Tag: censorship

Free speech is killing the New York Times. Gray Lady can’t stop publishing bullshit.

The New York Times is doing some heavy duty soul searching these days as the 168 year old daily newspaper wrestles with the reality that everytime pen is put to paper, a key is stroked on a keyboard, or ink is printed on the page, untruths and fabrications seem to pour out of the Gray Lady like a devious meth addict spinning a yarn for their probation officer. 

Reports out of the newsroom suggest editors are considering changing the newspaper’s motto from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “It’s not a lie if you believe it,” borrowing the advice George Costanza gave to his friend Jerry on the nineties television comedy Seinfeld.  “All we’re trying to do is come up with the best possible lie,” is another Georgeism kicked around many a NYT editorial staff meeting. 

In what appears to be a cry for help, the Times recently published a piece entitled “Free Speech Is Killing Us,” in which the author, Andrew Marantz, seems to admit what many have been thinking for awhile – someone needs to step in and restrain the Times before it does more damage to itself.  If ever a daily newspaper was in need of an intervention, the Times surely qualifies.

Hardly a week goes by in which the Times doesn’t print something to embarrass itself and erode its credibility.  Just in recent weeks, the Times got called out by most print publications for its misleading Kavanaugh reporting, Brett Stephens appeared to have an angel dust fueled bed bug freakout, and David Brooks is writing opinions based on imaginary conversations and he’s not even trying to pass them off as real.  In the old days, a Times writer would at least try to create cover for their imaginary sources. Now, I guess they’re just putting their rich fantasy lives on full display. Following the Times is like watching a celebrity self-destruct in public. The Gray Lady is about one or two bullshit stories away from stripping off her clothes and wandering naked up and down Eighth Avenue.

Now the NYT wants the government and big tech to step in and put the brakes on free speech, arguing that dozens of lives would be saved by preventing young men from being radicalized in seedy online message groups.  The Times does have some experience in this area having exposed YouTube’s diabolical algorithm and its sinister scheme to radicalize young men into the right wing. The Gray Lady’s efforts to suppress speech bore fruit as YouTube, and some social media sites, either deplatformed or severely restricted the content of a number of creators.         

The Times is right.  Free speech is killing the New York Times.  Despite continuing to do valuable reporting, the Times can’t stop itself from undermining its credibility by foisting a lot of bullshit on the public.  Emboldened by recent successes restricting the speech of others, the Times now presses forward with an even more ambitious agenda to sell out the First Amendment and censor detractors and competitors.  I guess this is how the NYT plans to become ‘the paper of record’ again.

SF Board of Re-Education sees mural and wants to paint it black

The third installment in our series, A World Awash in Bullshit. 

It seems like only a few years ago when many conservatives objected to what they called “revisionist history”.  This was the practice by some scholars to portray historical figures and events “warts and all”. Many objected to a depiction of the founding fathers as anything less than god-like figures soaring above the fruited plain on the backs of giant bald eagles, or relations with indigenous people as anything other than mutually beneficial free trade and congenial Thanksgiving dinners.  

My how times have changed.  On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Education voted to paint down a mural series of George Washington painted in 1936 by Victor Arnautoff, a Russian-American artist.  Commissioned by Roosevelt’s WPA, the mural depicted Washington as a slave owner and architect of military campaigns against the indigenous people of America. In other words, it told the uncomfortable truth at a time when most depictions of the father of our country exhibited a towering, heroic figure nobly crossing the Delaware.  Unfortunately, this progressive minded group of San Francisco educators and artists find history too offensive to the delicate sensibilities of today’s students and members of the community, and want to see it erased all together.  

Strange because the history of destroying art for ideological purposes is not pretty.  The groups and movements that go around erasing history and culture they find offensive are not ones with which rational individuals would want to associate themselves.  In the last century, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Cultural Revolution and German National Socialists all engaged in widespread art destruction for ideological reasons.  In more recent years, the Taliban and ISIS have destroyed countless religious and cultural artifacts. I guess you can’t argue that there isn’t plenty of historical precedent behind the actions of the SF BOE. 

Supporters of the plan argue that the mural “traumatizes students” because it “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression.”  That it “glorifies” none of these but instead draws attention to the ugly history of America’s founding has been well established by the artist, critics and historians. That the school board would level such a dishonest interpretation at the work to justify destroying it says that some public educators in our country exist in a state of willful self-delusion.  How can we expect our children to learn the skills of critical thinking when they’re being instructed by educators for which political ideology is primary and rationality and reason must bow to it? Of course, maybe that’s the idea – critical thinking, independent reasoning, and skepticism aren’t valued by some educators. 

SF school board members had the opportunity to preserve the work and simply cover it with a curtain, but instead chose to destroy it, citing their actions as “reparations”.  As recently as 2010, the then principal of the school expressed pride in the murals and happiness at they’re being preserved. Apparently we’ve come a long way since the bad old days of 2010.  Moral sensitivities have evolved exponentially and the pure of heart are now deciding that not only must we shield the timid souls of today from “dangerous” art, but future generations must also not be allowed to make up their own minds or formulate their own ideas about America’s problematic past.

Vox spends walkout suppressing free speech, burning content and torching YouTube

Vox journalists went into their walkout Thursday riding and endorphin induced euphoria, stemming from their successful campaign to reduce the amount of free speech millions of Americans enjoy.  How better to celebrate their victory than with a content burning bonfire and a strategy session to build on the momentum gained from their latest successful endeavor to suppress free expression?

As the bonfire blazed, Vox journalists patted themselves on the back and felt even more emboldened to demand higher than market wages of Vox management for their successful efforts at internet censorship.  After all, censoring YouTube doesn’t just benefit Vox writers, it has the potential to enhance the company’s bottom line as well.

Vox journalists could barely contain their elation from seeing content creator after content creator on the YouTube platform go up in flames from the fire they had lit. Among the victims were history teachers and academic videos, as well as the work of prominent journalists that sought to educate about hate, not promote it.

Unrepentant and sensing they had their opponents bloodied but not beaten, Vox journalists penned “An open letter to YouTube’s CEO” where they demanded the platform update it’s standards to censor even more speech:

“Without a serious change to YouTube’s interpretation of its standards, Crowder is free to continue to make videos where he hurls slurs at journalists and creators, who will then keep getting hit with the same sort of harassment, invective, and dangerous leaking of personal information that Carlos has continued to experience from Crowder’s fans.”

Apparently, Vox’s bonfire brainstorming session worked, as they hit upon resurrecting the old argument of blaming the content creators for the actions of the consumers of said content.  A stroke of brilliance on the part of Vox journalists, the tactic was once successfully deployed when John Hinckley blamed Jodie Foster and the movie Taxi Driver for his assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.  (Warning: Vox Millennials, don’t try watching Taxi Driver at home alone, it will trigger the shit out of you.) More importantly, Vox has successfully rallied much of the mainstream media to join it’s effort to torch independent journalists, educators, and content creators.

As the fires subside and the Vox Adpocalypse gives way to a new dawning Voxtopia, the media company has positioned itself nicely to be one of the “authoritative sources” YouTube will now begin directing its traffic toward.  Having successfully punched down on the independent voices of both the marginalised and non-marginalised alike, the required reading of white liberal elites, Vox, can now resume it’s authoritative role as explainer of news and protector of the historically marginalised, who are now free to just shut up and listen.