Friends, these days every kind of speech you can imagine is potentially offensive, and historical analysis is no exception. It came as only a minor surprise, therefore, to learn that a Jewish scholar was recently censored by Instagram for sharing completely objective and unprovocative historical observations about Adolf Hitler's accession to the leadership of the Nazi Party in 1921. As this article goes on to point out, it's not that Instagram bans all mention of Hitler. Seemingly, the post in question got caught up in the site's imperfect algorithms that are designed to intercept content that is "white supremacist" or otherwise undesirable. And that's an issue, because increasingly decisions about what views can and can't be expressed on social media will, inevitably, be made by computers, not people. And that leads us to an interesting question: who do we conservatives trust less to make such judgements: (leftist) people, or the computers that these (leftist) people program to do their bidding? It's a Sophie's choice situation, no?
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-hitler
In other news, the re-proliferation of mask mandates is making big news. The federal government is pushing masking and vaccination, and some stores are following suit, but Walmart, apparently, has decided not to mandate masking in any of its stores, including those in "high risk" areas for COVID. That's significant. Walmart apparently thinks it can push around its employees, but not necessarily its customers. That may not be a particularly moral distinction, but it probably is a realistic one. On the other hand, red states are being proactive about criminalizing mask mandates, which would essentially head the CDC off at the pass. We could soon see dueling state and federal mandates, therefore. It could be a real mess -- I mean, bigger even than the current mess!
https://news.yahoo.com/desantis-plans-executive-order-halt-164100727.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-greg-abbott-bans-covid-mask-vaccine-mandates
There's no question that, in a fair, one-on-one fight, Liz Cheney is a no-hoper in 2022 to get the Republican nomination in order to retain her own seat in the House. The only danger is that the anti-Cheney opposition will be hopelessly divided. I agree with President Trump: we can and will unify to ensure that this doesn't happen. Maybe Liz will run as an independent anyway? Best of luck to her. I feel confident that her days are done in Wyoming, but her role on the national stage in 2024 is a big question mark.
There are several sharp turns that the "experts" took in early 2020, and then in the summer of 2021, regarding the origin story of COVID-19. First they were open to natural or lab-based explanations of the origin of the disease. Then they unified around the idea that the virus came from bats, and any suggestion to the contrary was a "conspiracy theory" -- and probably racist too! Then, just as suddenly, the scientific community became agnostic on the issue, and chose to admit that the lab origin theory might just be plausible, after all. These shifts are curious. Certainly they serve to reduce the credibility of "experts" in general. They also may be suggestive of behind-the-scenes coordination of the COVID narrative -- maybe even illicit coordination that eschews almighty SCIENCE in favor of political correctness.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gop-answers-scientist-dramatic-change-covid-origins
Finally, conservatives are rightly focused on the violations of free speech perpetrated by Big Tech, but, as this article points out, they should also be concerned about efforts to "debank" the right -- meaning to deny conservatives access to banking and a wide array of financial transactions. It's all a part of the "Great Shunning" of right-wingers like you and me that is only in its infancy, and could therefore get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I would think it is leftists who enact algorithms designed to weed out expression they don't like. Perhaps computers are only making decisions predetermined by leftist programming. As long as they are not taxpayer supported, can some government mitigation of their obvious bias be justified? I'd rather see us outcompete them in the marketplace of ideas but perhaps their influence, in this still very new online world, is now being seen as such that the well being of the public is very much threatened. That may call for intervention by the organized functions which direct popular will.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Are there not laws forbidding discrimination against users of banking services on the basis of "creed"? Maybe that word has been quietly ehh, deemphasized, by the left because of its obvious danger to their crusade for doctrinal conformity on pain of myriad disabilities? Perhaps a test case brought before today's Scotus would bring them up short!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Oh Gads! Where would such as Liz Cheney find decisive support in today's polity? Rinos appear now to be a despised outcast faction with no hope of ever directing the GOP. That is because President Trump showed that unapologetic conservatism, aggressively expressed and enacted, is fully capable of garnering decisive national political power.So where else could she go? The Dems don't need her; besides, apostates are seldom embraced.
ReplyDeleteJack, I have no doubt -- ZERO -- that the algorithms preferred by Big Tech are designed to discriminate against conservatives and give lefties a pass. The only question is whether it's realistic, under these circumstances, for conservatives to build their own alternative platforms. So far, it hasn't worked all that well. Hey, DJT -- didn't you say you were going to create the BEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM EVER??? What's the hold-up?
ReplyDeletePresumably, all the standard discrimination laws apply to banking, Jack, yes, but would viewpoint discrimination or discrimination based on ideology or party ID be banned? I doubt it. If it was, we can expect enforcement to be selective, and thus non-existent in the case of conservatives who've been wronged. Again, you'd like to think that, since there are numerous banks, there will always be at least one that will give right-wingers the time of day. You'd like to think that, but I wouldn't become complacent...
I agree that Liz Cheney effectively has nowhere to go in modern U.S. politics. She and those like her appear to be holding out for a post-Trump GOP, which I'm pretty sure will still find her contemptible. Maybe she's hoping to be a future Jeff Flake... That would mean working as a "Republican" analyst on CNN, or as a token "Republican" ambassador for a Democratic President. It's not a great plan, but it's a plan.