Banning Lou Reed: The Cultural Revolution Eats Its Fathers

The whole comic incident lays bare certain truths about our own cultural moment, compared to the 1960s.

By Maggie Gallagher Published on May 23, 2017

Lou Reed was the minstrel boy to the wars of the sexual revolution. His haunting 1972 anthem urged young Americans to “Take a Walk on the Wild Side.” It celebrated the polymorphous perversity of Andy Warhol’s New York:

Holly came from Miami F.L.A.

Hitchhiked her way across the U.S.A.

Plucked her eyebrows on the way,

Shaved her legs and then he was a she.

She said, “Hey babe, take a walk on the wild side.”

Lou Reed was transgressive, progressive, and prodigiously talented. And yet somehow over the weekend Reed became the poster child of “transphobic” intolerance? How?

It’s a strange story.

The Desperate, Heroic Struggle for “Sensitivity”

Meet Chelsea, Emily, Becca and Kayla. They’re the executive officers of the University of Guelph Central Student Association in Ontario, Canada. Guelph is one of Canada’s top five universities. Last Thursday, these young women held an event to distribute summer bus passes. One of them (they won’t say which one) prepared a playlist. It included Reed’s anthem.

Apparently a transgender student complained. The young executives posted a heartfelt apology on the CSA’s official Facebook page. They said that the song appeared because of “ignorance as the person making the list did not know or understand the lyrics.”

We now know the lyrics to this song are hurtful to our friends in the trans community and we’d like to unreservedly apologize for this error in judgement. We have committed as an organization to be more mindful in our music selection during any events we hold.

The next paragraph is both precious and appalling:

If there are students or members of the campus community who overheard the song in our playlist and were hurt by its inclusion and you’d like to talk with us about it and how we can do better, we welcome that. We also recognize you may not want to talk with us and we acknowledge that it is not your responsibility to educate us. Please know that we are taking the steps to educate ourselves further to ensure this error is avoided going forward.”

The post went viral, to vast ridicule. “I don’t know if Lou would be cracking up about this or crying because it’s just too stupid,” Reed’s producer Hal Willner told The Guardian

Chelsea, Emily, Becca, and Kayla took down the Facebook post, but you can see it archived here. What exactly is transphobic about urging a “walk on the wild side?” We learned a little more after one student pushed back against the charge on the Guelph CSA’s Facebook page. 

Here are the new moral rules outlined by the young executive officers of the CSA: “The song is understood to be transphobic because of the lyrics and the sentiments that they support in present day,” the group responded to the student. “The lyrics, ‘and then he was a she,’ devalues the experiences and identities of trans folks.” And thus “minimize the experiences of oppression.” They also said the song was problematic because it suggests that transgender people are “wild,” “unusual” or “unnatural.”

Virtually every human society has understood that disciplining sexuality in the service of children and marriage was a critical and necessary social task.

“While we acknowledge that the song was written with certain purpose and intention, we would also emphasize that media is not always consumed in the ways that it was intended,” they added primly.

The Revolutionaries Gave Way to Functionaries

The whole comic incident lays bare certain truths about our own cultural moment, compared to the 1960s.

The old SSRs (Sixties Sexual Revolutionaries) wanted to transgress norms. To break boundaries. To “liberate” behavior and trample on icons. Then to rip up the Bible-based sexual morality associated with the bourgeois life. The new SJWs want to build a new moral orthodoxy imposed uniformly on all. If anyone from the properly certified minority group has hurt feelings listening to “Walk on the Wild Side,” then nobody should have to hear it. The SJWs want to be the new bourgeois morality.

SSRs attacked Bible-based moral codes. But these sex codes also had deep roots in human nature across lines of culture and religion. They were multicultural in the best sense. Details varied. Virtually every human society has understood that disciplining sexuality in the service of children and marriage was a critical and necessary social task.

Is Sex Important? Does That Question Offend You?

These moral code makers might have overshot the mark from time to time. But certainly the Victorian moralists understood sex’s importance. They knew that something critical was at stake in regulating it.

You can’t take a walk on the wild side in a safe space.

The SJWs also understand that a socially shared morality is important. But the job they wanted social morality to do has radically changed.

Our emerging morality has two big ideas: First, our most important job as a society is now to create good gender-neutral workers who have equal access to good jobs. This is the social task that is critical and must be accomplished. Second, our identity as sexual beings is socially unimportant except to the extent it brings us personal happiness. Sex accomplishes no important social task. Therefore it follows as marriage once followed sexual love that everyone must support all our sexual identities. There is no objective standard a reasonable outsider can apply. Even the intent of the artist doesn’t really matter. The consumer might hear it differently.

The lack of any standard, paradoxically, makes the SJW moral code far more intrusive and punitive than Victorian morality. (Could Lou Reed have ever dreamt of that?) You can’t avoid breaking its rules, since they aren’t announced in advance. You only find out you’ve done wrong once someone complains. And from that, there is no appeal. Guilt is absolute and automatic. You have no choice but to grovel for mercy. The Guelph students clearly knew that. Hence their abject apology.

The old SSR codebreakers threw out the Biblical baby with the bathwater (often literally).

But at least they understood one great and obvious truth: You can’t take a walk on the wild side in a safe space.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Wayne Cook

    I’m done tolerating them.

    • maggie galalgher

      Tolerating, properly understood, shouldn’t have to mean agreeing. Christianity is hard. But worth it.

      • Gordon Wade

        I am a 78 year old Bible pounding white southern male. Does anyone care about my sensibilities, my “freedom”. We have a first amendment so that all may have freedom to express their views and enjoy their lives a s they see fit and that includes not ‘appreciating’ or condoning others beliefs merely leaving them alone to enjoy their own lives. Please stop this perverse morality policing and convoluted Kafkesque moralizing . it’s really sad.

      • mrdoug1

        It can also include fighting back & relentlessly speaking out. That’s what’s necessary IMO.

  • Gary

    Notice to those who endorse transsexuality, homosexuality, etc.: I reject your “values”. Do something about that, if you dare.

    • mrdoug1

      They’ll be happy to take you up on that. They’ll ridicule you publicly. Problem is, most normal people intensely dislike & wish to avoid being publicly ridiculed. Therefore most normal people try to “lay low” & “fly under the radar.” Unfortunately those on the Left know this, which is why they’ve learned to be overtly abusive & bullying. It allows them to “win” nearly every dispute, & this explains why & how they’ve taken over pretty much every institution of our society. In short, if we don’t stand up & fight back, without apology, they’ll continue to win.

    • maggie galalgher

      Also maybe take away your job?

    • Andrew P

      Okay I’ll do something about it. I will continue to live as a Gay married church going Christian. I will live a life that shows people you can be an upstanding member of society and Gay. I may not change your mind, but I’ll change some minds. Being Gay and being conservative don’t have to be incompatible.

      • vaccinia

        Living an upstanding life is it’s own reward, Americans such as yourself know this. Lead by example, not identity politics! Good on ya!

  • Charles Burge

    That’s perhaps the most amazing thing about today’s American left. Their brand of moral authority is so absolutist that no dissent whatsoever is tolerated. Even more astonishing is that they see no irony in this.

    • maggie galalgher

      Yes I’ve seen that two. I was arguing at a friend’s wedding that American is not horribly bigoted against South Asians (My husband and his family are from India). She told me I wasn’t entitled to an opinion because I wasn’t the right skin color. I told her by her own logic since she wasn’t the mother of a South Asian boy so she wasn’t entitled to an opinion about my opinion. Didn’t sway her though.

      • mrdoug1

        See my comment above. She knew she’s right & she gets to deem you guilty & banished, period. She’s been taught this behavior by our overwhelmingly leftist ruling class including of course academia.

    • becket1277

      That is something they have in common with the jihadis they obsessively protect: any deviation from approved orthodoxy will be severely punished.

    • mrdoug1

      “Progressives” don’t “do” irony. Irony is an incongruous or oddly manifested application of principle, & they don’t believe in consistently applied principles. They believe in recognizing & enforcing whatever is “right” in any given circumstance, & it’s key that it’s they who get to be judge jury & executioner in every circumstance, & there are no appeals. If they say you’re guilty & convicted, you’re guilty & convicted, period.

  • Patmos

    Lack of any sort of discernment is the core of the reprobate mind, so episodes like this are to be expected.

    My favorite one was from a few years back, when one of Jay Leno’s interns thought Leno was racist because he didn’t like guacamole.

    • Bryan

      Now he would have to be concerned that he culturally appropriated another culture’s heritage if he did like guacamole.

      • maggie galalgher

        The rules they just keep achanging.

        • Justwaitinforchange

          I saw what you did there bobby dylan!

    • maggie galalgher

      I missed that one!

    • becket1277

      Well now if he said he liked it, he’d be accused of Cultural Appropriation, wouldn’t he?

  • Stephen_Phelan

    There is nothing relativistic about the new morality. Relativism is dynamite against the foundations of the old… once these fall, what rises in their place wants nothing whatsoever to do with tolerance or relative values.

    Pope Benedict was right about most things, and right in ways that I’m not qualified to comment about. But the dictatorship of relativism was always, I thought, a misnomer.

    • maggie galalgher

      Back in the 80s I thought I was the only one to notice that feminism, in particular, was incredibly moralistic, not relativistic.

      • Devo

        Allan Bloom discussed some differences between the sexual revolutionaries and feminists in “Closing of the American Mind.” Also, great piece!

  • Kenneth Newman

    Also, the entire Berlin concept album was insensitive to the psychotic, child-abandoning speed-freak community.

  • Wes Holmes

    This is such a well written piece.

  • Blackstorme

    I already characterized this as “Lenny Bruce died for your sins.”

    • maggie galalgher

      You are funny.

  • ranklez

    All his records should be removed from music stores. All fans of Lou Reed, past or present, are to be ostracized from polite society.

    It’s too bad he’s already passed, or we’d be treated to a view of him grovelling for forgiveness from his children.

    That would be sweet.

    • Ed Huntress

      And to whom should we submit music and art for approval, Ranklez? You? Or do you have a Polite Totalitario Commission in mind?

      It grows harder every day to distinguish alt-right authoritarianism from leftist authoritarianism. (Maggie, that’s an excellent editorial — nuanced and well-rounded.)

      • Kurt

        Wow, can you not see that ranklez’s comment is satire?

        • Ed Huntress

          Are you sure? It sounds like the real thing.

  • cwon1

    Oliver Cromwell’s remains were dug up and subjected to a posthumous trial, found guilty and his head placed on spike for public view for months. You can imagine the political emotions involved.

    I see the crazy anger in the left but I still don’t get why it reaches that level or why peers are the focus of that hate?

  • hamous

    The one good thing about the “progressive” boutique grievance industry is that, in the end, they eat their own.

    • maggie galalgher

      Only after they eat a lot else besides though!

  • Attila

    Pathetic.
    Scratch a liberal. You’ll ALWAYS find a little Pol Pot underneath just itching to “come-out”.

    • mrdoug1

      Bottom line: this is attractive to so many because it rewards intellectual laziness. One need not think deeply, struggle with the outlines & sometimes vagaries of principle, as well as the application of principle. One need only learn a very simple catechism & then vociferously (this is a requirement) work to enforce it on selected heretics.

    • gotahugehook

      I make a clear distinction between a classic liberal and the left. They are NOT the same. Liberals embrace color blindness and a level playing field. The left embraces a fascist/miserable mindset where everyone (outside of white males) occupy varying levels of victimhood. What a miserable and pathetic outlook on life. It’s no wonder SJWs and the left in general is so damn miserable all the time.

      • Attila

        Where are the “classic liberals”? I have not seen non one in-oh-twenty years.

        • Man w/o a Name

          The existed in the historical past. The closest now (but not quite identical) are libertarians.

    • Andrew P

      I have to reply, liberals aren’t the problem and conservatives aren’t the problem either. Extremists are the problem whether from the left or right. Most Americans are centrist, common sense folks. It’s the nut jobs on the extremes that are tearing this country apart.

      • Attila

        And I would reply that 90% of the time the violent, racist, anti freedom-of-speech, pro-cop-killer rioters, vandals and arsonists are ALL on the LEFT. I’d say 99% of them are on the LEFT but I’m trying to be charitable towards liberals.

        • Andrew P

          And I would reply that 90% of the white supremacist, science denying, gay bashers and the just generally heartless are ALL on the RIGHT. I’d say 99% of them are on the RIGHT but I’m trying to be charitable towards conservatives.

          • Attila

            AGAIN, the overwhelming majority of people on the news, on video, rioting, looting, burning, vandalizing, denying others freedom of speech rights, etc. are liberals. That is a TRUTH just like the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts being perped across the Near East, Middle East , Africa , Europe and North America is being perped by Muslims. As long as liberals deny those realities or try to equate them miniscule right-wing fringe groups you will continue to have problems with support. Hint: spitting on people like Reed does not win you friends.

          • vaccinia

            All 9000 of them!

      • Andrew, I have to push back a bit here. This kind of moral equivalence in the current environment is really meaningless. The problem in American culture, and the West in general, is not from the right. I’d be happy to entertain examples if you have any, but we see examples of leftist/progressive/liberal hysteria and totalitarianism every single day! And you’re right about most Americans, but most Americans don’t dominate the culture through media, entertainment, and education; totalitarian leftists do.

        • Andrew P

          I agree that liberals tend to be more hysterical than conservatives. I would argue that conservatives tend to be more stubborn than liberals. Extreme liberals want to disregard tradition for idealism. Extreme conservatives want to stop the passage of time and pretend that it is still the year 0 C.E. (if you’re upset that I used C.E. instead of A.D. you might be an extreme conservative). Yes, liberals dominate mainstream media. But if you have even been to small town middle America, you know that conservatives completely dominate the culture there.

          • You would lose that argument. Go to any college campus (except the great Hillsdale College, and a handful of others) and tell me conservatives are more stubborn than liberals (how about the latest liberal lefty group think hysteria at Duke Divinity School?). I love how everyone who doesn’t agree with you is “extreme”. THAT is extreme. BTW, C.E. is a a good liberal way to try to ignore that all of Western history turns on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. You use C.E., so you are obviously an extreme moderate.

  • SkiBum

    Liberals are fascists and fascists were liberals. Always have been. Always will be.

  • martine81585

    For what it’s worth, my children who are approx 5 years away from college, think the SJW snowflakes are nuts. Pendulums do swing.

    • maggie galalgher

      A lot of college students think so too. It’s a minority. But cultures aren’t made by majaorities.

    • rhadagastt

      I too have been proactively been “unindoctrinating” my 13 and 7 year old kids. The timing of this article is pretty interesting, as I was just explaining to them the difference between the counter culture movement of the 1960’s (a good thing) and the horrible, liberal fascism going on today. I think this author does a wonderful job describing the difference– much better than I ever could.

      • rayhicks

        Amen.

  • sandslug

    Gee, I just liked his music, words go in one ear and out the other wile I play air guitar.

    • maggie galalgher

      Me too.

  • DudeAbiding

    There is an large degree of satisfaction in watching clueless leftists eat their own.

    • maggie galalgher

      The Germans have a word for it…

  • JoeLorenzo

    For his intolerance, if Lou was still alive maybe a social justice warrior wearing a hood could hit him in the head with a bike lock.

  • doseofcommonsense

    Little Stalinists will eradicate all music.

  • James Zadok

    Google “Lou Reed” and “Rachel” and you get an important piece of information that’s necessary for a fuller understanding of the story.

    • maggie galalgher

      What? I’m curious

      • James Zadok

        For several years in the 1970s, Lou Reed lived with a lover (“Tommy”), a transgendered person who dressed as a woman and went by the name of Rachel. At some point, they even celebrated an unofficial wedding. Google “Rachel: Lou Reed’s Transexual Muse” at the Dangerous Minds website.

  • creifather

    More evidence that “progressive” is the wrong term for these folks. “Neo-Puritan” is more accurate.

    • polijunkie100

      The actual Puritans would have been appalled at these twits.

    • underwearbomber

      Pro-regressive

  • SurfingUSA

    Now I’ve heard everything.

  • Jamawani

    “You can’t take a walk on the wild side in a safe space.”

    Brilliant and spot on.

    • Jamawani

      Of course, the author doesn’t know the first thing about taking a walk on the wild side – – and I do.
      So she is just throwing darts to justify her own intolerance.

      • wreckinball

        Really, you know her?

      • maggie galalgher

        I am old. And I support bourgeois morality and babies. I was an unwed mother at 21 years of age, so I had a choice about whether to identify with the former or the latter. It’s a choice.

        • Jamawani

          When you begin to treat people with sexualities different than your own with some degree of tolerance then, perhaps, I might believe you. You claim the right to choose for yourself. And I suspect that you would not welcome some of the terms used in the 1950s for your child and yourself. Why then do you deny the same to others?

          • scienceovermyth

            In most day to day situations, a person’s sexuality shouldn’t come up. If I am purchasing a product or a service, it is of no consequence what a person’s sexuality is unless they make an issue of it. But the problems arise from people who exist merely to push other people’s buttons. Why in the world would anyone’s sexuality or sexual preferences arise unless one or the other party brings it up. Mind your own business, be polite while engaging with others, and treat everyone with common courtesy and respect, and most of our social issues would solve themselves. But then that would eliminate the source of power and grievance that certain “leaders” need to retain their control.

          • Jamawani

            I can think of about 3,048762 reasons.
            One of the most egregious – emergency medical decisions and even visitation.
            A significant portion of LGBT people have family who do not recognize their spouse.
            Queer people have had their medical wishes overturned by hostile family members –
            and even been denied end-of-life access to their spouses.

            It would be nice if everyone would sing “Kumbayah” – but they don’t.
            Legal protections are necessary.

            Moreso, when gay marriage was first proposed, I was opposed.
            I believed that there were far more important economic, housing, and healthcare issues.
            But I came to realize that gay marriage involved a fundamental truth – –
            Namely, that it encompassed real equality – not just piecemeal crumbs.

            What you suggest above is a back-of-the-bus mentality.
            Sorry, but queer folk are not going back into the closet.
            Straight people show public affection for their partners dozens of ways.
            They have been “shoving it in our faces” for centuries.
            We are asking for nothing different – or, as the saying goes,

            “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it.”

            BTW – I love Lou Reed.

          • rayhicks

            Sexualities different than her own? You mean men? I believe Maggie is happily married, though I may be mistaken.

      • Robert Granger

        “Throwing darts to justify her own intolerance”. What does that even mean?

        • Robert, these people, like Jamawani here, are robots, and as Sly put it above, “robotically creepy.” This comment is indecipherable, it comes not from thought, but from sentiment. Everything must be tolerated, and even better celebrated, or you are an intolerant bigot. This is of course self-refuting because they will themselves not tolerate everything, witness this . . . . person (I was tempted to say something else:) being intolerant of Maggie’s obvious tolerance. To answer your question, there is no meaning in the world of the SJW, there is only power, and they will use it to try to shut up anyone that dares disagree or even think differently than they do. They would fit seamlessly into Orwell’s 1984.

          • Jamawani

            There’s tons of meaning. For those with open minds – and for those who use them. The author says, “You can’t take a walk on the wild side in a safe space” largely to mock safe spaces from a perspective of traditional morality. I think the phrase is spot on – but I question safe spaces from the perspective of tolerance of a range of sexualities. Big difference.

            PS – If it is any consolation to you, I enrage people on the left, too. The author has made her intolerance of the Queer community amply clear. People on the left who toss out “racist” or “fascist” or “denier” at the slightest provocation are no different.

          • Oh, I see, isn’t that convenient (and typical of lefties), only those who agree with you have open minds, and use them. And don’t flatter yourself. You don’t enrage me. You actually confirm how vacuous is the thinking on the left. Unfortunately it is also dangerous. And of course, you completely missed my point, again, typical.

      • rayhicks

        Right Jamawani, your ‘tolerance’ is on full display and duly noted.

        • Jamawani

          I grew up in late-segregation era Alabama and often heard, “The Negroes are getting uppity.” Somehow, your comment seems familiar – since queer people are simply demanding the same rights that straight people take for granted. Of course, for you that is uppity and intolerant.

          • rayhicks

            You have a great many accusations to hurl at people who are unknown to you. And of course, you are at the center of your own universe, eternally a victim. Surrounded by intolerant, hateful people who want to deny you rights and more. Get a life, troll.

          • Jamawani

            Wonder whether your outrage stems from that fact that you did a little “experimenting” yourself in your wild youth. Just sayin’ – – ya know?

          • CarbonaNotGlue

            You have never lived in Alabama. And that was never an Alabama saying.

          • Jamawani

            Oh, really? My great-grandfather was a Unionist from Cullman, fought in the U.S. Army, and served as a judge during Reconstruction. (There are 40-year generation gaps in my family.) Great-great uncles also were Unionists and served as elected judges in Winston and Walker counties – elected as Republicans during the era of solid Democratic control. My grandfather was one of the co-founders of Carraway Methodist hospital in Birmingham. My family knew the Wallaces – before we left Alabama. My grandmother remained, but never supported George Corley again after he ran Lurleen for governor even though he knew she had cancer.

            Sorry, honey, but my Alabama pedigree is better than yours.

    • maggie galalgher

      Thanks!

  • David Conell

    In 1984 fashion the Social Justice Warriors (SJW) have appropriated Original Sin as an equally universal and inherent sin, but now a sin against society. Often you’re guilty simply because you exist i.e. White Privilege.

  • paul

    but what about the colored girls?

    • They go “doo-de-doo, doo-dedoo-doo-doo.”

    • Joe in ATL

      They protested too. They said “Doot do doot do doot do doot do doot.”

  • donqpublic

    Well, I hope some enterprising fellows with access to Columbia’s and Harvard’s and Standford’s and Berkeley’s public address systems plays I Wanna Be Black just for the fun of it.

    • rayhicks

      What a great idea! I’d love to film that. There’d probably be students on the ground weeping.

      • donqpublic

        Especially moving would be Dean Wormer and Dean Vagina Galore having a caca hemorrhage.

  • Joe in ATL

    This song, and others of the era such as the Kinks’ “Lola,” did much to pave the way for the changed attitudes that moved public attitudes toward nontraditional sexual and gender identities. They literally changed minds that led to the world that SJWs enjoy. They should be celebrating these pieces, not apologizing for them.
    If it were up to SJWs they would condemn the Stonewall Riots, another seminal event in history, because dykes and othergendered [sic] people weren’t represented.

    • rayhicks

      Oh please… This song and Lola have very little in common, except to say that they are both light hearted. Neither Lou Reed nor Ray Davies were concerned with “changing attitudes” or any such twaddle with these songs. The extent to which attitudes have in fact changed is actually open to debate in my opinion. The left has moved the goalposts every ten minutes regarding what is acceptable to do, say, think, or yes, what to have as an attitude. Since the left control the media, both news and entertainment, they shove their rulebook down everyone else’s throat day in and day out. That’s pretty much what this article is about. Some poor fools inadvertantly ran afoul of the leftist, SJW rulebook and ended up on their knees apologizing.

  • Robert Ostrove

    Play that funky music, white boy.

    • maggie galalgher

      !!!

    • Andrew P

      Cultural Appropriation!!!!

      • sly311

        That’s the new buzz phrase! These people are truly deranged. But, they will in time, self-immolate. Patience.

  • Shannon Ehlers

    wait until the snowflakes discover Patty Smith. Uh oh

  • sly311

    You just don’t even want to be near these people. They make your skin crawl. You just want to punch them flat out. They’re robotically creepy.

  • J. G.

    These folks need to get a real job. Or, better, if they are “students” apply themselves to whatever their studies are, assuming they are real too, instead of “gender” studies, or some other currently fadish studies of the moment.

  • Maxx Scott

    If you are of college age, your beliefs should be challenged and tested everyday. These are the years where you cement your personality and ingrained tenets. Atheists should be pushed to explain why they right to be an atheist and the deeply religious should be challenged on the existence of God. This is one small example, but they need to be challenge in all aspects of life. If your university is shielding and protecting you, you are not getting your money’s worth.

    These snowflakes need to understand the world is a great and wonderful place but it is also cruel, hateful and hard. There is a great simple prayer – that doesn’t even have to be religious. (Take God out and it is still good)

    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

    There is no wisdom in objecting to the Lou Reed song!

    • Maxx Scott

      i found another version of this prayer. and there is key phrase (paraphrased) – Taking the world as it is not as I would have it.

      God, give me grace to accept with serenity
      the things that cannot be changed,
      Courage to change the things
      which should be changed,
      and the Wisdom to distinguish
      the one from the other.
      Living one day at a time,
      Enjoying one moment at a time,
      Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
      Taking, as Jesus did,
      This sinful world as it is,
      Not as I would have it,
      Trusting that You will make all things right,
      If I surrender to Your will,
      So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
      And supremely happy with You forever in the next.
      Amen.

  • Flapjackson

    Excellent article. It highlights the degree to which illogic and hypersensitivity have replaced critical thought and common sense.
    I imagine Lou Reed would laugh at the absurdity of these twits, but he’d have to be chagrined that the “intolerance” of traditional society was not replaced with a new tolerant society, but rather a different, more extreme intolerance born of the humorless demagogues of political correctness.

    • maggie galalgher

      Plus how do you trangress in a society dominated by SJWs?

      • JoeS54

        By being a conservative Christian.

  • John Doe

    Universities are majority women and where women dominate free speech is outlawed.
    Ask any husband. Why expect universities to be different?Consider this, women refuse standardized clothing sizes, why? Measuring tapes can’t lie.

  • Gman_1964

    Brilliant, and accurate IMO, analysis. Am dealing with this issue in my family right now. Insanity.

    • maggie galalgher

      Thanks. Would love to hear more

  • polijunkie100

    The only acceptable response should have been to blast Aerosmith into the quad: “Dude Looks Like a Lady”!

  • Done With It

    As the percentage of third-world Muslims in our population increases, the beta male leftists are going to be smacked upside the head by a very real, and very masculine reality that doesn’t care, and in fact is angered by how in touch those fairies are with their emotions…and there will be many more of them flung off buildings.

  • GlennPMorris

    When men wish to be women and women to be men.

    Oh, the struggle!

  • MerlinMedic

    I’m offended by the CSA; they appropriated Confederate culture and are not valorous as our misguided Rebel cousins. For any SJW that has actually read this CSA has stood for Confederate States Army since 1861.

    • maggie galalgher

      Canadians!

  • Chubby Lenin

    I wonder when the administrators of education will grow a pair and realize that what these SSRs need is to be roundly and completely ignored. Permanently, until they go away.

  • Chubby Lenin

    Next time I see a person of color listening to classical music, I’m screaming “cultural appropriation!”

  • William

    “… our most important job as a society is now to create good gender-neutral workers who have equal access to good jobs.”
    Which is why aggressive capitalism and radically free markets are so important to implement, to achieve this goal. Otherwise there is not cost to discrimination.

  • gregdn

    Incredible. This is insane.

    • Unmutual One

      Yes.

  • old crow

    Great article and great quote “you can’t take a walk on the wild side in a safe space”.
    old school Lou Reed fan.
    looking forward to reading more of your writing

    • maggie galalgher

      Thanks!

  • underwearbomber

    Scientific fact:
    Male/Female gender is determined by X, Y chromosomes.
    Except for literally one in a million mix-ups in fertilization by more than one sperm cell,
    which can lead to genuinely mixed gender individuals, there is no such thing as “transgender.”

    Those who deny this are science deniers.

    • Unmutual One

      But that’s not what Bill Nye says! Well, not anymore!

    • Trudy

      Yawn

      • effinayright

        “Yawn”, she argued cogently, with compelling facts and reasoning.

        Oh wait….

        • ShroomKeppie

          “‘Shut up,’ he explained.”

        • Trudy

          I was responding to tired nonsense with appropriate fatigue.

        • Trudy

          There were neither compelling facts nor reasoning – hence my fatigue upon reading the nonsense I was commenting on.

    • vaccinia

      Sort of…..there are various molecular pathologies that lead to XYs thinking they are XXs. The bottom line is, that XYs who think they are XXs are either mentally ill or delusional at their own behest (and visa versa).

  • RWB person

    I am reminded of poor Winston Smith in 1984 confessing his sins against Big Brother just before they put a bullet in the back of his head.

    • Unmutual One

      No bullet until he LOVED Big Brother. Then the bullet.

    • Man w/o a Name

      Mmm… not in the original. W. Smith is very much alive at the end of the book.

  • zb

    I am so happy I was out of college back in the early 90s before this idiocy really started taking root.

    • maggie galalgher

      Jonathan Haidt says its really bad just sice 2013

      • zb

        I went to UMASS Amherst, the very earliest signs of this were beginning in the 5 college area even in the early to mid 90s.

        Don’t forget it was already prominent enough then to be skewered in PCU. Talk about a movie that couldn’t be made today!

        Amherst flew the UN flag over the town common to show we are all “citizens of the world”

  • amoose1959

    The irony is that the SJWs parents are SSRs. They deserve each other, both are garbage.

  • HRF

    Yet the following line from the song never caused an uproar?

    “And the colored girls go…..”

    • Jimpithecus

      Selective outrage.

    • Bryn Watkins

      It’s Canada, not the US.

    • L.B.

      LOL! Exactly!
      I grew up in the 60’s – they were colored people. Today, they are people of color.

      • Johnathan Swift Jr.

        My friends late father, a black gentleman who grew up under Jim Crow, used to have a little comedy routine where he would recite all the terms in common usage he had lived with during his long life. However, it was anything but P.C.

  • EllenRose

    The article mentions “First, our most important job as a society is now to create good gender-neutral workers who have equal access to good jobs.”

    Does Maggie Gallagher not realize that a societal interest in creating ‘workers’ of any kind is prejudiced and hurtful to those with a lower energy level, or with chronic fatigue syndrome?

    • maggie galalgher

      Increasingly I do!

  • 1Mojo_Risin9

    Can’t say Lou’s “Wild Side” song was an anthem of mine, but it’s a song, a haunting, almost creepy song that you’d think would appeal to the jerks that inhabit 2017 America, it’s just a song!

  • Cynthia Cantrell

    So, let me get this straight. Four girls at a college in Canada removed a song from their playlist to make a trans person feel more comfortable at the event.

    And this is somehow evidence that “The new SJWs want to build a new moral orthodoxy imposed uniformly on all,” and that 1984 is coming: “I am reminded of poor Winston Smith in 1984 confessing his sins against Big Brother just before they put a bullet in the back of his head.”

    When did trying to be nice to people stop being a “Christian Value (TM)?”

    Somehow I get the distinct impression that if some overtly anti-Christian song were on the playlist, there would be a huge outcry, boycott, and protest from the same people here.

    • JohnnyL53

      Because the objection and then the apology has nothing at all to do with being nice. Read the reasons giving for the objection. They are all about acknowledgment of the struggle. Victimhood. the implication is that unless that is present then the lyrics of any song, book or other media are potential offenders. Its a look at me. Unless you acknowledge how special we are, how we have to struggle to exist then you have no right to write about us.Narcissism at its very worst. The person objecting should have done a little reading about Lou Reed and his place in rock history, his roll in being one of those people who paved the way.

      • Cynthia Cantrell

        “Read the reasons giving for the objection. They are all about acknowledgment of the struggle. Victimhood.

        I read the reasons again, and I agree they are about the acknowledgment of struggle. Many trans people are also frequent victims of harassment and crimes.

        ” the implication is that unless that is present then the lyrics of any song, book or other media are potential offenders. Its a look at me. Unless you acknowledge how special we are, how we have to struggle to exist then you have no right to write about us.Narcissism at its very worst.”

        This is a wild extrapolation on your part. It seems to me, that if society marginalizes any group of people long and hard enough, they will get perturbed by this repeated aggression and eventually some of them will finally say “Enough is enough.” I don’t want to hear your demeaning crap anymore.

        ” The person objecting should have done a little reading about Lou Reed and his place in rock history, his roll in being one of those people who paved the way.”

        Really? So if there were songs playing regularly on the radio, that some people thought were “anti-Christian,” we should require all Christians to read up on the history of those songs and their authors to see if maybe they had an “acceptable level” of antagonism towards Christians?

        Should we still use the “N” word with regard to black people because it was so prevalent in the south a while back?

        I am not personally offended if someone plays “Walk on the Wild Side” in my presence, and as I’m not black, I can not be personally offended by someone using the “N” word in my presence. However, I don’t go around doing things that I know or suspect might offend people either. I recommend that other people don’t either. It’s called being part of a civil society.

        YOU may not be offended by a particular incident, word, phrase or action, but it wouldn’t take long for someone to find just the right buttons to push in you to elicit the same outrage. It may not even take skill.

      • maggie galalgher

        Some of us are old enough to remember we don’t have to read about it.

    • Adam Everton

      You mistake love for “being nice”. Love requires us to be concerned about others’ welfare, but it doesn’t require that we conform to everybody’s demands. If some people had told Jesus that His praying offended them, do you think He would have stopped? I’m sure the Pharisees were mightily offended when He called them “whitewashed tombs” and a “brood of vipers” for exploiting the poor and the uneducated with their warped interpretations of God’s Word. But He did it anyway because standing for God’s righteousness was more important than their hurt feelings.

      Christians believe in an external moral code dictated by God through the Bible. You love one another, but you don’t justify sin. And being offended is not in of itself evidence of wrongdoing.

      These misguided young women may have had good intentions, but the groveling for forgiveness and the long-winded pseudo-intellectual explanation of why they made such a terrible mistake was completely unnecessary and frankly ridiculous. They set a shifting standard impossible to follow, yet they impose it on everybody. It causes everybody to start walking around on eggshells, worried more about what someone else thinks or feels rather than what is actually right or wrong.

      And what happens if you refuse to comply with this ridiculous standard? Take a long look at what happened to those poor Yale professors who were shouted down by their own students simply because they had the audacity to make an argument for freedom of speech and expression. Those Yale professors were later forced to grovel and apologize because they violated the left’s dogma of “Thou Shall Not Offend!”

      As for anti-Christian songs, well, they’re everywhere. John Lennon’s “Imagine” implicitly calls for a future with no religion, and yet somehow Christians have managed to tolerate it playing often over the airwaves all these years without demanding it get taken down. So your impression is false. Christians are much more tolerant of other views than SJWs will ever be.

      • Cynthia Cantrell

        “You mistake love for “being nice”. Love requires us to be concerned about others’ welfare, but it doesn’t require that we conform to everybody’s demands.”

        Do you have information that this was a demand? The article states:

        “Apparently a transgender student complained. The young executives posted a heartfelt apology on the CSA’s official Facebook page. They said that the song appeared because of “ignorance as the person making the list did not know or understand the lyrics.”

        From the use of “Apparently,” I have to assume the author doesn’t actually know what happened. Maybe it was a complaint, or perhaps it was a request. The “demand” is something you have assumed, unless you can provide more detailed information.

        “His praying offended them, do you think He would have stopped?”

        Oh, I see, because you believe you are following in the footsteps of Jesus, you have the right to offend people at your pleasure, mock them when they get offended, and keep mocking them because you “love” them.

        I disagree that “logic.”

        When you mock and offend people, you should expect some push-back. They may even decide to mock and offend you back.

        “Christians believe in an external moral code dictated by God through the Bible. You love one another, but you don’t justify sin. And being offended is not in of itself evidence of wrongdoing.”

        Exactly what sin is this trans person (or the four girls) being accused of? I don’t recall that being a eunuch was a sin, or adjusting one’s playlist. In fact, it was an Ethopian eunuch that was one of the earliest people converted to Christianity. What sin(s) have they committed that are deserving of the derisive commentary at this site?

        “These misguided young women may have had good intentions, but the groveling for forgiveness and the long-winded pseudo-intellectual explanation of why they made such a terrible mistake was completely unnecessary and frankly ridiculous. They set a shifting standard impossible to follow, yet they impose it on everybody. ”

        It seems their standard is to try and be nice to everybody, and apologize if you make a mistake. We have all offended people by accident, and a little humility isn’t going to hurt anyone. They’ve been doing that for years. Hard to see what standard is shifting really.

        “Impose it on everybody?” Did they impose it on you? No, I didn’t think so. You can still offend all the people you like. I bet no one here was subjected to the possible offenses of the rest of the playlist.

        “As for anti-Christian songs, well, they’re everywhere. John Lennon’s “Imagine” implicitly calls for a future with no religion, and yet somehow Christians have managed to tolerate it playing often over the airwaves all these years without demanding it get taken down.”

        “Imagine” is pretty tame when it comes to anti-religious sentiment. When I hear the song, I imagine what it might be like if there wasn’t the centuries of religious excuses for wars. Maybe if Christian countries weren’t bombing Muslim countries we wouldn’t have to worry about “Islamic Terrorists.”

        “Christians are much more tolerant of other views than SJWs will ever be.”

        There are a lot of dead Native Americans, Muslims, and Jews that beg to differ with you.

      • WhateverDunce

        Well done sir. From an Atheist who is tired of this SJW nonsense, Well done.

    • maggie galalgher

      Of course not. It’s one incident. Feel free to disagree. but its happening all around us. You explain it differently?

      • Cynthia Cantrell

        Precisely what do you mean by “it?” There are several items mentioned in the post, including one of your quotes, which I presume you do not disagree with.

        • Johnathan Swift Jr.

          You are either being obtuse or you are an idiot. There is a pattern of behavior from the harridans of the “Social Justice Community” to silence those they disagree with and to use any means necessary to shut down anyone who violates their rapidly evolving code of P.C. orthodoxy.

          Every day or two their is yet another “incident” of a similar type, where through shaming, threats, organized campaigns to intimidate advertisers or even violence, the new leftist orthodoxy is imposed on us all. Here it is a rather minor incident where someone decided to alter a playlist lest someone be offended, where it Portland two young women had to close down their Mexican food restaurant due to the perpetually offended’s cries of “cultural appropriation.” College adults are provided with “safe spaces” in order to allow them to cope with ideas that they are habitually incapable of coping with, let alone countering in an open forum.

          The examples of the P.C. Culture that has made universities the least free places in American Society are endless and only a dullard or an apologist is incapable of seeing the pattern. As the immoral Emily Litella would say, “It’s Always Something.”

        • lhfry

          The type of coercion described in Gallagher’s article is occuring on many American campuses. I suppose you have read about social scientist Charles Murray’s experience at Middlebury? Or other examples of attacks or shunning of conservatives?

  • The Guelph CSA has a lot in common with their puritanical forebears. Must protect impressionable minds from exposure to immoral art.

  • joehillwillout

    ” …..media is not always consumed in the ways that it was intended,” Therefore no media is safe. All speech has the potential to provoke an uncomfortable response in someone. Thou shalt be silent.

    • maggie galalgher

      The gospel according to Becca Emily and Kayla at least!

  • Les hardie

    The revolution eats its own: Shakespeare said it best, of course: “…that we but teach bloody instructions, which being taught, return to plague the inventor. This ‘even handed justice’ commends the poisoned chalice to our own lips.” (Macbeth)

    • sidneyallenjohnson

      Excellent quote…no wonder Shakespeare is also under attack…

  • vaccinia

    The loony left eating it’s own……can’t say I’m either surprised or upset with this excellent turn of events! You would think they would have figured out that the left’s foot-soldiers are the FIRST one’s to get sent to the re-education gulag when the Ministry of Truth comes to power! They really need to read Orwell, from his own leftist eyes…..

  • maggie galalgher

    I will respond here to a Disqus comment: what do I mean by “it.” I mean the fact not only that the college women here felt obliged to apologize but that they had a theory and language about what to and why apologize. They didn’t make it up. It is the “it” we all have to respond to.

    • Cynthia Cantrell

      So are you saying that you don’t think the apology is sincere and that “it” is just a bunch of regurgitated left-wing talking points? Talking points that are being imposed on the society like some Orwellian nightmare?

      Do I understand you correctly?

      • maggie galalgher

        No

        • maggie galalgher

          So you would llike to see this only as four college women being kind.

          • maggie galalgher

            The “it” is what it means to be kind. They could have well indicated kindness without suggesting censoring Lou Reed is the key to being kind. but they couldn’t. Why not? Own your morality

          • maggie galalgher

            Or not, but hundreds of other people are experiencing this “it” and its not the “it” you would choose apparently. Change the “it.”

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            They didn’t censor Lou Reed. They took one of his songs off their play list for this one event.

            I suppose they could have conversed with the person complaining and discussed why they didn’t feel like removing that particular song. Perhaps they did, or perhaps they didn’t, I simply don’t have the information to know either way. If you do, please feel free to share it with us.

            I own my morality, and I’m quite comfortable with it.

            No one here has given any hard evidence to indicate that these four women were coerced or forced to remove the song in any way. Is it really so hard to believe that after listening to someone from a group that has been historically marginalized, that these girls might, of their own personal beliefs try to ameliorate any potential harm they did by simply deleting the song from the play list? It’s really no skin off their backs, after all.

            Or does that action require some left-wing overlord to force them into PC compliance? Is this the “it” you are referring to?

            I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I really understand exactly what you mean by “it.” Hopefully I’m getting closer to what you are concerned about, but I’m not sure.

          • Darkcloud

            “No one here has given any hard evidence to indicate that these four women were coerced or forced to remove the song in any way.”

            You’re kidding right?
            If these children hadn’t backed down immediately then what do you think what the reaction would be? Eh?

            Stop being obtuse.

            You are wicked funny.

          • maggie galalgher

            Of course not. they are the coercers. the kindly inquisition as Jonathan Rauch wrote. Their power is limited but such as it is they use it. Somebody felt hurt by Lou Reed, we side with that somebody.

          • MarkinGermany

            SomeONE person felt hurt so EVERYONE else must miss out on a good tune? I’m hurt by EVERYTHING liberals do. I’m someONE. Does this mean you libs are going to shut up and not hurt my feewings?

            I already know the answer.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            Read the post carefully again. The post came out AFTER the song was played, and the four girls apologized to anyone that may have been offended. It is not clear whether anyone actually WAS offended, just that someone informed them that someone could have been offended. No Christians missed out on the Lou Reed tune.

            Sometime after the apology went viral and received numerous mocking articles like this one, it was taken down. Perhaps so as not to offend people who were offended by the original apology?

            If you offended by liberals making public apologies, well, I’m sorry.

          • MarkinGermany

            I love your intolerance and spitting hatred of those of the Christian faith. Nowhere in the article does it say that university is ‘Christian’ nor did I mention religion, but you just had to let the world know how intolerant of Christians you really are. How many other things are you intolerant and hate filled of? Wait, I’ll make it easier for you. Just tell me what you WILL tolerate.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            My remark that ” No Christians missed out on the Lou Reed tune.” Is simply not a hate filled remark. It is merely pointing out a fact – the song was played, people heard it, and 4 girls apologized for it after the fact. You may find it snarky, or perhaps even objectionable to your delicate sensitivities. I could give an example of a hate-filled, anti-Christian remark, but I really don’t think that is necessary.

            I do NOT hate Christians.

            I DO hate brussel sprouts though.

            Have a nice day.

          • MarkinGermany

            Then I take it you have no truck for all these snowflakes and their ‘delicate sensitivities’ either?

            Why not muslims or Shinto or Buddhist? Your anti-Christian rant was not ‘necessary’, but you did it anyway. You are selective in the religions you wish to target for ‘random’ assignments of hate. If a particular religion has no significant part of the conversation, it’s better to just not mention it. It’ll save you a lot of unnecessary grief. You’ll learn these things as you grow older.

            Have a good one too!

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            “Then I take it you have no truck for all these snowflakes and their ‘delicate sensitivities’ either?”

            Generally I try to be compassionate towards peoples’ sensitivities. However, when you get a bunch of right-wing conservatives bashing liberals as “snowflakes,” “fascists,” “sodomites,” and “thought police,” I can’t help but point out the double standard when they get offended by remarks that are far less vitriolic.

            “Why not muslims or Shinto or Buddhist? Your anti-Christian rant was not ‘necessary’, but you did it anyway.”

            So far, I haven’t heard anyone of the people here complaining about the 4 girls’ apology, or making up hyperbolic polemic arguments against them, mocking trans people, or equating anyone with a (D) after their name with totalitarians, claim to be a Muslim, Shinto, or Buddhist. The only ones that have identified themselves have claimed they were Christian. Some of them even claimed that they “loved” these people in spite of their sins, but neglected to identify any actual sins of any of the people involved, much less demonstrate how they “loved” them.

            Perhaps some of the people making baseless accusations about totalitarian agendas are of other religions. For whatever reason though, none of them have noted that.

            Maggie has made a name for herself for many years as being an outspoken Christian.

            If she has changed her religion, or there are people of other religions ranting about PC snowflakes, and then getting upset when they get called on their antics, I’d probably point out their hypocrisy as well. I like to be fair.

          • Insidious Pall

            You didn’t read any earlier remarks chopping the college kids. Well then, you didn’t read them all. And you seem to take issue with conservatives voicing opinion. Were each of them self-identifying as conservative or did you make that presumptive and biased leap all on your own?

          • MarkinGermany

            Blah, blah, blah, liberal hypocrisy good, conservative hypocrisy bad, blah, blah, blah.

            Did I miss anything?

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            Nothing you didn’t want to hear already.

          • MarkinGermany

            As if you are the paragon of tolerance and open mindedness.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            I never made that claim, but since you mention it, I think I compare favorably to the liberal- and progressive-bashers here; but honestly, that doesn’t take much effort.

          • MarkinGermany

            Yet more blah, blah, blah.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            Wow, such insightful commentary. It’s hard to imagine why people don’t find your vewpoint more compelling.

          • MarkinGermany

            Do guys just give you cab money and tell you to leave, or do they just throw you out afterwards?

            Squack, squack, squack!

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            What’s the matter?

            Are you bummed because you couldn’t mock and embarrass a liberal woman enough to make her run away? Are you chaffed because this snowflake hasn’t melted under your withering comebacks?

            I’m not that kind of girl.

          • MarkinGermany

            I don’t need to mock and embarrass you. By admitting that you are a liberal-with all that entails-you are mocking and embarrassing yourself without my help.

            Intolerance to free thought-LIBERAL

            Killer of children in the womb- LIBERAL

            Hatred of blacks- LIBERAL

            Treating blacks like they are defenseless
            morons- LIBERAL

            Hatred of the USA and all it stands for- LIBERAL

            Lover of Stalinist socialism- LIBERAL

            Supporter of a muslim liar in the WH- LIBERAL

            Gruberite- LIBERAL

            Defender of the POS SOS that allowed an
            Ambassador and three guards to be killed, THEN blamed an unknown video- LIBERAL

            Supporter of every known deviant lifestyle
            with little regard to who will be hurt by it- LIBERAL

            PC culture run amok- LIBERAL

            I could go on, but most intelligent people already got the point. So yes, you are that kind of girl/boy/whatever-and worse.

            BYE!

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            All of these things are gross over-simplifications perpetuated by right wing media of what liberals actually believe / think / do. They allow you to easily dismiss liberals without engaging in real discourse simply because they are liberals. If these things were true, I wouldn’t like liberals either.

            I used to vote mostly Republican. In fact the first time I voted for a Denmocrat was in 2008 for Obama. There used to be a species called “moderate Republican,” but they have all but disappeared now. As one comedian put it, “they all jumped on the short bus and took a sharp right to crazy town.”

            While I am socially liberal, I am fiscally conservative. That means I actually believe in a balanced buget. Republicans bemoan “tax and spend democrats”, but ignore the fact they they are “borrow and spend Republicans.”. Republicans weren’t even bothered with the deficit at all until Ross Perot cost them an election. Now they only worry about the deficit when a Democrat wins the White House.

            Most Republicans have contended since the Regan era that if we cut taxes we will stimulate the economy and make up the lost revenue with increased economic activity. We have been cutting taxes for nearly fourty years now, and that has NEVER HAPPENED. Yet it is still their mantra. Even George H. W. Bush called it “voodoo economics.” And our debt has exploded.

            I could make an entire list of simplictic caricatures of conservatives just like you did for liberals. I’m sure you would find it just as innacurate as I find your list.

            It doesn’t lead to better understanding, an it certainly doesn’t​ help solve any problems. It just pushes people back into their own comfortable bubbles.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            I posted a careful response to this but but it was “Detected as Spam.”. It seems that gratuitous liberal bashing is perfectly fine here on Disqus, but reasonable refutations are not. It still shows up in my “posts” lists, but I don’t know if other viewers can see it.

          • Insidious Pall

            What is WRONG with the song? Let’s start by defining the problem!

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            I suppose we could presume that what was “wrong” was outlined in the original apology. You may not think that carries any weight, especially in the context of Lou Reed’s life, and perhaps that is why the apology was taken down before Maggie could even post about it.

            What I find ridiculous is that this apology, which came out after the song was played, and then removed before most conservatives even got wind of it, has now become “proof” of an evil conspiracy to force people to be “politically correct” that is being enforced by fascist “thought police.”. Lou Reed was never “banned” by anyone, despite the attention grabbing headline.

            Can we agree this is even just a little over dramatic?

            The evidence is clear that on this site and several others, innocent conservatives have somehow been spared the indignity of refraining from calling any of the people involved in this situation as anything that wasn’t derogatory, if they didn’t want to.

          • Insidious Pall

            That last sentence should be taken out and shot. Brevity ostensibly does not reside in your wheelhouse.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            If you didn’t like it, why not just say it should be removed or left off? The need for it to be “shot” is curiously violent.

          • Insidious Pall

            Not curious at all. It’s used in courtrooms all the time to indicate a verbose, convoluted mess. I assumed you would know that, but in reading your comments it has become apparent that you know far less than you pretend to. It is used thusly: “Your honor I object; that last question should be taken out and shot.”

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            I don’t pretend to know anything more than I do. If you read earlier comments, you will find people calling me “obtuse” and an “idiot.”. That is hardly a way to feign intelligence.

            My degree is in engineering, not law. My only significant experience in a courtroom was in 1998 when a judge asked me if I had any comments for the 17 year old who nearly caused my death in a traffic accident when he blew through a stop sign. I just said “I’m lucky to be alive.” I did not near that phrase then, or in any of the TV shows or movies that included court room scenes.

            The only phrase I can recall similar to what you indicate is “that should be stricken from the record.”

            Personally, the wording “taken out and shot” seems problematic in a courtroom where baliffs have guns, and violent criminals sometimes behave badly. It would seem ripe for misunderstanding and terrible accidents.

            But I’m just an engineer. What do I know?

          • Insidious Pall

            In the most profound manner I can muster, my response is – apparently not much.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            Wow, that was profound. Try not to hurt yourself the next time you muster.

          • Insidious Pall

            “Personally, the wording “taken out and shot” seems problematic in a courtroom where baliffs have guns, and violent criminals sometimes behave badly. It would seem ripe for misunderstanding and terrible accidents.”

            Those are your words. So when you ask from whence came pc culture and why it is a pernicious omnipresence (you know, the phrase you love to encase with quotation marks), reread your comment. Mustn’t say ‘shot’ or make any reference to gratuitous violence because…well, you know why. Thank you for highlighting everyone’s point.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            I put “pernicious omnipresence” in quotes to point out that they are YOUR words, not something I made up. Check back through the posts to see where it first occurred.

            And yes, I do believe we should refrain from violent terminology and hateful rhetoric. I make no apologies for that, and I own every bit of it.

            Why? Well there was this little incident in Portland last week that is the perfect illustration. The dude’s name was Jeremy Joeseph Christian, and he killed two “social justice warriors” when they tried to keep him from harrassing and possibly killing two young brown women.

            Now I’m sure YOU would have never down anything that violent, but what the right doesn’t realize is that mass violence against minorities doesn’t happen overnnight. It starts first with the rhetoric of dehumanizing and marginalizing those minorities. Those attitudes can fester and be stoked into even worse actions, in no small part making harraasing these people just “normal.”. It has been done throughout history by political leaders to build their power and wealth.

            Perhaps you’ve heard of Bosnia or Rawanda?

            Demonizing and dehumanizing other people frequently leads to or maintains violence toward the “others.”. This is true in the street gangs of Chicago and the Protestants and Catholics of Nothern Ireland, which was only recently brought under control.

            There has been another incident where a white guy has run over two Native Americans with his big white pick-up truck.

            It seems relavant to ask, was this due to the “pernicious omnipresence” of right wing xenophobia? Or at least anti-“pc culture” backlash?

            There is a great movie starring Hillary Swank called “The Freedom Writers Diary” about how a teacher overcame violent gang culture and rhetoric among her students and turned around their lives.

            I highly recommend watching it. It touches all of the topics we are discussing here in a far more interesting manner.

          • Insidious Pall

            I know they are my words. And you keep putting quotes around them as if to characterize them as odd or inappropriate. No sale. Listen, I think we are coming to the end of our discussion here. You’re talking in circles; you seem to simply want to bash conservatives. And it’s ‘Rwanda’, not “Rawanda.” So yea, this will have to be the end. I actually hold undergrad degrees in history and political science and trying to explain things to an SJW, very likely uneducated at that, is getting a tad wearisome. You don’t know a tenth as much as I have learned about Africa (Rwanda), the Balkans (Bosnia-Herzegovina), or anywhere else, for that matter. And I wrestled with the silly social issues you’re talking about long ago. There are far more important issues than transgender bathrooms. The world is a big place and we should all be about the business of putting the process in place for anyone inclined to improve their lot in life. And FWIW, a joke in the courtroom will not inspire violence anywhere at any time. People are not as simple and stupid as you apparently believe. It’s almost sad that you see it that way. Anyhow, onward and upward. Good luck to you.

    • Rational_Db8

      Hi Maggie,

      Just wanted to say – excellent article! I particularly loved the line “”you can’t take a walk on the wild side in a safe space” – so true!! The rampant SJW’s, victim mentality, and identity politics is such a destructive and disgusting development. It sure doesn’t bode well for our future as a nation.

  • Captain America

    Can You Spell…..C-A-N-D-Y…..A-S-S…….C-O-L-L-E-G-E…….M-O-R-O-N-S !

  • Craig Roberts

    What would the thought police do if you said, “I don’t feel comfortable around men that dress like women or women that think they’re men.”????

    • Cynthia Cantrell

      Have you seen any thought police around? Can you tell me what their uniforms look like so i can avoid them?

      Thanks.

      • Johnathan Swift Jr.

        They don’t need uniforms. Their movement to forcibly impose their politically correct world view on the rest of us makes these new brown shirts quite obvious. However, the terrorist wing of the P.C. movement do wear black uniforms and masks when they go out to silence those who they disagree with through violence, intimidation and the use or terroristic force. Black shirts, brown shirts, fascist totalitarian all, it is the actions that we judge them by.

        • Cynthia Cantrell

          “They don’t need uniforms. Their movement to forcibly impose their politically correct world view on the rest of us makes these new brown shirts quite obvious.”

          So exactly how does four college women apologizing for potentially offending minorities and then taking down said apology after it was roundly mocked on-line equate to “forcing impos[ing] their politically correct world view on the rest of us?”

          Or are you referring to the people who forced them to take down the post? There is no evidence that I have read anywhere that they were forced by anyone to make an apology. If you have other information, please provide it.

          Frankly, I saw nothing violent in their apology either, or any indication that they wore black uniforms and masks. Where do you guys get this stuff?

          As for “thought police” and “multiple genders,” a recent study of a variety of scientific investigations has found this:

          “This paper attempts to demonstrate that there are significant natural in-born sex differences found between the brains of those called transsexual people and others. It does so by showing the differences are due to normal genetic, hormonal and environmental forces that lead eventually to differences in the transsexual person’s brain. This development brings with it feelings of dysphoria regarding one’s gender identity. It is such feelings that lead to a desire for sex/gender change. These brain differences are sufficient enough to conclude that persons with a transsexual condition are intersexed. Simultaneously it is recognized that many intersexed persons will switch from their assigned gender, yet many will not.”

          from “Transsexualism as an Intersex Condition” by Milton Diamond Ph.D.

          It goes on to cite numerous brain studies showing anatomical differences in transsexual brains that correspond with the gender they identify with, sexually biased patterns in hearing and smell responses, and even masculine teeth in female to male transsexuals.

          So far I haven’t seen any “thought police” trying force this scientific information upon the poor unsuspecting masses, but please let us know if you see this happening.

          • MarkinGermany

            How do you KNOW that tranny was ‘offended’? He/she/it could just be jerking your chains because… he/she/it can.

            Why didn’t he/she/it just whistle the tranny national anthem during the song and be done with it? Why oh why wasn’t he/she/it storming the castle of Lou Reed’s music distributors years earlier when the song first came out? He/she/it didn’t seem to mind the song that much then. In fact, it seems he/she/it pretty much ignored the song. So why didn’t he/she/it ignore the song this time?

            He/she/it played those girls and that school like a violin. Dance little puppets, master says dance!

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            “How do you KNOW that tranny was ‘offended’? He/she/it could just be jerking your chains because… he/she/it can.”

            I never said that I knew anyone was offended. In another post I pointed out that it is only in Maggie’s article here that I found “Apparently a transgender student complained.” In other articles I’ve found, no identity for the person who complained was given, student, trans, professor, garbage man or other wise. I’m not sure why you are claiming I said I “KNOW” that someone was offended.

            “Why didn’t he/she/it just whistle the tranny national anthem during the song and be done with it?”

            Exactly what song would that be? “As Girls Go” by Suzanne Vega? “Lola” by the Kinks? I’m sure you’ll suggest others.

            “Why oh why wasn’t he/she/it storming the castle of Lou Reed’s music distributors years earlier when the song first came out?”

            Well, this happened on a college campus, where the vast majority of people are in the range of 18 to 22 years old. Lou’s song in question came out in 1972, at least 23 years before the oldest of these students were born. I strongly suspect the reason they weren’t there has to do with a scientific discipline known as “biology.”

            “So why didn’t he/she/it ignore the song this time?”

            It is actually conceivable that this is the first time that whoever complained heard this song for the first time. It doesn’t take a vast conspiracy theory or puppet masters to explain this.

            It turns out, people have continued to make a lot of music since 1972, and it gets a lot more airplay now than songs of that era. You might have heard of some of them – they have names like Tori Amos, Alanis Morissette, Indigo Girls, They Might Be Giants, Talking Heads, Lady Gaga, and many more. Look them up – they are real! I wouldn’t lie to you!

            It is entirely feasible, that a child born in the late nineties could grow up somewhere on this continent and have never heard of Lou Reed or the Velvet Underground. It depends upon the musical tastes of the parents, the students, and the friends they hung out with.

            I personally hadn’t heard of “Traffic” until I got to college in the late ’80s, and I was born in the ’60s. Hey, it happens.

            You can arguably complain about these students’ ignorance of Rock History, but I looked up the college website, and that doesn’t seem to be their focus.

          • Insidious Pall

            How old the song was doesn’t matter. What matters is that this song, and Lou Reed, actually CELEBRATED alternative lifestyles. He was gay, for Christ’s sakes. My problem is with the reading comprehension of the folks whining about it. There is virtually nothing in this song that is anything but positive about trans people.

          • Insidious Pall

            The point being made was that the SJW’s are everywhere and trying to foist their pc views on the rest of us. Not just 4 college kids.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            Really? So who were the other people that were told to stop playing Lou Reed music? Who is doing it?

            Are they the same people that got these four girls to take down their apology?

          • Insidious Pall

            I just told you the point was no longer the record or the apology. The discussion had expanded to the pernicious omnipresence of progressive pc culture. You did read that, right? That’s how conversations progress. You’ve had conversations before, no?

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            Re-read my questions. They directly address the “pernicious omnipresence of progressive pc culture.” Who is forcing it on us? Because clearly, from other posts here, it is being forced upon us by Orwellian thought police. But I have seen no hard evidence of this. Frankly, it appears that Maggie dug into the archives to find something conservatives could be offended about and commiserate with each other on.

            The “progressive pc culture” meme has provided ample opportunity for conservatives to bash liberals and progressives here, and at other websites that dug this apology up. But they so far have provided no evidence of actual fascists trying to force anyone to change their beliefs. There are plenty of comments here to indicate that even if there were, they are failing miserably.

            If you don’t like “pc culture” (you now, that cultural ideal that people treat each other with some diginity and respect, in spite of personal differences) than just say so. I don’t understand the need to bring in “1984,” Nazis, brown shirts, and thought police into the argument.

            The posters that do that don’t seem to realize it really undermines their own argument, especially when it’s coupled with a vast conspiracy theory. Provide some actual evidence, not just assumptions with catastrophic implications, and you’ll have a much better argument.

            You are welcome.

          • Insidious Pall

            You keep trying to nudge me into answering for others’ comments. I said nothing about George Orwell, Nazis, or brownshirted-fascists. You made that up.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            Perhaps I should have been more explicit when I said “from other posts here” I did not mean yours. You are capable of reading the other posts here and seeing that the terms I noted are quite prevalent – I did not make them up.

            No one here has addressed the source of the “pernicious omnipresence of progressive pc culture.” Again from other posts, it appears that it is being forced upon us by nefarious people. Who is forcing it on us? Please be specific, as I have yet to see anyone forced to be “PC.” As it is apparently now “omnipresent,” it must have come from somewhere, but no one has been able to articulate from whom. Certainly, it must have come from SOMEBODY, and other people must be necessary to make it “omnipresent” at least, if not force it upon everyone else, if we are to believe these other posts. Yes, I know this is the fault of “liberals,” but that really isn’t an answer. You might as well blame it on the Klingons for all the specificity that provides.

          • Insidious Pall

            “Force” is your word – not mine. Perhaps you should direct that question inward. Why does it matter whom the progenitors of pc culture are? If you’re asking where one finds this progressive/pc culture, I’m virtually dumbfounded. You must know. It is everywhere. In the media, in academia, and in the everyday the political speech of progressives. White angst, transgender bathrooms, and the rolling back of free speech on campuses. Mustn’t say or write ‘history’ because of course, it is her story, too. You well know what I’m talking about. And please, for God’s sake, stop asking me to answer for what other posters have said. ASK THEM if you don’t like what they’ve written.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            Force is recurring theme in the comments here, like this one from Jonathan Swift Jr.:

            “There is nothing at all liberal about the campaign to impose a politically correct totalitarian viewpoint on the rest of us. This campaign is anti-liberal as it can be. The black clad ant-fascists are the new brown shirts, exactly the opposite of who they claim to be.”

            “If you’re asking where one finds this progressive/pc culture, I’m virtually dumbfounded.”

            No, I’m asking who is enforcing it. One expects progressive politicians to encourage progressive concepts, just like we can expect conservative politicians to encourage regressive concepts. The last American election clearly shows that the regressives are winning.

            Regressives are in the media too. Perhaps you’ve heard of Fox news or Rush Limbaugh? They are not difficult to find. You can watch or listen to them everywhere in this country. Not too long ago they dominated the news cycle with “news” about “problems” with Obama’s birth certificate.

            I’m not sure what the issue is with progressives and “white angst,” I don’t follow right-wing propaganda, so someone would need to explain it to me.

            As for transgender bathrooms, I don’t see any need for extra batrooms to be built. I don’t think women want transmen in the ladies’ room – these men do tend to actually look and sound like men, after all. Transwomen aren’t necessarily known for being the most attractive, but they’ve been using women’s restrooms for decades with no evidence of problems before conservatives tried dictating which bathroom they should use, and what gender marker they should have on their legal documents.

            And when has anyone been fined or put in jail for writing “history” instead of “her story.” Someone seems to be blowing things WAY out of proportion.

            “Free speech” is about what the government can not restrict, not colleges, especially when student funds are used to pay for speakers. So far the people I’ve seen who were declined for speeches (like Ann Coulter or Milo) were declined because their speech was quite well known and rather offensive. Their views, books, videos, and commentary are easily found all over the place. Their opinions were not significantly thwarted because they didn’t speak to a couple hundred college students. In fact, they probably gained more notoriety when they were declined. Their views are quite well known. No one who really wants to know their opinions has been inconvenienced.

            Conservatives complain about pc culture taking over everywhere, but one doesn’t have to look hard at all to find obnoxious non-pc culture all over the place. It seems to be running amok. But that’s just one gal’s opinion.

            As for my questions, I have been asking them here for a while to a number of people – anyone is free to respond. No one seems to be able to provide a cogent answer.

          • Insidious Pall

            You don’t seem to get the full grasp of the absurdity of this kerfuffle. You’re very likely young, so I get it. Let me explain why this is so wildly absurd to us old folks. We grew up with the Velvet Underground. We saw them play at CBGB’s in New York City – the forerunners of punk and avant garde. They openly advocated for alternative lifestyles in a time when it was not popular. So for this clown to complain and these precious student body officer snowflakes to apologize is nothing short of bizarre. You getting the picture yet? This is LOU FREAKING REED we’re talking about. I generally don’t favor Wikipedia as a source reference but I am willing to make an exception in your case. Look it up.

          • Paolo Pagliaro

            Problem is that this study is garbage, wild garbage: “sexually biased patterns in hearing and smell responses”? are you kidding?
            What extensive brain studies on “transsexuals brain” have been performed? You believe anything.

            As regard the “thought police”, these groups are trying to have non-remissive professors expelled: in Canada there’s the famous case of dr. Peterson, refusing to use fabricated pronouns, which you can explore and peruse at your pace on YouTube and elsewhere.

          • Cynthia Cantrell

            There are a number of brain studies of transsexuals you can find on the web. They include MRI style images and pictures of slides from dissected brains. You can use Google to find them and learn new things, or you can revel in your ignorance, like many conservatives and religious people like to do.

            Peterson is just another conservative jerk ranting about “authoritarianism” and the scourge of “political correctness” as an excuse to continue being a jerk and not have any consequences for it.

      • Darkcloud

        The hatred in their eyes and the self satisfied attitude usually gives it away.
        Bless your heart for asking though.

      • MarkinGermany

        They dress as college professors who think they know something.
        They become politicians with (D)’s behind their names.
        They are recruited in schools K-12 to tattle on other kids who don’t behave as they are expected to.

        The thought police are easy to spot if you actually look. Those that are already under the control of the thought police see nothing.

        What do you see?

      • Insidious Pall

        They have ‘SJW’ patches on their shoulders.

        • Cynthia Cantrell

          SJW – Single Jewish Woman? Slightly Jaundiced Wookie?

          I can’t say I’ve seen any around here, but then I live in a red county.

          They must keep a low profile.

      • Paolo Pagliaro

        Yes, you can find them in the “diversity office” of practically all American universities.
        You are welcome.

        • Cynthia Cantrell

          They have medications for paranoia these days. Maybe you should but on your best tin foil hat and see a doctor about them.

  • This_Is_NOT_a_Drill

    Liberalism is so decaying peoples minds………..pathetic…when you preach nothingness–dim/progressives….

    • Johnathan Swift Jr.

      There is nothing at all liberal about the campaign to impose a politically correct totalitarian viewpoint on the rest of us. This campaign is anti-liberal as it can be. The black clad ant-fascists are the new brown shirts, exactly the opposite of who they claim to be.

      • maggie galalgher

        Its all Marxist though

        • lhfry

          Yes. And we should label them such at every opportunity. The are NOT liberals.

          • MarkinGermany

            Gay USED to mean ‘happy’, ‘fun loving’, ‘full of joy’. NOW it means a sodomite. Liberal MAY have meant something else AGES ago, but now it means ‘Socialist/communist’.

          • Paolo Pagliaro

            Liberals have been hijacked by leftist since several years. Ideas have consequences, do you know?

      • MarkY

        Yes, but the rancid Left chooses terms for itself such as “liberal” and “progressive” to hide the true nature of the beast. Who wouldn’t be for liberty and progress? It’s not their fault, it’s the fault of people who take the bait and call them “Liberals” rather than Leftist Troglodytes.

  • DelmarJackson

    I thought they were upset over the line that included “colored girls.’
    She sayes, hey baby, take a walk on the wild side
    Said, hey babe, take a walk on the wild side
    And the colored girls go,
    Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo

    • This_Is_NOT_a_Drill

      doo-doo is doo-doo

      • ccpony

        Oops! You’ve been BLOCKED! Using the word “colored”. Shame, shame, shame SHAME on you!!!

  • nomorelies343

    Liberals ruin everything

    • MarkY

      Really? Explain what’s liberal about these people that you should call them “Liberals.” Call them by what they really are, Leftist Troglodytes.

      • Paolo Pagliaro

        What’s liberal? The fact that they are educated, nurtured and protected by all liberal faculties of north American universities? The fact that their founding theories all come from the postmodern vogue so liked in liberal enclaves?

        They have been denounced for years, but when the victims were not liberals your indifference reigned absolute – which means they belonged to the liberal side.

  • Ron Will

    A favorite album of my housemates but, I never understood the song till Lou Reed died

  • Zardoz Wiz

    what happened to the energy and vitality of youth? brave new world my azz. get stuffed frikkin worthless drones. enslaved mind will be easy to lead like a dog

  • Darkcloud

    I was wondering when the “true believers” were going to get around to this song.
    How long until “Money for nothing” by Dire Straits is called a foul because of the word for a bundle of sticks.

    • maggie galalgher

      I love that song!

    • Moondoggie

      “Money for Nothing” is no longer allowed on Canadian radio and no, I’m not making that up.

      • Darkcloud

        Some people just get in a snit if other people are having any kind of merriment.

        Remember folks, you know who you are, “1984” the novel is
        not a manual of any kind.

    • sidneyallenjohnson

      Most stations play edited versions of the song now.

  • Amy Barnes-Birnbaum

    Whoever thinks those lyrics are insulting to the trans community is an idiot. Why? Because when people don’t want to accept a person’s need for change, they refuse to acknowledge it. Names, pronouns, and even which public bathrooms to use are all scrutinized and denied.

    The song recognizes “Holly” and it calls her a “she” in every reference except for letting us know that Holly wasn’t always Holly. It never tells us what Holly’s name was, and it fully recognizes “her” as a “she”. It is not only completely sensitive to the plight of transgenders, it totally supports it.

    • VoteOutIncumbents

      Trans community??????? LOL.

      • Amy Barnes-Birnbaum

        Oh just CAN IT, Incubater!

    • maggie galalgher

      Yes and in 1972. But that didn’t matter.

    • Paolo Pagliaro

      Amy, I want to be free to disagree with the “trans community”.

  • Sandy Norris

    We don’t have to go along with them. I believe in treating all people with respect and dignity but don’t get in my face and tell me what to say or what to believe. I am a child of the 60’s and laugh at today’s so-called “warriors.”

  • potkas7

    I wonder what Camille Paglia would have to say about this story?

    • JJ_Chester

      That would be priceless!

  • JJ_Chester

    What’s clear about the snowflake movement is that it is only permitted to have ANYTHING to say about one of the protected groups unless you are a member of the group. And, the group is totally in control of what is acceptable to say about it. And, the rules regarding what can and cannot be said are subject to change at any time and from time-to-time. In other words, STFU.

  • Selphie

    They better not listen to Sweet Jane then; their poor little heads would surely explode.

  • I object to Lou Reed’s music, too. But only because it sucks.

    People are insane.

  • Billiamo

    The radicals of the Sixties were paragons of meaning compared to these nihilists.

  • QuestionMark666

    Always have loved Lou Reed and the Velvet UnderGround. Great lyrics and so avant garde.

  • zb

    So wait. Is Ziggy Stardust ow transphobic?

  • Insidious Pall

    OMG – Lou Reed was bisexual, if not gay. And he was not homophobic or transphobic or metrophobic. These folks are gaping idiots and I fear for my country. I am deeply saddened that such lunatics are apparently gaining momentum and may someday institute the thought police if they are not stopped.

    • Paolo Pagliaro

      When you celebrate wild things, you get wild things.

  • ccpony

    Oh we’re sorry. We’re SOOO sorry! Oh my GOD, WE ARE SOOO SORRY! Did we OFFEND you? Did we? WE ARE SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SORRY! SORRY! It… it… won’t happen again! WE ARE SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SORRY!

  • doctor perverso

    And these pseudo-progressive whining twits are still trying to figure out why Chump and his thugs handed them their butts in the last election.

    • Cynthia Cantrell

      Yes, because apologizing to people you think you might have offended leads directly to crotch-grabbing presidents. Who could have missed that connection?

      • Paolo Pagliaro

        No: apologizing to spoiled children ready to ruin anyone holding even mildly traditional values leads to the winning of their opponents, even if bragging privately about crotch-grabbing – as distinct from someone who grabbed practically, and was impeached for lying about that, without any concern from his Democratic supporter.

        • Cynthia Cantrell

          You really don’t have a grasp of “cause” and “effect,” do you?

          Yes, that was a rhetorical question.

  • BombR76

    My older
    sister in the 70’s told me when the ‘guy’ shaved his legs and plucked his
    eyebrows, ‘he’ became a ‘she’ . . . kinda like my sister when was a
    ‘hairy-legged’ hippie!

    BTW – SJW = ‘Social Justice Warrior’ define before
    use . . .

  • camainc

    “The lack of any standard, paradoxically, makes the SJW moral code far more intrusive and punitive than Victorian morality. (Could Lou Reed have ever dreamt of that?) You can’t avoid breaking its rules, since they aren’t announced in advance. You only find out you’ve done wrong once someone complains. And from that, there is no appeal. Guilt is absolute and automatic. You have no choice but to grovel for mercy. ”

    Currently reading “That Hideous Strength” by C.S.Lewis. This sounds so much like the way things work inside the N.I.C.E.

    Lewis was strangely prophetic.

Inspiration
The Dawn of Grace: A Gift From God
Nancy Flory
More from The Stream
Connect with Us