"Defiant L" has raised the exposing of hypocrisy to a high art, day after day. I don't think we will ever run out of hypocrisy based on the sheer volume of these posts. Note: Twitter recently suspended "Defiant L" with no explanation, but now the suspension has been lifted, after a massive outpouring against the suspension.
I enjoy reading the writings of Freddie deBoer, who describes himself as a "Marxist of an old-school variety." Here is an excerpt from his most recent Substack post: Title is "I want a political movement that is . . .
We would be concerned first and foremost with reality, and we would therefore privilege “is” statements over “ought to be” statements. My ideal movement would recognize that the obsession with the symbolic has become a road to nowhere for the left-of-center. Our relentless habit will be to say, what does this do for actually-existing poor people? What does this do for actually-existing Black people? What does this do for actually-existing women or gay or trans people? What does this policy, argument, or claim do in fact, for real human beings, in material terms? Put another way, if we got our way, could we see the effects of that with our own two eyes? I can see hungry Black kids getting food. I can’t see white liberals “holding space” for Black people. We must return to the real. It’s past time . . .An effective left movement would identify building a mass movement by appealing to the unconvinced as its most central, most essential goal. All strategies and messaging would be bent towards the goal of rational appeal to potential supporters. We would identify obscurantism, factionalism, purity signaling, and other behaviors that limit the potential numbers of the movement as counterproductive. We would limit the use of specialized vocabulary and other forms of in-group signaling. We would constantly consider how our practices and discourses actually grow or fail to grow the ranks of the movement.
We would not abandon principle in the name of popularity, but we would insist that principles that inherently exclude large swaths of the human population cannot be the basis for a successful movement. We would seek to welcome, not alienate, those not already convinced. We would utilize traditional democratic principles such as voting and representation for decision-making. We would recognize that all “flat” movement structures, leaderlessness, and other anti-hierarchical systems of decision-making have repeatedly failed as means of governance in past left-wing movements. We would affirm and defend the rights of minority voices and dissent within the decision-making process. We would recognize the basic, beautiful radicalism of voting and democracy and defend them against the tyranny of structurelessness . . .
We would recognize that left movements have traditionally suffered terribly from assaults on individual rights, such as in anti-Communist purges, redbaiting, and anti-left eliminationism. We would acknowledge that the illiberalism and rights-trampling of several so-called Communist governments in the 20th century prompted an enormous backlash to left anti-capitalism. We would understand that a robust, functional left social movement would be strong enough to live alongside those who disagree with it, and would have no need of silencing them. We would move confidently in the knowledge that our core beliefs will eventually win because they are correct, and so feel no particular desire to silence those who dissent from those beliefs.
There is no evidence that Joe Rogan has ever used the N-Word as a racial slur. He has discussed the word and joked about the word, but there is no evidence he has ever used the word as a racial epithet.
CNN hires writers who refuse to acknowledge the use/mention distinction. It's a very bad thing to use the N-Word as a racial slur. There are valid and admirable reasons for mentioning the full N-Word. For instance, professors should be admired for mentioning the N-Word when teaching the brutal and despicable history of American slavery. Or when discussing language or culture. CNN must certainly understand this distinction between using a word and mentioning it, but acknowledging this very basic thing doesn't fit CNN's mission: dismantling Joe Rogan's big audience by pandering to CNN's increasingly woke but numerically dwindling audience. Many have suggested that CNN is doing this out of jealousy, given CNN's paltry audience numbers.
Or maybe CNN finds it much easier to attack Rogan for something trivial than to do the hard work of reporting real news, something CNN used to do.
Here's Coleman's tweet. I agree entirely with this sentiment and I enjoyed the entire thread of comments. Use of the N-Word as a racial slur is (and should be) socially and morally abhorrent. Mentioning the N-Word where it is not being hurled as a slur should not a big deal, but it is a big deal to those who believe in religious taboos. CNN apparently believes that the N-Word is like the word "V------." OK, I'll actually risk death by writing it out: Valdmort.
For an in-depth, riveting and enjoyable discussion of the use of the N-Word through U.S. history, consider reading linguist John McWhorter's excellent book, Nine Nasty Words (2021). Here is the description from Penguin's website:
One of the preeminent linguists of our time examines the realms of language that are considered shocking and taboo in order to understand what imbues curse words with such power–and why we love them so much.
Profanity has always been a deliciously vibrant part of our lexicon, an integral part of being human. In fact, our ability to curse comes from a different part of the brain than other parts of speech–the urgency with which we say “f&*k!” is instead related to the instinct that tells us to flee from danger.
Language evolves with time, and so does what we consider profane or unspeakable. Nine Nasty Words is a rollicking examination of profanity, explored from every angle: historical, sociological, political, linguistic. In a particularly coarse moment, when the public discourse is shaped in part by once-shocking words, nothing could be timelier.
BTW, I highly recommend the podcast of Coleman Hughes. He seems entirely too young to be as wise as he is on so many topics. Check him out!
As Glenn Greenwald tweets,
Only the US corporate media could take the person in this video, Joe Rogan, and claim he's a far-right figure. It happens in part because most of Rogan's critics never watch his show, but also because the media purposely lies and uses "far-right" to malign everyone they dislike.
It is mind-blowing how so many corporate media outlets characterize Joe Rogan "Right wing." They have either never listened to his show or they are out-and-out lying. I lean to the second possibilty. Journalistic malpractice. They do hate the growth of independent media, such as Rogan and Krystal and Saagar of Breaking Points. Follow the link below to the Mashup video by Matt Orfalea:
Follow Greenwald's thread for the accusations that Rogan is "right wing." MSM would rather try to cancel voices challenging their corrupted narratives instead of working harder to earn the respect as providers of meaningful news.
When I posted this on FB, some people pivoted to calling Rogan a "racist," as though has has ever used the N-word as a slur (he hasn't on his podcast). Rogan used the N-word many times (for which he has now apologized), but never as a racial slur.
I responded to those who took this pivot:
Do you see any difference between discussing the "N" word and using as a hateful slur? Do you think that professors should be fired for using the N-word to teach the evils of slavery? I personally know of such cases. Do you get upset when you see Joe Biden using the N-word? He has used it (not as a slur). What about when Obama uttered the N-word? Mark Twain? Do you consider the N-word to have magic significance (like the word "Voldemort") that it hurts people even when it is used as a teaching tool for combatting racism. Do you believe in magic? Rogan is not racist in the least. If you doubt this, just try to find one clip where he has ever shown any bigotry toward people of color. You won't find it.
Show me one example of where Rogan "implies" that he is a "racist." You won't find it. How about comparing your false characterization to the "progressive" view that we need to wholesale lower and eliminate standards because black people can't cut it? That's REAL racism. See this video by Glenn Loury and John McWhorter.
Many excellent demands in Eric Weinstein's Twitter list. It's a long excellent thread. We wouldn't be in this state of desperation if we had a strong and independent news media, one that constantly fails to demand answers to obvious questions. A "news" media that considers that it main job is to do PR for one (or the other) of our two dominant corrupt political parties.
