Punk band jokes about Vegas massacre: ‘At least it was country fans’ who were shot. Backlash is big.

Punk rock band NOFX is facing intense backlash after band members’ onstage comments at a Las Vegas music festival Sunday — and the jokes that did them in were about the Las Vegas massacre last October.

Frontman Fat Mike quipped, “We played a song about Muslims, and we didn’t get shot,” KNTV-TV reported. A resounding “alright!” followed. Then another NOFX member added a line about only “getting shot in Vegas if you’re in a country band.”

And with that, Fat Mike, whose real name is Michael Burkett, offered the following: “I mean, that sucked, but at least they were country fans and not punk rock fans,” the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

Here’s a clip. (Content warning: Profanity):

The crowd yelled and groaned in disapproval most loudly after the “country music fans” comment — and it turns out others weren’t too happy about what was said, either.

What happened next?

Punk Rock Bowling founders Mark and Shawn Stern apologized in a statement to the Review-Journal “to those in attendance, the city of Las Vegas, the victims and the families of 10/1.”

“Las Vegas is home to the Punk Rock Bowling & Music Festival, and we do not condone the statements made from our stage on Sunday night,” they continued, the paper said. “We take the safety of our festivalgoers seriously and want to relay that there is nothing funny about people being shot and murdered, ever.”

And a California beer company pulled its sponsorship of NOFX’s tour over the comments, KNTV reported, adding that the company said it will make a donation to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Foundation.

Here’s the statement, the station noted:

We at Stone Brewing are aware of NOFX’s insensitive and indefensible statements this past weekend. As a result, we are severing all our ties with NOFX, including festival sponsorship and the production of our collaboration beer.

We respect punk rock, and the DIY ethos for which it stands. To us, it means standing up for things you believe in, and fearlessly committing to what’s right.

And it is for that reason that Stone Brewing is immediately disassociating ourselves from the band NOFX. Stone had a sponsorship deal for this summer’s Punk In Drublic festivals. Emphasis “had.” That sponsorship is now canceled.

At this moment, there is Stone & NOFX Punk In Drublic Hoppy Lager in the marketplace that was brewed by Stone Brewing. It’s done already. Know that NOFX does not earn any money from the sale of the beer.

Nevertheless, to try our best to make some good come out of these awful comments, we have decided that we will donate all profits of the beer to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Foundation, which provides post Route 91 trauma counseling for officers and other first responders alongside other safety programs, training and funding.

We have cancelled any future rebrews of this beer. We apologize to the fans of the beer itself, but know that we make this decision out of respect to all. Punk rock is cool. These callous comments were the furthest thing from it.

What else do we know about NOFX?

NOFX has not commented about the incident, KNTV said, but the band and particularly frontman Burkett are known for making controversial statements.

In their song catalogue, the group has joked about the death of the Grateful Dead’s Jerry Garcia (“August 8”), feminists (“The Black and the White”) and the Bible Belt (“Leaving Jesusland”), the Review-Journal said.

But while a fair share of commenters on the Punk Rock Bowling Facebook page said Burkett’s comments were typical of him and that detractors should move on with their lives, another commenter had this to say: “I’d like to see some of these people saying that everyone needs to ‘get over it’ go tell some of the survivors to just ‘get over it.’”

(H/T: Louder With Crowder)

Read more from The Blaze…

Broke: Cultural appropriation. Woke: Conservative appropriation

By this point, unless you are fortunate enough to be able to completely ignore social media and most television programming, you’re probably familiar with the term “cultural appropriation.” It’s an increasingly popular term among social justice warriors, typically employed as an accusation of cultural insensitivity. This means that if you choose to wear some clothing, eat some food, dance to some music or otherwise partake of something which is deemed to be the “property” of a particular demographic group, you’re stealing it from them and somehow cheapening it. One of the most recent examples was the young lady who wore a traditional Chinese dress to prom and was roundly lambasted on the left over it.

It’s a silly idea which I’ve never paid much attention to since nobody “owns” a particular style of clothing, food or whatever unless they happen to hold a patent or copyright on a specific brand. But now, thanks to our Townhall colleague Timothy Meads, perhaps we can put that all behind us. There’s a new type of appropriation in town and it’s known as “conservative appropriation.” Hey now… that might have some potential! Do you mean people are taking on conservative traits without being conservative?

Sadly, no. In this case, it’s liberal women claiming that conservative women can’t speak up on women’s issues because… I have no idea. But it’s apparently “appropriation” of some sort.

According to the New York Times’ Jessica Valenti, conservative women cannot use the term “feminist” because their beliefs do no match up with hers nor in her mind help women. In today’s edition of NYT, Valenti says:

“Now, we have a different task: protecting the movement against conservative appropriation. We’ve come too far to allow the right to water down a well-defined movement for its own cynical gains. Because if feminism means applauding ‘anything a woman does’ — even hurting other women — then it means nothing.”

Valenti basically says that feminists wrongly led others to believe in a version of feminism that was separate from the truth. It does not simply mean equal treatment under the law or in the work place. Instead it means believing in ideals that ascertain only to the left. Because, according to Valenti, those ideals are what truly help women.

Valenti goes on at length to make an extensively cataloged list of complaints which explain why women who benefit from earlier feminist endeavors can’t actually be feminists if they are Republicans or conservatives. Breaking the glass ceiling in a major company or government office is “groundbreaking” according to the author, but only in a technical sense. It’s not a real victory for women to see one of their own gender take over Fox News, for example, because they’ve risen to the top in an organization which liberals don’t endorse. You see, feminism is apparently inherently tied to liberalism and anyone coloring outside those lines is not welcome in the clubhouse.

Wasn’t the original idea of feminism to fight for gender equality in the workplace and, more generally, under the law in all aspects of life? How does the question of whether you support or oppose tax cuts relate to this subject? Shouldn’t the career achievements and success of women like Nikki Halley or Betsy DeVos be celebrated by all women, if only for having busted their way into the old boys’ club?

Apparently not. For a long time now I’ve heard from various women who tell me that females in the workplace are their own worst enemy. There is anecdotal proof that women in competitive environments tend to treat each other horribly and stab each other in the back far too often. Apparently, it’s the same in politics. It’s all “up with women” and “fight the patriarchy” until someone shows up with some different political views. Then they are summarily kicked to the curb. It’s a phenomenon which was perfectly demonstrated when some Jewish lesbians were kicked out of the Dyke March in Chicago last year.

Just keep making that tent smaller, feminists. One of these days you’re going to wake up and realize that it’s gotten awfully lonely in there.

The post Broke: Cultural appropriation. Woke: Conservative appropriation appeared first on Hot Air.

Read more from Hot Air…

Are Google and YouTube BlockingSearches for Red Pill Videos?

A year or so ago, there were a spate of articles about the red pill videos on YouTube – millennials turning off to the bullying by feminists and race hustlers, thinking for themselves, becoming conservative, and posting a video of their personal journey from blue to red online. I googled ‘red pill’ and had a cheerful time following links.

Read more from Red Pill…

Incels Are the Product of an Incomplete Sexual Revolution

We all need more freedom to openly discuss—and engage in—sex. Instead, we all too often pounce on provocative opinions and hem in what is Couple in Beddeemed “acceptable” bounds of debate. This is a shame.

Consider the rhetorical maelstrom created when George Mason University economist Robin Hanson recently suggested that the Toronto attack— in which a self-described incel (an involuntary celibate) mowed down 10 pedestrians — shows that we should worry not just about income inequality, but also the sexual inequality that is leaving too many men sexually frustrated. Hanson, whose blog Overcoming Bias is dedicated to raising uncomfortable questions that cut against ingrained thinking, mused that “cultural elites” might consider “redistribution” schemes that could help incels get a fair share of the action.

This was a provocative suggestion, no doubt. But Hanson wasn’t really serious about it. He is a libertarian, after all, so talk of “redistribution” was more in the vein of a thought experiment. Still, many people were understandably offended by even the hint of a suggestion that men are “owed” sex, or that this particular man was somehow justified in his violence because of some societal failure to keep his sexual drive satiated. This was, after all, the second instance of incel violence in four years.

But almost everyone reacted poorly.

Liberals roundly pilloried Hanson. Slate‘s Jordan Weissman called him “America’s creepiest economist,” before doing an entirely tendentious interview with him with the aim of exposing Hanson as a nutjob. Wonkette‘s Robyn Pennacchia accused Hanson of “singing the songs of horny men.” Motherboard‘s Samantha Cole declared that Hanson really wants “women to f–k violent men.”

Such high dudgeon does little to advance the cause of mutual sexual understanding among men and women. The fact of the matter is that although the sexual revolution offered the possibility of more sexual fulfillment, it also produced new frustrations and challenges.

The New York Times‘ Ross Douthat, who defended Hanson (and came in for a heap of criticism as a result), rightly pointed out that the “Hefnerian” ethos that the revolution generated has made the “frequency and variety in sexual experience” the “summum bonum of the human condition.” This might work for the “beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways.” However, it poses special problems for people who lack sexual draw and confidence.

Many feminists consider any discussion of the innate differences between male and female sexuality verboten. But it is hard to deny that evolution has wired the two sexes differently when it comes to sex. The qualitative sexual experience of men and women might be similar. But, by and large, as evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman points out, men tend to desire more sexual partners, need to know someone for less time before wanting to have sex with them, and have lower standards for sexual liaison. By contrast, women tend to be more discerning and discriminating (because they bear the brunt of producing offspring).

The sexual openness of today’s liberated women often means that men’s more easily stimulated sexuality is constantly triggered. However, social norms still put the onus on men to approach women and open themselves to rejection. The combination of heightened desire and increased risk from assertive women adds up to constant inner anxiety for many young, inexperienced men venturing into the sexual world. This doesn’t mean that incels are right or owed, or that sex actually ought to be redistributed, or that incels are the “real” victims here. Indeed, incel forums can be dark and degraded places where misogyny and violent rhetoric often runs amuck. But ferocious and reflexive demonization from the left isn’t helping matters. It is still necessary to understand the root cause of these new sexual pathologies.

Now, none of this exonerates conservatives, of course.

All too many social conservatives want to shut down pornography, tighten controls on prostitution, and restore puritanical norms from a time when men and women could only try to meet their sexual needs within the confines of life-long matrimony. This obviously should not (and will not) happen, if for no other reason than it traps too many couples in emotionally and sexually dead marriages.

The trouble with the sexual revolution isn’t that it happened, but that it was incomplete. The problem is not that sex has been over commodified as hardline feminists and conservatives (talk about strange bedfellows!) like to assert; the problem is that it hasn’t been commodified enough. The sexual industry in the broadest sense hasn’t matured enough yet to cater to the myriad and diverse needs of lonely single people (of both sexes). Where are the Dr. Ruths for single people facing confidence issues or looking for advice? Is it really a surprise that young men turn to each other for solace in the deep recesses of the dark web — and that the result is often very ugly?

Progressivism’s promise is to move toward social arrangements that increase the number of winners and diminish the number of losers. But until we achieve a utopia where everyone wins, we’ll have to figure out ways to offer relief to the losers. This will require liberals to start taking the plight of people like the incels seriously, and stop penalizing intellectual mavericks like Hanson who have the nerve speak up on their behalf. And it will require conservatives to stop romanticizing an imperfect past and look for viable solutions that don’t involve turning back the clock.

This column originally appeared in The Week

Read more from Reason.com…

SAY IT AIN'T SO: Chris Pratt Made $2 Million More Than Bryce Dallas Howard On 'Jurassic World 2'

Actor Chris Pratt better find one of those old Cold War bunkers to hide from the nuclear fallout that is the revelation that he received exactly $2 million more than his female co-star Bryce Dallas Howard for filming “Jurassic World 2;” the feminists are coming for him.

Read more from The Daily Wire…