You can probably find a cheap hotel room in downtown San Francisco now. Social Justice ideology is destroying the city. Shellenberger has written an entire book on this decay. Read his Tweet thread and weep for a once great city.
I agree with Amy Alkon's position on "transphobia":
Transphobia" is usually a bullshit accusation, used to demonize people like me who believe ALL people deserve to be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity - but who refuse to go with the unscientific fiction that there are more than two sexes, & believe biological males do not belong in women's sports or women's prisons. And that 6-year-old girls shouldn't have to look at swinging dicks in women's locker room.Stonewall definition of transphobia is "fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans." I have zero fear or dislike of trans people, and a lot of empathy for them.
What I won't stand for is vicious trans activists violently attacking women, mobbing women who refuse to parrot the language they demand or have beliefs like mine: there are 2 biolog sexes, & women's sports/prisons are no place for biological males.
I would add that shelters for abused women are not proper places for biological males.
For those of you who think that the Washington Post is a credible news source, please notice that today's WP article on the destruction of the Nord Stream Pipeline, purportedly by Ukrainians, fails to mention: A) shortly before its destruction, Joe Biden promised that he would make sure that the pipeline was no longer operational B) Much decorated investigative reporter Seymour Hersh published a detailed account that the United States destroyed the pipeline and C) Immediately after the destruction of the pipeline, Victoria Nuland, working for the U.S. Secretary of State celebrated celebrated that the Nord Stream pipeline "is now a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea."
New study by Bernstein, Zambrotta, Martin, & Micalizzi on political tribalism. Disturbing and not surprising to anyone who has eyes and ears. Title is: "Tribalism in American Politics: Are Partisans Guilty of Double-Standards?"
Here is the discussion section:
Across experiments, we found strong evidence for the existence of political tribalism and the application of double-standards. In Study 1, we found that tribalism occurs for the perceived legitimacy of hypothetical election outcomes. When asked whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden would be the legitimate president under three different scenarios, Republicans viewed Trump as more legitimate than Biden while Democrats viewed Biden as more legitimate than Trump. Similarly, in Study 2 Part 1, Republicans supported identical presidential policies and actions more under Donald Trump than Barack Obama while Democrats supported identical policies and actions more under Barack Obama than Donald Trump.
A noteworthy element this study is that each item was, in fact, true under both Presidents, which highlights the study’s real-world importance and is an important contribution over prior experiments. In Study 2 Part 2, we showed that Republicans viewed identical statements attributed to Bill Clinton as more bigoted than those attributed to Donald Trump while Democrats viewed the statements as more bigoted when attributed to Trump instead of Clinton. Further, Republicans viewed a statement advocating colorblindness to be generally not racist when attributed to either Dr. Martin Luther King (MLK) or Donald Trump (though racism scores were slightly higher in the latter condition); Democrats also viewed the statement as low in racism when attributed to MLK, but the racism score increased drastically when attributed to Trump. Taken together, these studies suggest that tribalism permeates many aspects of political life and discourse. Policy agreement differs according to the person enacting the policy. Perceptions of racism and xenophobia depend on the person who utters the statement. Alarmingly, even the perceived legitimacy of elections is dependent upon the winner; that is, people assign different standards for election legitimacy depending upon whether their preferred candidate wins or loses. Moreover, some of these effects are rarely seen in the social or cognitive sciences (e.g., Fs>250 when sample size <150), which suggests that tribalism plays a large role, at least in certain contexts.
Our main interest was in documenting if bias exists among each side of the political aisle. However, the study does invite us to ask which side exhibits greater tribal bias . . . To the degree that our results can help weigh in on this question, there was some indication that bias is higher among Democrats, which we call “left-leaning asymmetry”
At Public, Michael Shellenberger writes:
The people who say they are fighting disinformation appear to be transparent and trustworthy. Groups like Stanford Internet Observatory and the Atlantic Council put photos, bios, and contact information for their staff and board members on their websites. They record videos that explain their work. And they regularly write for mainstream media publications.
But of the 50 top ”anti-disinformation” governmental and nongovernmental groups in the world, which Matt Taibbi’s investigative team at Racket identified, only one has agreed to answer our questions, and only 10 even bothered responding to our repeated requests for an interview.
It’s reasonable to wonder if this low response rate has something to do with the fact that I have repeatedly called for all of them to be defunded and dismantled because they are violating a fundamental human right.
But the key “disinfo” censorship groups are not giving substantive interviews to other independent journalists. Indeed, over the last several weeks, they have increasingly gone quiet....
Two weeks ago, BBC heavily promoted the launch of its own “anti-disinfo” program called “Verify,” but has refused to answer questions about it or make its 27-year-old host, whose role is apparently to fact-check all of the news, available for an interview.
And now, the lead censorship organization, Stanford Internet Observatory, is refusing to respect a House Judiciary Committee subpoena for records in the form of “tickets” from the Jira project management software system...
Why? What are Stanford Internet Observatory, Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab, BBC, and other pro-censorship organizations hiding?
Stanford Internet Observatory says it was simply “flagging” disfavored views to Twitter and Facebook, not demanding that they be censored, and not acting on behalf of the government.
But the de facto leader of the SIO, and the rest of the Censorship Industrial Complex, Renee DiResta, openly boasted that the Virality Project existed to act as a proxy for the U.S. government’s Department of Homeland Security in demanding censorship by social media platforms of true vaccine side effect information.