Science is being taken over by a bunch of people whose paychecks are connected to promoting public hysteria. They differ from Jussie Smollett in that they’re credentialed either in science or journalism.
What can we learn about masculinity from the Covington Catholic High School foofaraw? Who acted like a Man? How would we decide?
Let’s start with what it means to be a Man by revisiting a bit from an earlier post; the Feminist list of toxic masculine traits – stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression. Feminists focus solely on the negative aspects, but there are also positive behaviors associated with that list:
Stoicism. Self-control and fortitude. Overcoming adversity. The absence of whining, enabling men to work in dirty, dangerous, uncomfortable jobs.
Competitiveness. The entrepreneurial impulse. The urge to scientific curiosity. The drive to co-operate by winning within the rules.
Dominance. Negotiating skill. Drive to succeed. Good leadership.
Aggression. Protecting the weak. Response to threats.
Who demonstrated the plus side of those traits? Our competitors are Nathan Phillips, ‘Vietnam era’ Marine and long time Leftist “activist,” and Nick Sandmann, a high school student.
The focus of the SJW ire was (amazingly still is, in many cases) on Sandmann. They want to destroy his life.
But, it was Sandmann who stood calmly while Phillips approached him, chanting and glaring, and continually beating a drum inches from Sandmann’s nose. It was Sandmann, while engaged with Phillips, who signaled to another student to knock off arguing with another protestor after that protestor had said, “Go back to Europe, you don’t belong here.”
There’s little argument that Mr. Sandmann was stoic. After an hour of filthy verbal abuse from the Black supremacists protesting on the Mall, the chaos escalated. In Mr. Phillips, Sandmann suddenly faced an even more confusing and potentially dangerous situation. He did so without complaint. He wasn’t stone faced, you could see the emotions flashing across his face when Mr. Phillips rudely challenged him, but Sandmann controlled them. Mr. Phillips claim he was trying to protect the Black supremacists is ludicrous on its face. Which bring us to competitiveness…
Mr. Phillips’ game was, “I get to play the victim. You get to play the oppressor. 1) I’m going to force you to move, or 2) make you push my drum away from your face. I win when you retreat. I get bonus points if you get physical.”
Turning away is potentially dangerous. If you ‘run,’ you look like prey. If you touch the drum, all hell is likely to break loose. Mr. Sandmann was forced to play, but, seeking a peaceful outcome, he recognized the rules permitted a third choice. Stoic tolerance.
Dominance? Well, Nathan Phillips was obviously trying to incite Mr. Sandmann. Mr. Sandmann peacefully stood his ground despite having his personal space noisily invaded. And, he showed leadership in urging a classmate to cease an argument with one of Mr. Phillips’ fellow protestors.
Finally, aggression. Mr. Phillips was clearly the aggressor. Mr. Sandmann’s response to the threat was controlled and appropriate. Particularly for his age. His parents should be proud of him. Mr. Sandmann’s performance under fire was exemplary.
The Man here was Mr. Sandmann. Mr. Phillips was the toxic adult.
I score it 4-0.
The Maim Scream Media™ should be ejected for the season.
In the United States, we just let Google and Facebook track us. With Twitter brownshirts and the Maim Scream Media™ as the enforcers.
On the whole, the Chicoms are likely fairer, and they’re certainly more circumspect.
See Mark Steyn: The Drumbeat of the Mob
I don’t much like Donald Trump, but, sorry, he’s not the problem.
Talk about toxic personalities and hate speech… you collectivists seriously need a privilege check.
If Louis Farrakhan, black nationalist and fanatic leader of the religious group Nation of Islam, had received a smidgen of the attention Milo Yiannopoulos had from our Maim Scream Media™, then Tamika Mallory, Co-President of “The Women’s March” would be begging on the street instead of racially deflecting her antisemitism on The View.
If there is toxic masculinity anywhere at all, it lives rent free in Farrakhan’s head. Tamika Mallory doesn’t mind.
Michigan paper fires reporter for bias against GOP Senate candidate John James
A reporter called senatorial candidate John James’ campaign asking to set up a post-election interview, and left a voicemail. She didn’t realize her attempt to hang up at the end of her message failed, and unknowingly had disparaging comments about Mr. Jones recorded. The mega-shaming of social media has been brought to bear.
“I have listened to the voicemail left by Brenda Battel to Mr. James‘ campaign, and find no reason to defend this behavior,” said Kate Hessling, editor of The Huron Daily Tribune. “Brenda Battel’s employment has been immediately terminated.”
It can’t be that Ms. Hessling didn’t already know Ms. Battel’s sympathies, and very likely heard similar expressions of them around the office.
She (Hessling) is just embarrassed to have such obvious bias made explicitly public. It threatens the idea of objectivity to which the paper pretends. HA. Ha and ha. Nobody with an IQ over 75 thinks news media are neutral purveyors of fact.
The “reason to defend this behavior” Ms. Hessling is unable to locate would be the First Amendment. What better time for the press to invoke it, than when they are calling Trump Hitler every day for calling them liars and hypocrites. Despairing that John James might beat Debbie Stabenow pales in comparison.
I object to the firing. Battel’s got a First amendment right to her bias, and she works for an organization that not only agrees with that bias, but supposedly holds the First Amendment sacred. Though that doesn’t protect her employment, should she expose the obvious, she didn’t threaten anyone or incite violence.
The Huron Daily Tribune’s smart move would have been to require Battel to read and then write reviews of The Road to Serfdom (free copy at that link) and The Vision of the Anointed, or some similar tomes. You know, sensitivity training.
Mr. James’ smart move would have been publicly objecting to her firing.
I have to point out, contrary to the linked article, that her insults weren’t “inadvertent insults,” they just weren’t supposed to be made public. The worst she’s guilty of is technical incompetence combined with conduct unbecoming a professional. If these were firing offenses for journalists, there would only be a half-dozen of them employed world-wide.
A question I have – idle curiosity – is whether she was speaking to someone else (I couldn’t tell from the recording), or just muttering to herself. If the latter, could it be something encouraged by the environment at The Huron Daily Tribune?
The current state of the country and the current state of political and intellectual conversation depresses me in a way that it never has before. You have to understand — I’m never happy with the state of the country — that’s the inevitable fate of holding an ideological position that rarely gets any traction — I’m a classical liberal who’d like government to be dramatically smaller than it is now…
Maybe it’s paranoia but it’s been a long time since I felt the thinness of the veneer of civilization and our vulnerability to a sequence of events that might threaten not just the policy positions I might favor but the very existence of the American experiment.
The main way I’ve been dealing with this feeling of despair is to stop paying close attention. I don’t know what depresses me more — the stupidities and dishonesty and tolerance of darkness that come out of the President’s mouth or the response from those that oppose him. Given that I don’t like the President, you’d think I find the response of his enemies inspiring or important. But the responses scare me too, the naked hatred of Trump or anyone who supports or likes him. And of course, it goes way beyond Trump and politics. The same level of vitriol and anger and unreason is happening on college campuses and at the dinner table when families gather to talk about the hot-button issues of the day. Everything seems magnified.
Read the whole thing, it’s very good. Russ Roberts: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)
I agree 100% with Roberts’ intro, it feels like he wrote for me. He doesn’t mention some things that cause my angst, why “it’s different this time,” but I think he’d agree with them.
I suppose I shouldn’t be, but I’m surprised at the durability of the vehement response to Donald Trump. I get that Progressives are angry and depressed, but it’s hard for me to imagine they’re more angry and depressed than I was at Barack Obama’s re-election. That was a very dark day and an excruciating 4 more years. You can examine this blog for my criticisms of Barack Obama, but you’ll find nothing like what we hear daily from CNN, MSNBC, or (?) ESPN, or from the hegemony of far left celebrity Twitterers.
I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed at the contrast in the treatment of Antifa with that of the tea party. When the tea party left one of its demonstration sites, the area was cleaner than when they arrived. No fires, little to no profanity, no smashed windows, no beaten Obama supporters. Still, the tea party people were vilified by the media and Democrats, including the charges of racism and Nazism they’ve raised lately to screaming rants. It’s not just free speech, but freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and petitioning for redress of grievances that is under attack – with the implicit support of the very press who wish to preserve their First Amendment right. Apparently, as the only remaining First Amendment right.
When Donald Trump appointee Betsy DeVos comes out in favor of due process, it’s a sexist apocalypse. When Trump rejects the Paris Climate Accord, “we’re all gonna die!” When he removes a few draconian regulations, we can see the Four Horses on the horizon. When Trump turns responsibility for Obama’s unconstitutional DACA executive order over to Congress, it’s Nazism, racism, white supremacism, patriarchal and traitorous. Dial it back people. But they can’t.
Back to Russ Roberts. Given the above, his prescription:
1-Don’t be part of the positive feedback problem. When someone yells at you on the internet or in an email or across the dinner table, turn the volume down rather than up. Don’t respond in kind to the troll. Stay calm. It’s not as much fun as yelling or humiliating your opponent with a clever insult, but it’s not worth it. It takes a toll on you and it’s bad for the state of debate. And you might actually change someone’s mind.
2-Be humble. Shakespeare had it right: There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. You’re inevitably a cherry-picker, ignoring the facts and evidence that might challenge the certainty of your views. The world is a complex place. Truth is elusive. Don’t be so confident. You shouldn’t be.
3-Imagine the possibility not just that you are wrong, but that the person you disagree with could be right. Try to imagine the best version of their views and not the straw man your side is constantly portraying. Imagine that it is possible that there is some virtue on the other side. We are all human beings, flawed, a mix of good and bad.
…suffers from the fact that the center and the right have been more polite and civil than the left for decades – and see where that’s gotten us.
Donald Trump is crass, undisciplined and devoid of principle; but it is primarily the exquisite sensibilities of the intersectionality cadre who blame America for every evil that make his actual content inflammatory. They say they can identify “dog whistles” in Trump’s rhetoric, forgetting that it’s only the dog who can hear the whistle.
Is Trump complicit in this? Certainly. His comments on Mexican illegal immigrants are similar to this:
“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.”
“I mean you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.”
…but “that’s just Joe.” Still, Trump’s a piker compared to the rest of Democrat leadership:
“Republicans… [would] rather take pictures with black children than feed them.”
“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
“[T]ypical white people,”
“clinging to their guns and religion.”
“basket of deplorables”
“You f*cking Jew b@stard.”
Those aren’t distant historical examples, which would be far worse (Woodrow Wilson, for example, the Progressives’ Progressive). Those aren’t dog whistles, they’re fog horns; but, on the left, nobody’s knickers got twisted. That rhetoric is how we got Trump.
As far as the hoi polloi are concerned, on one side of protest demonstrations we see a marginalized group promoting white supremacy, who have with very few exceptions been non-violent except in self defense. On the other, we see a larger group, promoting black supremacy, that uses violence regularly and indiscriminately. Criticizing the latter group either brings charges of being a “Nazi sympathizer” from mainstream Democrats, or silence, as classical liberals attempting to exercise freedom of speech are under physical attack at our nation’s universities; in collusion with university administrators and local governments who order police to “stand down.”
Which group is actually a threat to freedom? The group trying to use their right to free speech, or the group routinely using violence to shut down free speech?
I’m reminded of this passage from Alan Bloom’s (1987) The Closing of the American Mind: “I have seen young people, and older people too, who are good democratic liberals, lovers of peace and gentleness, struck dumb with admiration for individuals threatening or using the most terrible violence for the slightest and tawdriest of reasons. They have a sneaking suspicion that they are face to face with men of real commitment, which they themselves lack. And commitment, not truth, is believed to be what counts.”
Bloom is writing about people avoiding the messy distractions of understanding their own ‘ideas,’ because “[C]commitment, not truth, is believed to be what counts.” Their rhetoric is excused by their commitment to no more than having unexamined good intentions.
Ronald Reagan had sub-human intelligence. Barry Goldwater was called a Nazi 50 years ago. The KKK is blamed on Republicans when, in fact, it was the action arm of the Democrats. Similarly, racial discrimination by the State: It was, in fact, outright eugenicists and open racists like Woodrow Wilson who reversed integration in the civil service. Even the far left editors at Vox admit this.
Culturally, we’re debating whether your biological sex is dispositive regarding bathroom facilities, while the left insists that any discussion of differences between men and women is absolutely not allowed. Facebook gave up when the number of “gender” choice check boxes available in your profile reached 58, but men and women are indistinguishable.
If you write a polite, scientifically factual memo questioning Google’s discriminatory hiring practices, you get fired. Meanwhile, Google downranks results from websites not fitting their political views.
Meanwhile, we waste blood and treasure half-heartedly defending poppy farmers in Afghanistan, because “homeland security,” while the territory you can visit in Europe is continually eroded by “no-go” zones and our courts plunk down on the side of unrestricted immigration.
And now I’m back to agreeing with the author’s intro, but you can’t remain silent in order to get along. That’s a complete oversimplification of Roberts’ advice, but it’s hard to remember that when some antifa thug is spraying spittle.
This is how you get more Trump. If that isn’t depressing, what is? Well, the thought of Hillary as President may be one thing.
Loss of advertising revenue has compelled the MSM to up the ante on monetization of their opinions; which used to pass for “news.”
Without the drive to capture internet eyeballs the whole phenomenon of “click bait” wouldn’t exist, and fake news would be less pervasive and less hysterical.
Fake news wouldn’t disappear, we had plenty of it before AlGore invented the internet. I noted a few of the modern practitioners here, mentioning Walter Cronkite, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Dan Rather and Walter Duranty.
If the internet has accomplished nothing else, it has truncated the loop in which “journalists” get fired or resign for blatant lying. Of those mentioned above, it took quite a long time for them to be expelled from the fellowship.
Some never were. The NYT hasn’t given back Duranty’s 1932 Pulitzer. Dan Rather is still out there claiming he was right about Dubya’s service in the National Guard. Water Cronkite still invokes reverence among the naive.
OTOH, CNN’s Eric Lichtblau, Thomas Frank, and Lex Haris were fired or resigned within hours of their lies.
Thanks to Donald Trump for his assistance in provoking the MSM liars to self-identify. And thanks to AlGore for his invention, though that’s yet another fake news meme.
I’d also credit Google, since they’re the primary entity eating the MSM advertising revenue, but Google’s bias is even more pervasive and harmful than the MSM’s.
Senator John McCain tells NBC’s Chuck Todd we need:
[A] free and sometimes adversarial press. Without it, I’m afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started… They get started by suppressing the free press… I’m not saying President Trump is trying to be a dictator, I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.
Classic. “I’m not saying this thing I just said.”
Well, sometimes dictators get started by co-opting the press. Sometimes the press sycophants enlist themselves. The press is free to print what it wants; but if it becomes immune to criticism that’s when it becomes the enemy, and when it acts like a hive mind, that’s when the possibility of dictatorship emerges.
We all remember the fiery outrage Senator McCain expressed when former President Obama wiretapped the Associated Press in 2013. We can never forget his impassioned speech when Fox News’ James Rosen was on Obama’s DOJ enemies list.
Well… No. We can’t remember outrage that was never expressed, nor can we forget something that never happened. Donald Trump called the press “the enemy of the American people” in a tweet – that got Mr. Straight Talk Express to sit up and take notice.
Given Senator McCain’s estranged relationship with GOP Presidents, we shouldn’t be surprised he’s bashing Trump. You may remember some of Senator McCain’s collusion with Democrats against President George W. Bush. It’s worth a review to recall the full picture.
At best that was about policies. At worst, it was McCain building his own ego. It’s quite another thing to glibly toss about the word “dictator” in response to a question about POTUS criticizing the MSM. The answer to Todd’s question is, “Yes, the press is the enemy of the American people who elected this President, and anyone else who doesn’t agree with their Progressive agenda. Get a clue.”
Given Senator McCain’s estranged relationship with the First Amendment, we shouldn’t be surprised he’s selective in citing it. He is, after all, the co-author of the anti-First Amendment Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, eponymously known as McCain-Feingold. Don’t take my word for its unconstitutionality – the Supreme Court has overturned major portions of McCain-Feingold in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., Davis v. Federal Election Commission, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
If John McCain understood that the First Amendment protects free speech (especially political speech) for all of us he would be too embarrassed to be currying MSM favor by implying Trump is suppressing the free press.
Powerline’s John Hinderaker sums it up nicely,
John, John, get a grip! Who is “suppressing” the press? Do you seriously not understand the difference between criticizing the press and suppressing it? The press is not above criticism. On the contrary, it deserves to be called out constantly for bias and inaccuracy. President Trump has taken a good step in that direction, but a great deal more press criticism is in order.
Also: not calling on CNN in a White House press conference does not constitute “suppressing” CNN.
That Hillary lied about Benghazi is true, despite Charlie Rose’s ignorance: DEBUNKING THE MEDIA LIES ABOUT HILLARY’S BENGHAZI VIDEO LIE
Charlie Rose doesn’t, as Marco Rubio pointed out to him, get it.
Hillary’s “great week” last week fundamentally depends on support from low information journalists like Charlie Rose and lying debate moderators like John Harwood. Democrat operatives with bylines, as Glenn Reynolds would say.
EVERYBODY knew instantly that the American Ambassador was killed during a premeditated Islamist terrorist attack. Not a “spontaneous protest” caused by an anti-Muslim video.
Still, Mrs. Bill stood over the coffins of the dead and repeated the lie.
One of the things Carson said that twisted some knickers isn’t mentioned in the above:
Ben Carson Upsets Mainstream Media: Openly Questions Fiat Money
And, if you’ve got 5 minutes, this:
“Francisco’s Money Speech”
…is a worthy followup to the 3rd link above.