RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/this-is-shakespeare-this-is-woke-shakespeare/

To paraphrase an 80s anti-drug ad, “this is Shakespeare, this is woke Shakespeare.” Any questions?

(If you enjoyed this episode of woke Shakespeare, be sure to tune in to your local PBS station for more.)

The obvious question is “why bother”, but the obvious answer is that wokes (unlike old school lefties who could be creative) are cultural parasites, incapable of creating anything new, and thrive only on tainting the old.

It’s why the entertainment industry churns out bastardized versions of its intellectual properties, yet makes nothing new that endures.

Wokes are incapable of grasping the content of anything, only the surface context. And thus they obsessively remake things in line with their deconstructionist sensibilities. Shakespeare to them is no different than Star Wars, Dickens, 1776 or Marvel comics, it’s all the same, replace the cast with a completely inappropriate identity politics assemblage and revamp its message so that it deconstructs whatever it ever was.

Wokes think that they’re ushering in a revolution when all they’re doing is demonstrating their incomprehension of the original material. But that is why they’re wokes. Wokes can be offended by anything, but they don’t understand anything. Philosophically, they’re all surface impressions, reading their tired Marxist tropes into any classical work and then plugging in a “diverse” cast to hammer home the revolutionary message.

But there are no more revolutions. The only woke cultural revolution still going on is narcissism. Wokes don’t want to change the world, they want to revel only in their outrage and false sense of superiority by destroying anything that predated them, anything they don’t understand, and turn it into a virus broadcasting their virtue.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/19/state-department-official-criticized-for-mandatory-pronouns-use-in-emails/

On Thursday, a State Department spokesman clashed with an Associated Press reporter over a new policy at the agency demanding that all employees give their pronouns in emails.

As reported by the New York Post, spokesman Vedant Patel was giving a briefing when he was asked about the “mandatory” pronouns policy by journalist Matt Lee.

“Have you gotten any emails from any of your colleagues before you came out here… since about noon or so?” Lee asked. Patel asked Lee to clarify what he meant, to which Lee asked if Patel had noticed anything new in the “from” line of any such emails. Patel grew increasingly frustrated, claiming he was not aware of any such changes.

“Within the last hour and a half… the State Department’s internal email system — and I tested this, so I know that it’s true —has added pronouns to people’s … not their signature … but to where it says from,” Lee explained. “Why? This is not something that anybody has a choice about, and so I’m wondering why and who made this decision.” Patel responded by claiming that he was not aware of the “phenomenon.”

Lee continued to press Patel, pointing out that there were many cases of people being addressed with the wrong pronouns.

“I don’t have a problem with doing it and if people want their pronouns attached to it, it’s fine,” Lee clarified. “But it should be a choice. Not something the State Department imposes on people, especially if it’s wrong.”

Patel then said he would “look into it,” then promptly left the briefing room.

A subsequent statement by the State Department blamed the pronouns ordeal on an error by Microsoft Outlook.

“The State Department’s Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM) is aware of the recent issues with user profiles on Microsoft Outlook and working to remedy the situation,” tweeted spokesman Matthew Miller. “This change was unintentional and the bureau is working to correct this immediately.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/richard-dreyfuss-and-the-difference-between-cultural-capitulation-and-cultural-sensitivity/

There is a massive difference between cultural capitulation and cultural sensitivity. We should resist the former and practice the latter.

What do I mean by cultural capitulation? I mean bowing down to the latest cultural fad, of kowtowing to the most current manifestation of what is PC, of becoming slaves to whatever the societal elites decide is acceptable.

A current example would be the cultural mandate that requires us to give our preferred gender pronouns or to deny biological realities when talking with a trans-identified person. We rightly say no to that mandate for many reasons. (For a listing of relevant articles, go here.)

This, of course, is quite different than cultural sensitivity, by which I mean recognizing what could legitimately offend someone in another culture or be easily misunderstood. This is something we often learn the hard way, especially when traveling to other countries or hosting people from other cultures. There are cultural taboos of which we know nothing until we cross a forbidden line.

The difficult question is to be able to determine when something is a matter of unacceptable cultural capitulation and when it’s a matter of legitimate cultural sensitivity.

All this can be illustrated in a recent interview on PBS’ Firing Line with the famed actor Richard Dreyfus.

He was asked by Margaret Hoover for his views on the new Oscar rules in a which a film would not be eligible for best picture unless it met certain requirements for inclusion and representation.

He responded, “They make me vomit.”

How so? “Because,” explained, “this is an art form, it’s also a form of commerce, and it makes money, but it’s an art. And no one should be telling me, as an artist, that I have to give in to the latest most current idea of what morality is.”

He continued, “And what are we risking? Are we really risking hurting people’s feelings? You can’t legislate that. And you have to let life be life

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/benbartee/2023/05/09/childism-the-latest-predatory-lgbtq-ideological-machination-n1693895

“The thrust of childism is that children, no matter their age or maturity level, should be granted full decision-making autonomy of the same kind granted to adults – presumably, of course, including consenting to sexual encounters with adults.”

You may, by now, be familiar with the increasingly mainstreamed LGBTQ+++™ sexual identity called MAPS, an acronym that stands for “minor-attracted persons” and serves as a euphemism for pedophiles.

The gist of the pro-MAPS argument, as illuminated below by MAPS apologist and transgender professors Allyn Walker, is that the term “pedophile” is unnecessarily stigmatizing and that MAPS are not necessarily sex offenders because they don’t always act out on their urges.

Differentiating between MAPS and active, offending pedophiles might be legitimate, but the question is: why expend all the effort trying to legitimize a sexual identity that is inherently immoral?

The MAPS even have their very own inclusive LGBTQ+++™ flag!

Very dark stuff, by most normal people’s estimation.

But the rabbit hole into the LGBTQ+++™ abyss only leads to darker darkness – like some other weird euphemism called “childism.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/04/what_were_they_thinking_at_bud_light.html

Something about the sudden shift in marketing strategy for Bud Light doesn’t pass the smell test.

An iconic brand that, based on some of the best commercials you’ll ever see, never ceased to hit the target of its intended customers has, overnight, decided to abandon those customers and dollars are “fratty and out of touch,” and go after… What exactly?  We do not really know.

Thomas Lifson showed us the video of Alissa Heinerscheid, vice president of marketing for the Bud Light brand, try to explain her strategy.  I am sorry, but when explaining a marketing strategy for beer it seems both intentional as well as awkward and discomforting to see her children’s artwork posted behind her.  Beer and children just do not mix. 

The result of that strategy should not have been unexpected.  Bud Light sales are in the toilet.  Overnight.  A viral video shows Bud Light sitting untouched in a store’s cooler.   🤣 This is real! I went to my local store, and she said they haven’t sold a 12-pack or 30-pack of Bud Light this whole week! #BudLightWentWoke #budlight

I contend, therefore, this was not the biggest blunder in corporate marketing history.  Anyone could have seen what was going to happen.  To believe this strategy wasn’t market-tested before going full steam ahead is like believing Russia helped Trump win an election, or something like that.

As fast as Bud Light sales tanked, it didn’t take long for Chasten Buttigieg to criticize everyone who boycotted the brand.  His tweet:  “If you’re upset about a beer company supporting civil rights, you might want to start bottling your tears. LGBTQ people drink water, too. Gonna boycott that next? 11:59 AM · Apr 8, 2023”

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/03/21/the-sweater/

In 1980’s “The Sweater,” an animated short that gets its title from the traditional term for a hockey jersey in Canada, a boy in Quebec accidentally receives a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey rather than the Montreal Canadiens No. 9 Maurice Richard jersey that his mother had ordered, and the jersey all his friends wear. As a Quebecois, he is humiliated by the Toronto jersey and benched by his coach. The peer pressure he feels to fit in is enormous.

Now in the 2020s, the pressure from radical activists and the corporate cowards who take a knee to them at every opportunity is on players to wear jerseys during warmups that celebrate the ​​LGBTQIA+ community.

But even in 2023, when so many among us are either part of the social bullying culture or so fearful of it that we’ve surrendered to it, there are still men of strength and principle. On Jan. 17, Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov declined to wear a pride jersey in warmups, citing his Christian (Russian Orthodox) beliefs. So he sat in the locker room, banished, while his teammates took their pre-game skate.

“I respect everybody, and I respect everybody’s choices,” Provorov said after the game. “My choice is to stay true to myself and my religion.”

He mistreated no one yet he was viciously maligned by those who self-identify as inclusive, tolerant, and righteously fair.

However, within days, No. 9 Provorov game replica sweaters were selling out on the NHL Shop and at Fanatics, indicating that despite the hatred that was heaped on him – shameful hockey media hack E.J. Hradek suggested that Provorov return to Europe and “maybe get involved” in Russia’s war in Ukraine, while sports writer Cyd Zeigler huffed that “Proporov chose to embrace prejudice” – not just a few appreciated his position.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/03/16/federal-court-rules-against-ny-worker-fired-for-refusing-to-attend-lgbtq-training/

On Monday, a federal appellate court ruled that the firing of a New York man who refused to attend a pro-LGBTQ training session was legal.

As reported by the New York Post, Raymond Zdunski argued in his lawsuit that his employer, the Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES), attempted to “change his religious beliefs about gender and sexuality” by forcing him to attend a diversity training session focused on people who claim to be LGBTQ. His employer refused his request for a religious exception, citing his Christian beliefs.

Zdunski subsequently sought $10 million in damages, as well as reinstatement and back pay. The lawsuit was originally dismissed last year by District Judge Geoffrey Crawford. The recent ruling by the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Crawford’s original decision, supporting BOCES’ decision to fire him.

In both cases, the judge and the court claimed that Zdunski was wrong to claim he was the victim of “unlawful religious discrimination.” Crawford’s original ruling specifically noted that BOCES was required to provide such diversity training by a state law, the Dignity for All Students Act, and thus claimed that to give Zdunski an exemption would be committing a state crime.

“It just seems like the country is against the Christian way of life, and it’s for everything else,” Zdunski said in response to the latest ruling. “We’re not allowed to practice our way of life but anyone else can, it seems.”

The company issued its own statement after the court’s ruling, saying that “we agree with the decisions of both the United States District Court and the Court of Appeals, and remain committed to fostering a safe and supportive environment for all students and staff.”

https://amgreatness.com/2023/03/09/white-house-gives-international-womens-day-award-to-biological-man/

On Wednesday, the Biden White House celebrated International Women’s Day by presenting an award to a biological man who believes he is a woman.

The Daily Caller reports that the Woman of Courage Award was given to Alba Rueda, who serves as the Special Envoy for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Argentina’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In that post, he is responsible for Argentina’s adoption of a policy known as the “Transgender Labor Quota,” which mandated that no less than one percent of all public sector jobs be held by people who believe themselves to be “transgender.”

“Now in its 17th year, the Secretary of State’s IWOC Award recognizes women from around the globe who have demonstrated exceptional courage, strength, and leadership in advocating for peace, justice, human rights, gender equity and equality, and the empowerment of women and girls, in all their diversity – often at great personal risk and sacrifice,” the White House said in a press release announcing the award for Rueda, who was born a male.

“In Argentina, Alba Rueda is a transgender woman who was kicked out of classrooms, barred from sitting for exams, refused job opportunities, subjected to violence, and rejected by [his] family,” said Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, as the award was presented to Rueda by Jill Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/19/the-rewriting-of-roald-dahl-should-disturb-us-all/

It’s easy to become inured to the madness of the culture war. Stories of Peter Pan being slapped with trigger warnings or God going gender-neutral are 10 a penny these days. They can sometimes wash over you. Not because they are unimportant – far from it. But because they are so ubiquitous. Every institution from the Wellcome Collection to Splash Mountain has fallen to some flavour of woke regressivism. Language is warped to flatter a few narcissists. Old art works and new are censored at the behest of hysterics. Such cases don’t surprise us anymore, no matter how deranged and illiberal.

But once in a while the authoritarians who make up our cultural elites outdo themselves – and remind us how much is at stake in this thing we call the culture war. The rewriting of the late Roald Dahl’s books is one such story. When the Telegraph revealed yesterday that Puffin, Dahl’s publisher, has made ‘hundreds of changes’ to his beloved children’s books, in line with suggestions from so-called sensitivity readers, the response was one of horror and disbelief. An author beloved by generations of children for his magical, spiky and sometimes sinister work has had his literary edges sanded off. All new copies will feature the newly cleansed text. Dahl’s words and stories will be changed forever, no longer truly his own, all because some weirdo with a red pen thinks they know better. The philistinism, the cultural vandalism, is stunning.

And what is it that so upset them? What is it that made these sensitivity readers conclude that Dahl’s books must be changed, so they ‘can continue to be enjoyed by all today’, in the words of Puffin? The word ‘fat’, for one. That’s gone from every book – sparing the blushes of characters like Augustus Gloop, the fat lad from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The Oompa-Loompas are now no longer ‘titchy’ or ‘tiny’. Just ‘small’. They’ve also gone gender-neutral for good measure, with ‘small men’ swapped for ‘small people’. Perhaps most outrageously of all, whole lines have been rewritten and brand new lines added, seemingly to pre-empt any prejudice that might otherwise curdle in the minds of young readers. In The Witches, a line describing a witch posing as a ‘cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman’ now casts her as an aspirational girlboss, ‘working as a top scientist or running a business’.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/02/12/actor-idris-elba-under-fire-from-left-for-rejecting-black-actor-label-n1669976

In a recent interview, famed actor Idris Elba said that he no longer wants to be identified as a “black actor” and that he wants his talent to be recognized regardless of his race.

“As humans, we are obsessed with race. And that obsession can really hinder people’s aspirations, hinder people’s growth,” Elba told Esquire UK. “I stopped describing myself as a Black actor when I realised it put me in a box. We’ve got to grow. We’ve got to. Our skin is no more than that: it’s just skin. Rant over.”

While many believe Elba should be applauded, his comments have drawn criticism from the identity-obsessed political left.

“There’s an innocuous way that Black folks in Hollywood like Idris, Terry Crews, etc—play the ‘good colorblind negro’ to have individual success,” tweeted screenwriter Kellee Terrell. “Meanwhile,Black folks like Gina, Gabrielle, John Boyega, etc, reject that bulls*** to ensure COMMUNAL SUCCESS.”

“Whether he defines himself as a Black actor or not, film directors and studios do. Does Idris transcend stereotypical roles absolutely, so does Denzel, Poitier, etc.,” tweeted Democrat strategist Ameshia Cross. “Something about Idris’ commentary here doesn’t sit well. I get where he’s going, but he took a dangerous path.”

Dangerous path? Really? How sad.