Adam’s comment > Likes and Comments
2 likes · Like
One school where they were having racial tensions. Which translates to these kids were probably wearing the shirts to incite, and not to show patriotism.
Actually, only the term "political correctness" has its roots in Marxism. What we know as PCness today did very much begin as a movement to try and promote sensitivity, but which has since been branded as PC by conservative minds looking to discredit it. And in that respect, you show the same kind of reactionary temperament as they did, since you are clearly responding to my comments with in an irrational, knee-jerk reaction.
And would you care to back up these ridiculous claims up with any real proof? Who was arrested in the UK for quoting Churchill? When, if ever, are American flags being banned? Are these really happening, or are they the kind of internet myths narrow minds easily believe so they can convince themselves the world is closing in around them?
@Matthew The American flag being banned is (probably) in relations to this incident at a school: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/justice...
Man in UK arrest: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lo...
So in other words, a man was arrested for quoting from a book by Churchill that criticized Islam and was then arrested for not complying with officer's orders to desist then? And a school banned its students from wearing American flag t-shirts on cinqo de Mayo? Can't say I totally agree with that latter decision, but in both cases, its hardly the vast oversimplification you stated thecryptile.
And thank you Jori for providing the links. It's always excellent when someone puts things into context.
Where's the sensitivity for Traditional Values? Non-existent amongst the PC ilk.
Political Correctness is a means by which the Left attempts to define public discourse-- criticism of Christians is politically correct , criticism of Muslims for the same thing isn't. Phil Robertson says gays are sinful-- he's a monster. Muslim clerics sentence gays to death and the Left looks the other way. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
As for the school, it's the celebration of the May 5 non-holiday that is causing the problems, not the American students. Why aren't we counseling the Mexican students to show a little sensitivity?
Here we go again with the double-standards talk. We've already shown how your examples don't conform, cryptile. And now you're just offering generalized statements without any proof. No one condones homophobia if it comes from Islam. And as for your May 5th example, how was the holiday causing problems? American students protesting it being celebrated because of the same prejudices you cling to. They were overruled.
My examples don't conform with your narrative, but they do conform with reality.
I didn't say that Leftists condone Islamic bigotry- I said you ignore it in favor of attacking Christians.
How was the May 5 non-holiday causing problems? In 2009, Mexican students at that school attacked American students for daring to wear the flag of their own country! So violent disruptive attacks resulted from the school allowing the observance of the May 5 non-holiday.
The school allows the Mexican students to display their flags and forbids the American students from displaying ours. That's a clear double standard.
I like how you equate American patriotism with "prejudice" but exempt Mexican pseudo-patriotism (the May 5 holiday isn't a big deal in Mexico). That's another double standard.
Of course the Left-leaning PC 9th Circuit Court agrees with you and overruled the patriotic American students, as I said originally the whole point of political correctness is to allow the Left to define public discourse and push for Lefty policies.
If political correctness really were about showing sensitivity to others, then the Mexican students would be admonished to show some sensitivity to the American students. They weren't and won't be- because that's not what it's about.
They really don't, cryptophile. They are based on nothing more than your interpretation of them, which is based on an incredibly slanted reading of them which is taken completely out of context. Let me show you how:
1. For starters, you said nothing about Christmas or any attacks on it. You claimed there was a double-standard when it came to homophobia between Christianity and Islam. Show me where the Left has ignored homophobia in the name of PCness if you can. And fyi, the whole "war on Christmas" bit is a tired one. The conservative right claims that secularism has gone made by using the more inclusive "happy holidays". Interpreting this as attack is nothing more the n a weak attempt to claim persecution.
2. How was May 5th or students wanting to celebrate it a problem? How does Mexican-Americans wanting to celebrate a cultural holiday "insensitive" to you or these students? Does it offend you or impede on your right? Are people to give up all traces of their own culture when they move to America? Do you have something against St. Patrick's Day too? What about Hanukkah?
3. Of course you would say the students who did this were patriotic and standing up for America. In your mind, these boys were the victims. But if you bothered to read up on the example you provided, you would see that this school was renowned for racial tensions and violence, and the boys intended this to be an insult to the Mexican students. Much like your example about the English man arrested for quoting Churchill, you neglected to leave out all the relevant details.
4. The 9th Circuit Court agreed with the school's decision to uphold the suspension because it was recognized, like any thinking person, that the students were motivated by intolerance. Therefore, no violation of their rights was committed by asking them remove their shirts. For you to say that this was somehow unjust is weak at best, because if they hadn't upheld the suspension, they would be saying that its not right for Americans who come from other cultures to celebrate their own holidays and not be admonished for doing so. Any fool can see that's hardly a fair decision.
Got any more examples cryptile, because if you've noticed, Jori and I have effectively undermined then by showing that the people you claimed were victims were themselves prosecutorial. But that is the way this works for you, isn't it? It's always somehow the attackers who are the victims and the intolerant ones who are being abused.
1. I never said anything about Christmas. You are Making Things Up.
2. There is a clear double standard between the PC media's treatment of Christians and Muslims. Those who criticize radical Islam are branded "Islamophobes". Those who denigrate Christianity aren't branded "Christophobes".
3. The Mexican students attacked the American students, not the other way around as you keep insisting. Attacking folks for displaying our flag in our country is very offensive to me. The Mexican students chose to be insulted. Presumably, they are American citizens as well, so why should the sight of an American flag fill them with paroxysms of rage? It takes two to tango. The Mexican students contribute to the racial tensions, yet only the American students are muzzled. By all means, let the Mexican students celebrate their non-holiday-- at home. The school doesn't celebrate St. Patrick's day, or Hanukkah, so why must it sponsor May 5?
4. It's okay to muzzle the intolerant you say? What about those who are anti-religion? Surely if political correctness is about being sensitive to others and their feelings, those who attack the deeply held beliefs of the majority of the world should hold their tongues to avoid giving offense. Yet, you seem fine with admonishing the religious for celebrating their culture. It's like you have a Double-Standard!
Lets see you spin this into "tolerance" and "sensitivity to others": Porn Professor Mireille Miller-Young of UCSB attacked a group of pro-life demonstrators in the university's so-called "Free Speech Zone", injuring a 16 year old girl and stealing a sign. I guess that's just being "sensitive to others" in your little politically correct world!
Political Correctness was never about sensitivity to others-- it has always been about the Radical Left attempting to control the public discourse
I'm glad you brought up St. Patrick's Day, Mat.
The PC attitude towards St. Patrick's Day parades is the inverse of the PC attitude about May 5. Why shouldn't the Mexican students be forced to include American students and their symbols, as the Irish Catholics are forced to include LGBT activists?
I see cogent observations on both sides of this little tiff. Me, I don't ascribe PC to either Right or Left; and I don't think it matters much where it began or why. It is clearly (now) a massive problem --a tool being misused mostly by special-interest groups wanting to game the system--and certainly something that Orwell would have seen as dangerous.
So we met with your approval? Good for us!
Feliks, it does matter how it began. PCness is weapon the Left wields with aplomb to destroy our freedom and our culture. They attempt to ban speech and reject freedom of association. The Right has other tools to enforce group loyalty, such as patriotism.
Mat-- I'm curious as to why it's PC for Mexicans to attack and exclude Americans in their celebrations, but Irish Catholics are forced to include gays in theirs. If you fail to respond, I'll conclude that you know that PCness is a sham that has nothing to with sensitivity to others and everything to do with pushing a radical anti-Christian, anti-American agenda.
Williams Once again, your arguments are based on false examples, thecryptile. Mexicans celebrating Cinqo de Mayo excludes no one, nor is it an attack on American values. The only reason you think that is because of your bigoted mentality that sees culture different than your own as a threat.
As for Irish Catholics being forced to allow gays, yet another false example. St. Patrick's Day parades have routinely banned gay people and groups from marching in them and the only response was boycotts from companies that didn't want to be associated with their bigotry. They were never forced by law to alter their arrangements, because to do so would violate their rights.
And yet, people like yourself continue to insist that this kind of force is taking place, but its nothing more than your attempt to try and pretend that you are somehow not the bad guys. You are the ones being intolerant and refusing others the right to celebrate their own holidays or participate in public events.
If this is seriously the best you can do, I will conclude that you are nothing more than a hypocrite who claims that people criticizing you for your intolerance and ignorance is an attack on your freedom of speech. But freedom of speech does not mean you are immune from disagreement or criticism for your views. So how about you stop crying about your rights and start taking responsibility or your own, deplorable behavior for once?
The Mexican students PHYSICALLY ASSUALTED other students. That might not be "an attack on American values" in your mind, but it's an attack on American people in anyone's book.
You refuse to answer the May 5/St. Patrick's Day dichotomy, pretending that just because courts haven't intervened yet to abrogate Irish Catholics' Freedom of Association that there is no double-standard. Yet, Irish Catholics are still called upon to include non-Irish non-Catholic gays-- and Mexican students succeeded in banning the display of the American flag in an American school.
I never claimed that your ignorance violated my rights in any way. It's the ignorance of the 9th Circuit court that violated the rights of patriotic young Americans.
You say that force isn't used to push the PC agenda-- yet we've both seen the arrest of the UK man, the Porn Professor attacking children, the ousting of Eich from Firefox etc.
If supporting Liberty, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association is "deplorable behavior", I proudly take full responsibility.
The true hypocrites are prog thugs who claim to embrace diversity and tolerance yet refuse to tolerate divergent views. We've seen a run of the tolerant types blacklisting conservative commencement speakers, I guess "diversity" is only skin deep.
It seems to me, thecryptile, as if the only thing supporting your case is that, yes, there is more pressure on right-wing nationalism in western countries than in for example Latin American countries.
You are, of course, free to think that this is a bad thing, but your claims about St.Patrick's day are simply not true - the LGBT-movement are still left out.
"The Mexican students PHYSICALLY ASSUALTED other students" -- This is about the 2009 Morgan Hill episode, right? The one where a group of teenagers wearing/waving Mexican flags in celebration of Cinco de Mayo were accosted by another group of teenagers who waved an American flag and chanted "USA! USA! USA!"?
Don't bother. He has a rather hostile relationship with factual evidence. In his mind, the boys waving the American flag were patriots and heroes, and the Mexicans the racists.
I just didn't want to confuse it with the time a group of teenagers waving an American flag on July Fourth were accosted by a group of teenagers waving a Mexican flag and yelling "Viva Zapata!"
Oh wait, that didn't happen.
Good one! But for all his guffawing, thecryptile comments have been informative in one respect. They demonstrate quite perfectly that the first defense of people who are attacking others is to claim that they are the ones under attack.
Well, compared to how priviliged conservatives used to be, I can understand that they feel like they're under attack. Their problem is just that, well, that's not the way things are going, something they seem to have a hard time accepting.
Reminds me of a good quote: "It reminds me of a simpler time when white males had all the power, instead of most of it."
Ah, the good old times. Glad they're over - If born in the 1800's, I would probably just have ended up as an alcoholic fisherman or something. No bitterness on my behalf.
Actually, being an alcoholic fisherman doesn't sound all that bad. Where do I sign?
How does the American flag hurt Mexicans? How do Churchill's words hurt Muslims? They don't yet our flag was banned in our country, and an MP was arrested.
Mexicans assault Americans, Jihadists decapitate Britons-- but in your mind, it's conservatives who are to blame.
You claim that traditional values aren't under attack even as you attack them. It's true that "the first defense of people who are attacking others is to claim that they are the ones under attack" which is why you frame conservatives exercising their Free Speech rights as an attack. The Porn Professor did the same thing when she assaulted a 16y.o. girl for daring to voice her pro-life convictions.
Political correctness isn't about sensitivity to others. It never was. It's a form of Soviet agitprop, used as a weapon in the Culture Wars.
Wait, I lost track. Who is the "you" again? And who is "our", for that matter.
thecryptile
where in the US do you have an example of the second? And the first? Are those the complete stories or are you just cherrypicking part of the story.
Geoff, the first case was in the UK as I clearly stated. The second was in California. I've added links.
Europeans are the past masters of "accomodation" and appeasement... They'll appease "Islam" just as they did Hitler, until the knife is at their throat (and maybe even beyond).
Norwegian "Professor" Unni Wikan thinks European women should just submit to Islamic rape (But maybe she's just got that "rebellious hair" that Hunter Thompson wrote about... or simply can't get laid no matter how hard she tries,which would be no surprise from the looks of her)
Believe me, she is just as controversial over here. If not for her extensive field work and status in Norwegian social anthropology, she would've been completely marginalized after those comments.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jo
(new)
May 09, 2014 11:56PM
One school where they were having racial tensions. Which translates to these kids were probably wearing the shirts to incite, and not to show patriotism.
reply
|
flag
Actually, only the term "political correctness" has its roots in Marxism. What we know as PCness today did very much begin as a movement to try and promote sensitivity, but which has since been branded as PC by conservative minds looking to discredit it. And in that respect, you show the same kind of reactionary temperament as they did, since you are clearly responding to my comments with in an irrational, knee-jerk reaction.And would you care to back up these ridiculous claims up with any real proof? Who was arrested in the UK for quoting Churchill? When, if ever, are American flags being banned? Are these really happening, or are they the kind of internet myths narrow minds easily believe so they can convince themselves the world is closing in around them?
@Matthew The American flag being banned is (probably) in relations to this incident at a school: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/justice...Man in UK arrest: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lo...
So in other words, a man was arrested for quoting from a book by Churchill that criticized Islam and was then arrested for not complying with officer's orders to desist then? And a school banned its students from wearing American flag t-shirts on cinqo de Mayo? Can't say I totally agree with that latter decision, but in both cases, its hardly the vast oversimplification you stated thecryptile.
And thank you Jori for providing the links. It's always excellent when someone puts things into context.
Where's the sensitivity for Traditional Values? Non-existent amongst the PC ilk. Political Correctness is a means by which the Left attempts to define public discourse-- criticism of Christians is politically correct , criticism of Muslims for the same thing isn't. Phil Robertson says gays are sinful-- he's a monster. Muslim clerics sentence gays to death and the Left looks the other way. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
As for the school, it's the celebration of the May 5 non-holiday that is causing the problems, not the American students. Why aren't we counseling the Mexican students to show a little sensitivity?
Here we go again with the double-standards talk. We've already shown how your examples don't conform, cryptile. And now you're just offering generalized statements without any proof. No one condones homophobia if it comes from Islam. And as for your May 5th example, how was the holiday causing problems? American students protesting it being celebrated because of the same prejudices you cling to. They were overruled.
My examples don't conform with your narrative, but they do conform with reality. I didn't say that Leftists condone Islamic bigotry- I said you ignore it in favor of attacking Christians.
How was the May 5 non-holiday causing problems? In 2009, Mexican students at that school attacked American students for daring to wear the flag of their own country! So violent disruptive attacks resulted from the school allowing the observance of the May 5 non-holiday.
The school allows the Mexican students to display their flags and forbids the American students from displaying ours. That's a clear double standard.
I like how you equate American patriotism with "prejudice" but exempt Mexican pseudo-patriotism (the May 5 holiday isn't a big deal in Mexico). That's another double standard.
Of course the Left-leaning PC 9th Circuit Court agrees with you and overruled the patriotic American students, as I said originally the whole point of political correctness is to allow the Left to define public discourse and push for Lefty policies.
If political correctness really were about showing sensitivity to others, then the Mexican students would be admonished to show some sensitivity to the American students. They weren't and won't be- because that's not what it's about.
They really don't, cryptophile. They are based on nothing more than your interpretation of them, which is based on an incredibly slanted reading of them which is taken completely out of context. Let me show you how:1. For starters, you said nothing about Christmas or any attacks on it. You claimed there was a double-standard when it came to homophobia between Christianity and Islam. Show me where the Left has ignored homophobia in the name of PCness if you can. And fyi, the whole "war on Christmas" bit is a tired one. The conservative right claims that secularism has gone made by using the more inclusive "happy holidays". Interpreting this as attack is nothing more the n a weak attempt to claim persecution.
2. How was May 5th or students wanting to celebrate it a problem? How does Mexican-Americans wanting to celebrate a cultural holiday "insensitive" to you or these students? Does it offend you or impede on your right? Are people to give up all traces of their own culture when they move to America? Do you have something against St. Patrick's Day too? What about Hanukkah?
3. Of course you would say the students who did this were patriotic and standing up for America. In your mind, these boys were the victims. But if you bothered to read up on the example you provided, you would see that this school was renowned for racial tensions and violence, and the boys intended this to be an insult to the Mexican students. Much like your example about the English man arrested for quoting Churchill, you neglected to leave out all the relevant details.
4. The 9th Circuit Court agreed with the school's decision to uphold the suspension because it was recognized, like any thinking person, that the students were motivated by intolerance. Therefore, no violation of their rights was committed by asking them remove their shirts. For you to say that this was somehow unjust is weak at best, because if they hadn't upheld the suspension, they would be saying that its not right for Americans who come from other cultures to celebrate their own holidays and not be admonished for doing so. Any fool can see that's hardly a fair decision.
Got any more examples cryptile, because if you've noticed, Jori and I have effectively undermined then by showing that the people you claimed were victims were themselves prosecutorial. But that is the way this works for you, isn't it? It's always somehow the attackers who are the victims and the intolerant ones who are being abused.
1. I never said anything about Christmas. You are Making Things Up. 2. There is a clear double standard between the PC media's treatment of Christians and Muslims. Those who criticize radical Islam are branded "Islamophobes". Those who denigrate Christianity aren't branded "Christophobes".
3. The Mexican students attacked the American students, not the other way around as you keep insisting. Attacking folks for displaying our flag in our country is very offensive to me. The Mexican students chose to be insulted. Presumably, they are American citizens as well, so why should the sight of an American flag fill them with paroxysms of rage? It takes two to tango. The Mexican students contribute to the racial tensions, yet only the American students are muzzled. By all means, let the Mexican students celebrate their non-holiday-- at home. The school doesn't celebrate St. Patrick's day, or Hanukkah, so why must it sponsor May 5?
4. It's okay to muzzle the intolerant you say? What about those who are anti-religion? Surely if political correctness is about being sensitive to others and their feelings, those who attack the deeply held beliefs of the majority of the world should hold their tongues to avoid giving offense. Yet, you seem fine with admonishing the religious for celebrating their culture. It's like you have a Double-Standard!
Lets see you spin this into "tolerance" and "sensitivity to others": Porn Professor Mireille Miller-Young of UCSB attacked a group of pro-life demonstrators in the university's so-called "Free Speech Zone", injuring a 16 year old girl and stealing a sign. I guess that's just being "sensitive to others" in your little politically correct world!
Political Correctness was never about sensitivity to others-- it has always been about the Radical Left attempting to control the public discourse
I'm glad you brought up St. Patrick's Day, Mat.The PC attitude towards St. Patrick's Day parades is the inverse of the PC attitude about May 5. Why shouldn't the Mexican students be forced to include American students and their symbols, as the Irish Catholics are forced to include LGBT activists?
I see cogent observations on both sides of this little tiff. Me, I don't ascribe PC to either Right or Left; and I don't think it matters much where it began or why. It is clearly (now) a massive problem --a tool being misused mostly by special-interest groups wanting to game the system--and certainly something that Orwell would have seen as dangerous.
So we met with your approval? Good for us!
Feliks, it does matter how it began. PCness is weapon the Left wields with aplomb to destroy our freedom and our culture. They attempt to ban speech and reject freedom of association. The Right has other tools to enforce group loyalty, such as patriotism.Mat-- I'm curious as to why it's PC for Mexicans to attack and exclude Americans in their celebrations, but Irish Catholics are forced to include gays in theirs. If you fail to respond, I'll conclude that you know that PCness is a sham that has nothing to with sensitivity to others and everything to do with pushing a radical anti-Christian, anti-American agenda.
Williams Once again, your arguments are based on false examples, thecryptile. Mexicans celebrating Cinqo de Mayo excludes no one, nor is it an attack on American values. The only reason you think that is because of your bigoted mentality that sees culture different than your own as a threat.As for Irish Catholics being forced to allow gays, yet another false example. St. Patrick's Day parades have routinely banned gay people and groups from marching in them and the only response was boycotts from companies that didn't want to be associated with their bigotry. They were never forced by law to alter their arrangements, because to do so would violate their rights.
And yet, people like yourself continue to insist that this kind of force is taking place, but its nothing more than your attempt to try and pretend that you are somehow not the bad guys. You are the ones being intolerant and refusing others the right to celebrate their own holidays or participate in public events.
If this is seriously the best you can do, I will conclude that you are nothing more than a hypocrite who claims that people criticizing you for your intolerance and ignorance is an attack on your freedom of speech. But freedom of speech does not mean you are immune from disagreement or criticism for your views. So how about you stop crying about your rights and start taking responsibility or your own, deplorable behavior for once?
The Mexican students PHYSICALLY ASSUALTED other students. That might not be "an attack on American values" in your mind, but it's an attack on American people in anyone's book.You refuse to answer the May 5/St. Patrick's Day dichotomy, pretending that just because courts haven't intervened yet to abrogate Irish Catholics' Freedom of Association that there is no double-standard. Yet, Irish Catholics are still called upon to include non-Irish non-Catholic gays-- and Mexican students succeeded in banning the display of the American flag in an American school.
I never claimed that your ignorance violated my rights in any way. It's the ignorance of the 9th Circuit court that violated the rights of patriotic young Americans.
You say that force isn't used to push the PC agenda-- yet we've both seen the arrest of the UK man, the Porn Professor attacking children, the ousting of Eich from Firefox etc.
If supporting Liberty, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association is "deplorable behavior", I proudly take full responsibility.
The true hypocrites are prog thugs who claim to embrace diversity and tolerance yet refuse to tolerate divergent views. We've seen a run of the tolerant types blacklisting conservative commencement speakers, I guess "diversity" is only skin deep.
It seems to me, thecryptile, as if the only thing supporting your case is that, yes, there is more pressure on right-wing nationalism in western countries than in for example Latin American countries. You are, of course, free to think that this is a bad thing, but your claims about St.Patrick's day are simply not true - the LGBT-movement are still left out.
"The Mexican students PHYSICALLY ASSUALTED other students" -- This is about the 2009 Morgan Hill episode, right? The one where a group of teenagers wearing/waving Mexican flags in celebration of Cinco de Mayo were accosted by another group of teenagers who waved an American flag and chanted "USA! USA! USA!"?
Don't bother. He has a rather hostile relationship with factual evidence. In his mind, the boys waving the American flag were patriots and heroes, and the Mexicans the racists.
I just didn't want to confuse it with the time a group of teenagers waving an American flag on July Fourth were accosted by a group of teenagers waving a Mexican flag and yelling "Viva Zapata!"Oh wait, that didn't happen.
Good one! But for all his guffawing, thecryptile comments have been informative in one respect. They demonstrate quite perfectly that the first defense of people who are attacking others is to claim that they are the ones under attack.
Well, compared to how priviliged conservatives used to be, I can understand that they feel like they're under attack. Their problem is just that, well, that's not the way things are going, something they seem to have a hard time accepting.
Reminds me of a good quote: "It reminds me of a simpler time when white males had all the power, instead of most of it."
Ah, the good old times. Glad they're over - If born in the 1800's, I would probably just have ended up as an alcoholic fisherman or something. No bitterness on my behalf.
Actually, being an alcoholic fisherman doesn't sound all that bad. Where do I sign?
How does the American flag hurt Mexicans? How do Churchill's words hurt Muslims? They don't yet our flag was banned in our country, and an MP was arrested. Mexicans assault Americans, Jihadists decapitate Britons-- but in your mind, it's conservatives who are to blame.
You claim that traditional values aren't under attack even as you attack them. It's true that "the first defense of people who are attacking others is to claim that they are the ones under attack" which is why you frame conservatives exercising their Free Speech rights as an attack. The Porn Professor did the same thing when she assaulted a 16y.o. girl for daring to voice her pro-life convictions.
Political correctness isn't about sensitivity to others. It never was. It's a form of Soviet agitprop, used as a weapon in the Culture Wars.
Wait, I lost track. Who is the "you" again? And who is "our", for that matter.
thecryptile where in the US do you have an example of the second? And the first? Are those the complete stories or are you just cherrypicking part of the story.
Geoff, the first case was in the UK as I clearly stated. The second was in California. I've added links.
Europeans are the past masters of "accomodation" and appeasement... They'll appease "Islam" just as they did Hitler, until the knife is at their throat (and maybe even beyond).Norwegian "Professor" Unni Wikan thinks European women should just submit to Islamic rape (But maybe she's just got that "rebellious hair" that Hunter Thompson wrote about... or simply can't get laid no matter how hard she tries,which would be no surprise from the looks of her)
Believe me, she is just as controversial over here. If not for her extensive field work and status in Norwegian social anthropology, she would've been completely marginalized after those comments.
