Focusing too much on Harvard and *school policy is a misdirection IMO. The real issue is a careful re-examination of the Civil Rights Movement. Not whether African Americans deserve equal treatment under the law, but whether the political apparatus and bureaucracies born from the 1960's needs to be totally ripped apart and the tenets of social progress reimagined.
Cancel culture is a simple formula: strong bureaucracy + low legitimacy. Snowflake culture is what happens when you take the noble cause of black civil rights, continue to bolt on oppressed group after group to it until 40% of the population is "protected" and free speech is impossible. The establishment's term "democracy" is really this parallel legal system for the disaffected.
Skeptics will say: that means possibly returning to a highly race-conscious society. How is that any different from where we're already headed?
90's liberals like Maher are the first to beat their chests on social progress re: race, sex, gender -- yet the first to decry the excesses of woke as a derailment. Woke isn't a derailment but the 90's at maturity, after 3 decades of bureaucratic failure.
Stephen Pinker wrote a piece in the Boston Globe on how to "save" Harvard: establish institutional neutrality, affirm free speech, dismantle DEI. This is so ridiculous because the issue with Harvard is equally about law as it is "school policy".
The US leadership class in 2023 is trapped in a paradox: its legitimacy comes from so-called social advancement/progress, yet these emerging, radicalized movements are a direct response to their mismanagement of these social issues. You can call me names for calling out the Civil Rights Movement all day — sorry, don’t care. I think it benefits everyone to see a healthy Baltimore of Chicago, or for black America to be vibrant. Yet the underlying arrangements require continued misery.
Professor Amy Wax has an anti-black problem. And Glenn Loury is overprotective of her. Amy Wax is a buddy of a prominent white separatist and supremacist, Jared Taylor. Interesting!
Glenn, I'll go one step further: the Obamas and the Jewish community are traveling towards each other @ 150 MPH and destined for a collision.
When we say "DEI" it's both the expanding civil rights bureaucracy from the 1960's, but also Obama's minority coalition in 2012. Obama tried to take a bunch of disaffected minorities with lots of internal contradictions and turn them into a majority -- using the organizing principle of white Republican oppression.
The basis of that anti-white framework was rooted in antisemitism, that's why things turned so quickly from "white supremacy" to "Jews" among the woke.
Here's what I mean: listen carefully to anti-white arguments 1. there's admiration and revulsion (e.g., Smithsonian's chart of "white t*raits": self-reliance, hard work, nuclear family 2. whiteness = god of the gaps that explains every negative social phenomenon for POC 3. since whites are colonizers, they have no homes and therefore no country, etc. etc. These are dyed in the wool anti-Jewish tropes.
DEI doesn't have an antisemitism problem, structurally DEI *is* antisemitism. And there were a lot of very wicked liberal Jews who understood this.
Watch carefully the dynamics of the Obamas and Jewish community moving forward, I think a storm is slowly brewing.
If you had to make a determination of which is worse- loaded gun to your head- Orangey eating dinner with Fuentes or an Ivy League school allowing “GLORY TO OUR MARTYRS” at one of the top universities referring to killed Hamas terrorists who carried out brutal and violent rape, murder and kidnapping? I’m gonna go with the actual violence and the lack of condemnation of it over the dinner but maybe you can convince me that you know the topic of conversation of that dinner and can cite for me the most offensive passages that would at least make it rival the brutal surprise attack slaying of unsuspecting civilian families first thing in the morning. Go.
Listened to the show to day with Tabia Lee, it was excellent. I loved the way she presented her perspective. There was no name calling, no anger, eventhough she has every right to be angry, and a principled response to the DEI crowd. This is a cancer and must be defeated by people such as you raising your voices.
It’s definitely not normal. It’s the predictable response to irrational authoritarian nonsense based on and rooted in fringe critical theory that escaped the Petri dish of sociology departments in Ivy League schools.
DEI has a logic and culture problem. Can you IMAGINE the tsunami of hostility any person would face if they answered legitimate questions on policy with shit like “de-centering blackness”??
All of this nonsense can be chalked up to the media, courts (here’s looking at you, Minneapolis) higher ed, and pretty much the entire progressive wing of the Democrat party (think of the MAGA wing of the Republican Party concerning size and influence within the larger party) manipulating a narrative that plays off of and utilizes victimhood/oppressor critical theory/social justice ideology in order to manipulate public perception. THIS IS A MIND GAME and you’re all playing it.
And I’ll say this again and keep saying it until Glenn and John don’t want my money and membership anymore.
The original autopsy report as well as the bodycam footage from May 25 and 26 2020 was available in 2020 and for the last 3.5 years they’ve both (John and Glenn) have (unwittingly it seems) been referring to that incident as the “murder of George Floyd”.
So yeah, you can bluster about DEI but it’s merely a symptom of a much larger, much deeper problem that can be extrapolated to:
"Ultimately, it was my determination that Mr. Floyd was slowly suffocated as a result of the combined weight of multiple officers on this thoracic cage and windpipe after being placed in the prone position. It was a severely distressing way to die."
Dr Kory, is part of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) https://covid19criticalcare.com/about-the-flccc/our-physicians/ . He and his colleagues in the FLCCC have made enormous efforts to correct the failings of the mainstream COVID-19 pandemic response. He was hired as an expert witness. If you state that George Floyd was not murdered, implying that he did not die from asphyxiation, I suggest you at least cite the above pages as a contrary argument.
The official autopsy done 12 hours after George Floyd’s death disagrees with this doctor and by extension, you. The official state-sanctioned medical findings (the same state that disallowed critical evidence like the aforementioned autopsy, and like the body cam footage of the officers, and like the training manual for the Minneapolis police demonstrating the position that Chauvin had Floyd in when he died) listed GALACTIC amounts of methamphetamine and fentanyl. Dr. Kory wasn’t there, did not perform the autopsy and conveniently ignores the fact that a person that has a high tolerance to street drugs can be lucid just before cardiac arrest. It also ignores that there was no physical damage to the structure of Floyd’s airway at all, and death by asphyxiation usually leaves physical evidence like visceral congestion via dilation of the venous blood vessels and blood stasis, petechiae, cyanosis and fluidity of the blood, etc. None of these were found in the autopsy.
This next part is important, so read it well. Read it twice if you need to:
What you’re doing is splitting hairs regarding a much less likely scenario while simultaneously ignoring a mountain of evidence that makes the alternative scenario not only more likely, but more believable. But only if you still believe in things like science, evidence and facts- even evidence that is withheld quite purposefully from trial.
You are the precisely the type of person to whom I was referring in my original comment. You are the gaslit. You’re so used to finding a single source of information that provides you with the safe, socially-accepted, orthodoxy-approved narrative, that you’ve given up the rigor of finding the actual truth or in your case, even bothering to look.
It’s also quite clear that you didn’t watch the documentary- which bolsters my claim. You’re certainly welcome to your opinion, which is simply parroting an opinion of someone that you deem credible- outside of that, saying “you’re wrong because this one doctor said so and I find that credible” isn’t very intellectually rigorous, thus not substantive, thus easily dismissed. And all of this is fine except…
When people like you, that share these uninformed opinions start telling others how they’re allowed to think, what they’re allowed to publicly state, and what is or isn’t morally compromised with the rubric of that measurement based on what your uninformed opinion is- well, then we have a problem.
And we do have quite a problem because that is what has been occurring since the late spring of 2020.
The irony is that when people that take the time to do research, examine all the evidence thoughtfully and intricately get tired of being told not to believe their lying eyes get fed up with this bullshit, then a populist comes to power.
Then you can comment on how America has taken a turn toward racism and white supremacy because some pundit at MSNBC told you so.
Please do not waste my time with another senseless comment until you watch The Fall of Minneapolis.
Everyone but Jake: I don't proclaim any expertise in this matter. I cited a professionally prepared position which is contrary to a version of Jake's comment which I don't have a copy of, since he edited his comment after I wrote mine, but in which he stated that George Floyd was not murdered. I wrote a similar comment to https://glennloury.substack.com/p/derek-chauvin-did-not-murder-george in which John McWhorter is quoted as saying "There was no evidence of asphyxiation of any kind."
Jake seem to think I am a creature of what passes for the Left these days. This is not the case.
This is dishonest. You’re inferring that I specifically stated “George Floyd was not murdered”, then removed that statement by editing. Now you ARE a bad actor, because that’s untrue, and I think you know it. Just to remove any confusion, my official position on the incident is as follows:
Given the compelling evidence that was not allowed in the trial of Chauvin and the other 3 officers, I think an appeal trial, especially if all evidence from the defense is allowed, will overturn the guilty verdict- or at least lessen the sentence a great deal. I can’t say he’s not guilty because he’s been judged guilty by our judicial institutions and we cannot easily discard or overthrow these institutions- nor should we. What I can say, given that critical evidence was allowed to be withheld, is that our institutions are captured at least to some degree and that the Chauvin trial is the epitome of a corrupt sham.
What makes it “professionally prepared”? What does that even mean? Do you know his admin assistant? Fauci’s positions were “professionally prepared” too. I am going to make an assumption and guess that you haven’t read any of the internal emails regarding the veracity of the zoonotic origin vs the lab leak. I hope I’m wrong but judging how quickly you’re willing to quote a doctor whose “expertise” differs from the actual medical facts of the case, I think the assumption is safe to make.
This is a perfect opportunity to say a few things. First, though my tone seems confrontational it’s because I’m weary and frustrated with people in general spreading information that is almost COMPLETELY divorced from reality. This is having dramatically deleterious effects on the social fabric and civility contract that we’ve all undertaken by virtue of being American.
I do not think you’re a ‘bad actor’ with nefarious intent Robin. It’s just that you’re so willing to pass on information as if it should go unchallenged when there exists copious amounts of evidence AVAILABLE LITERALLY AT YOUR FINGERTIPS that directly refutes and nullifies your claim- and you’re completely unaware of it. This information deficit + overload simultaneously is slowly driving people insane. Our interaction in this thread is indicative of that.
What I mean is; you’re saying something that’s easily disprovable through multiple pieces of evidence. I’m reacting initially like I did with John and Glenn saying “why are you so comfortable saying things that are false without actively searching for the truth in such a politically and socially fraught issue?” The answer is that for a variety of reasons, including the politicization, and suppression and then subsequent censorship of information is occurring on a mass scale. This has happened behind the scenes largely, and has piggybacked off anti terrorism infrastructure created by Bush, fine tuned by Obama and weaponized in earnest by both the current White House and national security agencies acting in concert with NGOs.
Through these various means, ordinary people, formerly not overtly political, have been unwittingly trained to feel morally superior in stating opinions that are stamped and approved by the current sociopolitical orthodoxy.
When you say things like “this doctor’s opinion says you’re wrong bc he’s a doctor and his statement was professionally prepared” that doesn’t mean anything to me. That doesn’t hold any water, because I know just from the context of what you’re saying, you haven’t viewed or appropriately weighted all the evidence in the case- like the vast majority of Americans.
That leaves us with a conundrum that is quite frustrating because it shows laziness and a dangerous incuriosity coupled with moral superiority- all based on things that are easily falsifiable. If you don’t see this as an epistemological crisis that has the potential for causing societal collapse if taken to its logical end and not addressed, then hurt feelings from a voracious reader and researcher online will be the very least of your worries eventually.
Watch the entire thing, then tell me if you still agree with your initial assertion. If you do, then you are certainly a creature of the left, you’re simply unaware that you are.
Careful, you’ll have some blue-haired ‘victim’ that somehow also attends an Ivy League college tell you to ‘educate yourself’ on the ‘true’ meaning of ‘racism’.
I wrote an anonymous letter to the president of one college where I teach, protesting the forthcoming and further DEI “Anti-Racist” workshop(s). I attended and witnessed the blatant anti-white narcissism of the facilitator. A first generation American-Dominican who “identifies as black,” this anti-intellectual petty person’s grievance was all about redesigning American culture to put herself in power, assuming the white people are and undeserving of this mythical privilege. Quote: “Consider yourselves part of the white group that is detrimental to society.”
It’s allowed because it is linked to and part and parcel of a specific ideology. Luxury beliefs and luxury statements. Just as rich people living in gated neighborhoods far from urban centers can scream Defund the police because police withdrawing from urban centers affects them little if at all. Similarly, an affluent WHITE Dean at an Ivy League school that has been subtly and steadily supporting critical theory ideology can’t afford to contradict the popular narrative nor will they suffer any consequences from branding themselves and their institution “racist”, They don’t believe they’re conceding anything because they lose nothing personally. Quite the opposite. Most of them benefit from toeing the line. The truth might as well be a fucking Sasquatch now.
Wealth accumulation is real power and equity. Whites got the headstart with Black chattel slavery and Jim Crow-- mal-distribution of wealth and power to the white dominant group. Consequently, blacks own and control less than 1.5 % of the wealth in Amerikkka which hasn't changed since the eve of the Civil War. Is the long term rape victim responsible for the behavior of the rapist?
i am an optimist and i think this kind of thing could be solved with better funding for community colleges. people like the kind of person you're talking about need to be "thought reformed" through being removed from the bureaucracy and sent to hard labor through teaching the undergrads that they've indoctrinated
I don’t think it can be fixed with money. Everything is downstream of culture. The culture must be corrected first. It’s been in the process of being corrupted for years and a solution cannot and will not be devised and implemented overnight. This problem goes way beyond funding.
maybe seven or so years; i was an undergrad in the late 2000s and don't remember anything like what's happening now. maybe eye rolls and name calling, but the mainstreaming of shunning, firing, moral righteousness i feel came firmly after mitt romneys 2012 run -- maybe began truly after arab spring in 2013 and michael brown in 2014
Yeah, the timing of when the cultural shift, both with how quickly it happened and with how drastically it changed is fascinating to me. I think any discussion of this without mentioning and incorporating social media algorithms is incomplete.
This anti-white racism is allowed to flourish through DEI programs because reasonable people are afraid to say the DEI emperor has no clothes. Because we have been indoctrinated to believe that the worst thing we can be labelled is “racist” and also that DEI is all about compassion rather than reverse discrimination (indeed, the very phrase reverse discrimination is forbidden). Funny thing is, if you’re not a person of colour, then the DEI view is that you are automatically racist, by birth. So why NOT push back and say loud and clear that DEI is discrimination (albeit dressed up as compassion for the oppressed)?
"Pro-Hamas rallies" are exactly what these protests should be called. Amazing to me, but then again, not so amazing, that a flawed ideology like DEI, results in assholery on the ground. As Glenn so accurately notes, when you flatten a struggle into ONLY oppressors and oppressed, you will, almost unavoidably, get this outcome.
Funny how the #metoo movement gets memory-holed when Jewish women get raped and murdered isn’t it. I guess the ideology hierarchy is working itself out.
Focusing too much on Harvard and *school policy is a misdirection IMO. The real issue is a careful re-examination of the Civil Rights Movement. Not whether African Americans deserve equal treatment under the law, but whether the political apparatus and bureaucracies born from the 1960's needs to be totally ripped apart and the tenets of social progress reimagined.
Cancel culture is a simple formula: strong bureaucracy + low legitimacy. Snowflake culture is what happens when you take the noble cause of black civil rights, continue to bolt on oppressed group after group to it until 40% of the population is "protected" and free speech is impossible. The establishment's term "democracy" is really this parallel legal system for the disaffected.
Skeptics will say: that means possibly returning to a highly race-conscious society. How is that any different from where we're already headed?
90's liberals like Maher are the first to beat their chests on social progress re: race, sex, gender -- yet the first to decry the excesses of woke as a derailment. Woke isn't a derailment but the 90's at maturity, after 3 decades of bureaucratic failure.
Stephen Pinker wrote a piece in the Boston Globe on how to "save" Harvard: establish institutional neutrality, affirm free speech, dismantle DEI. This is so ridiculous because the issue with Harvard is equally about law as it is "school policy".
The US leadership class in 2023 is trapped in a paradox: its legitimacy comes from so-called social advancement/progress, yet these emerging, radicalized movements are a direct response to their mismanagement of these social issues. You can call me names for calling out the Civil Rights Movement all day — sorry, don’t care. I think it benefits everyone to see a healthy Baltimore of Chicago, or for black America to be vibrant. Yet the underlying arrangements require continued misery.
This IMO is so much bigger than school policy.
Professor Amy Wax has an anti-black problem. And Glenn Loury is overprotective of her. Amy Wax is a buddy of a prominent white separatist and supremacist, Jared Taylor. Interesting!
Glenn, I'll go one step further: the Obamas and the Jewish community are traveling towards each other @ 150 MPH and destined for a collision.
When we say "DEI" it's both the expanding civil rights bureaucracy from the 1960's, but also Obama's minority coalition in 2012. Obama tried to take a bunch of disaffected minorities with lots of internal contradictions and turn them into a majority -- using the organizing principle of white Republican oppression.
The basis of that anti-white framework was rooted in antisemitism, that's why things turned so quickly from "white supremacy" to "Jews" among the woke.
Here's what I mean: listen carefully to anti-white arguments 1. there's admiration and revulsion (e.g., Smithsonian's chart of "white t*raits": self-reliance, hard work, nuclear family 2. whiteness = god of the gaps that explains every negative social phenomenon for POC 3. since whites are colonizers, they have no homes and therefore no country, etc. etc. These are dyed in the wool anti-Jewish tropes.
DEI doesn't have an antisemitism problem, structurally DEI *is* antisemitism. And there were a lot of very wicked liberal Jews who understood this.
Watch carefully the dynamics of the Obamas and Jewish community moving forward, I think a storm is slowly brewing.
Greg, YES !!! Your clear, concise analysis may be best I've seen anywhere.
And Glenn's serious courage and honesty are sure to figure importantly in future consequntial negotiations .
Trump has dinner with antisemites Nick Fuentes and Kanye West
Marjorie Taylor Greene talks of Jewish space lasers.
But, DEI has a problem.
These are not serious discussions.
If you had to make a determination of which is worse- loaded gun to your head- Orangey eating dinner with Fuentes or an Ivy League school allowing “GLORY TO OUR MARTYRS” at one of the top universities referring to killed Hamas terrorists who carried out brutal and violent rape, murder and kidnapping? I’m gonna go with the actual violence and the lack of condemnation of it over the dinner but maybe you can convince me that you know the topic of conversation of that dinner and can cite for me the most offensive passages that would at least make it rival the brutal surprise attack slaying of unsuspecting civilian families first thing in the morning. Go.
Listened to the show to day with Tabia Lee, it was excellent. I loved the way she presented her perspective. There was no name calling, no anger, eventhough she has every right to be angry, and a principled response to the DEI crowd. This is a cancer and must be defeated by people such as you raising your voices.
I am having trouble wrapping my head around looking forward to redefining normal as Trump
It’s definitely not normal. It’s the predictable response to irrational authoritarian nonsense based on and rooted in fringe critical theory that escaped the Petri dish of sociology departments in Ivy League schools.
DEI has a logic and culture problem. Can you IMAGINE the tsunami of hostility any person would face if they answered legitimate questions on policy with shit like “de-centering blackness”??
All of this nonsense can be chalked up to the media, courts (here’s looking at you, Minneapolis) higher ed, and pretty much the entire progressive wing of the Democrat party (think of the MAGA wing of the Republican Party concerning size and influence within the larger party) manipulating a narrative that plays off of and utilizes victimhood/oppressor critical theory/social justice ideology in order to manipulate public perception. THIS IS A MIND GAME and you’re all playing it.
And I’ll say this again and keep saying it until Glenn and John don’t want my money and membership anymore.
The original autopsy report as well as the bodycam footage from May 25 and 26 2020 was available in 2020 and for the last 3.5 years they’ve both (John and Glenn) have (unwittingly it seems) been referring to that incident as the “murder of George Floyd”.
So yeah, you can bluster about DEI but it’s merely a symptom of a much larger, much deeper problem that can be extrapolated to:
THE LEFT HAS A GASLIGHTING PROBLEM.
Not sure they consider it a problem.
Perhaps, but I’m sure they should.
Your position that George Floyd was not murdered is contrary to the judgement of Dr Pierre Kory, the expert witness who identified the cause of death: https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyd-did-not-die-of-a-fentanyl and https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyds-death-response-to-comments . While a high level of fentanyl was found in George Floyd's bloodstream, Dr Kory argues that this was not the cause of death since his behavior, including being able to speak, was not sufficiently affected by this level. This is apparently explicable in terms of tolerance to such high levels.
"Ultimately, it was my determination that Mr. Floyd was slowly suffocated as a result of the combined weight of multiple officers on this thoracic cage and windpipe after being placed in the prone position. It was a severely distressing way to die."
Dr Kory, is part of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) https://covid19criticalcare.com/about-the-flccc/our-physicians/ . He and his colleagues in the FLCCC have made enormous efforts to correct the failings of the mainstream COVID-19 pandemic response. He was hired as an expert witness. If you state that George Floyd was not murdered, implying that he did not die from asphyxiation, I suggest you at least cite the above pages as a contrary argument.
The official autopsy done 12 hours after George Floyd’s death disagrees with this doctor and by extension, you. The official state-sanctioned medical findings (the same state that disallowed critical evidence like the aforementioned autopsy, and like the body cam footage of the officers, and like the training manual for the Minneapolis police demonstrating the position that Chauvin had Floyd in when he died) listed GALACTIC amounts of methamphetamine and fentanyl. Dr. Kory wasn’t there, did not perform the autopsy and conveniently ignores the fact that a person that has a high tolerance to street drugs can be lucid just before cardiac arrest. It also ignores that there was no physical damage to the structure of Floyd’s airway at all, and death by asphyxiation usually leaves physical evidence like visceral congestion via dilation of the venous blood vessels and blood stasis, petechiae, cyanosis and fluidity of the blood, etc. None of these were found in the autopsy.
This next part is important, so read it well. Read it twice if you need to:
What you’re doing is splitting hairs regarding a much less likely scenario while simultaneously ignoring a mountain of evidence that makes the alternative scenario not only more likely, but more believable. But only if you still believe in things like science, evidence and facts- even evidence that is withheld quite purposefully from trial.
You are the precisely the type of person to whom I was referring in my original comment. You are the gaslit. You’re so used to finding a single source of information that provides you with the safe, socially-accepted, orthodoxy-approved narrative, that you’ve given up the rigor of finding the actual truth or in your case, even bothering to look.
It’s also quite clear that you didn’t watch the documentary- which bolsters my claim. You’re certainly welcome to your opinion, which is simply parroting an opinion of someone that you deem credible- outside of that, saying “you’re wrong because this one doctor said so and I find that credible” isn’t very intellectually rigorous, thus not substantive, thus easily dismissed. And all of this is fine except…
When people like you, that share these uninformed opinions start telling others how they’re allowed to think, what they’re allowed to publicly state, and what is or isn’t morally compromised with the rubric of that measurement based on what your uninformed opinion is- well, then we have a problem.
And we do have quite a problem because that is what has been occurring since the late spring of 2020.
The irony is that when people that take the time to do research, examine all the evidence thoughtfully and intricately get tired of being told not to believe their lying eyes get fed up with this bullshit, then a populist comes to power.
Then you can comment on how America has taken a turn toward racism and white supremacy because some pundit at MSNBC told you so.
Please do not waste my time with another senseless comment until you watch The Fall of Minneapolis.
Everyone but Jake: I don't proclaim any expertise in this matter. I cited a professionally prepared position which is contrary to a version of Jake's comment which I don't have a copy of, since he edited his comment after I wrote mine, but in which he stated that George Floyd was not murdered. I wrote a similar comment to https://glennloury.substack.com/p/derek-chauvin-did-not-murder-george in which John McWhorter is quoted as saying "There was no evidence of asphyxiation of any kind."
Jake seem to think I am a creature of what passes for the Left these days. This is not the case.
You are totally wrong. Please give it up, or move on.
Not you, Jake! I know what happened w/George Floyd. (If I replied to the wrong thread....then, sorry!
Here’s another source of analysis of both the film and the incident/trial that you probably won’t bother to consume: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fifth-column-analysis-commentary-sedition/id1097696129?i=1000638639734
This is dishonest. You’re inferring that I specifically stated “George Floyd was not murdered”, then removed that statement by editing. Now you ARE a bad actor, because that’s untrue, and I think you know it. Just to remove any confusion, my official position on the incident is as follows:
Given the compelling evidence that was not allowed in the trial of Chauvin and the other 3 officers, I think an appeal trial, especially if all evidence from the defense is allowed, will overturn the guilty verdict- or at least lessen the sentence a great deal. I can’t say he’s not guilty because he’s been judged guilty by our judicial institutions and we cannot easily discard or overthrow these institutions- nor should we. What I can say, given that critical evidence was allowed to be withheld, is that our institutions are captured at least to some degree and that the Chauvin trial is the epitome of a corrupt sham.
What makes it “professionally prepared”? What does that even mean? Do you know his admin assistant? Fauci’s positions were “professionally prepared” too. I am going to make an assumption and guess that you haven’t read any of the internal emails regarding the veracity of the zoonotic origin vs the lab leak. I hope I’m wrong but judging how quickly you’re willing to quote a doctor whose “expertise” differs from the actual medical facts of the case, I think the assumption is safe to make.
This is a perfect opportunity to say a few things. First, though my tone seems confrontational it’s because I’m weary and frustrated with people in general spreading information that is almost COMPLETELY divorced from reality. This is having dramatically deleterious effects on the social fabric and civility contract that we’ve all undertaken by virtue of being American.
I do not think you’re a ‘bad actor’ with nefarious intent Robin. It’s just that you’re so willing to pass on information as if it should go unchallenged when there exists copious amounts of evidence AVAILABLE LITERALLY AT YOUR FINGERTIPS that directly refutes and nullifies your claim- and you’re completely unaware of it. This information deficit + overload simultaneously is slowly driving people insane. Our interaction in this thread is indicative of that.
What I mean is; you’re saying something that’s easily disprovable through multiple pieces of evidence. I’m reacting initially like I did with John and Glenn saying “why are you so comfortable saying things that are false without actively searching for the truth in such a politically and socially fraught issue?” The answer is that for a variety of reasons, including the politicization, and suppression and then subsequent censorship of information is occurring on a mass scale. This has happened behind the scenes largely, and has piggybacked off anti terrorism infrastructure created by Bush, fine tuned by Obama and weaponized in earnest by both the current White House and national security agencies acting in concert with NGOs.
Through these various means, ordinary people, formerly not overtly political, have been unwittingly trained to feel morally superior in stating opinions that are stamped and approved by the current sociopolitical orthodoxy.
When you say things like “this doctor’s opinion says you’re wrong bc he’s a doctor and his statement was professionally prepared” that doesn’t mean anything to me. That doesn’t hold any water, because I know just from the context of what you’re saying, you haven’t viewed or appropriately weighted all the evidence in the case- like the vast majority of Americans.
That leaves us with a conundrum that is quite frustrating because it shows laziness and a dangerous incuriosity coupled with moral superiority- all based on things that are easily falsifiable. If you don’t see this as an epistemological crisis that has the potential for causing societal collapse if taken to its logical end and not addressed, then hurt feelings from a voracious reader and researcher online will be the very least of your worries eventually.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I assume it’s a duck. I edited for grammar. Here: https://youtu.be/eFPi3EigjFA?si=UnCcyX6p8RRSXT3r
Watch the entire thing, then tell me if you still agree with your initial assertion. If you do, then you are certainly a creature of the left, you’re simply unaware that you are.
I think we need to lose the "people of color" trope. Straight up, it means "everybody except white people". That's hateful and racist.
Careful, you’ll have some blue-haired ‘victim’ that somehow also attends an Ivy League college tell you to ‘educate yourself’ on the ‘true’ meaning of ‘racism’.
It's good racism, as opposed to bad racism.
I wrote an anonymous letter to the president of one college where I teach, protesting the forthcoming and further DEI “Anti-Racist” workshop(s). I attended and witnessed the blatant anti-white narcissism of the facilitator. A first generation American-Dominican who “identifies as black,” this anti-intellectual petty person’s grievance was all about redesigning American culture to put herself in power, assuming the white people are and undeserving of this mythical privilege. Quote: “Consider yourselves part of the white group that is detrimental to society.”
Seriously-- why is this allowed and sanctioned?
It’s allowed because it is linked to and part and parcel of a specific ideology. Luxury beliefs and luxury statements. Just as rich people living in gated neighborhoods far from urban centers can scream Defund the police because police withdrawing from urban centers affects them little if at all. Similarly, an affluent WHITE Dean at an Ivy League school that has been subtly and steadily supporting critical theory ideology can’t afford to contradict the popular narrative nor will they suffer any consequences from branding themselves and their institution “racist”, They don’t believe they’re conceding anything because they lose nothing personally. Quite the opposite. Most of them benefit from toeing the line. The truth might as well be a fucking Sasquatch now.
Victimhood is power. It is also fragile and can be destroyed by the claims of other victims. Hence the antisemitism. What a wretched disease.
Wealth accumulation is real power and equity. Whites got the headstart with Black chattel slavery and Jim Crow-- mal-distribution of wealth and power to the white dominant group. Consequently, blacks own and control less than 1.5 % of the wealth in Amerikkka which hasn't changed since the eve of the Civil War. Is the long term rape victim responsible for the behavior of the rapist?
i am an optimist and i think this kind of thing could be solved with better funding for community colleges. people like the kind of person you're talking about need to be "thought reformed" through being removed from the bureaucracy and sent to hard labor through teaching the undergrads that they've indoctrinated
I don’t think it can be fixed with money. Everything is downstream of culture. The culture must be corrected first. It’s been in the process of being corrupted for years and a solution cannot and will not be devised and implemented overnight. This problem goes way beyond funding.
maybe seven or so years; i was an undergrad in the late 2000s and don't remember anything like what's happening now. maybe eye rolls and name calling, but the mainstreaming of shunning, firing, moral righteousness i feel came firmly after mitt romneys 2012 run -- maybe began truly after arab spring in 2013 and michael brown in 2014
Yeah, the timing of when the cultural shift, both with how quickly it happened and with how drastically it changed is fascinating to me. I think any discussion of this without mentioning and incorporating social media algorithms is incomplete.
This anti-white racism is allowed to flourish through DEI programs because reasonable people are afraid to say the DEI emperor has no clothes. Because we have been indoctrinated to believe that the worst thing we can be labelled is “racist” and also that DEI is all about compassion rather than reverse discrimination (indeed, the very phrase reverse discrimination is forbidden). Funny thing is, if you’re not a person of colour, then the DEI view is that you are automatically racist, by birth. So why NOT push back and say loud and clear that DEI is discrimination (albeit dressed up as compassion for the oppressed)?
I believe that far fewer people truly believe what they say they do. Regardless, it makes no difference, so your point stands.
"Pro-Hamas rallies" are exactly what these protests should be called. Amazing to me, but then again, not so amazing, that a flawed ideology like DEI, results in assholery on the ground. As Glenn so accurately notes, when you flatten a struggle into ONLY oppressors and oppressed, you will, almost unavoidably, get this outcome.
I bet you're married to white woman who owns your mind-- a Clarence Thomas clone. Lol!!!!
Assholery! I love that word!
Funny how the #metoo movement gets memory-holed when Jewish women get raped and murdered isn’t it. I guess the ideology hierarchy is working itself out.