When the U.S. Open begins next week, veteran broadcaster Doug Adler will be forced to watch from the sidelines because a comment he made about Venus Williams in January on ESPN is threatening to end his career. But Adler tells TODAY’s Matt Lauer that it’s a big misunderstanding. In the Orange Room, Sheinelle Jones invites TODAY viewers to weigh in.
| Larry Elder (Jan 2017) | John & Ken (Feb 2017) |
TWITCHY has fun with General Lee’s doppelganger:
On Tuesday night, ESPN confirmed what people had been assured was not a satirical piece from The Onion, though it would have been a great one — announcer Robert Lee had been pulled from calling a college football game because it just “felt right” at the time, so soon after a woman had been killed while protesting white supremacists in Charlottesville.
In an email to reporters, ESPN said it all came down the simple coincidence of Lee’s name. We know that Merriam-Webster is quick to correct President Trump on Twitter whenever he goofs up, so we hope someone there is paying attention to Reuters’ feed today………
These are three great short commentaries on the issue at Google which will soon creep into YouTube policies. The first commentary is the Simpson’s almost prophetic dealing with this a decade ago:
…Early in his radio career, Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. By 1934 he had become a harsh critic of Roosevelt, accusing him of being too friendly to bankers. In 1934 he established a new political organization called the National Union for Social Justice. He issued a platform calling for monetary reforms, the Nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor. The membership ran into the millions, but it was not well-organized at the local level. After hinting at attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to issue antisemitic commentary, and in the late 1930s to support some of the policies of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Emperor Hirohito. The broadcasts have been called “a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture”. His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, with his slogan being “Social Justice”, initially in support of, and later opposing, the New Deal. Many American bishops as well as the Vatican wanted him silenced, but after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in 1939 it was the Roosevelt administration that finally forced the cancellation of his radio program and forbade the dissemination through the mail of his newspaper [called], SOCIAL JUSTICE.
(WIKI – emphasis added… see also pages 41-42 of D’Souza’s book)
Before continuing let me post and expand (with extra links) on a GAY PATRIOT post that tackles this insanity — and yes, Christian’s being forced to bake cakes via the weight of the state but other’s not being forced to bake cakes for other situations is telling.
(Even selling blueberries is deemed hate!) CEO’s being fired for contributing to tradition marriage causes, the lamenting of alternative news choices, adoption agencies no longer able to adopt out children to loving families, etc — all causes me to say unless something changes, we [conservatives] will be rounded up into ghettos:
I daresay that the reference is not only to the James Damore situation (which technically is not about free speech; it’s more about working conditions and the illegal, retaliatory firing of a whistleblower -but also to:
✦ Youtube censoring conservatives and alt-media, bringing on left-wing extremist groups to do it;
✦ the allegations of Google helping Hillary by biasing its search-term auto-completes, etc.
Anyway, Alphabet Inc. has a lot of ‘splainin to do.
And we’re fools if we think Google is not biased. I’ve noticed that other search engines are more complete, when it comes to indexing/returning GayPatriot articles.
(Louder w/Crowder) Following Google’s viral debacle and the firing of James Damore’s “anti-woman manifesto”, we decided to do some digging to find out just how “diverse” Google’s leadership actually is! Hint: they’re all hard core liberal SJW activists!
If Google Ads uses an algorithm to tell if the person shopping online is a female or male… is that sexist? Gender imperialism?
(Black Pigeon Speaks)
I will put the WIKE article opening here… as it may change in a couple years as PC moves from ideology to government force:
STRAW MAN
…..A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man“.
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man“) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man“) instead of the opponent’s proposition.
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery “battle” and the defeat of an “enemy” may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue.
Allegedly, straw man tactics were once known in some parts of the United Kingdom as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name where patrons threw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.…
Also, here is some excellent information via the STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY:
8. The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion, is indicative of misdirection in argumentation rather than a weak inference. The claim that Calgary is the fastest growing city in Canada, for example, is not defeated by a sound argument showing it is not the biggest city in Canada. A variation of ignoratio elenchi, known under the name of the straw man fallacy, occurs when an opponent’s point of view is distorted in order to make it easier to refute. For example, in opposition to a proponent’s view that (a) industrialization is the cause of global warming, an opponent might substitute the proposition that (b) all ills that beset mankind are due to industrialization and then, having easily shown that (b) is false, leave the impression that (a) too is false. Two things went wrong: the proponent does not hold (b), and even if she did, the falsity of (b) does not imply the falsity of (a).
There are a number of common fallacies that begin with the Latin prefix ‘ad’ (‘to’ or ‘toward’) and the most common of these will be described next.
[….]
2. History of Fallacy Theory
Isaac Watts in his Logick; or, The Right Use of Reason (1724), furthered the ad-argument tradition by adding three more arguments: argumentum ad fidem (appeal to faith), argumentum ad passiones (appeal to passion), and argumentum ad populum (a public appeal to passions). Like Locke, Watts does not consider these arguments as fallacies but as kinds of arguments. However, the Logick does consider sophisms and introduces “false cause” as an alternative name for causa non pro causa which here, as in the Port-Royal Logic, is understood as a fallacy associated with empirical causation. According to Watts it occurs whenever anyone assigns “the reasons of natural appearances, without sufficient experiments to prove them” (1796, Pt. III, 3 i 4). Another sophism included by Watts is imperfect enumeration or false induction, the mistake of generalizing on insufficient evidence. Also, the term ‘strawman fallacy’ may have its origins in Watts’s discussion of ignoratio elenchi: after having dressed up the opinions and sentiments of their adversaries as they please to make “images of straw”, disputers “triumph over their adversary as though they had utterly confuted his opinions” (1796, Pt. III 3 i 1).
[….]
3. New approaches to fallacies
3.6 Dialectical/dialogical approaches to fallacies
Walton divides fallacies into two kinds: paralogisms and sophisms. A paralogism is “the type of fallacy in which an error of reasoning is typically committed by failing to meet some necessary requirement of an argumentation scheme” whereas “the sophism type of fallacy is a sophistical tactic used to try to unfairly get the best of a speech partner in an exchange of arguments” (2010, 171; see also 1995, 254). Paralogisms are instances of identifiable argumentation schemes, but sophisms are not. The latter are more associated with infringing a reasonable expectation of dialogue than with failing some standard of argument, (2011, 385; 2010, 175). A further distinction is drawn between arguments used intentionally to deceive and arguments that merely break a maxim of argumentation unintentionally. The former count as fallacies, the latter, less condemnable, are blunders (1995, 235).
Among the informal paralogisms Walton includes: ad hominem, ad populum, ad misericordiam, ad ignorantiam, ad verecundiam, slippery slope, false cause, straw man, argument from consequences, faulty analogy, composition and division. In the category of sophisms he places ad baculum, complex question, begging the question, hasty generalization, ignoratio elenchi, equivocation, amphiboly, accent, and secundum quid. He also has a class of formal fallacies very much the same as those identified by Whately and Copi. The largest class in Walton’s classification is the one associated with argumentation schemes and ad-arguments, and these are the ones that he considers as the most central fallacies. Nearly all the Aristotelian fallacies included find themselves relegated to the less studied categories of sophisms. Taking a long look at the history of fallacies, then, we find that the Aristotelian fallacies are no longer of central importance. They have been replaced by the fallacies associated with the ad-arguments.
[….]
4. Current issues in fallacy theory
Recently there has been renewed interest in how biases are related to fallacies. Correia (2011) has taken Mill’s insight that biases are predisposing causes of fallacies a step further by connecting identifiable biases with particular fallacies. Biases can influence the unintentional committing of fallacies even where there is no intent to be deceptive, he observes. Taking biases to be “systematic errors that invariably distort the subject’s reasoning and judgment,” the picture drawn is that particular biases are activated by desires and emotions (motivated reasoning) and once they are in play, they negatively affect the fair evaluation of evidence. Thus, for example, the “focussing illusion” bias inclines a person to focus on just a part of the evidence available, ignoring or denying evidence that might lead in another direction. Correia (2011, 118) links this bias to the fallacies of hasty generalization and straw man, suggesting that it is our desire to be right that activates the bias to focus more on positive or negative evidence, as the case may be. Other biases he links to other fallacies.
There is a LANGUAGE warning that accompanies Gavin:
White Privilege in ROGUE ONE… no thanks, I will pass. Here is some info via HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:
In the wake of this week’s U.S. election, the symbol of Star Wars‘ Rebellion had been adopted by many fans protesting the victory of Donald Trump — and now, two of the writers of next month’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story have referenced the relationship between that movie and the current political reality on social media.
Chris Weitz tweeted the following Friday morning:
Gary Whitta, the original writer on the project, responded in kind, tweeting:
By Friday night, the tweets had been deleted, but this from Weitz remained (to the right – link to another Hollywood Reporter story in graphic):
Luke Skywalker himself, Mark Hamill, retweeted the “Star Wars against hate” tweet.
As if to cement the connection, both Weitz and Whitta have changed their Twitter avatars to an image of the Rebel insignia with a safety pin through it, a reference to the symbol of solidarity with persecuted minorities that has gained currency in the U.S. following the election….
The DAILY CALLER continues to discuss the above graphic:
…The symbol was in fact spread and became a popular symbol for those wishing to resist Trump’s ascension to the White House, thereby giving the strong impression that the Star Wars franchise was opposed to the next president. The actor who plays Luke Skywalker, Mark Hammill, sharing it didn’t help alter that impression.
Weitz and Whitta both deleted the tweets in reference to the Empire as a white supremacist power and previous ones in which they compared Trump to Adolf Hitler and other unsavory figures. But not before their messages had spread around Twitter, providing further evidence to Trump supporters for why they would want to boycott the film. (RELATED: Obama’s Brother Boycotts Upcoming Star Wars Movie Over Trump Criticism)
Of course, many left-leaning journalists scoffed at this proposal. Esquire guffawed that Trump supporters had “no evidence” that the newest Star Wars iteration had anti-Trump overtones, even though the same publication had written up about the safety pin Rebellion badge previously.
The Daily Beast took the high road in covering the boycott by calling its adherents “no-sex-having, basement-dwelling neo-Nazis.” Numerous other outlets covered the protest in a similar fashion, all with the implication that you definitely need to see the new movie regardless of its quality.
A bit weird how all these journalists demand their audiences to see a movie because it’s being attacked by people you should hate. It reminds one an awful lot of the positive press surrounding the all-female Ghostbusters reboot, which was praised effusively simply because “misogynistic” trolls hated it. (RELATED: The Stars Of The New ‘Ghostbusters’ May Be Killing Their Own Film)
Sadly, that’s not the only similarities the latest Star Wars films share with the estrogen version of Ghostbusters. Both movies fit within the depressing Hollywood trend of pilfering popular franchises for every dime their worth with half-baked, banal rehashes of their original classics. The only difference between the original versions and the new reboots is better special effects, more diversity in the casting and a greater emphasis on “current year” values. (RELATED: 11 Serious Problems With The New Star Wars Movie)
And of course, the steep decline in quality.
So there’s enough of a reason to not want to see Rogue One to send a message to Hollywood to start making new and original projects instead of making an inferior version of “A New Hope” two years in a row….
Just wanted to post this excerpt from INTELLECTUAL TAKEOUT’S dealing with Political Correctness:
The Historical Origin of ‘Political Correctness’
A professor at Boston University recently touched on origins of the term ‘politically correct.’ And it’s revealing…
…“The formula is straightforward: the world is not as it should be because society’s basic, ‘structural’ feature is ordered badly….For Marx and his followers that feature is conflict over the means of production in present-day society…. For Freudians it’s sexual maladjustment, for followers of Rousseau it’s social constraint, for positivists it is the insufficient application of scientific method, for others it is oppression of one race by another. Once control of society passes exclusively into the hands of the proper set of progressives, each sect’s contradictions must disappear as the basic structural problem is straightened out.”
The methods of the Communists and progressives differ, but the goal is one and the same: achieve “cultural hegemony,” a political phrase popularized by Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937), an Italian Marxist and politician who became prominent in progressive circles decades after his death.
Progressives learned that achieving hegemony by criminal punishment is difficult. Intellectuals seeking to remake America—“born tainted by Western Civilization’s original sins: racism, sexism, greed, genocide”, etc.—found a more effective way.
There’s no longer “Good” or “Evil”, Politics is now what’s reigning… It’s high time you learn this Lesson: We’ve moved past that faulty “logic”… HA!… “The Fall” has finally fallen… Son, Big Brother makes “The Call” now, ~ Tom Graffagnino ~
Now it’s all just “right” or “wrong”…
And, of course, that’s always changing
As “correction” comes along.
Power Principles of man.
There’s no Bottom Line to speak of,
No such thing as “God Commands”
Man and Morals all “evolve”…
In this world of shifty-changers,
There’s no TRUE truth to resolve.
What rules now is how we feel.
“Sin” we feel is now outdated.
Sin we feel just isn’t REAL.
Yes, indeed, we’re free at last!
Heaven’s wholly democratic…
GLORY!… Happy Votes we cast!
He decides what “truths” to pick.
He defines for us what’s kosher.
(AND He’s got the biggest stick.)
Political correctness, perpetuated by a small class of people ensconced at universities, bureaucracies, and major media, is the ideal tool for achieving cultural hegemony. It is “forceful seduction” in lieu of rape. It achieves “tacit collaboration by millions who bite their lip.”
As a political philosophy, political correctness might seem lifeless and aimless. But Codevilla noted the goal of Lenin and Stalin was not a state built on Marxist principles; it was always party control. The two philosophies are similarly empty.
“Like its European kin, all that American progressivism offers is obedience to the ruling class, enforced by political correctness….Nor is there any endpoint to what is politically correct, any more than there ever was to Communism. Here and now, as everywhere and always, it comes down to glorifying the party and humbling the rest.”
It’s not exactly light reading, but Codevilla’s article is a must-read for anyone serious about understanding the nature and origins of political correctness. I found it interesting that Codevilla made a point similar to one that Dr. Jordan Peterson made in an interview over the weekend. It’s the idea that political correctness is a movement 1) fundamentally political in nature; and 2) built on resentment.
Peterson said this is no accident. It comes right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.
“The social justice people are always on the side of compassion and ‘victim’s rights,’ so objecting to anything they do makes you instantly a perpetrator. There’s no place you can stand without being vilified, and that’s why it keeps creeping forward….There’s no compassion at all. There is resentment, fundamentally.”
It’s a simple point, but a very important one. Stop and think about it for a moment. How much of our politics today is driven by resentment?
Mussolini, Diuturna (1924) pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
To be clear, I in no way support the crazy site InfoWars OR Prison Planet. Paul Watson surely holds some views as well that I reject wholeheartedly, and, that if followed to their logical conclusions, disrupt some meaning in his wonderful commentaries.
Just so you know — for clarity sake — Sargon is an atheist. 3-Parts (will load automatically):
Neo-Progressivism has gone unchallenged for too long and has metastasized into an authoritarian cancer that is consuming the Left…and liberals are silent.
Counting down the top 5 most triggering, offensive, movies that defy political correctness and couldn’t be made today.
A Minnesota Democratic “darling” has fallen apart upon further reflection. JIHAD WATCH notes that “Minnesota State House of Representatives candidate Ilhan Omar has made history and been universally hailed as the first Muslim candidate for that office.” Here is a short bio of, Ilhan Omar, via REWIRE:
…Ilhan Omar, a noted feminist and liberal policy advocate from Minnesota, has won the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party primary in the 60B Minneapolis House district.
Her win means she will likely become the first Somali-American legislator in the United States, the Star-Tribune reported Tuesday. It also means incumbent DFL Rep. Phyllis Kahn, who was first elected to the House in 1972, will not serve a 23rd term.
After the primary results came in, Kahn told the Star-Tribune that Omar “mobilized a lot of people that we didn’t see before in previous elections.” This year, according to Omar’s campaign, 5,868 people from the district voted in the primary—an increase of 37 percent from the 2014 primary.
Omar, 33, currently works as the director of policy initiatives at Women Organizing Women…
Here is another headline since the immediate fervor was over…: “Members of the Somali Community are afraid to speak publicly about their disapproval of a candidate’s involvement in apparent fraudulent marriages.” Here is a small clip from the article:
…A credible source from inside the Somali Community has stepped forward and provided Alpha News with information in exchange for anonymity. For the purposes of the article, we will refer to the source as Z.
Z tells Alpha News members of the Somali Community are being silenced through intimidation tactics and threats of physical violence on themselves and their families still back home in Somalia.
Z specifically mentions a man named Gulaad Hashi and identifies him as “campaign muscle”. Z tells Alpha News, “He serves as [Omar’s] muscle in the Somali community and has been leading a witch hunt to out ‘the snitch’ in the community. He has used everything from intimidation to threats to silence community members from speaking out about this, which is why no Somali has publicly come forward to state what we all know to be true.”…
Another issue with this Muslim candidate is in regards to her marriage[s]. Yes, plural. It looks like she is married to her husband… as well as her brother (in order to commit immigration fraud). POWERLINE notes:
Yep… maybe the “cultural” argument will be brought in? CREEEPING SHARIA notes as well some additional information.
MSNBC’s Joy Reid, filling in for Chris Hayes, goes head-to-head with Steve Cortes, a Latino Trump supporter of Donald Trump, for using the term “illegals” to describe illegal immigrants.
“When it comes to the bedrock principles, I don’t disagree with him at all,” Cortes defended Trump on Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes. “Those are twofold. Number one, we have to secure our border. Number two, there can be no citizenship for illegals. You cannot reward criminality.”
Reid stopped him right there.
“Hold on a second,” the MSNBCer said.
“I’m going to stop you right there. You are Hispanic, Steve. Are you comfortable with that term, illegals? That is a pejorative to a lot of people. Why do you use that term?” Reid asked, not believing a Latino would use such a term.
“You know why, because words matter,” Cortes said.
“Yeah, they do,” Reid shot back.
“If you do something that is against the law, it’s illegal,” Cortes reminded Reid. “If you go into a store and you shoplift, you’re not an undocumented holder of a good, you’re a thief. If you come to the United States against the immigration laws of the United States, you’re not undocumented, You’re illegal. …