Yes, that exchange was proof of the death of debate in modern colleges. Hawley's most telling exchange came when he said something like "I hope that's now how you conduct your classes," and she said, yes, it was. Oh my! My Geiger counter hit the red zone for radioactive authoritarianism.
I can’t tell you how irritated I get to read, at the very beginning of the article, that the right’s attack on “the constitution of knowledge” is a firehouse of falsehoods. Nothing could be further from reality. Perhaps as a society we are unable to use this constitution of knowledge to get to the truth because 50% of the population denies that such a thing (truth) even exists.
It is a high probability that the purpose of Tara's interviews is to propagate these falsehoods.
Why else would there be one of these in an early paragraph, a claim that "it is all the 'right's' fault" or "well, the 'right' is worse" in every one of Tara's interviews. Go back and read them all. What % do NOT have one?
I have always challenged the people that claimed this - because I think was always a fabrication of negative branding from the dishonest and lying Democrat media - to provide me a list.
They never do. It seem to prove that political bias wins.
The WaPo... you mean the paper that called Hunter Biden's laptop Russian disinformation?
Here is an example of what the WaPo claims as a Trump lie.
"“We just got seventy five million votes. And that's a record in the history of in the history of sitting presidents.” When the counting was finished, Trump had received 74 million votes, not 75 million. LOL.
And that same rag says that Biden saying he has cancer was just him misspeaking.
So, I looked at the Wiki and spit out my bourbon. Did you read it? I mean really read it? It is all twaddle of his life before he ran for President. The title of the heading for the 2016 presidential campaign begins "Trump promoted a number of conspiracy theories that have lacked empirical support." LOL. So our liberal fact checkers are going to claim that his statements are lies because they are not based on peer-reviewed scientific papers. LOL-2.
They even claim that Trump claim that he would build a wall and make Mexico pay for it was a lie. Even though he did build as much wall as he could with the lying Democrat working hard to prevent it. And he did get Mexico to hold asylum seekers. So I call the claim that he lied about this a lie.
Thee rest of the article is a DNC propaganda piece that refers to other liberal news media and liberal "fact checkers" but is void of real examples.
This is the standard we see with the left lie that Trump was such a fantastic liar. Trump was absolutely accurate in describing the dishonest media and the dirty Democrats. He even understated that truth!
See... they can never provide a list. It is all just a fabricated negative branding of a President that was and is the most transparent and plain speaking of any president since Truman. And then there is the plastic actor Joe Biden who only says what he is told to say, and still cannot help but lying about lies.
I do think that today they would do the same to any Republican candidate or POTUS. DeSantis is already being framed as some evil Democracy-destroying fascist liar.
I think another issue with our liberal friends is that they really do lack the emotional intelligence to tell the difference between something said that upsets them and a lie.
Wikipedia is a complete joke. A circle jerk of lies. Somem things seem impossible to lie about and / or not worth lying about. It is OK for those. Otherwise, wikipedia is a complete joke. It is opinionpedia.
On safetyism and cancel culture: Rauch is right that both collapse any sensible pursuit of common truths. In Canadian universities, whole new structures have been built up over the last five years or so whereby students can translate personal grievances (e.g. over marks) into accusations of political sin against their teachers. And university officials go along with these accusations most of the time, unless the evidence is overwhelming on the "not guilty" side.
I've read similar stories about young "activists" in government bureaucracies, newsrooms, and tech corporations who would rather gut a business or office than admit there are two sides to every story (read Eric Hoffer's classic THE TRUE BELIEVER - it's uncannily prescient about modern politics, about how true believers are motivated by "frustration" and a desire to erase unhappy and failed selves by plunging themselves into a movement). The result is that most "knowledge workers" (i.e. people who work with ideas, not things) play it safe, self-censoring, avoiding controversy, certainly if it has to do with identity politics.
The result is an epistemological and moral gutting of knowledge-creating and propagating institutions. As others have said, it's now an reasonable question for parents to ask, "should I send my son or daughter to university at all? Will they learn anything, including how to think for themselves, or even learn to take care of themselves when faced with minor adversities?" One could argue that the safetyism that is rife in modern schools at all levels makes students LESS able to cope with the slings and arrows of life's failures.
"" firehose of falseoods "" really ? Bi-det is what then ? has he spoken a true word in the past 4 years ? AND WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK THAT YOU ARE HOMO SEXUAL ? What has that got to do with anything ? I worked the door at a gay club in the 70's I saw the odd asshole that had problems with gays 95% of people did not give a fuck where you stick your dick is your problem most people don't care , get over yourself , your not special . really starting to think I wasted money paying for this substandard stack . NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE QUALITY OF THE GUESTS , Would rather pay for some of the comments
Same goes for two lesbian friends with whom I had a similar conversation. Both are alarmed, and see what's happening as the undoing of everything that's been gained since Stonewall (1969).
"The same general group of people who invented modern liberal capitalism and modern liberal democracy invented the constitution of knowledge. And said, “There’s got to be a better way to do this.”"
Oh man, where do you even begin to deconstruct this nonsense? I can do it, but what's the point? Anyone else here up to it? Easy target. There are holes in this guy's argument big enough to drive a T-72 tank through. Yeah, that's a Russian tank. He dragged Russia into it with his "firehose of falsehood" nonsense , so I get to use the image.
Firehose of falsehood? Seriously? My Irony Meter is pegged at 11!
TH, it would have been good to ask for an example of a topic that spews (or spewed) from the firehouse of falsehoods. That kind of unspecified accusation can be spread in perpetuity, to nobody's benefit.
LOL. TH is an accomplice for the accusations. Ask for an example? What?
ps: oh boy, they wouldn't make these claims if they did not think they bring a benefit. This is propaganda. This is a form of the Big Lie. Just keep repeating it til people figure "Well, it must be right."
Seems like these days the right is more right than the left. I see a lot of honest good professional people trying to get out the truth and them being slandered as spewing misinformation. Classic.
I think it's deeper than that. It has to do with the psychology of the individual, which is a precursor to political beliefs. It's about control, or the lack thereof. Broadly speaking, you find two kinds of people in the world. Those who (think they) know what's good for everyone else and will go out of their way to prove it, and those who know better and prefer to be left alone. I believe these attitudes are already well entrenched by the age of 5, depending on what group your parents belong to.
"I have agency in how I can interpret statements that I disagree with."
"it is always incorrect to equate ideas with violence (or even "hate"). It’s really just a way of trying to control the public discourse."
Obama must hate this guy. All the Hate Speech Here / Hate Speech There people must hate this guy.
Tara must love this guy. Like her, he'll spend an hour pointing out how the people he supports are doing terrible or at least highly questionable things, and then go right on supporting them.
On the "firehood of falsehoods": three remarks. First, it doesn't look like Russian propaganda had much effect on US elections. This reeks of the McCarthyism of the 1950s. There is no secret cabal of Red or Putinesque spies in the higher ranks of government. Rauch should stop watching CNN
Second, a thought experiment. Let's say Donald Trump never entered the political arena. Would that firehose of falsehoods from the right disappear immediately? Or is it endemic to the right, but somehow absent from the left?
Third, a simple fact - CNN, MSNBC, all three legacy broadcast TV networks, PBS, the NYT, the Washington Post, all of Silicon Valley, most local newspapers, etc. not only have a leftist bias, but often openly defend "progressive" activism (remember CNN's "fiery but mostly peaceful" stories from 2020 - the Bablyon Bee couldn't beat that!), even though, accoring to the Hidden Tribes report, they represent only 8% of the US population. The sober liberalism of a Walter Conkrite or Dan Rather is long gone, replaced by media institutions peopled by activists who probably think that John Stuart Mill was a crypto-fascist transphobe, if they bothered to read him.
I’m really nort sure what could be more false than insisting that a male can become female if he so wishes. That sort of silly comes from the left.
It is not only women who can become pregnant. Just ask US Dem politicians.
Yes, that exchange was proof of the death of debate in modern colleges. Hawley's most telling exchange came when he said something like "I hope that's now how you conduct your classes," and she said, yes, it was. Oh my! My Geiger counter hit the red zone for radioactive authoritarianism.
She's a real piece of work, ain't she? Prof. Hamamoto had something to say about her and her ilk. Worth the time.
Black Goddess As Harbinger of Bio-Social Supremacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-P-8qtKqM
100% agree Maret
I can’t tell you how irritated I get to read, at the very beginning of the article, that the right’s attack on “the constitution of knowledge” is a firehouse of falsehoods. Nothing could be further from reality. Perhaps as a society we are unable to use this constitution of knowledge to get to the truth because 50% of the population denies that such a thing (truth) even exists.
It is a high probability that the purpose of Tara's interviews is to propagate these falsehoods.
Why else would there be one of these in an early paragraph, a claim that "it is all the 'right's' fault" or "well, the 'right' is worse" in every one of Tara's interviews. Go back and read them all. What % do NOT have one?
You can take the girl out of the CBC, but you can't take the CBC out of the girl.
I’m starting to wonder this myself.
Generally good thoughts and points, except this
"On Trump and the “firehose of falsehoods”
I have always challenged the people that claimed this - because I think was always a fabrication of negative branding from the dishonest and lying Democrat media - to provide me a list.
They never do. It seem to prove that political bias wins.
"They never do"?
Here is the Washington Post's list of Trump's 30,573 lies (as of Jan 20, 2021):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
There is a link to download the 13.7mb csv file.
Here is a wikipedia article citing multiple other sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump
The WaPo... you mean the paper that called Hunter Biden's laptop Russian disinformation?
Here is an example of what the WaPo claims as a Trump lie.
"“We just got seventy five million votes. And that's a record in the history of in the history of sitting presidents.” When the counting was finished, Trump had received 74 million votes, not 75 million. LOL.
And that same rag says that Biden saying he has cancer was just him misspeaking.
So, I looked at the Wiki and spit out my bourbon. Did you read it? I mean really read it? It is all twaddle of his life before he ran for President. The title of the heading for the 2016 presidential campaign begins "Trump promoted a number of conspiracy theories that have lacked empirical support." LOL. So our liberal fact checkers are going to claim that his statements are lies because they are not based on peer-reviewed scientific papers. LOL-2.
They even claim that Trump claim that he would build a wall and make Mexico pay for it was a lie. Even though he did build as much wall as he could with the lying Democrat working hard to prevent it. And he did get Mexico to hold asylum seekers. So I call the claim that he lied about this a lie.
Thee rest of the article is a DNC propaganda piece that refers to other liberal news media and liberal "fact checkers" but is void of real examples.
This is the standard we see with the left lie that Trump was such a fantastic liar. Trump was absolutely accurate in describing the dishonest media and the dirty Democrats. He even understated that truth!
See... they can never provide a list. It is all just a fabricated negative branding of a President that was and is the most transparent and plain speaking of any president since Truman. And then there is the plastic actor Joe Biden who only says what he is told to say, and still cannot help but lying about lies.
I do think that today they would do the same to any Republican candidate or POTUS. DeSantis is already being framed as some evil Democracy-destroying fascist liar.
I think another issue with our liberal friends is that they really do lack the emotional intelligence to tell the difference between something said that upsets them and a lie.
Wikipedia is a complete joke. A circle jerk of lies. Somem things seem impossible to lie about and / or not worth lying about. It is OK for those. Otherwise, wikipedia is a complete joke. It is opinionpedia.
Great list!
On safetyism and cancel culture: Rauch is right that both collapse any sensible pursuit of common truths. In Canadian universities, whole new structures have been built up over the last five years or so whereby students can translate personal grievances (e.g. over marks) into accusations of political sin against their teachers. And university officials go along with these accusations most of the time, unless the evidence is overwhelming on the "not guilty" side.
I've read similar stories about young "activists" in government bureaucracies, newsrooms, and tech corporations who would rather gut a business or office than admit there are two sides to every story (read Eric Hoffer's classic THE TRUE BELIEVER - it's uncannily prescient about modern politics, about how true believers are motivated by "frustration" and a desire to erase unhappy and failed selves by plunging themselves into a movement). The result is that most "knowledge workers" (i.e. people who work with ideas, not things) play it safe, self-censoring, avoiding controversy, certainly if it has to do with identity politics.
The result is an epistemological and moral gutting of knowledge-creating and propagating institutions. As others have said, it's now an reasonable question for parents to ask, "should I send my son or daughter to university at all? Will they learn anything, including how to think for themselves, or even learn to take care of themselves when faced with minor adversities?" One could argue that the safetyism that is rife in modern schools at all levels makes students LESS able to cope with the slings and arrows of life's failures.
"" firehose of falseoods "" really ? Bi-det is what then ? has he spoken a true word in the past 4 years ? AND WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK THAT YOU ARE HOMO SEXUAL ? What has that got to do with anything ? I worked the door at a gay club in the 70's I saw the odd asshole that had problems with gays 95% of people did not give a fuck where you stick your dick is your problem most people don't care , get over yourself , your not special . really starting to think I wasted money paying for this substandard stack . NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE QUALITY OF THE GUESTS , Would rather pay for some of the comments
Same goes for two lesbian friends with whom I had a similar conversation. Both are alarmed, and see what's happening as the undoing of everything that's been gained since Stonewall (1969).
Thank you for doing this, I do listen to podcasts but I love the option of simply reading!
"The same general group of people who invented modern liberal capitalism and modern liberal democracy invented the constitution of knowledge. And said, “There’s got to be a better way to do this.”"
Oh man, where do you even begin to deconstruct this nonsense? I can do it, but what's the point? Anyone else here up to it? Easy target. There are holes in this guy's argument big enough to drive a T-72 tank through. Yeah, that's a Russian tank. He dragged Russia into it with his "firehose of falsehood" nonsense , so I get to use the image.
Firehose of falsehood? Seriously? My Irony Meter is pegged at 11!
TH, it would have been good to ask for an example of a topic that spews (or spewed) from the firehouse of falsehoods. That kind of unspecified accusation can be spread in perpetuity, to nobody's benefit.
LOL. TH is an accomplice for the accusations. Ask for an example? What?
ps: oh boy, they wouldn't make these claims if they did not think they bring a benefit. This is propaganda. This is a form of the Big Lie. Just keep repeating it til people figure "Well, it must be right."
Seems like these days the right is more right than the left. I see a lot of honest good professional people trying to get out the truth and them being slandered as spewing misinformation. Classic.
I think it's deeper than that. It has to do with the psychology of the individual, which is a precursor to political beliefs. It's about control, or the lack thereof. Broadly speaking, you find two kinds of people in the world. Those who (think they) know what's good for everyone else and will go out of their way to prove it, and those who know better and prefer to be left alone. I believe these attitudes are already well entrenched by the age of 5, depending on what group your parents belong to.
His friends at Brookings. Best to better investigate your guests.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/neocons-have-run-american-foreign-policy-for-the-past-40-years-with-catastrophic-consequences-truth-over-news_4613346.html?utm_source=share-btn-copylink
I honestly do not know what to think. I incorrectly assumed that because she left the CBC she might be a young Rex Murphy. Woops.
Anyone else here see the irony of a liberal writer attracting a mainly conservative audience?
What's up with that, I wonder?
Obama must hate this guy.
"I have agency in how I can interpret statements that I disagree with."
"it is always incorrect to equate ideas with violence (or even "hate"). It’s really just a way of trying to control the public discourse."
Obama must hate this guy. All the Hate Speech Here / Hate Speech There people must hate this guy.
Tara must love this guy. Like her, he'll spend an hour pointing out how the people he supports are doing terrible or at least highly questionable things, and then go right on supporting them.
On the "firehood of falsehoods": three remarks. First, it doesn't look like Russian propaganda had much effect on US elections. This reeks of the McCarthyism of the 1950s. There is no secret cabal of Red or Putinesque spies in the higher ranks of government. Rauch should stop watching CNN
Second, a thought experiment. Let's say Donald Trump never entered the political arena. Would that firehose of falsehoods from the right disappear immediately? Or is it endemic to the right, but somehow absent from the left?
Third, a simple fact - CNN, MSNBC, all three legacy broadcast TV networks, PBS, the NYT, the Washington Post, all of Silicon Valley, most local newspapers, etc. not only have a leftist bias, but often openly defend "progressive" activism (remember CNN's "fiery but mostly peaceful" stories from 2020 - the Bablyon Bee couldn't beat that!), even though, accoring to the Hidden Tribes report, they represent only 8% of the US population. The sober liberalism of a Walter Conkrite or Dan Rather is long gone, replaced by media institutions peopled by activists who probably think that John Stuart Mill was a crypto-fascist transphobe, if they bothered to read him.
Jonathan is unpersuasive.
To say the least...