What is it about the left that they can't bear to hear opposing points of view? Why is it do they close themselves off rather than engage when those opposing points of view are offered in earnest and sincerity? It seems more than clear that the leftist finds free speech problematic. Free speech means they will at times hear that which displeases them.
What displeases them most is that which they cannot truly oppose truthfully. This is what the "cancel culture" truly is...the stifling of truth. Regardless of the medium, when the left fails to make their case...when it fails to overcome the weight of that which exposes them...they run and hide, or in the parlance of today, they "cancel" the opposition. Conservative expression is constantly under assault by those who run social media platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and others. Leftist news organizations, such as CNN and MSNBC present only "conservative" voices that align with their own, routinely hiring "NeverTrumpers" to parrot their own anti-Trump message, while never truly providing a seat for those who are truly conservative and can defend Trump's policies. And why would they? They can't overcome.
This "cancel culture" extends to the blogs as well, and we see that with our own Bobbsey Twins. One doesn't allow for comments at all, because he doesn't possess the ability to debate like an adult anyway. The other provides so long as one abides his every changing set of rules. But step over the line that was never drawn in the beginning, and one is banished for the slightest infraction...not because the "crime" is so terrible, but because it provides the lefty host with the excuse he needs to avoid confronting that which he cannot overcome. The worst part is his own hypocrisy as he engages in the very crimes he pretends are worthy of silencing his opponents.
And it's not a new thing. I've dealt with bloggers banning me for my opinions before. It's quite routine. And if it's not me being banned from theirs, they will flee mine as if they've been so horribly insulted, generally ignoring how insulting they've been by the manner in which they've attacked me more so than my position or argument.
Canceling, stifling, ignoring, running away...these are common from the left and it demonstrates that they are not interested in changing hearts and minds that are strongly convicted in opposing beiefs. They simply prefer to force compliance.
The conservative offers the chance to convince and persuade. He has no reason to fear being open to debate, because the conservative knows he wins regardless of the outcome. If the conservative wins the debate, he's brought about understanding to the opponent that is a benefit to the opponents. If the conservative loses a debate, understanding has been delivered to him and is a benefit to him by his enlightenment.
But the leftist isn't concerned with truth, but only what he wants truth to be. You will comply with his invented truth or you will be silenced. It's as simple as that and such an attitude benefits no one.
UPDATE:
There's more I wanted to say on this subject, and the link that follows is something about which I meant to mention:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/banning_comments_to_protect_the_fake_news_media_monopoly.html
The above refers to Yahoo and their current comment policy, which is, no more comments...at least for the foreseeable future. Instead there's a "survey" to help them "serve you better". If you had any familiarity with Yahoo and their "journalism", you'd know that they play fast and loose with the facts, as well as not being shy about injecting their own leftist points of view. The result is a plethora of entertaining comments that are decidedly conservative in tone, to say the least. Certainly they had their share of supporting comments, but in dealing with the articles that drew my attention, let's just say they didn't go over well. (AOL is just the opposite. Their commenters are incredibly leftist and mostly sufferers of TDS. I've had a few comments denied for reasons I couldn't figure out.)
Now, there are no comments while they, I would assume, try to figure out how to limit right-wingers from exposing their idiocy. Again, lefties canceling because they're cowards.
I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the problem of job loss over issues that run contrary to the leftist dogma. Frank Turek lost a gig over some homosexual seeing his non-job related blog posts supporting true marriage. Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla after pressure following his donation in support of California's Prop 8. Craig James was fired by Fox Sports over similar opposition. Going back further, Guillermo Gonzalez lost a tenure position because he expressed a belief in Intelligent Design. Chuck Todd banned climate "deniers" from expressing their positions on Meet The Press. Tim Allen's "Last Man Standing" was literally cancelled despite it's top ratings because of it's conservative character. The same with Rosanne Barr. Pretty much any conservative expression will get you fired, dismissed, "cancelled". The left has no spine for dealing with opposing points of view.
In the meantime, Rush Limbaugh allows more time to left-wing callers to his show than he does those who agree with him, and Michael Medved pretty much doesn't take calls from those who agree, constantly inviting opponents to give it their best shot. And even Steven Crowder has invited left-wingers on his show...some more than once...and even does "Change My Mind" episodes where he picks a topic and invites people on the street to convince him of an opposing viewpoint.
The left doesn't care if you agree or not. They only demand compliance. They don't have the spine to defend their positions.
Monday, July 27, 2020
Saturday, July 18, 2020
Not The Enemy??
Dan Trabue likes to wet himself over President Trump's depiction of the press as the "enemy of the people". I've already given plenty of examples in my posts here, a>, and here. One would think that should be enough to make the case, but Dan still brings it up as if there's no way the phrase is in any way true at all. It's idiotic given the plethora of misquotes, mistakes and misrepresentations of Trump's words and actions by the press.
Here's the latest example that showed up in my Facebook feed. There have been others in recent months (the hydroxychloroquine nonsense is a good example) which have grown the list of lies about the president. That's really ironic given how Dan likes to talk about how Trump lies all the time, even pointing to numbers by some running list of "lies" by WaPo!
In any case, it never stops and Dan's excuse making for the press...that they make mistakes sometimes and other such crap...is just Dan lying, too. He does that. A lot.
If any new examples rear their ugly heads...they no doubt will, given the dishonorable nature of the leftist media these days, I'll be posting them here for a while. If I come across any from recent weeks, I'll add them, too.
A media that purposely distorts...as in the examples above, especially the new one..., that fails to do their due diligence in getting all the facts right before going to press, that fails to correct their "errors" when discovered...by them and more likely by others..., that ignores more important stories, fails to ask more important questions...this is a media, a press, which is an enemy of the people.
UPDATE:
Well...that didn't take long...
Here's more
Here's the latest example that showed up in my Facebook feed. There have been others in recent months (the hydroxychloroquine nonsense is a good example) which have grown the list of lies about the president. That's really ironic given how Dan likes to talk about how Trump lies all the time, even pointing to numbers by some running list of "lies" by WaPo!
In any case, it never stops and Dan's excuse making for the press...that they make mistakes sometimes and other such crap...is just Dan lying, too. He does that. A lot.
If any new examples rear their ugly heads...they no doubt will, given the dishonorable nature of the leftist media these days, I'll be posting them here for a while. If I come across any from recent weeks, I'll add them, too.
A media that purposely distorts...as in the examples above, especially the new one..., that fails to do their due diligence in getting all the facts right before going to press, that fails to correct their "errors" when discovered...by them and more likely by others..., that ignores more important stories, fails to ask more important questions...this is a media, a press, which is an enemy of the people.
UPDATE:
Well...that didn't take long...
Here's more
Friday, July 10, 2020
The Conversation: The Lefties Avoided It. What A Surprise.
The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. -L.P. Hartley
This is likely my last post in this series. It seems quite clear that the Bobbsey Twins do not truly wish to have "the Conversation" after all. When Eric Holder called America "a Nation of Cowards" with regard to dealing with racial issues, he clearly was speaking of himself and the left half of the nation. I have yet to hear of either of the two clowns regarding the "voices" I presented in posts of this series. Dan claims we're only interested in those who validate our opinions, while lacking the courage to accept that our opinions are informed by those voices he finds less than compelling, despite their basis in fact and evidence. "Hard data", evidently, is only important when it serves the lefty's purpose, not when it exposes the stupidity and falseness of the lefty position.
feo, on the other hand, prefers to engage in his typical practice of trying to post wholly off-topic comments where his claim of better understanding has an open forum for providing useful info and insights...except that he really doesn't have any. Indeed, I have to stretch to include anything he says, but mostly because I'm compelled..."provoked" might be a better word...to address some of the goofy things he says that has any connection at all to the point of the post on the table. *sigh*
So what I will do now is address the "words of wisdom" from one Caroline Randall Williams that have given both Dan and feo (as well as leftists in general) quite the tingle in their nether regions.
Frankly, I find her words less than wise. Rather, I find them overwrought and overly dramatic. Imagine referring to one's skin as "rape-colored"! Good gosh, can we all have a pity party together!!! This woman speaks of "airbrushing" the past, as if the honoring of Confederates with statues and memorials...and allowing them to remain...ignores the sins of the past. But her essay is the opposite side of that very same coin...she is highlighting the worst as if it was all some constant horror story. This is not at all to diminish a damned thing about the conditions suffered by the average slave. Absolutely not. But to take pains to make it worse than it was, as if it wasn't bad enough without doing so, is far worse than pretending "it wasn't all that bad". It's as if that period in history can't be discussed without mentioning the worst aspects of it...that indeed one MUST mention the worst aspects of it or by golly, you're "whitewashing" slavery!! Nonsense.
The very same people who hold this essay in such great esteem are also likely to be among those who accept the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemings story as true. Yet, there is no evidence that supports it, and a great deal that makes the very notion pure fantasy. Could this be the case with Edmund Pettus? How can we confirm the story? She claims DNA testing confirms she has white blood. She doesn't say it's the blood of Edmund Pettus. She just believes what great-grandfather Will believed...or claimed. So do those who descended from Hemings believe their family history despite what evidence exists in conflict with that history.
But what of the more serious charge of rape? The concept is that the no slave has any real consent so any sexual relations between slave and master is rape. That's pretty convenient for the sob story Williams wishes to convey. "Take pity on me. I'm the result of rape." But is it true? How can it be confirmed with any certainty? Personally, I have no skin in the game, so it really doesn't matter to me if it is true or not. But if it's going to be put forth as true, it's a serious charge that requires more than hearsay. What if great-great-granny saw sex with her master as a possible means to better treatment? Well, just how were they treated exactly? There are stories of Robert E. Lee being a very harsh master, to the degree that supposedly other slave holders thought he was unnecessarily strict. Was this true of Pettus (if he was indeed the sex partner)?
In my brief search to determine just what kind of slave owner Pettus was, I found some interesting things about his influence on the town of Selma and his work in making it thrive. He was instrumental in Selma being known as a haven for blacks fleeing the Klan. The point here is not that Pettus didn't rape or even have sexual intercourse with Williams' ancestor. It's that there is nothing beyond their family history that I could find that indicates it ever took place. Now, 150 years later, Williams insists her belief is true regardless of the lack of documentation of any kind.
Williams goes on to ask who would dare insist she celebrate those who enslaved her ancestors? I don't know than anyone would, is or intends to, nor do I believe that most people who prefer the memorials remain are "celebrating" them, either. It seems an odd thing to suppose. I don't necessarily celebrate Lincoln as much as remember who he was and what he did and what what he did meant for this country. It's the same for most of the Confederate memorials. Despite what they're positions were on slavery, those positions aren't the be all and end all of their lives. Not all of what each of them did for their states is solely tied to any pro-slavery position they held as if there was nothing else. Clearly, Pettus did more. The same is true for most of them. What did Williams do that we should regard her as a monument to anything, as if there are no monuments or memorials of greater value than her skin color? These things aren't hidden from public access.
In doing a quick research on Williams, I cam across this blog article noteworthy for also deferring to more scholarly research than merely family history. Again, this doesn't mean Williams' story is absolutely false, but it again paints a picture that her lamentations would deflect objective observers from noticing. (An interesting aside, I just saw a video wherein actor Don Cheadle finds that he was descended from slaves owned by an Indian tribe. His ancestors were never owned by white people. It can be found on YouTube. I didn't think to save it when I came across it.)
There are some of us who wish to preserve history for our honest and objective edification. There are others who would use history to push an agenda. Williams is of this latter group, as are our two buffoonish fake Christians lefties and as are most of the black voices to whom they would have us lend an ear. Worse, they would have us join them in referencing history to appease demands of a grievance group rather than to simply learn from it so as not to repeat it...hard to do when pulling down references to it is enabled by the spineless left.
Thus, it is the left who is truly the cowards regarding this issue of race relations. They look at history in an exploitative manner, as they look to exploit wherever doing so furthers their ideology. And if the two fakes want to have a conversation, they'll have to provide the open forum in which to do so at their own blogs. They've failed to prove they want such a thing having been given the open forum here.
This is likely my last post in this series. It seems quite clear that the Bobbsey Twins do not truly wish to have "the Conversation" after all. When Eric Holder called America "a Nation of Cowards" with regard to dealing with racial issues, he clearly was speaking of himself and the left half of the nation. I have yet to hear of either of the two clowns regarding the "voices" I presented in posts of this series. Dan claims we're only interested in those who validate our opinions, while lacking the courage to accept that our opinions are informed by those voices he finds less than compelling, despite their basis in fact and evidence. "Hard data", evidently, is only important when it serves the lefty's purpose, not when it exposes the stupidity and falseness of the lefty position.
feo, on the other hand, prefers to engage in his typical practice of trying to post wholly off-topic comments where his claim of better understanding has an open forum for providing useful info and insights...except that he really doesn't have any. Indeed, I have to stretch to include anything he says, but mostly because I'm compelled..."provoked" might be a better word...to address some of the goofy things he says that has any connection at all to the point of the post on the table. *sigh*
So what I will do now is address the "words of wisdom" from one Caroline Randall Williams that have given both Dan and feo (as well as leftists in general) quite the tingle in their nether regions.
Frankly, I find her words less than wise. Rather, I find them overwrought and overly dramatic. Imagine referring to one's skin as "rape-colored"! Good gosh, can we all have a pity party together!!! This woman speaks of "airbrushing" the past, as if the honoring of Confederates with statues and memorials...and allowing them to remain...ignores the sins of the past. But her essay is the opposite side of that very same coin...she is highlighting the worst as if it was all some constant horror story. This is not at all to diminish a damned thing about the conditions suffered by the average slave. Absolutely not. But to take pains to make it worse than it was, as if it wasn't bad enough without doing so, is far worse than pretending "it wasn't all that bad". It's as if that period in history can't be discussed without mentioning the worst aspects of it...that indeed one MUST mention the worst aspects of it or by golly, you're "whitewashing" slavery!! Nonsense.
The very same people who hold this essay in such great esteem are also likely to be among those who accept the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemings story as true. Yet, there is no evidence that supports it, and a great deal that makes the very notion pure fantasy. Could this be the case with Edmund Pettus? How can we confirm the story? She claims DNA testing confirms she has white blood. She doesn't say it's the blood of Edmund Pettus. She just believes what great-grandfather Will believed...or claimed. So do those who descended from Hemings believe their family history despite what evidence exists in conflict with that history.
But what of the more serious charge of rape? The concept is that the no slave has any real consent so any sexual relations between slave and master is rape. That's pretty convenient for the sob story Williams wishes to convey. "Take pity on me. I'm the result of rape." But is it true? How can it be confirmed with any certainty? Personally, I have no skin in the game, so it really doesn't matter to me if it is true or not. But if it's going to be put forth as true, it's a serious charge that requires more than hearsay. What if great-great-granny saw sex with her master as a possible means to better treatment? Well, just how were they treated exactly? There are stories of Robert E. Lee being a very harsh master, to the degree that supposedly other slave holders thought he was unnecessarily strict. Was this true of Pettus (if he was indeed the sex partner)?
In my brief search to determine just what kind of slave owner Pettus was, I found some interesting things about his influence on the town of Selma and his work in making it thrive. He was instrumental in Selma being known as a haven for blacks fleeing the Klan. The point here is not that Pettus didn't rape or even have sexual intercourse with Williams' ancestor. It's that there is nothing beyond their family history that I could find that indicates it ever took place. Now, 150 years later, Williams insists her belief is true regardless of the lack of documentation of any kind.
Williams goes on to ask who would dare insist she celebrate those who enslaved her ancestors? I don't know than anyone would, is or intends to, nor do I believe that most people who prefer the memorials remain are "celebrating" them, either. It seems an odd thing to suppose. I don't necessarily celebrate Lincoln as much as remember who he was and what he did and what what he did meant for this country. It's the same for most of the Confederate memorials. Despite what they're positions were on slavery, those positions aren't the be all and end all of their lives. Not all of what each of them did for their states is solely tied to any pro-slavery position they held as if there was nothing else. Clearly, Pettus did more. The same is true for most of them. What did Williams do that we should regard her as a monument to anything, as if there are no monuments or memorials of greater value than her skin color? These things aren't hidden from public access.
In doing a quick research on Williams, I cam across this blog article noteworthy for also deferring to more scholarly research than merely family history. Again, this doesn't mean Williams' story is absolutely false, but it again paints a picture that her lamentations would deflect objective observers from noticing. (An interesting aside, I just saw a video wherein actor Don Cheadle finds that he was descended from slaves owned by an Indian tribe. His ancestors were never owned by white people. It can be found on YouTube. I didn't think to save it when I came across it.)
There are some of us who wish to preserve history for our honest and objective edification. There are others who would use history to push an agenda. Williams is of this latter group, as are our two buffoonish fake Christians lefties and as are most of the black voices to whom they would have us lend an ear. Worse, they would have us join them in referencing history to appease demands of a grievance group rather than to simply learn from it so as not to repeat it...hard to do when pulling down references to it is enabled by the spineless left.
Thus, it is the left who is truly the cowards regarding this issue of race relations. They look at history in an exploitative manner, as they look to exploit wherever doing so furthers their ideology. And if the two fakes want to have a conversation, they'll have to provide the open forum in which to do so at their own blogs. They've failed to prove they want such a thing having been given the open forum here.
Sunday, July 05, 2020
More Conversation: Possibly The Best Voice Out There
Independence Day just ended. It is now the 5th. Back to the conversation the left doesn't really want to have. As we're told by "progressive" white guys to listen to black voices, and then admonished for only listening to conservative voices, as if we haven't heard the others, it seems clear that it is the "progressives" that have no interest in hearing all black voices out there. In a previous post, I've provided a number of really solid black voices, most of which actually have substance and evidence carried and delivered by their voices. Here, I am posting another from one of the best. For Thomas Sowell, facts and evidence are paramount when it comes to suggesting "fixes" to what ails the black community. This is a guy who knows marxism, having been a marxist himself in his younger days. Now, at 90, he can make a leftist look stupid with very little effort, knowing them better than he knows himself, and of course, knowing the facts.
Among the problems plaguing the black community is education deficiency. The left insists more money is the problem. That's because the left is stupid. Sowell's latest book, considered by himself as the most important of all the many he's written, is about charter schools and how the leftists that have run the education system in this country for decades have failed the minority student by ignoring the real needs in favor of spending other people's money...mostly on themselves.
If the two champions of the black community, Dan and feo the false priest, truly care about black lives, they need to watch intently this video from start to finish and then buy Sowell's book, and definitely more of them. They have no clue. Sowell will provide them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3428&v=9boQrCPwMws&feature=emb_logo
I have no doubt they won't bother. They prefer platitudes.
Among the problems plaguing the black community is education deficiency. The left insists more money is the problem. That's because the left is stupid. Sowell's latest book, considered by himself as the most important of all the many he's written, is about charter schools and how the leftists that have run the education system in this country for decades have failed the minority student by ignoring the real needs in favor of spending other people's money...mostly on themselves.
If the two champions of the black community, Dan and feo the false priest, truly care about black lives, they need to watch intently this video from start to finish and then buy Sowell's book, and definitely more of them. They have no clue. Sowell will provide them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3428&v=9boQrCPwMws&feature=emb_logo
I have no doubt they won't bother. They prefer platitudes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)