To families of mass-shooting victims in U.S., Paris attacks sadly familiar:

She has become painfully familiar with mass shootings since a gunman killed her daughter in a crowded suburban Denver movie theater, and she’s frustrated when pundits wonder if similar attacks on “soft targets” could happen in America.

“What ‘soft-target’ are you talking about? A school? Oh, gee, it’s already happened, several times. A movie theater? Oh, gee, it’s already happened,” Phillips said. “Who are we fooling? We’ve been living under terrorist attacks since Columbine. They’re just being done by our own people.”

Inside an undercover network trying to expose Islamic State’s atrocities:

“We are nonviolent activists. We can’t fight Daesh with weapons. We can only fight them with words,” he said, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State. “To defeat us, they would have to shut down the Internet. And they can’t do that because all of them use the Internet.”

What does a ISIS held city look like? North Korea in the making.

Fear and Friends:

nobody in the GOP field wants to say anything positive about the strength of Western democracy, or make a remark about the nature of a cause that has nothing going for it except the ability to kill innocent civilians. Instead, we have Jeb! insisting that we’re looking at a plan to destroy Western civilization, and Ted Cruz declaring that what we need to do is abandon our own scruples aboutkilling innocent bystanders.

In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civilian Casualties’:

Translation from GOP to sane person, this attack on civilians needs was intolerable therefor we should attack someone with less regard for civilian casualties. It’s two eyes for an eye, a whole mouth for a tooth. Of course, ISIS uses US attacks as propaganda, so what would this accomplish? The right wing in this country is barbaric. The only concern is that blood be spilled.

Bring on the outrage: Go ahead and hate on “coddled” college kids — just admit that anti-p.c. backlash is fueled by outrage, too:

I think most of what gets lumped into “PC” is silly and counter productive. I think the neo-nazi movements are awful. I think Sharia law is incompatible with a modern society. But as a defender of free speech, I’m not going to support silencing people who belive silly, awful or abhorrent things. If free speech covers your right to be offensive, it covers the right of people to say “I am offened”. If it covers your right to complain about PC culture, it covers the right of the most walking on eggshells-exaggerated-straw-man-SJW to call you problematic.

If SJWs have lack a right to “not be offended” then you have no right to “not be offended” by SJW silliness.

A clash between administrators and students at Yale went viral. Why that is unfortunate for all concerned.:

Nicholas and Erika Christakis have an undisputed right to free speech. No one has argued that they, as individuals, should not. But students have exercised their own free speech in speaking against the way Master and Associate Master Christakis have treated their office. This incident is not analogous to a professor offering an unpopular view, or a controversial speaker coming to campus.

As far as I can tell, the political correct student activists are attacking “free speech” by using “free speech” and the people fed up with political correctness would like to defend free speech by silencing the students. I’d love for some explanation why saying “I’m offended” is somehow less worthy “free speech” than saying “you’re to easily offended!”

E.T. Call Waiting:

Some media were very quick to jump on the idea that it might be aliens—the idea being that an advanced civilization might be building huge (really huge, like hundreds of thousands of kilometers across huge) solar arrays to collect starlight for power, and it was these that were blocking the star from our view, causing the dips.

The headline it might be aliens was everywhere. The correction no, it’s not likely aliens was no where near as viral. A lie travels at warp speed while the truth is still fixing it’s hyperdrive motivator.

OPINION: It’s time to retire the PC police:

What “South Park” libertarians don’t seem to realize is that they’ve crafted a whole politics around their bruised feelings, which is exactly what they accuse the PC police of doing wrong.

The First Amendment sanctified freedom of expression in part to ensure that my comfort isn’t an excuse to quash what you have to say. But freedom of speech doesn’t protect a libertarian’s right to misgender a trans woman any more than it protects my right to tell them to shut up. As a political position, anti-PC isn’t about exercising freedom of speech; it’s about wanting to be protected from it.

This guy nails it. The anti-PC people complain about language and hurt feeling just as much, if not more, than the worst of the PC straw men.