The joke was on the PM, not on India, on Indians or or Indo-Canadians. Yet that was not how some Anglophones saw it.
“Why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we’ve learned not to fear words,” Uhura says.
n the 1960s, being progressive meant expanding the range of permissible behaviour. A half century later, it’s about imposing constraints.
As far as “master concepts” go, this one is hard to beat. One worries, however, that it is a little too neat.
Views on the news, delivered so smooth.
Pride and shame are two sides of the same coin; so if collective pride makes sense, then collective shame makes sense too
As Thomas Paine wrote, “To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
Brodsky said that when confronted by boredom we should “exact full look at the worst.” He said “When hit by boredom, go for it. Let yourself be crushed by it; submerge, hit bottom.”
Appiah is wrong to pretend that distinct civilizations were never a thing.
Progressives and corporations when aligned form a very powerful coalition, so when they combine to restrict speech or behavior they’re likely to be successful.
Residing in Malaysia in the final years of the Najib administration, one could be forgiven for thinking society had somehow collectively lost its mind.
Instead of using the label “eugenics” to discredit advocates of genetic enhancement, it would be more productive to ask what precisely we deem unacceptable and why.
Does more transparency mean that patients will become responsible for catching errors that doctors themselves should have prevented?