Walk into any corner of American political discourse today — scroll through social media, watch a committee hearing, or tune into any podcast — and you will see the same thing: grown adults calling each other names like middle schoolers fighting over a cafeteria seat. The foul language, the personal insults, the public meltdowns, the performative rage. This is not strength. It is not leadership. It is insecurity dressed up like courage and cowardice masquerading as conviction.
Somewhere along the way, we replaced statesmanship with screaming. We replaced persuasion with profanity. Ultimately, we have replaced the old fashioned American habit of debating ideas with the cheap and empty thrill of attacking people.
More than a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt, a man defined by both bold action and deep humility, gave us the blueprint for a better way: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
Today, however, we have the opposite — loud voices and small sticks.
The big stick Roosevelt spoke of was not brute force. It was strength, moral, intellectual, strategic, and spiritual. It was the confidence to act boldly without needing to shout about it. It was the courage to make hard decisions without cursing out everyone who disagreed. It was the wisdom to understand that real power does not have to announce itself. That&#8217;s the model that built America. The opposite tears it down.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the rise of profanity and name-calling as the default language of our modern political media. There is nothing courageous about calling your opponent a slur on X. There is nothing tough about dropping f-bombs into every sentence so people will mistake your aggression for authority. And there is nothing admirable about influencers who pretend to be fighters for truth while reducing every debate to schoolyard taunts.
Profanity is not a sign of depth, it is the last resort of someone who has run out of arguments. Name-calling is not a sign of strength, it is emotional immaturity. And using your platform to bully instead of uplift does not make you a leader, it makes you an attention addict.
The people screaming the loudest in politics today, both on the Left and on the Right, have something in common: they are far more committed to growing their audiences than growing their country. Drama pays. Rage sells. Insults go viral in a way that virtues rarely do. But ask yourself: When was the last time vulgarity solved a national problem? When was the last time calling someone a “retard” secured a border, balanced a budget, defended a family, or healed a division? It does not. It cannot. It never will.
History tells us who actually moves nations forward. If the loudest voices were also the most effective, America would be thriving right now. But our most consequential leaders embodied the opposite of today’s political showmanship.
Consider Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest persuader in American history. Under unthinkable pressure, he chose calm over chaos, clarity over insults, and moral force over personal attacks. He did not need vulgarity to restore the Union. He relied on conviction, compassion, and clarity of purpose.
Think of Thomas Sowell, one of the most influential thinkers of the last century. A man who never needed to insult anyone to defeat their ideas. He does it with facts, discipline, and rigorous logic. Sowell’s writing has changed more minds in silence than a thousand social media personalities have changed by shouting. He has proved that a sharp intellect always cuts deeper than a sharp tongue.
Consider Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who led a movement that reshaped the moral conscience of the nation. He did not use foul language to rally a crowd. He did not dehumanize his enemies. His power came from his principles, not his profanity.
Look also at Ronald Reagan, whose strength came not from shouting but from optimism, clarity, and humor. He defeated the Soviet Union not with insults but with strategic vision, principled courage, and unshakeable conviction.
Even today, modern examples remain. American heroes across the military, law enforcement, public service, and civic life continue to change this country quietly and honorably, without needing the spotlight or the shock factor. They speak softly. They carry real sticks. They do real things.
Sometimes turning the volume down can amplify the ideas.
This is why the tragedy of our current political culture is so stark. We now confuse volume with vision. The modern algorithm rewards outrage, not outcomes. People chase retweets rather than respect and the result is a nation drowning in noise but starving for leadership.
When every debate becomes a brawl, the serious people leave the arena. When profanity becomes the currency of influence, the wise stop speaking.
The truth is that courage requires restraint. There is a myth that strong men must be loud men. But the opposite is true. The strongest people are those who can keep their composure while others lose theirs. The most persuasive voices are those that remain calm when the room gets heated. The most impactful leaders are not the ones who shout to be heard but ones whose character makes others quiet down to listen.
A man who must curse to be taken seriously has already lost the argument.
A politician who must demean others to feel powerful is already revealing weakness.
And an influencer who has to shock, insult, or degrade his audience to remain relevant is not shaping culture. He is cheapening it.
The good news is that we can reverse this cycle. The American people still hunger for calm over chaos, wisdom over theatrics, and substance over stunts. They want leaders like Roosevelt who can speak softly because they actually carry the biggest sticks: experience, knowledge, values, courage, humility, and truth.
Imagine a generation of leaders who choose persuasion over profanity, character over clout, solutions over screams. Imagine if our public square once again rewarded virtue instead of virality.
Today, too many people are doing the opposite. It is time to reject the cowards hiding behind insults and elevate the adults who carry real sticks. It is time to restore civil discourse to America. And it is time we stop celebrating the yellers and start honoring the builders.
* * *
Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast “We The People.” Follow him on Instagram and X @GatesGarciaFL.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Podcasters. Google Gemini.

Where Is ‘The Man In The Arena’?: Why America Needs Fewer Insults And More Adults

Where Is 'The Man In The Arena'?: Why America Needs Fewer Insults And More Adults

Culture

Debates

Democrats

language

Opinion

Podcast

Republicans

Theodore Roosevelt

Words

&#8220;You’re in Good Hands.&#8221;
&#8220;The Ultimate Driving Machine.&#8221;
&#8220;Where’s the Beef?&#8221;
&#8220;Just do it.&#8221;
If you’re an American born in the latter half of the twentieth century, you know these slogans well. Millions of dollars have been invested to make sure of it. Why? Because the most sophisticated consumer marketing companies in the world understand the power of a well-worded turn of phrase. Today, we’re increasingly witnessing the manipulation of words for ends more consequential—and nefarious. We live in a dangerous moment.
The proverb <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2018%3A21&amp;version=KJV" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a>, &#8220;Death and life are in the power of the tongue.&#8221; Words change the world because they change how we think. They are, in fact, how we think. We reason in words, and there can be no inner dialogue, no internal debate, without them. That’s why freedom of speech is so vital; curtail the words we use, and you curtail the very thoughts on which expression is based.
Yet those of us who ascribe to what might be called a traditional Western worldview assume we’re all using the same lexicon. Like fish who have no awareness that their world is made of water, we have been far too unaware that the language we use is being transmuted. There was a time when the slogans “Big Brother” drummed into the populace in George Orwell’s &#8220;1984&#8221; seemed incredulous: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” But similar reversals of meaning are happening today, right before our eyes.
The most egregious current example is that we’re being told to ignore what the meanings of “man” and “woman” have been throughout human history. Consider all the children and teenagers (not to mention adults) who are getting life-altering surgeries based on the belief that they were born into the wrong body. Or the manipulated women seeking abortions because they’ve been conditioned to think of the developing child within them as “just a clump of cells.” And there are plenty of other examples. Marriage. Justice. Sanctuary. Genocide. Occupation. Recession. Racism. Rights. We can no longer assume these words mean what they have always meant.
In 1966, former communist and editor of London’s Daily Worker, Douglas Hyde wrote a book called &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dedication-Leadership-Douglas-Hyde/dp/0268000735" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dedication and Leadership</a>.&#8221; Hyde had left the Communist Party and turned to Catholicism, and his objective with the book was to explain the party’s tactics to the church. &#8220;It&#8217;s all very basic but immensely important,” he said of Communists’ use of language:
<blockquote>Terms are defined at every point. But the definitions given to ordinary terms are the Communist&#8217;s own, not those normally accepted by others. Henceforth, as a consequence, the instructed Communist has his own private language. When he does his propaganda, he uses words with which his hearers are already familiar. But as he utters them, or writes them, they mean one thing to him and something quite different to the non-Communists who receive them.</blockquote>
Today’s Progressives have mastered this ability to flip the script. They’ve taken us from the redefinition of family to the redefinition of marriage to today’s attempt to redefine male and female, and efforts are now underway to redefine pedophilia and even what it means to be human. Next on the list — as unthinkable as it sounds — will be to reposition suicide as a good thing.
And there’s plenty more to come. The unfolding push by the World Economic Forum for “degrowth”— itself an Orwellian twisting of language — will necessarily involve the redefinition of scarcity, wealth, abundance, productivity, and other terms that we take for granted as good things. The effort has already begun, and prosperity itself will become a byword if they have their way.
If we are to resist, we must recognize, first, that everything begins with words. Great and glorious movements begin with words. Evil and disastrous developments begin with words. To refute a worldview, you must first comprehend it. If we attempt to argue with people without first agreeing upon the lexicon, they will always have a leg up on us. That’s especially challenging with those whose main tactic is to confuse comprehension.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: whenever you hear a word or phrase that doesn’t quite add up, consider that the source may be, intentionally or otherwise, redefining terms. Question them about it. Ask them what they mean. Press them on their answers if they don’t make sense.
For instance, when someone drops the word “systemic” on you, ask whether the injustice they seek to counteract is truly systemic (that is, built into the system) or better understood as endemic to human nature and better addressed through virtue, not power.
When the concept of equity arises, don’t assume it refers to political equality and equal economic opportunity. Forcing equal outcomes, like hyphenated justice, inexorably involves injustice.
And when someone refers to “their” pronouns, refuse to play the game. Pronouns are not yours or mine, they’re ours. We use them to achieve, rather than obscure, understanding. Our common language is not your truth or my truth, it’s our truth.
To be sure, language evolves over time. But evolution is not revolution, and deceit is diabolical. Given that we think in words, it’s vital that we first understand the ideas others are really attempting to convey (or obscure) with the words they use. If we are to preserve Western civilization, each of us must carefully choose our words, use our words, and reject efforts to confuse our words. Because those who abuse our words never rest.
* * *
Steve McKee is a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and contributor to The Daily Signal. He is a branding expert and the author of three books: &#8220;When Growth Stalls,&#8221; &#8220;Power Branding,&#8221; and &#8220;TURNS: Where Business Is Won and Lost.&#8221; Find him at <a id="m_-2760770829419770041OWA7109cfd7-d1d5-851c-d5f5-e372b2b7bb7a" href="http://stevemckee.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://stevemckee.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1719514927572000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0G38nnbjhTlNGX6W4UF62U">SteveMcKee.com</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Colorful business concept with speech bubbles on blue background

Modern Wordplay: As Old As Time And Not A Game

Freedom of Speech

Leftists

Readers Pass

Social Issues

Woke Culture

The following is a transcript excerpt from Dr. Jordan Peterson’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsZ8XqHPjI4&amp;t=0s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2017 Maps of Meaning lecture</a>. In this part, he speaks on the difficulty of teaching writing, the reason for writing, and what writing can achieve. 
Start time: 2:17:35
The best way to teach people critical thinking is to teach them to write. It is very hard to teach people to write because it is unbelievably time intensive. Marking a good essay is really easy: check, A. You did everything right. Marking a bad essay? Oh my. The words are wrong, the phrases are wrong, the sentences are wrong, they’re not ordered right in the paragraphs, the paragraphs are not coherent, and the whole thing makes no sense. So trying to tell the person what they did wrong? Well, you did everything wrong. Everything about this essay is wrong. That is not helpful either. You have to find the few little things they did half right, and you have to teach them what they did wrong. It is really expensive. The best thing you can do is teach people to write, because there is no difference between that and thinking. 
One of the things that blows me away about universities is that no one ever tells students why they should write something. “Well, you have to do this assignment. Why are you writing? You need the grade.” No, you need to learn to think. Because thinking makes you act effectively in the world. Thinking makes you win the battles you undertake, and those could be battles for good things. If you can think and speak and write, you are absolutely deadly. Nothing can get in your way. That is why you learn to write. I cannot believe that people aren’t just told that. It is the most powerful weapon you could possibly provide someone with. 
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/vision-and-destiny" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: Dr. Jordan B. Peterson&#8217;s &#8216;Vision &amp; Destiny&#8217; series on DailyWire+</a></h4>
I know lots of people who have been staggeringly successful. I’ve watched them throughout my life, and you do not want to have an argument with those people. They will just slash you into pieces, and not in a malevolent way. If you are going to make your point and they are going to make their point, you better have your points organized because otherwise you are going to look like and be an absolute idiot. You are not going to get anywhere. If you can formulate your arguments coherently and make a presentation, if you can speak to people, if you can lay out a proposal, people give you money, they give you opportunities, and you have influence. 
That is what you are at university for. That is what you do: Teach people to be articulate because that is the most dangerous thing you can possibly be, and it is motivating if people know that. “Why are you learning to write?” Here is your sword, here is your M16, here is your bullet proof vest. You learn how to use them. It is an endless mystery to me why that is not made self-evident. That is the sort of thing that can drive you mad trying to sort out. It is like there is a conspiracy to bring people into the education system and make them weaker. I guess that keeps the competition down. Maybe that is one way of thinking about it. If your students are stupid, they are not going to challenge you. 
To continue, listen or watch more content with Dr. Jordan Peterson on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/watch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire+</a>.
<a href="https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Jordan B. Peterson</a> is a clinical psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. From 1993 to 1998 he served as assistant and then associate professor of psychology at Harvard. He is the international bestselling author of Maps of Meaning, 12 Rules For Life, and Beyond Order. You can now <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener">listen to</a> or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/watch/jordan-peterson">watch</a> his popular lectures on DailyWire+.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

JP_22FOR_DW_GDWOODMAN054 copy

The Power Of Writing And The Path To Critical Thinking

College

Debate

Jordan Peterson

Universities

The language police are at it again.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has decided that it needs to restrict language to fulfill its duty as the top federal science and technology office charged with staying ahead of &#8212; or at least keeping up with &#8212; China. Really.
NIST has put out a new guide telling federal employees they shouldn&#8217;t use the words &#8220;blacklist&#8221; or &#8220;whitelist.&#8221; Why? They carry racial connotations.
And workers should never use terms &#8220;that assign a gender to inanimate objects, such as male/female connectors.&#8221;
NIST&#8217;s &#8220;Inclusive Language Guidance&#8221; lays out to scientists what words and phrases or OK. The guide says:
<ul>
<li>Consider that biased terms, such as blacklist/whitelist, also may introduce comprehension issues.</li>
<li> Avoid terms such as master/slave that perpetuate negative stereotypes or unequal power relationships.</li>
<li>Avoid identifying an individual’s gender unless necessary for comprehension, or using terms that assign a gender to inanimate objects, such as male/female connectors.</li>
<li>Avoid descriptive terms that are condescending or reductive in favor of language that the groups being described would prefer.</li>
</ul>
Jennifer Huergo, a NIST spokesman, <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_ec382ad8-d3f1-11ed-99e0-ffca7120e7e9.html">told</a> The Center Square the guidance &#8220;was created primarily for the benefit of NIST staff experts who participate in the development of documentary standards as expert collaborators and leaders.&#8221;
&#8220;Use of inclusive language helps to avoid potential gaps in understanding that could arise from the use of colloquial or idiomatic expressions that are rooted in particular historical events or regional dialects,&#8221; she said.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-15662">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
The NIST guide follows another from the liberal language police. The ultra-woke are coming for more words and phrases like “jump the gun,” “roll with the punches,” and even “deadline,” claiming they’re just too “violent.”
For the record, the word “deadline” was first recorded in 1864 during the Civil War. As both sides captured prisoners of war, a “do not cross” line was traced around prisons, and guards were ordered to shoot anyone that might cross the “dead line.”
And by the way, “jump the gun” has nothing to do with violence. The term comes from sporting contests like foot races, delineating when a runner started too early or “jumped” the starting gun, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/language-police-target-jump-the-gun-roll-with-the-punches">reported</a>.
But never mind all that. The word cops have deemed them offensive and demand new softer terms be used. For instance, they say the phrase “kill two birds with one stone” — which originated in China in the 1600s — must be replaced with “feed two birds with one scone.”
The new guide, titled “Evolving From Violent Language,” was created by Anna Taylor, a communications director and “diversity, equity, and inclusion champion” at the technology company Phenomenex.
“The guide is for those who would like to replace mostly violently framed idioms with more positive and inclusive language,” Taylor <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714189/Latest-phrases-branded-offensive-violent-undertones.html">told</a> The Daily Mail.
The guide offers new acceptable phrases:
“I won’t avoid it any longer” for “I’ll bite the bullet.”
“We’re going to launch” for “we’re going to pull the trigger.”
“Can you send me an email?” for “can you shoot me an email?”
“That was a bit excessive” for “that was overkill.”
“Let’s not focus on that anymore” for “let’s not beat a dead horse.”
But wait. It&#8217;ll get dumber. On that, you can count on. The wokesters will never stop.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

Computer monitor and keyboard, chains wrapped around keyboard

Federal Agency Discourages ‘Blacklist,’ ‘Male/Female,’ ‘Master/Slave’

General

Political Correctness

Politics

Whoops. Shouldn&#8217;t have said &#8220;gunning&#8221; in that headline. That&#8217;s violent. Apologies.
Members of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) Language Project — founded by scientists in the U.S. and Canada — have put out a list of &#8220;harmful terminology&#8221; in science that they want banned.
Writing in the Trends in Ecology and Evolution <a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(22)00359-7?rss=yes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">journal</a>, the scientists say they want to &#8220;champion inclusive language&#8221; in science, which is &#8220;particularly important for redressing the ongoing marginalization of many groups.&#8221;
They laid out 24 words and phrases to which they object, and offered replacements.
They don&#8217;t like &#8220;feminized&#8221; or &#8220;masculinized.&#8221; &#8220;Feminized implies that &#8216;feminine&#8217; and &#8216;masculine&#8217; are biological traits rather than social constructs,&#8221; they said. Instead, they suggest writers simply &#8220;describe the specific traits.&#8221;
They don&#8217;t like &#8220;blind&#8221; or &#8220;double blind,&#8221; two kinds of experiments scientists sometimes run. Why? They are &#8220;disability metaphors.&#8221;
&#8220;Survival of the fittest&#8221;? Sorry, Charles Darwin, that phrase implies &#8220;eugenics&#8221; and &#8220;ablelism.&#8221; Instead, they say you should use &#8220;natural selection&#8221; or &#8220;survival differences.&#8221;
And all of these terms are horrible: &#8220;master / master file / master equation / master variable.&#8221;
&#8220;Perpetuates harmful stereotypes and connotations to the enslavement of people of color and normalizes language implicated with slavery and enslaved people,&#8221; the scientists wrote. Instead, use: &#8220;primary / main document / primary equation or variable.&#8221;
Weirdly, they don&#8217;t like the word &#8220;rape,&#8221; either.
&#8220;Equates rape with a reproductive strategy rather than a violent and traumatic act, which can lead to dangerous misconceptions that is a natural behavior, and the use of the term forces survivors to be confronted with it which is traumatic.”
Instead, use &#8220;forced copulation,&#8221; they said. Well, that&#8217;s solved now.
And male/female are right out. &#8220;These terms are used to reinforce societally-imposed ideas of a sex binary, emphasising cis-normative and hetero-normative views.&#8221; Instead, go with &#8220;sperm-producing/egg-producing or XY/XX individual.&#8221;
The project by the scientists follows another, titled &#8220;Evolving From Violent Language,&#8221; which was created by Anna Taylor, a communications director and &#8220;diversity, equity, and inclusion champion&#8221; at technology company Phenomenex.
&#8220;The guide is for those who would like to replace mostly violently framed idioms with more positive and inclusive language,&#8221; Taylor <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714189/Latest-phrases-branded-offensive-violent-undertones.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> The Daily Mail.
The guide offers new acceptable phrases:
<ul>
<li>&#8220;I won&#8217;t avoid it any longer&#8221; for &#8220;I&#8217;ll bite the bullet&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;We&#8217;re going to launch&#8221; for &#8220;we&#8217;re going to pull the trigger&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;Can you send me an email?&#8221; for &#8220;can you shoot me an email?&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;That was a bit excessive&#8221; for &#8220;that was overkill&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;Let&#8217;s not focus on that anymore&#8221; for &#8220;let&#8217;s not beat a dead horse&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;I&#8217;m going to gnosh heartily on those tacos&#8221; for &#8220;Imma murder those tacos&#8221; (OK, we made this one up)</li>
</ul>
The guide drew scorn on social media.
&#8220;Why? What’s the point in &#8216;evolving from violent language&#8217;? And what’s violent about deadline? Because it has dead in it? Death isn’t inherently violent; it’s simply everyone’s final phase. I respect everyone’s trauma but we’re way too sensitive if we can’t handle colloquialisms,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/TracyDontTweet/status/1621469254582140928" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> one user.
Another <a href="https://twitter.com/uwufoxykinz/status/1621201023405547527" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the guide is simply misguided.
&#8220;It just seems like &#8216;evolving from violent language&#8217; when it isn’t even violent language that causes harm to people, detracts from the ACTUAL violent language that IS harming people, eg. racist, misogynistic, homophobic terms and phrases still being used to this day.&#8221;
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

Spectacular wooden cubes with the word WOKE on a wooden surface.

Now Woke Scientists Are Gunning For Words And Phrases They Think Should Be Banned

LGBTQ

Science

U.S.

Wokeness

President Biden referred to new Maryland Democratic governor Wes Moore, the first black governor of his state, as “boy.”
Biden made his remarks before an audience of IBEW union workers.
“You got a hell of a new governor in Wes Moore, I tell ya,” Biden grinned. “He’s the real deal, and the boy looked like he could still play. He got some guns on him.”
Biden routinely uses the term “boy&#8221; to refer to others, as Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-refers-marylands-first-black-governor-racially-charged-term-during-remarks-economy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>, having said of Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), “And Chris Coons, who has the seat I used to hold. Only difference is that he not only has a law degree, he has a divinity degree. The boy can preach.”
He has also said of former U.S. Secretary of the Army Patrick Murphy, “And my buddy, Patrick Murphy, former … Secretary of the Army as well as a former congressman. And the boy stays in shape, man. Look at him.”
Both Coons and Murphy are white.
In August 2021, Biden introduced senior adviser Cedric Richmond, who is black, this way: &#8220;I&#8217;m here with my senior adviser and boy who knows Louisiana very, very well and New Orleans, Cedric Richmond.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Not only does Biden not sound great here, but also called Cedric Richmond &quot;boy,&quot; something the left would lose it if he were a Republican: &quot;I&#39;m here with &#8212; with my senior adviser and boy who knows Louisiana very, very well &#8212; man &#8212; and &#8212; and New Orleans, Cedric Richmond.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/T11qNAGJhu">pic.twitter.com/T11qNAGJhu</a>
&mdash; Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1432401230916169742?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 30, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
In 2019, discussing having worked with segregationists in the Senate in the past, Biden stated, “I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland. He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son.’”
Criticized for his remarks, Biden said, “To the extent that anybody thought that I meant something different, that is not what I intended it. It’d be wrong for anybody to intend that.”
But New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker called on Biden to apologize. “This is about him invoking a terrible power dynamic that he showed a lack of understanding or insensitivity to by invoking this idea that he was called ‘son’ by white segregationists who, yeah, they see in him their son,” he <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-apologizes-comments-segregationist-democrats-criticism/story?id=64169984" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> on ABC’s “This Week.”
Booker added on <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/cory-booker-joe-biden-apologize-cnntv/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CNN</a>, “For his posture to be, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong, you should apologize, I’m not a racist,’ is so insulting and so missing the larger point that he should not have to have explained to him, that this is not a lesson that someone who is running for president of the united states should have to be given.”
<p style="font-weight: 400;" data-uri="archive.cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_21EF9614-6CDD-B4F4-360D-81E16A303136@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-analytics-observe="off">“These are the kind of things that do cause hurt and harm,” Booker added.

President Biden Delivers Remarks On Economy

Biden Calls Maryland’s First Black Governor ‘Boy’

Joe Biden

Maryland

Racism

It&#8217;ll never end.
The liberal language police have come for a slew of terms they deem to be ultra-violent.
And now the ultra-woke are coming for more words and phrases. They abhor &#8220;jump the gun,&#8221; &#8220;roll with the punches&#8221; and even &#8220;deadline,&#8221; claiming they&#8217;re just too &#8220;violent.&#8221;
For the record, the word &#8220;deadline&#8221; was first recorded in 1864 during the Civil War. As both sides captured prisoners of war, a &#8220;do not cross&#8221; line was traced around prisons, and guards were ordered to shoot anyone that might cross the &#8220;dead line.&#8221;
And by the way, &#8220;jump the gun&#8221; has nothing to do with violence. The term comes from sporting contests like foot races, delineating when a runner started too early or &#8220;jumped&#8221; the starting gun.
But never mind all that. The language police have deemed them offensive and demand new softer terms be used. For instance, they say the phrase &#8220;kill two birds with one stone&#8221; &#8212; which originated in China in the 1600s &#8212; must be replaced with &#8220;feed two birds with one scone.&#8221;
The new guide, titled &#8220;Evolving From Violent Language,&#8221; was created by Anna Taylor, a communications director and &#8220;diversity, equity, and inclusion champion&#8221; at technology company Phenomenex.
&#8220;The guide is for those who would like to replace mostly violently framed idioms with more positive and inclusive language,&#8221; Taylor told The Daily Mail.
The guide offers new acceptable phrases:
&#8220;I won&#8217;t avoid it any longer&#8221; for &#8220;I&#8217;ll bite the bullet&#8221;
&#8220;We&#8217;re going to launch&#8221; for &#8220;we&#8217;re going to pull the trigger&#8221;
&#8220;Can you send me an email?&#8221; for &#8220;can you shoot me an email?&#8221;
&#8220;That was a bit excessive&#8221; for &#8220;that was overkill&#8221;
&#8220;Let&#8217;s not focus on that anymore&#8221; for &#8220;let&#8217;s not beat a dead horse&#8221;
The guide drew scorn on social media.
&#8220;Why? What’s the point in &#8216;evolving from violent language&#8217;? And what’s violent about deadline? Because it has dead in it? Death isn’t inherently violent; it’s simply everyone’s final phase. I respect everyone’s trauma but we’re way too sensitive if we can’t handle colloquialisms,&#8221; wrote one <a href="https://twitter.com/TracyDontTweet/status/1621469254582140928">user</a>.
<a href="https://twitter.com/uwufoxykinz/status/1621201023405547527">Another</a> said the guide is simply misguided.
&#8220;It just seems like &#8216;evolving from violent language&#8217; when it isn’t even violent language that causes harm to people, detracts from the ACTUAL violent language that IS harming people, eg. racist, misogynistic, homophobic terms and phrases still being used to this day.&#8221;
Said a <a href="https://twitter.com/LaudadioSi/status/1620618083256913923">third</a>: &#8220;This isn&#8217;t about &#8216;evolving from violent language.&#8217; It&#8217;s about trying to escape the reality of death. You can&#8217;t do it; no need to euphemize it.&#8221;
But one Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/james_f_thomas/status/1620826333780770819">wag</a> said the whole thing is made up.
&#8220;I agree that the Evolving From Violent Language list is probably fake right-wing bait and we shouldn&#8217;t engage with it, but also I did have a coworker who always said &#8216;feed two birds with one scone.'&#8221;
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

Killing two birds with one stone.

Language Police Target ‘Jump The Gun,’ ‘Roll With The Punches’

Woke Language Police Target 'Jump The Gun,' 'Roll With The Punches'

Critics came out in force against the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/grammys">Grammy Awards</a>, complaining that the closed captioning didn’t switch seamlessly between <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/language">English</a> and Spanish while <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/music">artist</a> Bad Bunny was performing.
But many viewers saw this as an overreaction, especially since 78% of the nation speaks English at home compared to 13% who report speaking Spanish at home, per <a href="https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP02">census data</a> in 2021. 
It all started when the massively popular Puerto Rican performing artist took to the stage singing “El Apagón” and “Después de la Playa.” The captions for the East Coast broadcast said, “[SPEAKING NON-ENGLISH]” and “[SINGING IN NON-ENGLISH]” during Bad Bunny’s mashup performance, leading some to accuse the program of “racist” behavior.
“As a Puerto Rican, Latina and Spanish speaker, putting &#8220;[SINGING IN NON-ENGLISH]&#8221; while Bad Bunny (one of the most popular artists in the world) sings in Spanish in a country with millions of Spanish speakers, is IGNORANT and INSULTING. Do better CBS,” one tweet <a href="https://twitter.com/TheAltSource/status/1622437175403896836">said</a>. 
“Bad Bunny wins a Grammy, and when he speaks some Spanish during his acceptance speech the best you can do in the close [sic] captioning is to type “NON-ENGLISH” ?!?!?  Just a little racist,” another account <a href="https://twitter.com/13thgenusa/status/1622420422229725184">agreed</a>. “Do better. Be prepared with a multilingual captionist.”
For every comment slamming CBS and the Grammys for failing to translate the captions into Spanish, there was someone saying it was ridiculous to get so worked up over it.
“Oh Jesus grow up. Stop grasping,” one Twitter post <a href="https://twitter.com/matix1983/status/1622628702763843585">said</a>. “That’s what it says on literally all closed captioning. English is the main language in the USA. The fact he was on the show is amazing. I’ve lived between the USA and Mexico [sic] my entire life. This offends no one I know.”
Others pointed out how captions can be changed to any language, and expecting the English subtitles to switch to other languages wasn’t practical. 
“Go into your televisions [sic] settings, when you do that, change the language to Spanish when you set it up. Just like you do when you get a new iPhone and set the language. Then the captions will be in Spanish or whatever language you want. But I’m sure complaints are just easier,” one Twitter user <a href="https://twitter.com/RobFairchild6/status/1622699962667597827">observed</a>.
“As a Puerto Rican, you spend too much energy on issues that have no impact on your life,” another <a href="https://twitter.com/JulioVe92014484/status/1622805583954079744">said</a>. 
Due to the backlash, CBS quickly rectified the situation by the time the Grammys were rebroadcast in primetime on the West Coast. That show included updated Spanish closed captioning for Bad Bunny’s opening performance, and the on-demand version also includes closed captioning in Spanish, per <a href="https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/bad-bunny-grammys-performance-spanish-closed-captioning-1235514408/">Variety</a>.

65th GRAMMY Awards – Show

Viewers Reject Accusations That Grammys Caption ‘Singing In Non-English’ Was ‘Racist’: ‘This Offends No One’

Viewers Reject Accusations That Grammys Caption 'Singing In Non-English' Was 'Racist'

Entertainment

Grammys

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/associated-press" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associated Press</a> was forced to backtrack after being mercilessly mocked for a tweet instructing journalists not to call French people &#8220;the French.&#8221;
In a tweet posted Thursday morning, the AP Stylebook instructed journalists who work with the organization not to use &#8220;dehumanizing&#8221; collective terms for people, such as &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-poor-the-mentally-ill-the-french-whats-with-the-morons-at-the-associated-press" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the French</a>.&#8221; The tweet was roundly mocked by, among many others, the French Embassy in the United States. The AP walked back its tweet Friday, but that did not make it any better.
“We recommend avoiding general and often dehumanizing ‘the’ labels such as the poor, the mentally ill, the French, the disabled, the college-educated. Instead, use wording such as people with mental illnesses,” the AP Stylebook wrote in the now-deleted tweet. “And use these descriptions only when clearly relevant.”
The tweet was almost immediately and mercilessly mocked by Twitter users on all sides.
&#8220;I agree, these days we probably should label &#8216;the college-educated&#8217; people with mental illnesses instead,&#8221; Daily Wire Editor Emeritus <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1618686125392146433?s=20&amp;t=MruxSUUvDApOvrVDBf2muw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ben Shapiro</a> replied to the AP&#8217;s tweet. &#8220;Also, we should stop calling people &#8216;the French&#8217; and instead call them &#8216;people suffering from cheese-eating surrender monkeyness,’” he added.
&#8220;I agree; &#8216;People suffering from pretension&#8217; is much more humane than simply &#8216;the French,’” <a href="https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1618683702070108160" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Spencer Klavan</a>, associate editor of the Claremont Review of Books, wrote.
&#8220;I believe the correct AP label is ‘the/those f***ing French,’” said comedian <a href="https://twitter.com/jonstewart/status/1618713836311429120" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jon Stewart</a>.
&#8220;My favorite movie is The Connection With Frenchness,&#8221; comedian <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyMcLellan/status/1618673301479636992" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jeremy McClellan</a> tweeted.
&#8220;The AP has declared the word ‘the’ offensive,&#8221; Babylon Bee editor-in-chief <a href="https://twitter.com/The_Kyle_Mann/status/1618981429479895041" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kyle Mann</a> wrote. &#8220;I thought this was a @TheBabylonBee story for a second &#8211; and I run The Babylon Bee.&#8221;
Twitter CEO <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1619066176113606656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1619066176113606656%7Ctwgr%5E87e51ca88097522b05dd64f57dbef464894b1559%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj-3930%2F2023%2F01%2F27%2Felon-musk-has-just-1-question-for-the-ap-after-they-called-the-a-dehumanizing-label-and-bahaha%2F" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Elon Musk</a> even got in on the dogpile. &#8220;So then why do call yourself &#8216;The&#8217; Associated Press 😂,&#8221; Musk tweeted.
The mockery came to a head when none other than the French themselves joined in mocking the AP&#8217;s tweet. &#8220;I guess this is us now&#8230;&#8221; the French Embassy in the United States tweeted, including a screenshot changing its handle to &#8220;Embassy of Frenchness in the US.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I guess this is us now&#8230; <a href="https://t.co/YFybgfI2AB">https://t.co/YFybgfI2AB</a> <a href="https://t.co/LrKvgjiw1X">pic.twitter.com/LrKvgjiw1X</a>
— French Embassy U.S. (@franceintheus) <a href="https://twitter.com/franceintheus/status/1618735330202652672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2023</a></blockquote>
A spokesman for the embassy said they were perplexed by the outlet singling them out. “We just wondered what the alternative to the French would be,” French embassy spokesman Pascal Confavreux told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/27/world/europe/ap-stylebook-the-french.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The New York Times</a>. “I mean, really.”
The Associated Press was forced to delete the tweet and <a href="https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/1619005157508845568" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rework its guidance</a> on Friday. &#8220;We deleted an earlier tweet because of an inappropriate reference to French people,&#8221; AP Stylebook wrote. &#8220;We did not intend to offend.&#8221; The outlet did, however, reaffirm its position that journalists in its collective should not use &#8220;the&#8221; labels for groups of people, because doing so &#8220;can sound dehumanizing and imply a monolith rather than diverse individuals.&#8221; Instead of using terms like &#8220;the mentally ill&#8221; or &#8220;the wealthy,&#8221; the AP Stylebook recommends the use of phrases like &#8220;people with mental illnesses&#8221; or &#8220;wealthy people.&#8221;
But that walk-back was met with even more mockery online.
&#8220;The must be the first time in history that someone has surrendered to the French,&#8221; journalist <a href="https://twitter.com/byDavidGardner/status/1619065439161839617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1619065439161839617%7Ctwgr%5Edfe1044a180a503b4ab0a7d485fd174ad416c809%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2FbyDavidGardner2Fstatus2F1619065439161839617widget%3DTweet" target="_blank" rel="noopener">David Gardner</a> wrote.
&#8220;THE woke!&#8221; Indiana Republican Congressman <a href="https://twitter.com/RepJimBanks/status/1619045401184829441?s=20&amp;t=Is5iATAzbB4UnRNQsgbEiQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jim Banks</a> added.
“‘An inappropriate reference to French people&#8217; is somehow even funnier than anything in the first tweet,&#8221; video game journalist <a href="https://twitter.com/MarioPrime/status/1619018421668290560?s=20&amp;t=6CRrmmSdmv6XzT_R59sFPg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Giovanni Colantonio</a> chimed in.
&#8220;THE Ohio State University has entered into the chat,&#8221; one user added.

Logos Of The World

AP Deletes Cringe Tweet To Not Call The French ‘The French’ After Being Mocked By, Among Others, The French

Associated Press Deletes Cringe Tweet Telling Journalists Not To Call The French 'The French’ After Being Mocked By, Among Others, The French

Associated Press

France

Journalism

Media

Twitter

A biology paper misrepresented data used to support its claim that the field of evolutionary biology discriminates against disabled people, a Daily Wire analysis has found. 
The paper, &#8220;Discussions of the &#8216;Not So Fit&#8217;: How Ableism Limits Diverse Thought and Investigative Potential in Evolutionary Biology,&#8221; <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/720003">published</a> in American Naturalist last year, accused the field of evolutionary biology of &#8220;ableism.&#8221; To demonstrate this, the authors manipulated statistics to give the illusion that the field of evolutionary biology is particularly discriminatory against disabled people by inappropriately comparing rates of disability within evolutionary biology to society generally. 
The paper argues that concepts like &#8220;fitness&#8221; and &#8220;natural selection&#8221; —  foundational to the field of evolutionary biology, which studies the diversification and adaptation of life forms over time — are &#8220;harmful&#8221; and have been &#8220;weaponized against marginalized communities in the modern day.&#8221; And the authors&#8217; thesis is that evolutionary biology’s use of purportedly “ableist” terms and concepts discourages disabled people from studying the field, and is therefore more discriminatory of the disabled than other areas of study. But instead of sampling from other academic disciplines, the authors claim that &#8220;the proportion of disabled evolutionary biologists is far below the population average.&#8221; 
The authors compared a National Center for Science and Engineering Studies (NCSES) statistic that found 8.1% of disabled doctorate recipients in the life sciences with a CDC statistic that found <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html">26%</a> of the US population was disabled. But upon closer inspection, this <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/pdfs/mm6732a3-H.pdf">26%</a> CDC statistic was determined through <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/dhds/data-guide/status-and-types.html">self-reporting</a>, based on a six-question set, and included participants 65 and over who have considerably higher rates of age-related disabilities.
A more representative sample would have been to compare evolutionary biology with other academic fields of study. In fact, the same NCSES <a href="https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22300/data-tables#group1">data set</a> (Table 28) used by the authors included the comparable data of other disciplines and revealed there was little difference between the number of disabled doctorate degree recipients in the life sciences (8.1%) with psychology/social sciences (9.8%), education (8.9%), math/computer science (7.2%), and humanities/arts (11.1%). 
<div id="attachment_489347" style="width: 1786px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-489347" class="wp-image-489347 size-full" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Screen-Shot-2023-01-16-at-10.38.33-AM.png" alt="" width="1776" height="1460" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/01/Screen-Shot-2023-01-16-at-10.38.33-AM.png 1776w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/01/Screen-Shot-2023-01-16-at-10.38.33-AM-300x247.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/01/Screen-Shot-2023-01-16-at-10.38.33-AM-701x576.png 701w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/01/Screen-Shot-2023-01-16-at-10.38.33-AM-768x631.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/01/Screen-Shot-2023-01-16-at-10.38.33-AM-1536x1263.png 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1776px) 100vw, 1776px" />Image provided by NCSES 2020</div>
In addition, the authors cited another <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/evo.14168">study</a> by Rushworth et al comparing the 10.8% disability rate in evolution societies to the 26% CDC statistic, but did not mention that the Rushworth study itself acknowledged a &#8220;more conservative national estimate&#8221; of 12.8% from a more recent US Census.
Evolutionary biology is an intellectually challenging undertaking that often requires a field component to research, so one might expect to find fewer people with cognitive or mobility disabilities pursuing it, but the data shows there is very little disparity between it and other academic fields of study. 
The publication&#8217;s former editor-in-chief, Dan Bolnick, <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/12/29/a-once-respected-biology-journal-indicts-evolutionary-biology-for-ableism/">said</a> that this particular paper was a &#8220;special issue&#8221; that &#8220;invited papers at the intersection of humanities and sciences,&#8221; and that it was reviewed by a &#8220;special team&#8221; that included humanities researchers that did not comprise their &#8220;usual board.&#8221;  
<a href="https://twitter.com/Evolutionistrue">Jerry Coyne</a>, a prolific evolutionary biologist and author of the bestselling book, “Why Evolution Is True,” hosts a website by the same name where he recently <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/12/29/a-once-respected-biology-journal-indicts-evolutionary-biology-for-ableism/">reviewed</a> the paper. 
&#8220;First, it’s one of the more ludicrous examples of science policing I’ve seen,&#8221; opined Coyne, who said he supports accommodations for disabled people to have the same opportunities as others. &#8220;Second, it shows how the American Society of Naturalists, which publishes the journal, has gone down the same woke road as the other ecology and evolution societies.&#8221;
The paper makes several suggestions to rectify evolutionary biology&#8217;s ableist past, which mostly include changes to terminology they deem offensive and providing a chart with alternative language that should be used.
&#8220;According to the authors, the field is rife with words like &#8216;mutant/wild type,&#8217; &#8216;fitness optimum,&#8217; &#8216;mutations&#8217; (we should say &#8216;base pair change&#8217;), and &#8216;optimization,'&#8221; said Coyne. &#8220;The paper ends with a demand — not a request — that we purge evolutionary biology of ableist language.&#8221;
Perhaps most concerning is their call for an overhaul of foundational concepts in evolutionary biology, such as &#8220;fitness.&#8221; Within the context of evolutionary biology, fitness refers to measures of reproductive success, not the condition of an individual organism being physically fit.
&#8220;The authors’ discussion is muddled because they use &#8216;fitness&#8217; as equivalent to &#8216;able-bodied,&#8217; implying that &#8216;lower fitness&#8217; is somehow a slur on the disabled,&#8221; said Coyne. &#8220;In our field, the term was not used to denigrate the disabled, but simply to express the relative number of copies of a given gene variant in the next generation compared to alternative variants of the same gene.&#8221; 
&#8220;The authors also disparage the use of the term &#8216;survival of the fittest&#8217; because, they argue, it not only disparages handicapped people, but has led to social darwinism, a philosophy embraced by capitalists,&#8221; he added.
In addition to ableism, the authors accuse the field of evolutionary biology of eugenics, racism, white supremacy, colonialism, and capitalism. The paper also is peppered with humanities terms like &#8220;unconscious bias&#8221; and &#8220;lived experience,&#8221; and in the acknowledgments section the authors apologized for representing &#8220;white settlers’ perspectives on these issues.&#8221;
&#8220;American Naturalist would be better off if it stuck to its original mission — presenting good science — and stayed away from politics, ideology, and social engineering,&#8221; said Coyne.
The world-famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins shared Coyne’s sentiments regarding the formerly prestigious publication on Twitter. 
&#8220;American Naturalist used to be a great journal,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1608907894497607681?s=20&amp;t=gv4OiBM4UXEFf8NunygHJw">tweeted</a> Dawkins, with a link to Coyne&#8217;s review. &#8220;Very sad. How could they sink so low?&#8221;
Elon Musk took the opportunity to <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1608919969953349634?s=20&amp;t=PTxM1S27w8AEqoDNHa9STA">chime in</a>, &#8220;The woke mind virus is penetrating the firewalls of some of the world’s smartest meat computers at a prodigious rate!&#8221;
The lead author of the paper, Haley Branch, a botany student at the University of British Columbia, <a href="https://twitter.com/HaleyABranch/status/1613683909526712325?s=20&amp;t=o20hPSS-HwTDV5nsbAWI4Q">responded</a> to the criticism on Thursday.
&#8220;I did not expect the onslaught of disrespectful messages,&#8221; said Branch. &#8220;We did not expect the main takeaway to be language policing.&#8221;
Branch, who hopes her research can further &#8220;<a href="https://www.ubyssey.ca/features/our-campus-Haley-Branch/">climate justice</a>,&#8221; revealed in a 2020 social media <a href="https://twitter.com/HaleyABranch/status/1334674976406818818?s=20&amp;t=rNHT1MyZULXKpSFcTFdV7g">post</a> that she didn&#8217;t think of herself or &#8220;identify&#8221; as disabled until &#8220;very recently.&#8221; In fact, she used to be a ballet dancer and practiced 30 hours a week, that is, until she discovered she had Ehler-Danlos syndrome, a connective tissue abnormality that causes flexible joints. In 2020, she formed a <a href="https://www.ubyssey.ca/news/disabled-graduate-student-association/">support group</a> for disabled graduate students and aspires to make academia more &#8220;equitable&#8221; for them.
&#8220;It took until #diagnosis for me to identify, but that was because of lack of allies, support, and ableism,&#8221; said Branch. &#8220;I&#8217;m sad that medical #ableism prevented me from finding my community earlier.&#8221;

back to evolution

New Paper Claims Evolutionary Biology Is ‘Ableist.’ Here’s How It Misrepresented The Data.

They Claimed Evolutionary Biology Was 'Ableist.' Here's How They Misrepresented The Data.

Canada

Chicago

Disability

Health

Medical Research

United States

Stupidity hit a brand new high recently as the USC School of Social Work sent out a <a href="https://twitter.com/houmanhemmati/status/1612635584539033603/photo/1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decree</a> eradicating the word ‘field’ from their curriculum because it is considered anti-black and anti-immigrant.
And all this does is make them anti-smart.
As the statement reads, &#8220;Specifically, we have decided to remove the term &#8216;field&#8217; from our curriculum and practice and replace it with &#8216;practicum.'&#8221;
They&#8217;re going to replace it with the word &#8216;practicum&#8217; — which sounds like some kind of spell you learn at Hogwarts. 
How does this tie into sports, you ask? Well, if we ban the word ‘field’ it will without a doubt have a direct effect on the world of sports.
What would we call our practice field? “Hey guys, make sure you are on the practicum on time.”
What in the hell is Justin Fields going to do?
Today, athletes compete in track and field. So now we have track and … practicum?
Don’t forget all of the stadiums that have the dirty ‘f’ word in them have to change too; can’t wait to catch a game at Lambeau Practicum.
The truth is nobody has ever been hurt by the word field, just like they aren’t hurt by mascots like the Braves, Indians, or Redskins. These same people who think they’re helping end racism aren’t smart enough to know they’re actually helping keep it alive. There is racism of all forms. It exists against black, white, brown, and every other group. But when we keep inventing ways to talk about it because it’s hip, it only fuels the fire.
Where racism exists we should not only disavow it but erase it. Instead we only add branches to an already sick tree.
So, no, USC Social School of Social Work, I won’t stop using the word field. In fact, I am going to make a concentrated effort to use it more.
Stop playing stupid games with serious things — and believe me when I say … THIS AIN’T IT.
Jake Crain is co-host of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/crain-and-company" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;Crain &amp; Company.&#8221;</a> the Daily Wire&#8217;s sports show hosted by former athletes and coaches Jake Crain, Blain Crain, and David Cone. Follow him @JakeCrain_
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

University of Southern California campus, Los Angeles, California, USA

Banning The Word ‘Field’ Is Ridiculous

Crain &amp; Company

Have you ever aspired to be the best in your field? Did you ever refer to doing a job outside of the office as &#8220;field work?&#8221;
Are you wondering why these questions seem so out of left field for a Daily Wire column?
Well, if you answered yes to any of those questions, then you may unwittingly be promoting racism and bigotry — according to the University of Southern California School of Social Work.
It seems wokeness knows no bounds — which is entirely the point of those who promote it. They have no limit in their zeal to assert power and are willing to coerce you into following along with their plan.
On January 9, the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work sent an email to faculty, staff, and students notifying them that the department has new speech code guidelines in order to ensure &#8220;inclusive language and practice.&#8221;
&#8220;Specifically, we have decided to remove the term &#8216;field,&#8217; from our curriculum and practice and replace it with &#8216;practicum,'&#8221; the letter <a href="https://twitter.com/houmanhemmati/status/1612635584539033603" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explained</a>.
What is so egregious about the word &#8220;field&#8221;? Well, according to the brainiacs out on the West Coast, it is offensive to black and immigrants everywhere.
&#8220;Language can be powerful, and phrases such as &#8216;going into the field&#8217; or &#8216;fieldwork&#8217; may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign,&#8221; according to the letter.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Another perfectly good word is being canceled: The USC School of Social Work is nixing the word “field” as in “field work” &amp; “going into the field.” USC thinks this has something to do with white supremacy. Please stop. <a href="https://t.co/4AzzrJ3tV8">pic.twitter.com/4AzzrJ3tV8</a>
&mdash; Gail Heriot (@GailHeriot) <a href="https://twitter.com/GailHeriot/status/1613043428820148224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If a word isn&#8217;t &#8220;benign&#8221; that would mean it is malignant. Per the letter sent around, the word &#8220;field&#8221; is so malevolent that merely using it promotes &#8220;white supremacy, anti-immigrant and anti-blackness ideologies.&#8221;
So, the school is beginning to put its words into action by banning the term altogether.
In doing so, of course, they are unwittingly revealing their own racism by implying that only black people and immigrants work in &#8220;fields.&#8221; It doesn&#8217;t need to be said, but of course, every civilization on earth has had &#8220;fields&#8221; in one form or another and somebody who worked there.
This would be like saying we need to ban the word &#8220;trade&#8221; because of the &#8220;slave trade.&#8221;
If you&#8217;re thinking that this makes no sense, then you&#8217;re forgetting that the point isn&#8217;t to be logical for Leftists. It never is.
The Left&#8217;s goal is complete and total domination of every aspect of American life in order to create a collectivist nation.
The department is absolutely correct: &#8220;Words are powerful &#8230;&#8221;
If you can <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/stanfords-new-harmful-word-list-is-right-out-of-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-playbook-from-50-years-ago" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ban certain words</a>, then you can control thought and language. If you can dictate the way citizens in a country speak and think, then you can dominate them into submitting to whatever your goals are.
As previously discussed, the Left has known that fact of life for quite some time. The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg was one of the foremost advocates of changing the entire U.S. code to neuter it completely of gender.
Well, it&#8217;s time that conservatives level the playing field. Put another way, let&#8217;s leave it all on the field and play to win. One person, for example, who is playing for keeps is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. DeSantis recently appointed six non-woke, conservatives to the Board of Trustees at the New College of Florida— a public liberal arts college.
It seems the goal with such appointments is to alter the direction of the school in order to stop the diversity, equity, and inclusion nonsense in its tracks while replacing it with something that actually benefits society and the American way of life.
Those individuals have to be confirmed by the state Senate, but it&#8217;s already ruffling feathers.
In response, one alumnus told The Daily Beast that &#8220;he remembers when conservative board members would push for more changes on the margins — such as better job placement for students — rather than fundamental restructuring of the school’s values.&#8221;
https://twitter.com/TimMeadsUSA/status/1612898965891973121?s=20&#038;t=pD1Uss6rwKOJ_mHOGcmwow
The simple response to that is: New rules, pal.
The old ways weren&#8217;t cutting it, and it&#8217;s how we ended up with nonsense such as banning the word &#8220;field&#8221; while demonizing anybody who disagrees with that.
In short, the latest attempt to bastardize the English language coming out of USC&#8217;s School of Social Work should be rejected wholeheartedly.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Why? Stock photo

Out Of Left Field: USC’s School Of Social Work Bans The Word ‘Field’ Because It’s Racist, Apparently

Out Of Left Field: USC's School Of Social Work Bans The Word 'Field' Because It's Racist, Apparently

Academia

California

Education

University of Southern California

Menu