patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,713 comments by 13,871 users - richwicks online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 41 - 42 of 42 Search these comments
41
Patrick
2020 Sep 5, 12:39pm
Patrick
2020 Sep 5, 12:39pm
WookieMan says
He's the professor from Evergreen who refused to go along with their "no white people at work day". So it's not an ordinary BLM-sucking liberal if he is one.
I don't think he's a moron, but I do think he is naive. He didn't understand the degree of censorship on Twitter, and so was surprised when they banned him for some bogus reason.
Patrick saysThat's why I think they are sincere.
That Weinstein guy isn't from the video. Gotta trust my gut on certain things. He looks like and talks like he's straight out of Portland. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, it's a duck. The guy is an intellectual moron.
He's the professor from Evergreen who refused to go along with their "no white people at work day". So it's not an ordinary BLM-sucking liberal if he is one.
In March 2017 he wrote a letter to Evergreen faculty, objecting to a change in the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence" during which minority students and faculty would voluntarily stay away from campus to highlight their contributions to the college.[11] The announced change would flip the traditional event, asking white participants to attend an off-campus program to talk about race issues while the on-campus program was designated for participating people of color.[12] Weinstein said this established a dangerous precedent.
There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and underappreciated roles....and a group encouraging another group to go away. The first is a forceful call to consciousness, which is, of course, crippling to the logic of oppression. The second is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.
— Bret Weinstein in a message to a campus email list[13]
I don't think he's a moron, but I do think he is naive. He didn't understand the degree of censorship on Twitter, and so was surprised when they banned him for some bogus reason.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 42 of 42 Search these comments
By "partisan" I mean belonging to parties with distinct shibboleths of belonging:
- Democrats say "dreamers", Republicans say "children of illegals"
- Republicans tend to be believing Christians, Democrats not.
- Democrats tend to eat elite foods such as arugula, Republicans not.
- Democrats say "jobs Americans don't want", Republicans say "jobs where illegals drove down wages"
Democrats tend to avoid directly saying what they really mean.
BLM is a self-justifying way for white liberals to say "I hate Republicans. They scare me."
Republicans tend to go for conspiracy theories.
Most political division is visceral and not rational, directly due to one's genetic and economic position in life:
1. Women tend to "think of the children" more more than men do.
2. Men tend to care much more about the integrity of national borders than women do.
3. People who are losing their manual labor jobs to cheap Chinese labor or illegal Mexican labor care much more about immigration than knowledge workers do.
4. People who are "educated" (much of which is propaganda for the superiority of "educated" people) tend to look down on those who do not have credentials.
5. People who have been in the military tend to approve of hierarchy and the strict application of laws.
6. People in big cities tend to approve of government wealth redistribution programs.
7. Race alone is a good predictor of party affiliation.
8. The young tend to be liberal, the old tend to be conservative.
You could probably add up the tendencies predicted by each aspect of someone's existence and come up with a 95% correct prediction of their political affiliation.
You think you're in control of your political choices, but you are not. You are carried along on the currents of your genetics and your experiences. Maybe it's possible to be rational and look at it all honestly. Maybe not.
When you know how the psychology of partisan division works, you can:
1. know what the right thing to say is in a given situation or
2. know when there is literally nothing you can say
For the best introductions I have ever read, see:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ and
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
A site that tries to at least collect similar numbers of articles from both sides: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
A site that points out media blind spots on right and left: https://web.ground.news/ (click "Blindspot Report:Your weekly news spotlight" top center)