Category: Social Politics (Page 1 of 12)

The ideological war within Western academy

A few weeks back the world woke up to what could quite possibly be the greatest ever scandal in the modern Western academy. Three Anglo-American academics published seven hoax papers in one single year, in top-tier journals, mostly from the field of feminist and gender studies. The papers were remarkable. One of the articles literally was a paraphrase of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, albeit written in a feminist language. It got accepted in a feminist journal.

Anyone who looks up to the Western higher education model as something to be emulated, this comes as a shock and a warning. Ideological disciplines like academic feminism, gender studies, race studies, etc are not that common in other parts of the world, where primary funding for higher education still goes to science, economics and business. But with the growth of student exchanges, research collaborations, and educational departments and campuses spreading, this is a moment of reckoning.

The papers included unscientific garbage, which the hoaxers named as Grievance studies. For example, one paper mentioned fat accumulation and fat bodybuilding is a legitimate idea of health research. Another paper suggested that dog parks are grounds of patriarchy and human behaviour is observable through dogs when they exchange in carnal activities, which demonstrate power dynamics. Another paper said that feminist astrology should replace physics and astronomy. Another suggested that men should be put in chains in classrooms, as a punishment for patriarchy etc. The list goes on, and gives an idea. Unfortunately, most were either accepted or published.

This, needless to mention, is shocking. It’s unbelievable that these disciplines get funded from public tax and are taught at institutions of higher learning. One cannot imagine phrenology, craniometry, flat-earth theory or other pseudoscience will get funded like this, and yet, these disciplines are. Capital spent on these disciplines could be better spent on technology, and public welfare, instead of topics which have zero real-life relevance. However, the social cost of these disciplines is worse. These are the same disciplines which churn out young activists and students, with ideas of feminism and Me Too, and other such social change movements, which then, in turn, are spread in tech sectors and media and other professions. Some of these disciplines and courses are also made compulsory to first-year students, both domestic and foreign, which in turn act as ideological propaganda. It results in the spread of a culture and ideas, some of which will not be welcome in other parts of the globe.

Heather Mac Donald, in her latest book, The Diversity Delusion, highlights the roots to this. 

Read More

Brett Kavanaugh and burdens of proof

Brett Kavanaugh is credibly accused of attempting to rape a girl while at a party in high school. It does not need to be said that we don’t know for sure if he did it–that much is obvious. Probably only a few people will ever know for sure.

But the many people attempting to defend Kavanaugh and cast doubt on the accusations have no basis on which to say the accuser is “lying.” They similarly do not know.

Kavanaugh is facing confirmation to the highest court in the land. He is facing a job interview. He is not facing a trial. If he loses, he returns to his lifetime job as a judge at the level of the U.S. district court. He will not be deprived of his life or liberty.

The National Review‘s David French, however, stated on Twitter, “We cannot and must not abandon the notion that an accuser bears the burden of proof. It’s not enough to raise suspicion. If you make a claim, you have to support it at the very least with your sworn testimony.”

Read More

Rincon: If Rafael “Ted” Cruz is going to attack “Beto” O’Rourke for his name, here’s a response…

We have long strong traditions down in Texas. Our culture is the melding of many cultures-Mexican (which itself is a melding of Spanish and Indigenous), Irish, Czech, Polish, and a slew of African cultures, which due to the cruelty of the white man throughout history, get boiled down to Black. We have a way of co-opting you if you decide to migrate to this country. We’ll take you and put a new name on you.

But if you’ve got a hankering on coming down to the Lone Star State and changing it, you will face opposition. It may be good change they’re trying to bring—like that of the carpetbaggers during Reconstruction, or the Texians led by Sam Houston in the infancy of our short lived Republic—but we ain’t gonna just roll over for anything.

Oddly enough, time and politics have gone full circle. In what was once a bastion of Conservative Democrats (entirely white), fighting off encroaching “Radical Republicans” (mixed ethnicities, but still mostly white) in the 1860s-1870s, but had previously been Mexicanos fighting off encroaching Gringos in the 1830s, the two parties do-si-doed with each other so much that I actually thought there was a slight chance that the GOP could swing to the left of the Democrats with the election of Trump (this was during his campaign for the White House when there was still a sliver of hope that his campaign promises to the working class weren’t all lies).

Now we have a GOP incumbent who has definite Cuban roots, but shuns his Spanish first name running in a state with rapidly changing demographics i.e. going from majority white to majority-minority and then quickly to majority Hispanic. Cruz, following in the footsteps of La Malinche, the Indigenous woman who helped advise and interpret for Cortés as he conquered the Aztec Empire, is one of the leading opponents of immigration reform, the Dream Act and an ally of Trump’s racist and anti-immigrant agenda.

Read More

Exclusive: The scene at Lafayette Park and marching with the counterprotesters

Lafayette Square was filled with protesters hours before the alt-right began marching towards the White House—counterprotesters, that is.

Pre-march

The counterprotesters consisted of a diverse group of people. Many were individuals who simply opposed racism who didn’t appear to be aligned with any specific group. Many were centrists or moderate liberals. One man who wore a NATO flag as a cape said, “I like to piss off both sides. I oppose fascism and communism.”

There was no shortage of hardcore activists and far-left ideologues, as well. Activist groups organized around communism, socialism, anarchism and “racial justice” all sent large contingencies.

At 12:20 pm, a group of black rights activists came marching down 16 Street NW carrying signs and chanting. Among the groups represented on their shirts and signs were Black Lives Matter, Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100) and the Party for Socialism & Liberation (pslweb.org). Black protesters marched in front, followed by white allies. The Revolutionary Communist Party, A.N.S.W.E.R. and Refuse Fascism.org had organized protesters into the park, too, by then.

The park was divided in half—counterprotesters were allowed to fill the northern half, alt-right racists in the southern half. The counterprotest site was a cacophony of chanting and speeches by anti-racists, including Daryle Lamont Jenkins of One People’s Project.

The alt-right arrives

But the real action was along the orange line of the Metro.

Read More

Alt-right marches to Lafayette Park (Unite the Right 2 photos)

Outnumbered by police officers. Outnumbered by journalists. Heavily outnumbered by counterprotesters.

Read More

Vice’s shoddy journalism ethics and reckless sensationalism: the story of Sarah Jeong and Naomi Wu

Sarah Jeong didn’t publish an article exposing personal information about a pseudonymous Chinese tech woman. She just supported the publication of the article and attacked the victim after the fact.

The renewed controversy speaks to shoddy ethics and reckless journalistic practices of Vice, the sensationalist hipster magazine cofounded by current alt-right hate group leader Gavin McInnes. Its March 25, 2018 about tech goddess Naomi Wu is coming under further scrutiny in the aftermath of the New York Times’s hiring of Sarah Jeong. Jeong has been a contributing editor to Vice Motherboard when the article and attacked Wu after the article was published.

The gist of the controversy over this particular article, written by Sarah Emerson, is that the writer and her editors did not respect Wu’s privacy as a Chinese female living in an authoritarian country and working in a heavily-sexist industry. Now that Jeong is under fire because of tweets she has made, Wu took the opportunity to give the controversy renewed attention.

On Friday, I argued that Jeong’s controversial tweets were not in fact racist. But the fact remains that she may have committed breaches of journalistic or social media etiquette in other ways.

Her involvement in the Vice story appears to be mostly limited to criticizing Wu after the fact. She is not listed on the byline of the article, but she enthusiastically jumped into the controversy on Twitter, as might be expected of someone who maintains such a Twitter feed.

Vice’s Reckless Journalism

The article described how Naomi “SexyCyberg” Wu creates cool gadgets while dressed in sexy attire. It links her work with the culture of Shenzhen, a fast growing tech and design hub, and relates the difficulties of working in tech as a woman.

The big problem came approximately 4,700 words in, when Emerson raised a conspiracy theory and the topic of Wu’s personal life, including her marital status. As Wu wrote on Twitter in February 2018, “Why the fuck can guys make things, do STEM[,] without people taking a crowbar to their bedroom door as if they are entitled to the details of EVERY aspect of their lives?”

Vice fancies itself as a worldly, progressive outlet, but in this case, the writers and editors involved in the article failed their cause.

Read More

The conservative case for why Sarah Jeong isn’t racist

After Sarah Jeong was hired by The New York Times, the alt-right attacked her by surfacing controversial years-old tweets and calling for her firing. The mainstream right, while not involved in direct racism against her, did advance the narrative that Jeong’s tweets were “racist” and put pressure on the Times.

”#CancelWhitePeople!”

”Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” the shared tweets said.

’Just think what SJWs would do if a white person said that about black people!!!’ the cliched response goes.

Well, excuse me for being a dumbass fucking white person* sharing his opinion online, but calling Jeong “racist” and calling for her to be fired is an overreaction and isn’t even defensible from a laissez faire conservative perspective. (*Although (((I))) am not actually a fucking white person, according to the alt-right…)

Over the past few years, conservatives have wielded the torch of “free speech” against “political correctness.” It was supposedly one of the reasons Donald Trump won the electoral college vote. He was the only one fearless enough to say that Hispanics are not qualified to judge cases impartially and that “#WhiteGenocide” is happening.

Easily-offended right-wing SJWs tweeting angry attacks at Jeong after her tweets went viral.

Alt-right took Jeong tweets out of context

Trump, you see, expressed actually racist thoughts. Jeong, by contrast, was mostly responding to racism directed at her (directly as an individual and indirectly as a member of a targeted ethnicity) and other minority groups.

The idea of “#WhiteGenocide” is illustrative. It is, as I have written, “the idea that diversity is bad because it increases the population of minority ethnic groups in the United States and thus decreases the percentage of whites.” According to the alt-right narrative, America is a white country and should remain that way. Any change of demographics, due to immigration, intermarriage, or group differences in birth rates, is considered “genocide,” because it, in some small way, changes the demographic characteristics of the country. Demographic change in the country, where the percentage of white children born is now less than half of all children, was a factor in Trump’s election.

Thus, when Jeong tweeted to “@RepDanMode,” a racist account that has since been suspended,

.@RepDanMode White people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along. 😈

complete with a devil emoji, she was mocking the racist idea of “#WhiteGenocide.”

The idea that she individually—or minorities as a group—could have some kind of conspiratorial plan to decrease the fertility rate of members of the white ethnic group is hilariously stupid. Jeong was responding to something racist Mr. “Mode” said and treating it with the contempt it deserved. If anyone thinks she seriously has a plan to stop white people from breeding, they need to learn what sarcasm is.

See the difference? Arguing for banning immigration on the grounds of race is racist. Arguing against the racist idea that immigration should be banned isn’t racist. Using hyperbolic sarcasm to respond to racism is not the same thing as racism.

Read More

Facebook banning Alex Jones was the right thing to do

I wrote in April how Facebook has no obligation to post lies and bullshit. Free speech doesn’t mean forcing companies to help broadcast defamation, and Facebook has a real problem with defamatory news. Has Facebook taken the seriousness of its problem to heart?

Alt-right conspiracy nut Alex Jones was suspended from his personal Facebook account for thirty days for violating community standards. The suspension comes shortly after YouTube pulled four of Infowars’ videos for being false and full of conspiracy theories.

The alt-right will be quick to whine that they are victims. Trendy members of the ordinary right will talk about how “ideas should compete in the free marketplace of ideas.” Jones, however, isn’t sharing ideas or competing to make an argument or report news. He’s lying and slandering people. (And YouTube and Facebook aren’t the government; they are media platforms.)

Read More

Women’s equality is not some kind of war on men (Response to Jordan Peterson)

The fact that the economic playing field has become more fair to women and minorities over the past fifty years has paradoxically been cited by some critics of feminism as an affront on men’s rights. Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson see an assault on “masculinity”—an assault that is “a consequence of directed policy,” Peterson said in an appearance on Carlson’s Fox News show.

Cathy Young is sympathetic to Peterson’s case. “Crisis or no, there is certainly evidence that many men and boys have been left struggling by the cultural transformations of recent decades,” she wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed published, citing, in part, the fact that the women attending college outnumber men, “working-class men are more likely to be left behind by economic shifts that working-class women,” and jobless men are not attractive as mates.

Young is far from the only commentator to point to such trends. Others have done so with much less elegance and culture than she. The anonymous author of the HipCrime Vocab blog, for instance, wrote in a piece about Peterson, “The rise of the Sheconomy has made the only jobs on offer for men ones that they don’t particularly enjoy doing or are not particularly suited for.” The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, while not discussing Peterson, cited similar stats about education and claimed, “The eduction system is designed for girls.”

What is striking about these pieces is how little thought the authors engage in about the causes of these supposed problems and whether they really are problems. Is society really biased against men? Is the reason men are reportedly falling behind due to societal discrimination or incentives unfairly stacked against men? Because if that’s not the reason, then there is no problem. It could just be a result of individual choices or circumstances.

Read More

Harvey Weinstein isn’t a Democratic Senator, and neither is Al Franken anymore

“The Right” has an unfortunate tendency to make broad, meaningless statements about “the Left.” To be more precise, in this case, David French of National Review made a broad attack on “the Left” on the basis of some people having been punished for having committed sexual assault.

Read More

Page 1 of 12

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Get the most important and interesting articles right at your inbox. Sign up for B+D periodic emails.