves you see color and all that people with color have needed to endure in this racist country.

6. thug: this word is an insult to blacks and undocumented persons of long walks.

7. bro, brah, s'up: are all words that white supremacists [e.g., all Republicans] attribute to black folks. There are plenty of decent white folks, [aka Democrats, communists, socialists, progressives, Trump haters] who address each other or greet each other with those words and maybe a fist-bump.

8. grades: using mathematical comparisons to determine the success of one individual over another is racist, plain and simple.

9. defendant: that's just racist, bro, you feel me?

10. monkey: everyone knows this is racist. I don't need to mansplain to you.

11. ice skating: only white people ice skate except for a few NHL players born in Canada or some other frozen hell-hole.

12. cotton: back in the day, the black man and woman worked in the field picking cotton for the man. The mere mention of cotton, or even the boll weevil, is a racist trope.

13. nap: while some try to defend this word and attribute it to taking rest in the middle of the day, the word really connotes the false narrative that certain groups of people are lazy and don't want to work. 

14. pull the trigger: while it is supposed to mean to go forward with an action, everyone knows it's racist and accuses young black men and a few young black women, of gangland shootings and other crime.

15. manly/mankind: it's sexist. Period.

16. American: why does the USA get to say "American" and not South America, or even that hell-hole of frozen wasteland, Canada? Sure, Justin Trudeau [aka Latka] speaks French, but he also speaks American English. So we need to stop calling ourselves Americans and call ourselves Land O' States.

17. abort: while the word means to stop something, such as a mission or a flight,  it is also often used in referring to the stopping of the life of a baby in the mother's womb. It's therefore offensive, not only to this writer, but to G_d.

Tweet

Stanford U. to allow 'harmful language' because they evidently don't care if we're harmed now

Stanford University, an elite school of lower learning, took only two days to walk back what they pointed out is "harmful language." If they truly believed that, why did they walk it back? Don't they care that words like "American" and "patriot" can cause harm upon the fragile psyches of their snowflakes students? Words like “freshman” and “mankind” were attacked for being “gender-based.” Terms such as “blind study” and “tone-deaf” were criticized as “ableist.” 

Seriously, these people are [can I say it?] morons.

But we all know that most people in academia are leftist cowards who are more comfortable grooming children and young adults than they are with free speech and when you come right down to it, the entire U.S. Constitution.

So Stanford is apparently walking back the rigid campus language code "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative" and removing it from its website they put there just two days prior because it was blasted by people on both sides of the aisle, according to The Washington Free Beacon. 

The webpage for the woke tripe went live over the weekend, the Free Beacon reported. The proposed language policies were the subject of a critical Op-Ed published by The Wall Street Journal on Monday.

The university resource outlined a laundry list of “harmful” words and phrases that would be removed from Stanford websites and suggested politically correct alternatives to the objectionable language.

Imagine, they went after the word "American" and said it was harmful because it supposedly ascribes supremacy to the United States over other countries in the Americas. Well, lah-dee-dah. If that wasn't true in a certain sense, then why are people from other countries in the Americas hauling their butts to come here? 

No Virginia, not all countries and cultures are equal.

However, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at Stanford's medical school rejected the proposed elimination of the word "American." He tweeted:

I remember how proud I was when I became a naturalized American citizen. I’m still proud to be an American, and I don’t care that @Stanford disapproves of my using the term. https://t.co/NKwzjOlV3v

— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya)

Steve Gallagher, Stanford’s chief information officer, released a statement on Tuesday distancing the school from its attack on the First Amendment.

“Over the last couple of days, there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code,” Gallagher said.

“First and importantly, the website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements,” he clarified.

Gallagher said the word “American” would not be banned by the university, but it isn't clear whether there will remain in place unconstitutional measures to ban the most basic freedom we have in the Bill of Rights.

“We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term ‘American,'” Gallagher said. “We understand and appreciate those concerns. To be very clear, not only is the use of the term ‘American’ not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed.”

Yeah, well let me repeat myself: lah-dee-dah.

Gallagher indicated that the speech code was undergoing “continual review,” suggesting that it could return in an altered capacity.

Speech code at Big Brother University. Nice going comrades.

Tweet

Ford is incredibly uncredible--here's why

I believe Christine Blasey Ford knows that she's lying, as in not telling the truth about her allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago.

Ford doesn't remember exactly when and where, and the people she alleged who were supposedly at the pool party all deny being there and her close friend that was supposedly with her at the party said [under penalty of a felony] says she doesn't know Brett Kavanaugh.

She also said she doesn't travel by plane but that was untrue.

She also said that she was not told the committee would accommodate her in a place "of [your] convenience."

I believe Republican senators and the conservative media [such as Fox News] are claiming to believe that she, at least, believes her story while defending Kavanaugh, while actually believing she is lying. However, I suspect the reason they're saying they believe that she believes it is their fear of the MeToo movement.

So what else do we know about "Dr." Ford?

One thing we know is that prior to appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she deleted her social media.

BUT . . . more importantly, it appears that her Bio Page from Stanford WAS ALTERED just 10 days before the hearing according to Jim Hoft in the Gateway Pundit.

At the hearing, Ford identified herself as a "Research Psychologist" at the Stanford School of Medicine. But after searching the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, there were no results found for Christine Ford or even deviations of her name.

There are no state records showing Ford as a licensed psychologist, but her Stanford Bio Page describing her as a "Research Psychologist" that in 2015:

Was changed on September 28, 2018 to appear thus:

It looks like Ford's got a lot of 'splainin' to do. If not her, then her lawyer(s).

This is definitely a mark against her credibility. According to Gateway Pundit, Ford's Stanford bio page was REVISED SEVEN TIMES before she gave her testimony to the committee, and her original page where she gave her title as "Research Psychologist" has since been removed.

So why should I believe Ford, who has exactly zero corroborating data to support her claim, as well as her longstanding friend who refutes it, over Brett Kavanaugh who produced evidence to corroborate his statement that he did not engage in any  inappropriate activity Ford alleges?

They say in court that if you're caught lying in one instance, the jury can take it to mean that you're lying altogether.


Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page.


Tweet

Stanford Prof.: "Saying your homework was easy is a microaggression

Photo: Heat Street

Writing about people who search for micro-aggressions is really very easy. In fact, it's so easy that I just committed one against other bloggers who find blogging more difficult than me.

The list of micro-aggressions keeps growing like a tumor on the butt of a liberal. You can add talking about your homework to the list.

Stanford "Professor" Ruth Starkman wrote in the Huffington Post: "Sure, you had no ill-intent, and absolutely nothing racist in mind at all. But by merely uttering the words out loud, you risk a micro-aggression because you don't know who in class may have struggled with the assignment," she says.

Even attempting to explain why you found an assignment easy is also a micro-aggression, the fluttering snowflake explains. So if the assignment was in chemistry, let's say, and you had college-level chemistry in high school and both your parents are chemists, your sister and brother are chemists, and all they talk about at the dinner table is chemistry, it's still a micro-aggression if you try to explain why you knew that H2O is water while the idiot next to you thought it was jet fuel.

"Not everyone went to your high school, had your fortunate circumstances, or such a dazzling delivery room arrival, and even if they did, they might still be suffering because of the genuine challenges of the assignments," Starkman writes.

And if the idiot next to you who doesn't know that H2O is water and you tell him why it was easy for you, that might make him feel bad. And if he feels bad, he may cry and realize how unfair life is and go into a deep state of depression . . . and melt.

Starkman claims that some students struggle while others breeze through because of an injustice she calls "unevenly distributed knowledge."

It's kind of like the idea of an 'uneven distribution of wealth.' Socialists actually believe that if I have more money than they have because I'm a chemist, for example, and they're a children's party clown, it's unfair if I make more money developing cancer curing drugs than they make for shaping balloons into giraffes.

In Starman's socialist mind, any student who attends an elite university with a good educational background is excelling academically because of their wealth and privilege. "Chances are your parents paid substantial sums of money for that knowledge," she says, "either in property taxes in highly resourced school districts or in private education or in pricey enrichment."

So why do libtards refuse to go along with school choice?

Starkman actually thinks that paying high property taxes is another form of privilege that wealthier people should feel guilty about. It isn't equal distribution of wealth--it isn't socialism nor communism--thus, it simply isn't fair in her mind.

"Your response 'I already had this in high school' really means 'not only do I have rich parents, I somehow took exactly the right courses to be perfectly prepared,'" the Stanford professor writes. "Congrats if you did. Try not to be a jerk about it."

Progressives always interpret what you say the way they want to hear it. You're being 'a jerk about it' no matter what you say if it somehow illuminates their shortcomings.

They're like the street beggar who asks you for your money then gets upset when you don't want to give it to them.


Tweet