|
Post by respect77 on Jul 14, 2019 14:04:59 GMT
I had to look up what exactly this Evergreen controversy was. This is insane. And when you think of it that these young people are the "intellectuals" of today and tomorrow - it's scary. No wonder that journalism is at the level it is. Journalists are also coming out of these universities. No ability to debate, listen to the other, discuss, see nuances etc. Just whoever shouts the loudest and acts the angriest "wins". SMDH. Where did education go so tragically wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 21:38:26 GMT
I agree – 2019 is much worse than 2005. Observing the media since January, we have seen demonstrable lies being published in supposed ‘reputable’ media platforms - then - copy and pasted within the hour across all media platforms. The truth really does not matter – only their agenda/narratives and what money they can make from selling that narrative. It genuinely concerns me how oblivious most people are about this. In the case of MJ, what was striking to me is it didn’t seem to matter whether the media was left or right - it didn’t matter what narrative they typically subscribe to – “Michael Jackson = Guilty” seemed to transcend all political and social agendas. He is his own narrative. Extraordinary. We are watching people like Epstein and Weinstein receive more balance and fair treatment in the media than MJ did both when he was alive and now in death.
Re. Rubin Report - Janice Fiamengo :
Universities are supposed to cultivate strong, free thinking, critical minds and prepare them for their prospective careers. However, universities are caving to outside political and social pressures (exactly as you described in Hungary or as Fiamengo described in Canada). In turn, professors/academics embrace and adopt these narrow ideologies and limit/stunt critical and free thought. As you said – our journalists, lawyers and politicians etc. are coming from these universities and they will be the ones who decide how our policies, narratives and the media that perpetuate them shape our society. How will this cycle ever break? SMH
In the Janice Fiamengo interview, she discussed how tenured professors are losing their jobs for daring to speak out-with the accepted ideology and group thought. Janice spoke about how fire alarms, protests and linguistic traps were thrown at her during her talks about academic feminism. Bret Weisntein spoke about how students were chanting at him and trying to silence him/oust him from his job - mob mentality at it's finest. This creates a culture of fear where academics and professors are scared to stand up in support of their colleagues’ right to free speech. This was also discussed in the Bret Weinstein talk; if we do not create a secure environment for people to speak up and inquire/challenge, then people simply will not do it. This will allow accepted/popular ideology to dominate and actually stunt progress. They claim to be progressive yet how can they be if they are authoritarian – the polar opposite of what it means to be a libertarian?
I love how Rubin referred to the “blue check Twitter feminists” and observed how they deem it ok for innocent people’s lives to be ruined as some sort of retributive justice for women’s plight. Could you imagine if “believing women” or just “believing survivors” had the power to flip the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt? I do not see it being implemented – certainly not in our lifetime but the fact that gender studies (“ground zero for this social justice movement”) is influencing legal academia to the extent that the presumption of innocence is pulled into question is terrifying.
Re. Bret Weinstein’s Talk
“It is not about left vs. right, it is about libertarians vs. authoritarians. That's it!” – I’m glad you had the same moment as I did. When the issue is explained in this way I was finally able to make sense of where we find ourselves at the moment.
I watched this short news interview with Bret where he said: "People who disagree over many issues over policy, find themselves aligned over basic american principles”. This essentially sums up where we are.
“More people need to realize what is going on. Still a lot of well meaning people think there is one big enemy: right wing totalitarianism and we have to fight it by voting for "liberal" parties, not realizing that they are only liberal in name now. They really are left wing authoritarians.“ – Yes! As Bret said – most people do not see the narratives until they see an error. For me – it was observing the media and so-called victim advocacy groups respond to Leaving Neverland. Before this point – I was totally ignorant to this.
I do see the similarities between communism and what is happening today with, for example, restoration talks regarding the slavery of black people. I do not know enough about it to analyse it in any depth but from a surface level – sure. It can even be applied to the concept of ‘positive discrimination’ or 'affirmative action' to 'level the playing field' for people of colour, women, LQBTQ, and basically anyone but white men who are the aristocrats in this case.
Thanks for the links to the James Damore and Evergreen controversy interviews – I’ll watch them when I get the chance!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2019 12:40:52 GMT
I Just watched the interview with James Damore. Unsurprisingly, he couldn’t get an interview with any media outlets on the left. Again – Damore is not in line with their ‘progressive’ narratives so they absolutely refuse to report on the facts and give a platform to him so he can present his point of view. Instead – they decide to label him alt right and demonise him to the public without ever speaking to him.
For a monopoly like Google to subscribe to this ‘progressive’ dogma in their HR practices - we can only imagine how far this goes. Do their algorithms favour certain narratives? Do they participate in censorship with advertisements and search engine/YouTube results? Are they feeding their ‘social justice’ narratives to their unsuspecting customers? If the answer is yes then isn’t this a form of propaganda? I guess this is where organisations like Project Veritas comes in - they did not materialise in a vacuum. Although they are controversial - they are clearly responding to the voluminous number of examples of this issue in big tech. I think i will do a little more digging into Project Veritas - I have been meaning to for a little while now.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 15, 2019 16:35:39 GMT
I Just watched the interview with James Damore. Unsurprisingly, he couldn’t get an interview with any media outlets on the left. Again – Damore is not in line with their ‘progressive’ narratives so they absolutely refuse to report on the facts and give a platform to him so he can present his point of view. Instead – they decide to label him alt right and demonise him to the public without ever speaking to him. Yeah, throwing labels is a usual tactic. How quickly did the leftist media come up with a label for us? "Truthers". They couldn't tell what was going on in court if their life depended on it because not one of them looked deeper than LN, but we are the "truthers".
And their political opponents are "far right", "alt right" or simply "nazis" - even when they are not. And consumers of that media of course adopt those tactics. Case in point today:
So Rubin, a gay Jewish man, is now "far right". Just because he supposedly doesn't have left wing guests. Even if that was so that wouldn't make him far right, it would just make him have a right wing bias. But that's not even so. The Weinstein brothes, Sam Harris brothers and several of his other guests identify as left wing libertarians. They are just not a part of the regressive left, which I guess, in their eyes automatically makes you far right these days.
This was another thing that fan cited in support of Rubin being far right.
I don't know who those people are and haven't seen his conversations with them yet. A quick google tells me they are indeed considered far right (though, these days of course, you have to look for yourself to see if that is so or not). In any case, if these people really are anti-semite far right people then I don't think that makes Rubin far-right. He may be criticized for giving them a platform but he is a Jewish man himself, so if they are really anti-semitic, I doubt he agrees with them. I can only guess, but maybe it's his belief in free speech why he invited them. Maybe he gives an explanation why. He might be wrong and criticized for this, but it does not make HIM far right. But I am sure a misstep like this and the MSM is way too happy to stick this label to him or any of these people to discredit them. Labeling is all they do for a long time. And it works.
Same with when Jordan Peterson came to Hungary recently and the regressive leftist media here labeled him "alt right". They talked mockingly and dismissively of him, one article I remember labelled him a "self-help guru". He is a little more than that: a clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology. But of course these journalists operate on framing people with labels. The writer of this article didn't seem to know a lot about him (just like they don't know anything about MJ), so it was especially ridiculous how he tried to attach labels to him that he thought would discredit him.
Having said that, I think Peterson was wrong for accepting the invitation of Orbán and he is either ignorant of who Orbán really is and what he does in this country or he is a hypocrite. I assume the former, because from the outside it is often difficult to see what is really going on in a small country like this. I guess, Peterson didn't realize that Orbán does everything here that he is fighting against - ie. he is an enemy of free speech, he controls and censors 90% of the Hungarian media market. Like I said, he is just the flip side of what is going on in the West with the left. These are both authoritarians. But I would not call Peterson alt right or far-right for it. He was probably just misinformed. Missteps like this are bound to happen.
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Jul 15, 2019 23:47:25 GMT
I'm more of a liberal. I'm all for rights for the people. All for rights for minorities (being one myself so duh lol), pro choice, freedom of religion, tax increases on the rich, gun control.... While I've become disillusioned with the left due to fake "wokeness", hashtag movements,, I'm even more disgusted by the antics of the right here in the US. I'm a black guy and many people on the right here tend to act like people with my skin color don't matter or we're the root of the problem in the country so..... Then again, a lot of people on the left do too, but they act like they aren't. Again...the phony actions, so I just do my own thing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 15:23:00 GMT
I Just watched the interview with James Damore. Unsurprisingly, he couldn’t get an interview with any media outlets on the left. Again – Damore is not in line with their ‘progressive’ narratives so they absolutely refuse to report on the facts and give a platform to him so he can present his point of view. Instead – they decide to label him alt right and demonise him to the public without ever speaking to him. Yeah, throwing labels is a usual tactic. How quickly did the leftist media come up with a label for us? "Truthers". They couldn't tell what was going on in court if their life depended on it because not one of them looked deeper than LN, but we are the "truthers".
And their political opponents are "far right", "alt right" or simply "nazis" - even when they are not. And consumers of that media of course adopt those tactics. Case in point today:
So Rubin, a gay Jewish man, is now "far right". Just because he supposedly doesn't have left wing guests. Even if that was so that wouldn't make him far right, it would just make him have a right wing bias. But that's not even so. The Weinstein brothes, Sam Harris brothers and several of his other guests identify as left wing libertarians. They are just not a part of the regressive left, which I guess, in their eyes automatically makes you far right these days.
This was another thing that fan cited in support of Rubin being far right.
I don't know who those people are and haven't seen his conversations with them yet. A quick google tells me they are indeed considered far right (though, these days of course, you have to look for yourself to see if that is so or not). In any case, if these people really are anti-semite far right people then I don't think that makes Rubin far-right. He may be criticized for giving them a platform but he is a Jewish man himself, so if they are really anti-semitic, I doubt he agrees with them. I can only guess, but maybe it's his belief in free speech why he invited them. Maybe he gives an explanation why. He might be wrong and criticized for this, but it does not make HIM far right. But I am sure a misstep like this and the MSM is way too happy to stick this label to him or any of these people to discredit them. Labeling is all they do for a long time. And it works.
Same with when Jordan Peterson came to Hungary recently and the regressive leftist media here labeled him "alt right". They talked mockingly and dismissively of him, one article I remember labelled him a "self-help guru". He is a little more than that: a clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology. But of course these journalists operate on framing people with labels. The writer of this article didn't seem to know a lot about him (just like they don't know anything about MJ), so it was especially ridiculous how he tried to attach labels to him that he thought would discredit him.
Having said that, I think Peterson was wrong for accepting the invitation of Orbán and he is either ignorant of who Orbán really is and what he does in this country or he is a hypocrite. I assume the former, because from the outside it is often difficult to see what is really going on in a small country like this. I guess, Peterson didn't realize that Orbán does everything here that he is fighting against - ie. he is an enemy of free speech, he controls and censors 90% of the Hungarian media market. Like I said, he is just the flip side of what is going on in the West with the left. These are both authoritarians. But I would not call Peterson alt right or far-right for it. He was probably just misinformed. Missteps like this are bound to happen.
I went to the channel of the person who made the ‘Dave Rubin’s Battle of Ideas’ video. They have four videos on their channel; three dedicated to Dave Rubin and one that mocks Kanye West for claiming he is a free thinker. The person states that their channel is about ‘Lefty Politics’. So we see an agenda already. Everyone has their own agenda and we already know that the so called ‘progressive’ left characterise Rubin and anyone else who doesn’t subscribe to their group narrative as alt right. It is possible that Rubin has more right wing guests on his show but then you need to look at each guest individually. Considering left wing ‘progressives’ claim that people like Rubin and Bret Weinstein are alt right then you cannot trust these sweeping statements. Even if it is true that Rubin has more right wing guests – that really doesn’t make Rubin right wing. For a start, isn’t it just as possible that Rubin wants to give a platform to those who the ‘progressive’ left media refuse to give a voice to? Many of his guests have experiences or ideas that are misrepresented, demonised or even muted in the media. To me it kind of sounds like a ‘progressive’ thing to do. Also, mentioning two completely separate people as evidence that Rubin is a “far right shill” is completely pointless to me. It reminds me of people using R Kelly or OJ Siimpson as evidence that Michael Jackson is guilty. I think it boils down to people’s misunderstanding of what it means to be left wing or right wing (policy making) and what it mean to be a libertarian or authoritarian where both the left and the right reside. Looking at policies, considering Rubin believes in pro-choice, gay rights (any policy that enables freedom of the individual) – how could he possibly be either right wing or authoritarian? “When people say you are not a liberal, what they are really trying to say is you are not a progressive.” - That is what this is all about – rights of the individual vs rights of groups.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jul 17, 2019 13:29:25 GMT
I would say liberalism has taken complete leave of its senses these days and the "equal rights for all" mantra has been taken too far. Now, terrorists who set out to maim and murder can get a government pension paid by the British taxpayer. Ironically, those who were attacked by terrorists are paying them money. 🤔 www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-49009064As William Matchett states: "A Shankill Butcher and PIRA bomber no longer terrorist criminals, but victims deserving of a victims pension. If passed into law, a deluge of claims by ex-killers psychologically traumatised by what they did is certain. It is how the Provo brand of republicanism behaves, which is the driving force behind this and most everything with legacy. Would Kenya does this for al-Shabab? Spain for ETA? US for Isis?" This is called appeasement which there has been too much of the last 21 years thanks to illiberal liberalism. Appeasement is an infringement of the Access To Justice rights for ALL. To expand further, here's some information I've collected below: Justice is a legally enshrined right that applies to ALL people regardless of background, political affiliation, beliefs, colour, creed and so on. Here's what the European Union states about justice: "The concepts of ‘rule of law’ and ‘effective access to justice’ are two interlinked preconditions for a ‘functioning democracy. Access to justice means, first of all, that the legal system must be equally accessible to all. Access to justice also means that the legal system must lead to results that are ‘individually and socially just’. In the EU, effective access to justice is considered to be a core fundamental right, as well as a general principle of EU law. In Europe, Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognise the right to fair trial and the right to an effective remedy, respectively." Here's what the United Nations states about justice: "Access to justice is a basic principle of the rule of law. The Declaration of the High-level Meeting on the Rule of Law emphasizes the right of equal access to justice for all, including members of vulnerable groups, and reaffirmed the commitment of Member States to taking all necessary steps to provide fair, transparent, effective, non-discriminatory and accountable services that promote access to justice for all. Delivery of justice should be impartial and non-discriminatory." In other words, the argument is that if prosecutions of Operation Banner veterans is to take place, then prosecutions of PIRA, other Republican and Loyalist terrorists SHOULD take place. Indeed, prosecutions of terrorists MUST take place. Yet it's not. The world has gone mad.....
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 19, 2019 11:30:35 GMT
I admire Dr. Fiamengo's patience and calm. The brainwash and indoctrination in these kids, my God! The men who started by apologizing that they are white, straight men and "checking their privilege" were especially cringe-worthy.
And then this. This cannot be real life. SMH. And she is for real.
I feel like mental asylum patients are running the world. SMH.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 23, 2019 15:19:59 GMT
I can't.
|
|