Notes from the edge of civilization: October 13, 2024
Seniors clash over politics and pickleball; Democrat kids parrot parents' political views; and London Underground's double standards in ad approvals.
What happens when you mix politics and pickleball with upscale retirement living? You get Rossmoor, a 55-and-over community in Contra Costa County, California.
When it opened decades ago, Rossmoor was largely conservative and white, but its demographics have recently shifted to mirror the wider transformations in the East Bay region of San Francisco. And with those changes come differences of opinions that have now come to a head. A few weeks ago, a heated exchange over former President Trump’s survival of an assassination attempt sparked a brawl on a pickleball court that has now spiraled into a broader battle over political expression.
As the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
According to several residents, one pro-Trump pickler blamed Democratic rhetoric for the assassination attempt while an anti-Trumper made an inappropriate comment demeaning his near-death experience. Pushing and shoving started between two women playing at the Tice Creek Fitness Center, and, according to several Rossmoor residents who asked not to be identified so they could speak freely about the controversial issue, punches were thrown and the combatants tumbled onto on the hardwood basketball court that doubles as the pickleball court. Clumps of pulled hair were left on the ground.
In response, Rossmoor officials introduced restrictions on public demonstrations and political commentary in the community newspaper, the Rossmoor News, sparking outrage among residents who feel they are being “infantilized” and silenced.
This microcosm of discord at Rossmoor reflects just how divided we are as a country. Political tensions have seeped into every corner of American life, from dinner tables to pickleball courts. As a nation, if we can’t learn to engage in civil discourse, these small skirmishes could be a preview of even bigger conflicts on the horizon, leaving more than clumps of hair behind.
While the pickleball brawl at Rossmoor is a perfect snapshot of the country’s deep divisions, polarization isn’t limited to senior communities. In fact, it’s trickling down to younger generations thanks to the adults in their lives.
A recent CNN study on 10-year-olds offered a troubling look at how deeply children are absorbing the political animosity around them. Researchers commissioned by CNN interviewed 80 children in Arizona, New Jersey, and Texas twice this year to see how they viewed the polarized political landscape. The results show how much kids absorb not only their parents' political leanings but also their distrust and divisive rhetoric.
The researchers found that the kids of Democratic parents tended to hold more rigid, negative views of Donald Trump, while those from Republican households were often neutral or even positive about Kamala Harris. Three children of Democrats “spontaneously brought up Hitler when talking about Donald Trump,” the researcher recorded.
When the researcher showed kids pictures of two houses, one with a Trump sign and one with a Biden or Harris sign, and asked if they or their parents would be comfortable visiting, she says most were open to visiting the house associated with either political party. But she added that more Democrat-leaning kids – as many as a third – said they would be unwilling to visit the homes of children whose families support Trump. Conversely, few of the Trump-leaning kids said they would refuse to visit a Democrat-leaning home.
When pressed, one child of a Democrat said he imagined a fight might break out if his family visited a Trump house. Another child, however, reasoned that people who like pizza can still hang out with people who like burgers: “You can still be friends.”
Why can’t that kid run for president?
Across the pond, London's political landscape is facing scrutiny over what some are calling a double standard in what gets deemed acceptable for public consumption.
Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, is under fire after ads featuring a controversial Islamist preacher, Ismail ibn Musa Menk, and a former UFC fighter with links to a Chechen warlord appeared across the London Underground and bus system.
The ads promote the Islamic finance startup Wahed and show Menk burning US dollars and euros with the slogans: “Join the money revolution” and “Withdraw from Riba,” a term in Islamic finance referring to the avoidance of interest.
Menk, banned from several countries for inflammatory and homophobic rhetoric, has sparked outrage among critics who question why Transport for London (TfL), overseen by Khan, approved the ads. Conservative London Assembly member Susan Hall pointed out the double standard, noting that other, far less controversial ads have been altered or banned under Khan’s advertising policies.
As Modernity News reports, TfL banned an ad featuring an attractive woman in a bikini with the caption “beach body ready” because Khan claimed such messaging encouraged ‘negative body images.’ An ad featuring comedian Ed Gamble eating a hot dog was banned because it ‘promoted obesity.’ A recent ad for Heinz pasta sauce was removed after people claimed that the black bride’s absent father perpetuated a stereotype.
(That campaign, inspired by true stories from Heinz fans, was designed to highlight those who break rules because of their love for Heinz. This ad depicted a bride so committed to Heinz she was willing to spill pasta sauce on her wedding dress.)
The debate over double standards fuels criticism about what is considered acceptable in public discourse and raises the question of whether society has become so fragile that we must be shielded from any and all potential harm, whether real or imagined.
YouTube is so concerned about shielding society from potential harm that it took down our recent interview with John Frankman. It flagged the video under its "medical misinformation" policies, simply for discussing vaccine side effects, which we deem an essential part of public dialogue.
Censorship like this isn't just about one interview; it reflects a broader trend. When platforms begin to censor critical discussions on controversial topics, whether it’s politics, medical mandates, or personal rights, it begs the question: Are we being protected from harm or shielded from uncomfortable truths? As more voices call for increased censorship (we’re looking at you Hillary Clinton and John Kerry), the risk of stifling open debate grows, limiting the public's ability to hear all sides of important conversations.
Please check out the full Frankman interview on Rumble and make up your own mind.
While you’re there, you may want to carve out some time for our conversation with Andy Schectman, who masterfully lays out the chilling picture of the controlled demolition of the US dollar and why it is likely a deliberate plan. As Schectman says: “It’s too stupid to be stupid.”
Take a look at bill C-63, the online harms bill in Canada. It's a thinly disguised censorship bill that uses ambiguous language to criminalize what they deem as "hate speech" which by their definition can be almost anything they don't like. Penalties are severe and you're presumed guilty even if you are just accused by an anonymous person. It's so draconian, so Woke, so obviously a ploy to crush freedom of speech and get rid of dissenters. Meanwhile the PM. is sinking in the polls and his own party is now publicly calling for him to step down. The country is so divided now but so far the minority government is hanging by a thread, with all the lies, corruption and bad press finally catching up. The tide is slowly turning maybe, because despite all their efforts they can't stop the rise of truth and common sense. There's a long way to go I think, because the brainwashed masses drank the kool aid and psychological manipulation altered their ability for critical thinking.