Why clapping is now deemed offensive

An avalanche of leftist lunacy unfolds every hour of every day.  Because it's Monday, let's ease in slowly.

Members of the National Union of Students (a left-wing social justice organization that represents 7 million students in the U.K.) are up in arms (literally) about the fact that clapping in appreciation at events excludes deaf people.

Uh-huh.

The solution to this fabricated problem?  Instead of clapping, everyone should use "jazz hands."

Oh, dear.

The Telegraph reports that members of the NUS believe there should be "consequences" for students who clap at events because this behavior excludes deaf people.  (Whooping and cheering are also frowned upon and worthy of punishment.)

As written at Legal Insurrection, if one were to follow this don't-clap-because-it-excludes-deaf-people logic to its natural conclusion, "jazz hands" would necessarily exclude blind people.  And not just blind people.  As sarcastically noted in one comment, disabled people who can't raise their hands would also be excluded.

And what about people who walk to events?  Would their mobility disenfranchise people in wheelchairs?

The possibilities for identifying victim classes, patronizing them, and then fixing what is not broken are endless!

But back to the clapping catastrophe.

Three among many excellent comments on the Legal Insurrection thread offer desperately needed direction on this urgent issue of how we can reduce the fabricated trauma to deaf people when those around them clap their hands:

  • … I propose a rule wherein the deaf aren't allowed to use sign language in public anymore. It excludes the hearing and I can't be a part of the conversation. See how that works?
  • What do they do if there's a fire? Yelling "Fire!" would obviously "exclude" some.
  • But wouldn't the banning of clapping and whooping to cater to the deaf be discriminatory towards the blind who cannot see "jazz hands"? Maybe instead of clapping or jazz hands, everybody can just fart to show their appreciation. That way nobody – not even that deaf, dumb and blind kid – is excluded.

Perhaps this comment best sums things up: "Will no one rid us of these meddlesome leftists?"

Meddlesome, indeed.  To say the very least.

I wonder what leftist-progressive-communists in the West think about this expression of coerced mass behavior from 1944, as Stalin gets a sustained standing ovation, with no one in the crowd brave enough to be the first to stop.  The solution, as you can hear, is a an audible signal, at which time the ovation stops.

I suppose the 21st-century version of this would be would be "jazz hands" and a buzzer.  And, of course, the threat of the gulag for the poor soul who stopped before the buzzer went off.  There must be "consequences," after all.

The left hates life. This hate is expressed in big ways and small – expressions that are often couched in a framework that makes evil appear as good.  At least to idiots.

Hat tip: Legal Insurrection, including photo credit

An avalanche of leftist lunacy unfolds every hour of every day.  Because it's Monday, let's ease in slowly.

Members of the National Union of Students (a left-wing social justice organization that represents 7 million students in the U.K.) are up in arms (literally) about the fact that clapping in appreciation at events excludes deaf people.

Uh-huh.

The solution to this fabricated problem?  Instead of clapping, everyone should use "jazz hands."

Oh, dear.

The Telegraph reports that members of the NUS believe there should be "consequences" for students who clap at events because this behavior excludes deaf people.  (Whooping and cheering are also frowned upon and worthy of punishment.)

As written at Legal Insurrection, if one were to follow this don't-clap-because-it-excludes-deaf-people logic to its natural conclusion, "jazz hands" would necessarily exclude blind people.  And not just blind people.  As sarcastically noted in one comment, disabled people who can't raise their hands would also be excluded.

And what about people who walk to events?  Would their mobility disenfranchise people in wheelchairs?

The possibilities for identifying victim classes, patronizing them, and then fixing what is not broken are endless!

But back to the clapping catastrophe.

Three among many excellent comments on the Legal Insurrection thread offer desperately needed direction on this urgent issue of how we can reduce the fabricated trauma to deaf people when those around them clap their hands:

  • … I propose a rule wherein the deaf aren't allowed to use sign language in public anymore. It excludes the hearing and I can't be a part of the conversation. See how that works?
  • What do they do if there's a fire? Yelling "Fire!" would obviously "exclude" some.
  • But wouldn't the banning of clapping and whooping to cater to the deaf be discriminatory towards the blind who cannot see "jazz hands"? Maybe instead of clapping or jazz hands, everybody can just fart to show their appreciation. That way nobody – not even that deaf, dumb and blind kid – is excluded.

Perhaps this comment best sums things up: "Will no one rid us of these meddlesome leftists?"

Meddlesome, indeed.  To say the very least.

I wonder what leftist-progressive-communists in the West think about this expression of coerced mass behavior from 1944, as Stalin gets a sustained standing ovation, with no one in the crowd brave enough to be the first to stop.  The solution, as you can hear, is a an audible signal, at which time the ovation stops.

I suppose the 21st-century version of this would be would be "jazz hands" and a buzzer.  And, of course, the threat of the gulag for the poor soul who stopped before the buzzer went off.  There must be "consequences," after all.

The left hates life. This hate is expressed in big ways and small – expressions that are often couched in a framework that makes evil appear as good.  At least to idiots.

Hat tip: Legal Insurrection, including photo credit

RECENT VIDEOS