"Experts" blasted for telling public to not use term "looting" to describe California looters

Alleged experts Monday cautioned against using the term "looting" to describe the recent large-scale looting and destruction of property from California retail stores because it might be associated with people of color and that would make whoever the looters are, feel upset.

Perhaps we should refer to looters as "retail products acquisition engineers." We wouldn't want to offend them.

Some reacted to the claims made by these self-described "experts" of verbiage online and not so complimentary.

A government looter innocently whistling as she makes off with a coat load of stuff

According to the local ABC affiliate for the Bay Area, the California Penal Code didn't allow for the use of the term "looting" to describe the thefts involving large groups of people because, it claimed, the definition didn't match the act as defined by law. 

And we should care how the law terms bum-rushing a store and stealing items off the shelves because why?

The network also cited two individuals it referred to as "experts," who described the term as being reminiscent of Black people and people of color being associated with the act of looting. They gave no actual examples of when this happened or who used this term in such a manner, but if ABC says they're experts, who are we peons to disagree?

"According to the California Penal Code, what we saw was not looting," it wrote. 

What we saw was worse than simple looting, which is basically taking booty which was not yours during a "state of emergency," "local emergency," or "evacuation order." 

What happened in California was more like a coordinated attack on local businesses with the intent of obtaining merchandise that would likely be resold at a later date, while terrorizing store employees and customers, destroying store property and taking advantage of California's laws which decriminalizes theft below $950.

Alleged expert Lorenzo Boyd, a guy I go to when I need to know what not to call looting, is a professor of Criminal Justice and Community Policing at the University of New Haven. As an obvious progressive, Boyd described the term "looting" through a racist lens, just as everything else the Left disagrees with is likewise described.

"Looting is a term that we typically use when people of color or urban dwellers are doing something. We tend not to use that term for other people when they do the exact same thing," he told ABC.

And just because the looters used the Kyle Rittenhouse 'not guilty' verdict to excuse their looting, is no reason to use the term "experts" say.

ABC admitted they didn't know the races or identities of the looters but just in case they aren't white it's best we don't call them looters so we can avoid any problems.

Some critics pointe out that it wouldn't make any difference if we called them looters or whatever else we use to describe their criminal behavior. 

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

One critic compared the pushback on using the term "looting" to people claiming critical race theory was taught only in law schools and not to school-age children. "There was no looting. As a matter of fact, 'looting' is only a term used in law school," he wrote.

"It’s looting. Just like there were riots in Kenosha, not just protests," former Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker wrote, referring to the unrest in Kenosha following the non-fatal police shooting of Jacob Blake.

"'Experts.' Remember-- they believe if they can control the language they control reality. Time to 'smash and grab' this garbage," Fox News' contributor Tammy Bruce wrote, while another simply wrote, "Umm ok."

So call it looting. Call it stealing. Call it retail products acquisition engineering.

It is what it is.

Tweet

Democratic Sen. Schumer uses "R" word to describe disabled children

"No, you're the idiot"

Senate Majority Leader Charles "Nostrils" Schumer (D-NY)  apologized for getting caught on Monday using the word "retarded" when referring to developmentally disabled children during a podcast.

Chucky used the term in a segment on Sunday's 1 NYCHA podcast. The topic was about Congress' inept efforts to combat homelessness. Thus far the Democrat-run cities across the country have been as effective at combatting homelessness as they have been combatting crime. 

When a podcast co-host mentioned that some initiatives for sheltering homeless people have faced resistance in New York City, Schumer discussed the Biden administration’s proposed "American Rescue Plan," as well as his own past experiences as a politician encountering opposition to housing proposals.

"When I first was an assemblyman, they wanted to build a congregate living place for retarded children," Schumer said, referring to children who had developmental disabilities. "The whole neighborhood was against it. These are homeless kids, they just needed some help. We got it done, it took a while."

Fortunately Schumer didn't use more antiquated terms like "idiots," or "morons." But the term "retarded" is totally not cool and neither is Schumer, who still calls Black people "Negroes," and White people "racists."

In 2010, former divisive President Barack Obama approved "Rosa’s Law," which replaced the term "mental retardation" with "intellectual disability" in federal law and policy. Schumer didn't get the memo.

A representative for Schumer claimed that he apologized for his word choice, acknowledging it was "inappropriate and outdated."

For a guy who makes his living with words, that was not cool.

Why not consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against ignorance and evil.

Tweet

Yale apologizes to liberal offense monitors

Lurking around every corner of society is a new breed of liberal: offense monitors.

They live to be offended. They thrive on calling people out who didn't never mean to offend, but have nevertheless offended the offense monitors with either a micro-aggression, an 'offensive' photo, or a word that implies that some group, somewhere on the planet, would and should feel offended.

The Yale University offense monitors have found a program cover designed for the 100th game between the Ivy League school and its traditional rival, Dartmouth College, is offensive to no less than 11 native Americans in North America and probably more.

The game is to be played this Saturday and features the combination of several previous program covers from games between the schools before the creation of offense monitors. One cover from 1944 showed a Yale player setting fire to an American Indian's clothing. That's really disgusting and I score one for the offense monitors in this case.

The executive director of Yale's indigenous performing arts program called the images "dehumanizing." He makes a valid point, but I suspect the designer of the cover intended to boost the morale of Yale showing that they will beat the "Indians" on the gridiron. 

The director of athletics Tom Beckett agreed the images on the cover was offensive and he apologized profusely, bringing a slightly twisted smile to the lips of several offense monitors.

Now you need to understand that Dartmouth was founded in 1769 with the purpose of educating Native American youth, a group of people who used to be called 'Indians' before the advent of the offense monitors. Its sports teams were informally known as the Indians until the 1970s when Big Green was adopted.

The offense monitors are now making efforts to remove the word 'Big' from the team's name as it is offensive to short people.

The truth is, if you want to find something offensive about something, you probably can. This is one case where I agree with the offense monitors . . . one of the very few.



Tweet

Columbus Day Out -- Neanderthal Day In

More and more cities across the United States are looking to get rid of Columbus Day and change the name to Indigenous People's Day. The problem is, however, due to the chronic erosion of the American education system, many Americans, particularly new ones, are unable to spell 'Indigenous' and most don't know the definition.

Liberal word Nazis are adamant about the change however, because Indians, who no longer are allowed to be called 'Indians', were here before Columbus and his crew arrived back in 1492.

Only one city thus far has rejected the change of the name "Columbus Day" to "Indigenous People's Day," and that city is Cincinnati. Their city council met last Wednesday and voted against a proclamation that would recognize Indigenous People's Day. One lawmaker said he voted against it because he simply didn't know enough about it.

Vermont is all in for the name change. In fact, if Vermont could have its way, they would change the name 'United States of America' to 'Unique and Special States of an Indigenous People's Continent'. They believe America, named after Amerigo Vespucci, unfairly favors Italians and should instead focus on the Indigenous people who occupied this land and harvested the mighty buffalo.

Vermont's Gov. Peter Shumlin said the "sacrifice and contributions of the First Peoples of this land" would be honored.

So is Shumlin suggesting that the federal holiday should be called "Neanderthal Day" or the people who came much later to the land of the mighty buffalo?

South Dakota hasn't called the holiday Columbus Day in decades. They declare the second Monday in October as Native Americans Day. So they too must be referring to early man.

Hey, let's be honest--everyone has their unique way of looking at things. It's just that many liberals tend to look at things and ask themselves how cool it will make them look in the eyes of those whose butts they kiss.



Tweet

Obama: it just as easily could've been the Amish

It's embarrassing to hear Obama speak about the Orlando terrorist and do verbal calisthenics to avoid saying the words 'Islamic terrorism,' or 'jihad,' or Islam. 

Instead President Obama pretends that the hatred that Muslims have for gays and lesbians is somehow a perversion of Islam.

Well, I'd like him to show us how that's true. Where can he find Islamic scripture that clearly refutes Islamic scripture that commands the killing of gays and lesbians? I think we should all challenge him. Maybe we ought to go on Twitter and challenge the Obama administration to show us where it shows mercy for gays, lesbians and even Jews.

For Obama to admit that killing gays has to do with Islamic doctrine would be an incredible dilemma--he is supposedly the friend of the LGBT community, but is he any less a hypocrite than Hillary Clinton who takes huge donations from countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that treat women like chattel, while she claims to be a  champion for women's rights?

If you have a handy-dandy Quran, particularly the Saudi Arabia version, go to the following Suras:  7:80; 7:81; 26:165-166; 4:16; 56:17; 52:24; 76:19; 56:23. 

Of course, you will also find how to deal with homosexuality in the Hadith and Sira. For example, in Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to."

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."

Any questions, Mr. Obama?

And what does that really say about what you think about the LGBT community?

Hypocrite!


Tweet

Obama al-Jazeera bin Lyin

How different is Al-Jazeera's whitewashing of Islamic barbarism from the Obama administration's? Answer: as different as identical twins.

Al-Jazeera America began by pretending it would cover the news honestly and in depth, but it apparently has as much depth as the snake oil salesman, Al Jazeera Gore, who sold them the slot in 2013 from Current.

The National Review obtained an email that directed Al Jazeera's propagandist "reporters" to not use terms such as "jihad," Islamist," and "terrorist." A top executive for the company, Carlos Van Meek, wrote to the New York and Washington newsrooms about how words can become problematic and also said, "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."

"Freedom fighter" shoots unarmed cop

Or "activist," if you work for CNN, as Christiane Amanpour called the Charlie Hebdo terrorists who massacred the staff at the newspaper. 

Scum buckets who kill children, behead journalists and others while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" are not freedom fighters. The children and journalists they kill are not in any way compromising their freedom. They are terrorists, and Islamic terrorists to be clear. The people who killed 3000 Americans and others on 911 were not freedom fights or militants; they were terrorists, of the Islamic kind.

Van Meek, who fits his name, said we should call terrorists "militants," or "fighters." He said that calling them extremists is forbidden. "Do not use the term Islamist," he said, because it's a "simplistic label."

Van Meek's level of political correctness has reached a point of pandering to Islamic terrorists. Al Jazeera is a champion at pandering--before they pandered in America, they pandered to Osama bin Laden and his terrorists of the Islamic kind. 

But don't fret, patriots, Al Jazeera has about as many prime-time viewers (18,000) as an Al Sharpton anti-white march.

So what about Obama and the boys on the left? Well, they're trying to convince us that Jordan's plan to swap Sajida al-Rishawi the terrorist, for Muath al-Kaseasbeh, the Jordanian pilot, is not the same as the Bergdahl trade last year. 

Bergdahl, a deserter at best, and a traitor at worst, was traded for the release of 5 Taliban terrorists at worst, and Islamic terrorists at best from Gitmo. 

Eric Schultz from the State Department made the case that the Taliban is not a terrorist group but an "armed insurgency." This Obama butt-boy claimed that "we don't pay ransom, we don't give concessions to terrorist organizations." So by this logic, the Taliban cannot be a terrorist organization because we made a concession. That's what we call an argument from fallacy:

We only make concessions with non-terrorist organizations.
We made concessions with the Taliban.
Therefore, the Taliban is a non-terrorist organization.

What we need to consider, in order to determine whether or not the Taliban is a terrorist organization, is our observations and the answers to the following questions:

1. If the Taliban was designated a terrorist organization during the Obama administration in 2010, and identified Hakimullah Mehsud and Wali ur-Rehman as specially designated global terrorists, has anything changed to declassify the Taliban as terrorists?

2. Does the killing of 141 people, 132 of them children at a Peshawar school by the Taliban, qualify them as terrorists?

3. Does the use of Improvised Explosive Devices, used to indiscriminately kill human beings, qualify the users of such devices (i.e., the Taliban) as terrorists?

If you still think the Taliban is merely an "armed insurgency," you might be a lberal.

Tweet

Liberals Label, Lie and Expect Little From Obama

Words have power. Liberals know this and are better than conservatives at using words to win arguments. Maybe they're better at it because we conservatives are nicer people so we don't fight back hard enough. It's like when someone that I know lies to me--I often believe the lie; not because I'm gullible, but because I don't tend to lie so it's almost taken for granted that others feel the same. So I'm not gullible yet maybe I'm naive. (Liberals would say I'm stupid, but I'll discuss name-calling later).

When a liberal wants to argue about, say, gun control, she, he or it, (say that fast and leave off the word 'or') will say that if you don't believe in gun control, you want kids to be killed, or simply don't care if they are murdered by guns. If you don't believe in abortion on demand, liberals accuse you of not believing in a woman's right to choose. Clever use of words. Conservatives need comebacks to these nonsensical claims. I would suggest you discuss the rights of the child they want to kill with abortion, while discussing the facts about gun control and how useful it is in stopping school shootings.

But I've yet to meet a liberal who'd let facts stand in the way of her feelings, or deter her from calling you a racist every time you disagree with the president. If you disagree with Obama, that doesn't make you a racist. If you see nothing that he is doing wrong with our country, that makes you a racist of low expectations. Only Obama was re-elected for a second term with an economy and employment rate that is this incredibly poor--no white president ever was--that's racism of low expectations. And what do we call black people who voted for Obama "because he is black,"? When you vote for someone based on skin color, that's just as racist as voting against someone based on skin color.

Tweet