Posted on 01/20/2019 6:12:17 PM PST by grundle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DrAeUNPU0
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The Indian just won the Elizabeth Warren Social Justice award.
I thought this guy was supposed to be smart.......
Very much looking forward to Kurts new piece that goes on Townhall at 12:01 AM tomorrow
After the last couple of bad days for those in media, it ought to be a doozie!
The downside of being clever but not conservative (and cynical).
Here's an important lesson to take away from all this. If you are going to wear any MAGA gear in public, expect that leftists will try to set you up in staged situations where you come out looking racist as hell. They can't just walk up and punch you in the face like they used to do. This makes them look bad so they've had to change tactics. These "racists Trump supporter" events will be filmed and put on the internet where they'll immediately go viral. Your career, reputation, friendships, and the safety of your family will be at risk. If you are young, your opportunity to attend college will be in jeopardy.
This event was totally staged to provoke the exact outrage it did and these kids had no idea they were being played. It was defused only because additional footage surfaced that showed the whole story.
A MAGA ball cap and vigilant situational awareness need to go hand in hand.
Remember: Scott Adams is not a conservative.
He is fascinated by & respects Trump, but may not agree with him on many major issues.
Speaking of lying, through the years I have developed my own standards:
1) If a woman claims rape, or something like it, she better have some real EVIDENCE, not just her word, her notes, or the fact that she talked to so-and-so about it. For this, medical records, phone records, video evidence, etc...or, she’s out of luck with me - and she can thank the ‘me too’ movement for my demands.
2) If a person is arrested and charged, but claims to be innocent in a racial incident, I won’t buy it, unless they make a good case to prove they’re innocent. Likewise if someone claims racism or a racial incident, they better be able to PROVE IT, as there’s now more than enough fake claims to throw just about every claim into doubt.
3) If it’s a civil case, I’ll go AGAINST the deep pockets just about every time, unless it’s really clear that the deep pockets are liable and the claims are legitimate (and no, wearing a neck brace in court won’t affect me).
Probably more stuff like that, but I’m sure you get the message.
“1) If a woman claims rape, or something like it, she better have some real EVIDENCE, not just her word, her notes, or the fact that she talked to so-and-so about it. For this, medical records, phone records, video evidence, etc...or, she’s out of luck with me - and she can thank the ‘me too’ movement for my demands.”
—
Ditto,and I’m a woman.
My 3 sons are Kavanaugh’s age and when I first heard about her accusation I was absolutely stunned.All I could imagine that some high school “friend” could come after my sons and make the same claim-——it horrified me.
.
I know, it’s very scary. I think the Trump haters may have learned a bit of a lesson from it, even if they’re not showing it now.
To the Trump-haters, Kavanaugh was NOT a boorish hate-filled extremist, as they see Trump. Nope, Kavanaugh was their son, or could have been (I was saying this during the hearings). They could understand claims against Trump...after all, he deserves claims, and who cares whether they’re true or not. But not Kavanaugh...not at all.
So our side, hopefully, learned a bit here about the Democrats, hopefully. Because if we aren’t able to FULLY UNDERSTAND who they are, and what they have in mind for us and the country, they’ll simply win by default.
Did the Indian activist get his paycheck from Soros yet?
********************************************
Dude, he’s probably on retainer with a large expense account and an ability to rack up lots of paid hours.
Or Drudge is afraid they will take his platform away and does whatever they ask and keep his mouth shut. I would rather retire then take that crap.
.
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)I agree with you - and Adam Smith - that skepticism (other than wrt Christ) is something to be cultivated.
But cynicism is actually different from skepticism - ironically, it contains the necessary implication of naiveté.For if A be the opposite of B, you can be skeptical of both. But cynicism towards A necessarily implies naiveté towards B.
The core meaning of skepticism is doubt - but cynicism actually rejects doubt.
There was never the slightest doubt that this story was a fraud, so cynicism wins out here.
There was never the slightest doubt that this story was a fraud, so cynicism wins out here.
Even looking at it that way, the usage is wrong. One who insists that cynicism is justified can say, "nowhere near skeptical enough." But cynicism as you mean it is the ultimate in skepticism - and to say, “not cynical enough” is like saying “not best enough” rather than “not good enough.”
There are levels of cynicism, and ironically, if you go deep enough, you get right back around to wide-eyed innocence.
I said, "Even looking at it that way, the usage is wrong. One who insists that cynicism is justified can say, "nowhere near skeptical enough." But cynicism as you mean it is the ultimate in skepticism - and to say, “not cynical enough” is like saying “not best enough” rather than “not good enough.” I’m not sure I’m proud of the “as you mean it” phrase; it sounds presumptuous of me to try to tell someone else what they mean.There are levels of cynicism, and ironically, if you go deep enough, you get right back around to wide-eyed innocence.
My interest in discussing skepticism/cynicism comes from my analysis of journalism, a.k.a. “the media.” Journalists maintain their socialist ideological purity by defining “objectivity” as meaning, "never breaking from the herd.”Journalists know perfectly well that “If it bleeds it leads” is not a philosophical but a commercial rule, know that they follow it, and know that following it makes journalism negative. So when they then claim that journalism is objective, that carries the implication that "negativity is objectivity.” And that conceit, I assert, is a fine definition of “cynicism.”
Cynicism is dictionary-defined as the opposite of faith.
It seems to me that if “there are levels of cynicism,” then there is no real difference between cynicism, on the one hand, and mere skepticism, on the other. Which leads to my comparison between “skepticism" and “cynicism" as being analogous to the relation between “good” and “best.”
I do agree that cynicism and naiveté are related, in that since cynicism is extreme, it requires naiveté to believe in it. American conservatives are not cynical about government, which would require naiveté about society without government, but they are skeptical of government. As “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” illustrates. We are skeptical about society, or we wouldn’t want any government at all. On grounds of expense, if nothing worse. But we are not cynical about society, or we would be “all in” for government programs for everything. We leave cynicism towards society for “liberals.”
I have to remind myself that back in the early 1960s, and even unto the Carter Administration actually, I did not know that “the media” were “biased.”The 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan SCOTUS decision was unanimous, and if the same facts were presented to SCOTUS today, the same result would have to come back. But if you read Sullivan today, it seems quaint. Because the case did not raise, and SCOTUS did not consider, what we know now that I admit I didn’t know then.
The Sullivan decision is what makes it hard for any politician to sue for libel. But reading it, you would never suspect that it was heavily slanted against Republicans. A major reason is that, ironically, the plaintiff was neither a Republican (as defined, then or now) or a Democrat (as defined now). He was a Southern Democrat and, therefore, an unsympathetic figure even then - at least nationally.
Now we know two things the Court did not consider in 1964:
- Journalism is actually monopolized by incumbent journalists, who claim objectivity for themselves and reject - with a vociferous propaganda campaign - the idea that anyone who disagrees with them is a journalist. And,
- A rule against politicians suing for libel treats Democrats and Republicans alike in precisely the same sense that a law against sleeping under bridges treats rich and homeless people alike - only homeless people would want to sleep under a bridge, and only a Republican ever gets libeled.
You say that Scott Adams should know that, and I agree. But the real question is: How would you make that case in court, so effectively that SCOTUS would venture to make Sullivan moot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.