"lets get that sweet, sweet ad money" isn't context, it's a sociopathic tendency to chase cheques over everything else.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
They are actually attacking her from what I've seen, when they should be challenging the idea.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I generally exclude Fox from the equation. I know Shapiro and more recently Peterson, have been making appearances on Fox, but its more so to advance the channel's propagandist narratives than to engage in a proper debate. Peterson, in particular, seems to have been coopted by conservatives to prop up their personal responsibility arguments. Unfotunately that's just groupthink reinforcement than a proper two sided debate.
Maybe, and I know this is a radical idea, if a group of people and their ideas fit perfectly into the narrative of the most successful news channel in American history, they're not oppressed?
Peterson is a conservative. they haven't coopted his agenda. They share the same agenda.
Greenwald helpfully excluded Fox from his screenshots.
MSM has a lot less exposure or respect today. What they're saying or talking about isn't that relevant. I think most people take it all with a fist full of salt and I'd say its a shrinking proportion of people who have much exposure to it. Youtube, Reddit and Twitter are probably more relevant today. I like them but reddit pushes people off into their own little bubbles. Youtube is a bit of a cesspit. It has good content but the user comments and uploads are just painfully bad. If by some miracle someone posts something worthwhile it'll get lost in a tidal wave of shit. I've taken to just dismissing anything and everything that originated on twitter, its like a side universe for boring, whiny babies to vent.
Good. If Weiss' piece in the NY Times combined with some of the usual suspects recently getting more air time on the networks is starting to happen then that's fantastic. I suppose it is impossible to keep all of this indefinitely bottled up in the social media world.
The difference (imo) between MSM and social media is that the latter tends to compartmentalize information into many disperate pieces whereas the MSM tends to galvanize and coagulate it between one (or two) prominent orthodox narratives that are easily digestible for most viewers. This is why social media narratives have to rise up to the MSM level in order to gain mass appeal.
The appearances happened prior to this article, an article where all these people decried their voices being silenced.
One off appearances that tidily fit into a tweet gif collage don't make for routine acceptance.
1. Peterson has been interviewed countless times by non-conservative outfits and his book Weiss has a column at the liberal paper of record. Shapiro received a glowing review from the same paper. Harris semi-regularly appears on Maher.
2. They aren't entitled to a space let alone routine appearances.
I'm assuming that you think that in marginalising brave conservatives like this lot you think the MSM is silencing popular opinion.
Why doesn't the NYT have a single Trump supporter in their columnists? Why doesn't the NYT have a single Bernie supporter in their columnists? Why is there not a single advocate for Medicare-for-all at the NYT? Why don't Weiss et al speak about this gross blackout of mainstream American voices at their workplace, the liberal paper of record?
I wouldn't say he has been interviewed countless times. He has made it to the MSM by way of his recent juggernaut.
As for the Times, they obviously have an editorial slant towards standard mainstream liberal politics (as opposed to ultra-left Bernie fans or nutty Trump supporters).
So it legitimate to exercise editorial discretion against politics you personally find nutty, but when people with certain political views aren't getting exactly the level of coverage you want them to, that is a threat to free speech.
Honestly, are you trolling or do you not see the inconsistency?
edit - I was unaware that Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and Bari Weiss are liberals.
I generally find people on both sides of political extremes irrational and nutty. Real progress happens when people move towards the middle and compromise. As for the Times, they should be covering a much broader swath of ideas which is why the Weiss piece is a good sign.
That's your opinion and is irrelevant to what we were discussing.
The Weiss piece focuses on people who already have a platform; people whose politics she agrees with. She isn't calling for the Times to hire a single leftist or a Trump supporter.
She is transparently using the facade of free speech and claiming victimhood to amplify views she agrees with.
Her piece isn't just about getting booked on TV shows. Its about a much broader problem of not having a wider swath of ideas being discussed in society and how this particular group (which she has odiously labeled the intellectual dark web) are part of that equation.
I’d stay out of the Corbyn thread then.
Weiss hasn't engaged with research showing that college students aren't a threat to free speech.
She hasn't mentioned things like the BDS law or ag-gag or HLP v Holder.
She hasn't mentioned the problem of a lack of Trump supporters or leftists in the NYT.
She hasn't talked about the effect that Republicans have on free speech with their rulings on employer rights.
She has advocated for professors to lose their jobs because she disagreed with the person they invited to campus.
She has chosen as victims of thought policing, people with large platforms on non-mainstream media and wide access to mainstream media, whose politics are compatible with hers.
This is a farce. The whole discussion is a farce.
Man I wish Massad had been denied tenure.
I'm not sure being easily digestible for viewers is that desirable. Particularly with the slant MSM adds.
That's definitely a thought provoking point. One "flaw" you could say in open debate and discussion would be a well spoken person with corrupt ideas is dangerous especially if the only counter voice is much less well spoken.
The only defense to that in the long run is an educated, reasonable and thoughtful population imo.
Definitely. It's been shown throughout history - there have been plenty of flawed and tyrannical figures who have in part risen to prominence because of their own personal speaking ability and charisma. The ideas they espouse aren't necessarily rejected even if they're abhorrent because they appeal to the general populous.
Now, of course, that doesn't mean we should be censoring every voice we personally find dangerous or problematic. Hence Shapiro shouldn't be denied a platform to express his own thoughts, nor is he necessarily some tyrannical madman. But at the same time those who disagree with him shouldn't necessarily think his views will automatically be rejected or proven wrong in open, honest debate, because facts within debates can often be subjective and/or skewed, and even when someone is proven wrong, someone who's sympathetic to them may reject the idea they're wrong because they sympathise or empathise with them anyway. The idea that the 'correct' side automatically rises to the fore in any debate is fairly flawed and simplistic, I think. And, of course, these debates should still exist, but we shouldn't over-emphasise certain voices just to prove them wrong, lest we end up causing the opposite to happen.
Debating =
It always amazes me how seamlessly the oppressors have adopted language of the oppressed. And how they have rebranded the same old racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny and imperialism as radically new ideas. Bari Weiss and her ilk have weekly columns at papers like NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Atlantic, etc and are constantly on nationally syndicated television programs yet constantly complain about being "silenced".
Who are the oppressors ? The liberal media led by the NY Times ?
The people who ponder whether woman who have abortions should be hanged, the people who are trying to push debunked race science, people who say things like
"the Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core". You know the type of people Bari Weiss usually defends in her columns?
Sounds like you are selectively cherry picking random comments people made ages ago to vilify a random group of pundits, some of whom don't have anything to do with one another.
that film student he found on craiglist sure does have great production values
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Its about time he branched out from Fox.
Petersen at the end there talking about women in the west "a little gratitude might be in order"
That's gonna go down well
That's gonna go down well
This is incredible. He was interviewed on C4 in the UK, MSNBC and Fox, CBC and various other Canadian outlets. Glowing reviews in the Guardian, NYT, etc. All this for a guy who has zero functional knowledge of postmodernism and evolutionary biology but talks like an expert on both subjects.
Do people know who David Reich and Sarah Tishkoff, or JD Hamilton and Waddington, or even Morgan and Khorana are? No. We know Charles Murray and JBP.
Do people know what Derrida or Lyotard or Foucalt wrote? No. We know what William Lind and JBP have interpreted from their writings.
This is so intellectually groundless though. Who defines the middle? The only way you can define it is by observing the political beliefs that are actually held by the population at a given time and and so you reduce your politics to utter relativism.
There is no we in the debate. Each person has to define their own political center based on their own perceptions of the the circumstances they want to live in. The cartoon above could be easily inverted by the people on the left wanting tradition, law, and order and the people on the right wanting communism and anarchy. Both that and example above would be extremely farcical because they both attempt to generalize and stereotype perceptions of left and right.
This is so intellectually groundless though. Who defines the middle? The only way you can define it is by observing the political beliefs that are actually held by the population at a given time and and so you reduce your politics to utter relativism.
That's a good start.
A good start *for what*? They are "entitled" to a platform - why? Sarah Tishkoff is denied one - is that "good"?