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.
I don't hear much from the religious right these days, but I do know quite a few people who believe strongly in the Bible (some of them actually read it). I have a lot of posts early in my writings criticizing Bible cherry-picking (here's an irreverent look). Here are my top eight parts of the Bible that are ignored by most Christians.
I have also praised parts of the Bible, including the advice that one should always "Love your enemies." Most people who tell you that the Bible is the Way only tell you about their favorite parts and suppress the embarrassing parts.
I've commented on Bart Ehrman's writings before. He is a Bible scholar, a fundamentalist turned agnostic/atheist (his position--I agree--is that one can be both of these simultaneously). In a post I wrote in 2006, I summarized Ehrman's findings that many parts of the Bible are not as written by the original authors (whoever they might be). Who changed the Bible and why? That post drew many hundreds of comments, back in a time when far more people claimed to be practicing Christians (30% of Americans are now religiously unaffiliated). Ehrman is about to release a new book on Revelations and he has some strong critical opinions about its message and tone, about its attempts to censor and violently coerce (and see here). Here's an excerpt from his website:
The overwhelming emphasis of Revelation is not about hope but about the wrath and vengeance of God against those who have incurred his displeasure. For the author of Revelation, that entails the vast majority of people who have ever lived, including, perhaps surprisingly, a number of committed Christians. The book repeatedly indicates that God is angry and that Christ seeks to avenge his own unjust death, not just on those who were responsible for it; his vengeance falls on the “inhabitants of earth.” His followers too want revenge and are told to go out and get it. The largest section of the narrative thus describes God and his “Lamb” inflicting horrible suffering on the planet; war, starvation, horrid disease, drought, earthquake, torture, and death. The catastrophes end with the Battle of Armageddon, where Christ destroys all the armies of earth and calls on the scavengers of the sky to gorge themselves on their flesh. This, then, is the climax of the history of earth.
But it is not the end of all things. After that there will be a final judgment. God’s faithful followers, his “slaves,” will be saved; everyone else who has ever lived will be brought back to life, judged for their wickedness, and then thrown, while still alive, into a lake of burning sulfur. Afterward, God will reward his obedient slaves by giving them a glorious new city of gold with gates of pearl. They then, the followers of Jesus, will rule the earth forever.
That is indeed a happy ending for some people. But it not because God loves them deeply – at least the book never says so. The saved are God’s enslaved minions who do what he demands. The love of God – for anyone or anything – is never mentioned in the book, not once. The book is instead about the “wrath of God” — as stated repeatedly — as well as the wrath of Christ, and the violent vengeance wreaked on the inhabitants of earth leading up to the appearance of the glorious city from which God’s slaves will rule the planet.
At first glance this summary may seem slanted and implausible. I will try to show, however, that it is exactly what the book itself repeatedly emphasizes. Its troubling emphases have been seen by other modern readers, of course, including, rather unexpectedly, D. H. Lawrence, who described Revelation as the “dark side of Christianity.” I could not agree more.
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.
For those of us who understand that sex is a biological term that applies to possums, wolves, elephants and humans, what should we say when asked for our "pronouns"? Colin Wright says we should refuse to answer the question. I think a bare refusal is a bit rude. People asking for pronouns often don't mean any harm, even though they are implicitly asking you to buy into an ideology that conflicts with biology, often without awareness that they are doing this. I agree with Wright that a request for pronouns constitutes stereotyping.
What would I do next time I'm asked? I might respond by saying something like: “Sign me up as a human being who doesn't believe in stereotyping." If that triggers an awkward silence, perhaps I would follow up: "But by all means, I'm not telling anyone else how to respond . . ."
Wright's article appears in the Wall Street Journal. The title is "When Asked ‘What Are Your Pronouns,’ Don’t AnswerA seemingly innocuous question masks a demand for conformity with a regressive set of ideas." Here's an excerpt:
Gender activists believe that being a man or a woman requires embracing stereotypes of masculinity or femininity, respectively, or the different social roles and expectations society imposes on people because of their sex. Planned Parenthood explicitly states that gender identity is “how you feel inside,” defines “gender” as a “a social and legal status, a set of expectations from society, about behaviors, characteristics, and thoughts,” and asserts that “it’s more about how you’re expected to act, because of your sex.” . . .
So when someone asks for your pronouns, and you respond with “she/her,” even though you may be communicating the simple fact that you’re female, a gender ideologue would interpret this as an admission that you embrace femininity and the social roles and expectations associated with being female. While women’s-rights movements fought for decades to decouple womanhood from rigid stereotypes and social roles, modern gender ideology has melded them back together. . . .
Let me offer an analogy. [Imagine a] request from the American Federation of Astrologers encouraging everyone to begin conversations with, “Hi, I’m a Sagittarius. What’s your sign?” To respond with your own star sign would be to operate within and signal your tacit agreement with the belief system of astrology.
Here is a free pdf of Colin Wright's article.