July 26, 20204 yr Quote Hire thinkers. Not activists. https://www.unwoke.hr/ Quote Unwoke is the jobs board that helps companies avoid accidentally hiring radical activists https://reclaimthenet.org/unwoke-job-board/ So, the antibodies are slowly coming. Finally and not a moment too son! The question is if they will be strong enough against the twitter mobs and radicals in the media. Hiring people on the basis of their merits (and just that), avoiding radicals and Twitter mobsters: that's what the silent majority wants. Unfortunately for them, the radicals are in power in the media.
August 1, 20204 yr Great............... give the Anti American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) more power. <br>
August 1, 20204 yr Quote Court’s final ruling against Patreon opens legal avenue to defend against deplatforming https://reclaimthenet.org/final-ruling-patreon-owen-benjamin-injunction-denied/ It seems that there's finally a cost for tech companies that purge their users for the "sin" of not having the authorized opinion.
August 4, 20204 yr Oh for FUK’s sake! Will they ever STFU and go forth to meet the mother ship and leave this place??? give them an inch of a column and they take the whole page! #Where Have All The Sane People Gone!!???
August 5, 20204 yr LMAO! A movement protesting the murder of civilians by police is the terrorist organization, sure.
August 5, 20204 yr 5 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said: LMAO! A movement protesting the murder of civilians by police is the terrorist organization, sure. If you actually followed what's going on instead the lies feed by the MSM, BLM's movement was co-opted by far left extremists which BLM won't call out. It's not about police reform anymore besides them these protests not being peaceful anymore. Want proof, follow Andy Ngo and Ian Miles Cheong on the Twitter machine. It's been proven time and time that peaceful protests actually work, these aren't peaceful protests. I'm not going to get into the political aspect of this.
August 5, 20204 yr 6 minutes ago, Stromboli1 said: If you actually followed what's going on instead the lies feed by the MSM, BLM's movement was co-opted by far left extremists which BLM won't call out. It's not about police reform anymore besides them these protests not being peaceful anymore. Want proof, follow Andy Ngo and Ian Miles Cheong on the Twitter machine. It's been proven time and time that peaceful protests actually work, these aren't peaceful protests. I'm not going to get into the political aspect of this. Successful protests have historically never been entirely peaceful, that is a convenient lie being peddled by those who want these protests to just go away. If you think the social justice movements of the 1960s were devoid of any violence, you have been fed a very sanitized version of history. Also: Quote follow Andy Ngo and Ian Miles Cheong on the Twitter machine
August 5, 20204 yr There are a great many reasons why people maintain that you should use the so-called "proper channels" to try and facilitate change, but by far and away the biggest one is that those same people have a monopoly over the proper channels and therefore can choose whether or not they want to listen.
August 5, 20204 yr ^ Monopolies often have detrimental effects (except in special cases), because they don't allow the emergence of new solutions and critical thinking. There are many sectors where there has been an "oligopolisation" over the past years, but one of the most harmful is the press, especially the anglo-saxon mainstream media (because of groupthink & a reduced number of owners). Their ideas/narrative are getting more radical every day and leave no room to critical thinking. That's partly what we call political correctness.
August 5, 20204 yr "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" => that's the state of mind we need to have if we want constructive dialog and democracies. That's not idealistic, because I'm pretty sure we were closer to that, just 10 years ago.
August 5, 20204 yr 6 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said: Successful protests have historically never been entirely peaceful, that is a convenient lie being peddled by those who want these protests to just go away. If you think the social justice movements of the 1960s were devoid of any violence, you have been fed a very sanitized version of history. Comparison is not reason. The fact that people who protested 60 years ago were right doesn't mean that protesters are right nowadays. The situation is different. The 1960s movements were about legal rights. Changing the law. They were not about "social justice", because this term is an oxymoron. Justice is individual, not social. It's one of the cornerstones of Democracy. Solidarity is social, but not justice, because you're not guilty of what your supposed "group" does. If people want solidarity, I agree with them, but looting and violence will never achieve that. Color blindness is what brings solidarity. BTW, ML King never argued for violence. He said the opposite in "I have a dream" : "We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence".
August 5, 20204 yr 29 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: ^ Monopolies often have detrimental effects (except in special cases), because they don't allow the emergence of new solutions and critical thinking. There are many sectors where there has been an "oligopolisation" over the past years, but one of the most harmful is the press, especially the anglo-saxon mainstream media (because of groupthink & a reduced number of owners). Their ideas/narrative are getting more radical every day and leave no room to critical thinking. That's partly what we call political correctness. Mainstream media believes in "balance" which means if there are two people, one who says it's raining outside and one who says it's sunny, those two viewpoints are treated as having equal value, without being scrutinised. Given the human tendency to cherry-pick evidence and dismiss inconvenient data it's hardly surprising that, without proper scrutiny, so many facile and often completely counter-factual myths keep getting regurgitated. We seem to have arrived at a point where people get to claim that the facts don't tell the whole story, which is just completely insane.
August 5, 20204 yr 57 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" => that's the state of mind we need to have if we want constructive dialog and democracies. That's not idealistic, because I'm pretty sure we were closer to that, just 10 years ago. By the same token, there are many people for whom "censorship" and "being subjected to criticism" seem to mean the same thing.
August 5, 20204 yr 52 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: Comparison is not reason. The fact that people who protested 60 years ago were right doesn't mean that protesters are right nowadays. The situation is different. The 1960s movements were about legal rights. Changing the law. They were not about "social justice", because this term is an oxymoron. Justice is individual, not social. It's one of the cornerstones of Democracy. Solidarity is social, but not justice, because you're not guilty of what your supposed "group" does. If people want solidarity, I agree with them, but looting and violence will never achieve that. Color blindness is what brings solidarity. BTW, ML King never argued for violence. He said the opposite in "I have a dream" : "We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence". There's an inherent contradiction in the idea of giving power to people you don't trust to manage the changes you require though, surely. The proper channels might work if they were managed by the trustworthy, but there's nothing to be gained by debating people who go out of their way to miss the point. Let's not act like everyone loved or even respected Martin Luther King, either. Roughly around the time of his assassination, several polls reflected that he was one of the most hated people in America, and many folks who invoke his name in the present would likely hate him just as much were he alive today.
August 5, 20204 yr 9 minutes ago, Michael* said: Mainstream media believes in "balance" which means if there are two people, one who says it's raining outside and one who says it's sunny, those two viewpoints are treated as having equal value, without being scrutinised. The anglo-saxon media are not about journalists anymore, they are mostly editorialists who will say that it's raining outside because of groupthink and without checking what the weather actually is. It's actually not exactly the same in the French press (I read both). Our newspapers have their biases, but they generally tend to stick to the facts and try to have critical thinking. 11 minutes ago, Michael* said: Given the human tendency to cherry-pick evidence and dismiss inconvenient data it's hardly surprising that, without proper scrutiny, so many facile and often completely counter-factual myths keep getting regurgitated. We seem to have arrived at a point where people get to claim that the facts don't tell the whole story, which is just completely insane. Yep, that's a human tendency. That means everybody from all sides does it. Which is why we need people who spend time checking the facts and trying to bring a summarized, but still roughly accurate view of the world (it's the goal, it's never achievable, but still a goal). When it's highly technical, we call these people "scientists" and they are still generally trustworthy. When it's less technical, we call these people "journalists", but their credibility has severely plummeted, because they've become more zealots than journalists (especially in the US).
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.