NYT Cancel’s Republican Tim Scott’s Op-Ed after Checking with Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Fascinating peek behind the scenes at the New York Times provided by Bari Weiss. This account was published by the National Review:

Weiss, who cited the “illiberal environment” at the Times as reason for her departure from the paper two years ago, first told the story while interviewing Scott on a Wednesday episode of her podcast, Honestly With Bari Weiss. Weiss recalled:

Weiss: Here’s what happened. I was at the New York Times and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill, and why it fell apart. And this is the part I’m not sure if you know — there was a discussion about the piece, and whether or not we should run it, and one colleague, a more senior colleague, said to a more junior colleague who was pushing for the piece, ‘Do you think the Republicans really care about minority rights?’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss: And the more junior colleague said, ‘I think Tim Scott cares about minority rights.’ And then — and here’s the pretty shocking part — the more senior colleague said, ‘Let’s check with Senator Schumer before we run it.’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss: And the colleague, the younger one, refused. Because he said — because that colleague said — it wasn’t an ethical thing to do.

Scott: Wow.

Continue ReadingNYT Cancel’s Republican Tim Scott’s Op-Ed after Checking with Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Rumble’s Antitrust Suit Against Google

Matt Stoller offers an update on this case. Is it really about Google prioritizing certain viewpoints?

Many Republicans believe that progressives are running Google or other big firms, and these executives are making censorship choices about how to elect more Democrats or foist health choices on the public. They do this, so goes the theory, even if it means making less money. While it's certainly the case that plenty of conservatives get knocked off big tech platforms, so do many others with all sorts of viewpoints (like pro-choice advocates marketing abortion pills on Instagram). More importantly, Google executives are heavily motivated by money, and they would vastly prefer not to have to deal with difficult censorship decisions that amount to which politically powerful customers to piss off.

What is really happening is that these firms are trying to monopolize a market, and then exploit their resulting power to generate cash. Only, in speech or cultural markets, fostering a monopoly means not only that you are able to extract profits. It also means, willingly or no, you become a powerful influence over speech. Large publishing houses choose who gets published and who doesn’t, and that confers significant power. The more dominant the publishing house, the more power. Search engines or social networks are vastly more concentrated, but a similar dynamic exists. Once you control society’s single search engine or social network, editorial choices, whichever direction they lead, help determine what is heard in the public square. So what these executives are doing isn’t trying to censor, but trying to ensure that they have market power in targeted advertising, search advertising or book sales. They simply end up as speech police, because that’s what it means when you build a monopoly that can determine who gets to be heard and who doesn’t.

Continue ReadingRumble’s Antitrust Suit Against Google

Jonathan Haidt Discusses “De-Tot”: Decentralized Totalitarianism

Wokeness is a form of "De-Tot," Decentralized Totalitarianism. Jonathan Haidt discussed this phenomenon with Melissa Chen and Angel Eduardo at FAIR:

So, you know, I, perhaps like many in the audience, have lost money. I was going to say investing in cryptocurrencies, but I'll just say gambling and speculating. And one of the things that's kind of fun about, it's just learning about the blockchain and decentralized finance and realizing that the technology makes it possible to have all kinds of things without anybody in charge.

Many have observed this began in 2015. So I co-founded Heterodox Academy with some other social scientists. Some of our members from Eastern Europe were saying, this is just like what we had in the communist countries: the fear of speaking up the witch trials, the purity spirals.

People ever since then have been using his metaphors like what's happening on campus, what's happening in the world is somehow like the totalitarian countries. But yet, there was no dictator. There was no totalitarian person or authority or office. I think what we have is you might call "De-Tot"  It's decentralized totalitarianism. The difference between totalitarian and a dictator is that a dictator tells you what he wants, and he'll kill you if you don't do it. But totalitarianism means it gets into the totality of your life. "We're going to control how you raise your kids what to think the food you eat, the science, everything, control everything."  That's very hard to do. It's only been tried a few times, certainly the Russians, the Chinese. Only a few countries have been tried to control everything of your life. And in a way this thing that we call wokeness has elements that are totalitarian, but there's no person. There's no authority. So what you have when everybody can record everybody, when everybody can shame everybody, you get human behavior reacting as if you were in a totalitarian country, but yet there's no totalitarian

Continue ReadingJonathan Haidt Discusses “De-Tot”: Decentralized Totalitarianism

Why Tavistock Was Shut Down

This is a brand new insider's account about the closing of the British gender-affirming "treatment" center, Tavistock. Seventeen years after there initial complaints, the authorities finally act. How many hundreds of lawsuits are about to be filed for the damage done to vulnerable children at this "treatment" center in furtherance of gender ideology?

By the way, it's been almost a week since it was announced that Tavistock would be shut down because children are being harmed. Despite the significance of this shut-down and the fact that gender ideology is largely to blame, you won't find one word about the sudden closing of Tavistock in the New York Times, NPR, Washington Post or MSNBC.

Here's horrifying insider account of what has been happening at Tavistock for more than a decade. The article, written by a nurse named Sue Evans, was published at the Substack of Bari Weiss, Common Sense.

How Tavistock Came Tumbling Down. I was a nurse working on a team that recklessly prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to kids. I blew the whistle in 2005. Now the government is finally listening.

Continue ReadingWhy Tavistock Was Shut Down

Banning and Pre-Banning Books

Pamela Paul is fearless in her writing. In her newest NYT article, she discusses the books that aren't: "There’s More Than One Way to Ban a Book." Here's an excerpt:

You can understand why the publishing world gets nervous. Consider what has happened to books that have gotten on the wrong side of illiberal scolds. On Goodreads, for example, vicious campaigns have circulated against authors for inadvertent offenses in novels that haven’t even been published yet. Sometimes the outcry doesn’t take place until after a book is in stores. Last year, a bunny in a children’s picture book got soot on his face by sticking his head into an oven to clean it — and the book was deemed racially insensitive by a single blogger. It was reprinted with the illustration redrawn. All this after the book received rave reviews and a New York Times/New York Public Library Best Illustrated Children’s Book Award.

In another instance, a white academic was denounced for cultural appropriation because trap feminism, the subject of her book “Bad and Boujee,” lay outside her own racial experience. The publisher subsequently withdrew the book. PEN America rightfully denounced the publisher’s decision, noting that it “detracts from public discourse and feeds into a climate where authors, editors and publishers are disincentivized to take risks.”

Books have always contained delicate and challenging material that rubs up against some readers’ sensitivities or deeply held beliefs. But which material upsets which people changes over time; many stories about interracial cooperation that were once hailed for their progressive values (“To Kill a Mockingbird,” “The Help”) are now criticized as “white savior” narratives. Yet these books can still be read, appreciated and debated — not only despite but also because of the offending material. Even if only to better understand where we started and how far we’ve come.

Continue ReadingBanning and Pre-Banning Books