Ricky Gervais told a joke that made journalists cry
The Manchester Evening News ran a story claiming the comedian Ricky Gervais has suffered “a huge backlash” over a joke. The only problem was that there wasn’t that much backlash. Also, it’s a hilarious joke.
In fact, most of the responses to the tweet were laudatory, laughing emojis and gifs. The “backlash” was based in the journalistic bad habit of journalists finding a few Twitter accounts here and there that post distaste for something and then claiming that those couple of dissatisfied remarks quantifies a thorough backlash. It doesn’t.
A joke like Gervais’ isn’t controversial—it’s actually speaking truth to power. Gervais was vocal throughout the media coverage of Yaniv’s case over the summer. One wonders how a comic like Gervais would have been able to keep even the illusion of a straight face over a story about a woman who demanded that other people wax her balls.
It was with the full backing of legislation that Yaniv was able to harass women small business owners and bring the absurd charges. Yaniv received all of the protections under the law, complete with privacy of her name, until she revealed it herself all over social media, and the media ban on Yaniv’s identity was lifted.
Yaniv, as everyone is thankfully now aware, is emblematic of the abuse of the system that is now possible if you are from a protected class. This is why the definition of protected classes cannot include those who claim to be oppressed based on a conflation of identities that are void of any basis in biological reality.
The fact that Manchester Evening News journalist Helen Carter refers to both Yaniv (the jerk who tried to force immigrant women to touch his hairy dick and balls and then punished them when they refused by running them out of business) and Gervais (the man who simply made fun of the jerk) as equally “divisive” tells you all you need to know about her agenda.
Carter mischaracterizes Yaniv’s complaint, as well, writing that “while the tweet could have been regarded as offensive at face value, it was in relation to Jessica’s fight after trying—and failing to find a beauty salon in Canada willing to wax her male intimate area.” This is not quite the story. Yaniv sought out small business owners instead of taking her hairy balls to any of the Vancouver salons that specialize in male waxing.
Yaniv lost her case to force estheticians to wax her balls, but as Carter notes, has vowed to continue her fight for transgender rights. Perhaps the next step can be prohibiting any jokes about the absurdity of her original undertaking, or the myriad women she’s had banned from social media platforms for speaking honestly about her gender conundrum, or making sure that more leftists are blinded by their own compassion into ignoring the very serious problems this kind of inquest entails.
It would be unkind to tell a comedian that he can’t make a joke about a lady who wants to wax her balls. At some point, we have to admit that shutting off our critical faculties just so that we can force ourselves to believe that which we know is untrue, namely that ladies don’t have scrotums, is not reasonable. Gervais refused to lie to himself, and we should all do so as well.
In The Spectator, the great Twitter troll Jarvis DuPont takes all those who would bemoan Gervais’ joke to task “Despite how many times [Gervais] is educated by people with their pronouns listed in their Twitter, this only appears to make him more impervious to criticism.” He’s being sarcastic, for all those wokesters who couldn’t tell.
What we assume Carter meant to say was that there was “a huge backlash” in her gated community of elite establishment media friends who fritter away their days patting themselves on the back for the empty virtue-signalling and shrill woke-scolding they perform in 800-word think pieces day in and day out. Gervais is not the problem. Even Yaniv is not the problem. The problem is the preponderance of people wagging their fingers and telling us what is and isn’t funny.
We’re thankful for Gervais. Not only is he one of the brave comedians who will actually stand up to political correctness and the excesses of identity politics, but he consistently reminds us of how we will eventually win this wretched culture war. The key is to never stop laughing.
Shortly after Don Cherry’s comments emerged and the leftist elites started ginning up controversy about it, I pointed out that the vast silent majority of Canadians agree with the sentiments Cherry was expressing.
Cherry himself pointed that out himself when he spoke to some of the media following his firing.
And it became very clear how much support Cherry had as social media exploded with expressions of backing for Cherry, and outrage towards his totally unjustified firing.
Yet, that explosion was also matched by the massive nationwide outrage towards Jess Allen of The Social, who made clearly bigoted remarks about hockey fans and players being “white boys” who “weren’t very nice.”
Then, instead of doing the right thing and firing Allen, CTV made clear that she would stay in her job, even as the family of a Humboldt Broncos crash survivor said they would boycott the network.
Allen even doubled down, refusing to retract her comments.
For a long-time, patriotic Canadians have been saying there is a double-standard, where anyone who upsets the tiny (but loud) far-left outrage mob gets silenced and cancelled, while those who attack the very foundation of Canada (like insulting hockey, accusing Canada of genocide, denigrating Canadian patriotism), get to stay in their jobs and even get rewarded.
Some dismissed complaints of a double-standard as the usual partisan disagreements, and the silent majority remained silent.
But now, it’s clear something is happening in this country.
The silent majority is waking up and speaking up.
In the last few days, the reaction to Jess Allen’s comments has been unlike anything seen before in this country. Canadians of all backgrounds have finally had enough of the corrupt elites tearing down everything we love about Canada, and regular Canadians are pushing back like never before.
This has the feeling of a lasting change, with millions of Canadians really seeing for the first time how deeply corrupted and biased the establishment press has become.
We have seen that those in power in the media will listen to a tiny politically-correct outrage mob and fire Don Cherry, yet won’t listen to millions of hockey fans, hockey families, and patriotic Canadians when we demand that Allen be fired.
The hypocrisy and double standard are undeniable.
Now, there is no going back.
With the elites exposed like never before, with the anti-Canadian agenda and rhetoric of the far-left no longer even hidden behind any kind of pretense, Canada is descending into a full-blown culture war.
And that’s exactly what the far-left fears the most because until now, the culture war was one-sided, with only the left fighting and winning over and over again.
Now, the tables have turned, and it’s a real battle for the soul of our country.
The famed hockey player, Bobby Orr, has defended Don Cherry, saying that his firing by Sportsnet was disgraceful, according to The Score.
Speaking to WEEI, Orr stated that he knew Cherry better then anyone. “He’s not a bigot and he’s not a racist. This guy is the most generous, caring guy that I know.”
Orr’s comments come after a Remembrance Day rant on Coaches Corner, where Cherry said “You people that come here, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you can pay a couple of bucks for poppies or something like that.”
Some commentators believed that Cherry was referring to inner-city immigrants of colour, despite the fact that the hockey icon has often used the term “you people” to describe his viewers.
Cherry was fired on Remembrance Day, which Orr saw as being additionally insulting due to Cherry’s advocacy for Canadian veterans. “What they’ve done to him up there is disgraceful. It really is,” Orr continued.
Cherry coached Orr for two years when he played for the Boston Bruins. Cherry has called Orr his favourite player of all time.
Former Toronto Maple Leafs player Nazem Kadri told reporters Tuesday he also thinks Cherry’s statements were taken out of context.
“[Cherry] has been there for so long, it’s going to be hard to see [Coach’s Corner] without him, that’s definitely unfortunate. I know Grapes and I don’t think it came across like everyone is making it sound. I think with what he said, it was maybe just said incorrectly. People maybe took it out of context a little bit. I know Grapes is a great person and am sad to see him go.”
“Sometimes a scandal isn’t just a scandal, but a biopsy of a society,” said the British author Douglas Murray earlier this year. This apercu was coined in his reporting on the scandal that involved the indomitable philosopher, Roger Scruton, who was fired from his position in the British government for things he never said. This was the product of the crafty editing skills of George Eaton, who distorted Scruton’s responses to make him look like all kinds of politically incorrect bugaboos.
Though the context and character are different, Murray’s phrase can apply to the non-ceremonial ousting of Canada’s beloved curmudgeon, Don Cherry. His defenestration carries with it all the great features of the perfect cancelling. One of them is perhaps the most aggravating: false outrage over things that a few years ago might have disturbed the overly sensitive, but the effects would have been momentary. It would have blown over after a day or two. People would have quickly gained their composure and moved on and left the octogenarian to his work, which many Canadians enjoy. And yes, his cantankerous demeanour is among the many reasons why this has been the case for decades.
But, unfortunately, the culture we’re living in rewards outrage to the point that people will pursue it for the sake of social validation and to feed their own egomania; they’re supposed compassion for the “violated” comes off so contrived and convenient as to be nauseating. Particularly since the things upon which they train their sights are often as frivolous as a sports broadcaster expressing his concerns over people not wearing poppies. One can’t help but take notice of the façade being showcased by many, since if we were to suggest that they do something that would actually make their outrage worthwhile—such as donating property to an immigrant Cherry ostensibly violated—they’d likely disappear quickly from their podium of virtue. When Cherry was on his show earlier this week, Tucker Carlson said that these people are “fascists” with no feelings and are using their “outrage” to “exert power.”
We certainly can argue over the applicability of the word “fascist,” but the gist of what Carlson said is accurate. With the most cursory reading of the avalanche of denouncements, it’d not be far-fetched to assert that many deep down aren’t really that appalled by Don Cherry’s comments. For with the advent of social media, these people have developed even more of an addiction to attaining instant approval from their peers and, upon seeing where the wind is blowing, have shifted their focus to satisfying this addiction through the pursuit of superficial causes they likely weren’t interested in until an hour ago.
What this has created is a generation of moral narcissists who engage in performative outrage, treating takedowns of old-timers like Don Cherry as some great act of bravery and something for which they are owed adulation. They operate in a non-existent universe in which they have had no moments of indiscretion, and they arrogantly impose their new standards of perfection onto people for offences past and present. In a sober-minded world, they’d likely be left standing on a corner rambling like a crazed wing nut and attract only a few supporters. But social media provides them with an obsequious, like-minded tribe who will readily applaud their every utterance and provide them with a constant dose of self-satisfaction.
In a new article for the Atlantic with the fitting title, “The Dark Psychology of Social Networks,” Jonathan Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell provide one of the most insightful analyses of this social malaise. They argue that people have become susceptible to this contagion of “fake outrage” as social media has transformed “communication into a public performance.” The lack of intimacy in the Twittersphere makes interaction with others entirely based upon outdoing the next person with their “grandstanding” and scrutinizing of others instead of actually making an attempt to connect with people by productive, two-way communication. “ Nuance and truth are casualties in this competition to gain the approval of an audience,” they observe. “Grandstanders scrutinize every word spoken by their opponents—and sometimes even their friends—for the potential to evoke public outrage. Context collapses. The intent of the speaker is ignored.”
With the immediate consumption of mass information, people have lost touch with ideas and principles that have long sustained civil society and have come to see little value in learning about them, while becoming obsessed with dim-witted fights. “Even though they have unprecedented access to all that has ever been written and digitized,” Haidt and Rose-Stockwell write, “members of Gen Z (those born after 1995 or so) may find themselves less familiar with the accumulated wisdom of humanity than any recent generation, and therefore more prone to embrace ideas that bring social prestige within their immediate network yet are ultimately misguided.”
These people deprive themselves of the timeless values that would restrain them—such as reason, curiosity, truth, giving others the benefit of the doubt, decency, pluralism, among others.
People, such as those on The Social, instead become dog whistle specialists, who are incredibly precise when it comes to reading minds and confirming one’s motives without any further questions. They then claim it as evidence of a much larger crisis, though the only ones really “taking offence” are the cultural elitists in the major metropolitans and their Twitter legion of moral narcissists desperate to profit off of outrage.
Don Cherry is only the latest casualty of this insidious enterprise.
The far-left extremist group Antifa receives support from The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAN). They have also commended and disseminated far-left conspiracy theories.
In an article in The Federalist, CAN’s relationship with Antifa was uncovered, in which the organization’s members were found to be supporting Antifa by advising and protecting the extremist group in the media.
The latest example involved free-speech rally in Hamilton that took place on Mohawk College’s campus. The event was organized jointly by Dave Rubin and Maxime Bernier. Before the rally was held, a member of CAN published an op-ed in a local newspaper where they demanded the group be de-platformed. This was because the rally was allegedly “ushering people into the neo-Nazi movement.”
Following this op-ed, Rubin claims Antifa activists threatened the venue and its participants, resulting in higher security costs.
“They absolutely got threats which is why the security fee was increased. Also at the event itself there were clearly plenty of threats outside,” Rubin told The Post Millennial.
College spokesperson Bill Steinburg told the CBC Mohawk did not receive any threats to cancel the event.
When the rally began, Antifa activists appeared and subsequently gained nation-wide attention when they refused to allow an elderly woman with a walker to cross the street. They did so by blocking her path so they had sufficient time to scream, “nazi scum” at her. They refused to listen to the women and were thus unaware that her family had fought against the Nazis in World War Two.
When The Post Millennial approached CAN for a comment, they responded by saying that the op-ed “wasn’t what alerted anti-fascists to the event. Organizing was already underway–which we had absolutely no involvement with.” The CAN spokesman went on to say that “I didn’t say the rally was ushering people to neo-Nazism, but that a study analyzing 79 million comments and 330,000 videos found that Rubin is part of a radicalization process on Youtube … my intention in the op-ed is quite obviously to have Mohawk make the principled decision not to host the event.”
CAN’s executive director Evan Balgord has also provided advice to the extremist group, stating that they should be “media aware” in response to the group harassing an elderly woman. When The Post Millennial approached Balgord for comment, he did not address the tweet, stating instead that he “condemned what happened.”
More seriously, however, the Chairman of the CAN, Bernie Farber, praised a journalist’s lauding of Antifa’s “muscular resistance”.
When Balgord was asked about the allegation from The Federalist that Farber himself praised Anitfa’s use of “muscular resistance,” he said, “Bernie didn’t say that. You’re quoting Bernie [Farber] quoting [another journalist]. Further, muscular does not necessarily equal violence. Farber is quite explicitly anti-violence, and any implication to the contrary is defamatory.”
Nevertheless, Farber quoted the journalist’s comments and then went on to praise the journalist who said it, saying “the understanding [the journalist] brings to a difficult issue is well worth your read.”
Farber has also been tied to people who promote extremist ideology and has protected individuals who preach hate. Earlier this October, for instance, Farber spoke at an event with Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) speakers, which has been described by Canadian Jewish advocacy group B’nai Brith as a “hateful and racist movement that singles out Israel.” The Centre for Israel and Jewish affairs describes BDS as “antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism.”
Additionally, Farber has regularly defended allegedly anti-Semitic individuals. In one case, Farber stated that an Imam who said “slay them one by one and spare not one of them. Oh Allah! Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews,” had been treated unfairly.
When approached with this, the CAN spokesman said “At the time it was believed to be a mistranslation–I don’t know that it’s possible to know the truth of that one way or another given the different interpretations by different linguists … that’s the information Bernie [Farber] had.”
Balgord has a history of defending Antifa. In a blog post, he defended the amorphous organization by stating that there were “many examples of anti-fascists (Antifa) using violence to protect other protesters.” Balgord proceeded to state that the media presented “a distorted image of the movement.” He also co-wrote an article for Rabble with Kevin Metcalf, one of the protesters arrested by Hamilton Police three weeks ago for allegedly attacking a man at the aforementioned free speech rally.
In response to this, Balgord stated that he was a “proud supporter of the anti-fascist movement [not to be confused with the extremist Antifa group]. The vast majority of violence at the many Canadian demonstrations I have attended or reviewed footage of is began [sic] by supporters and sympathizers of hate groups, not anti-fascists.”
On writing an article with Metcalf, Balgord stated that “Metcalf is not affiliated with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, but I wish him the best of luck with his charges.”
For some context, U.S. Antifa has assaulted prominent journalist Andy Ngo (who is also now The Post Millennial’s Editor-at-large), leaving him with a brain bleed. The Canadian branch of Antifa has also attacked independent journalists in Quebec City. In response to this event, Antifa stated that “sometimes, it is necessary to go against what the mainstream considers ‘acceptable,’ to break the law in order to do the ethical thing.”
South of the Canadian border, Antifa has been criticized for its intimidation of broadcasters with the intent to de-platform speakers. They are also known to disseminate malicious conspiracy theories and attack innocent bystanders. Public intellectual Noam Chomsky has described Antifa as a “major gift” to the right.
Concerning the malicious conspiracy theories, the “Yellow Vests Exposed group,” who call themselves “CAN contributors,” have also encouraged outlandish conspiracy theories. This includes the organization repeatedly stating that “Andy Ngo is a threat to our community and provides kill lists to Atomwaffen” on Twitter without any evidence.
Balgord stood by these unproven claims. “It [was] not a conspiracy. Andy Ngo is dangerous and by pushing that non-study he got journalists on a kill list.”
This conspiracy theory has been widely disproven. Claire Lehmann, the editor of the magazine that published this article, has gone on record stating that “Andy Ngo played no role in the production of this article.” As well as this, Lehmann stated that “the whole situation is absurd … and [the kill list] has no connection to Quillette.”
CAN are only too eager to label conservative figures and groups as “far-right.” In a report, for instance, CAN stated that there were 300 hate groups in Canada. According to their arithmetic, there are 160 percent more hate groups in Canada than the U.S. per capita.
Clarification: An earlier version of this article claimed Mohawk College received threats before the Rubin interview with Bernier took place on the campus, in part from an op-ed written by CAN’s Evan Balgord. Balgord brought to The Post Millennial‘s attention that Mohawk College spokesperson Bill Steinburg told CBC there were no threats received. Rubin maintains otherwise, telling The Post Millennial: “They absolutely got threats which is why the security fee was increased. Also at the event itself there were clearly plenty of threats outside.” All of this has been added to the article to clarify the differing accounts of what happened.