"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.
Whoopie Goldberg attacked Bill Maher for something he said last week. This week, Maher defended Whoopi Goldberg's right to free speech and criticizes the View for suspending her for her recent comments. Maher's discussion focuses on the real meaning of Karma and and the evils of Cancel Culture.
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.
