I haven’t trusted the media for very long time. As a child, I was the subject of a newspaper story that was incredibly inaccurate. It was an eye-opening event that shaped my outlook forever.
Yup. Something a little bit similar for me. My dad was a professional footballer (many decades ago) and a newspaper printed an interview with him after his debut match. Problem is, he never gave the interview 😂
It was a fairly innocuous example with untruths of no consequence - but still a valuable lesson.
"Auspicious" reading of the entrails with the parallel to Fawkes there Rudolph. In the lead-up to the 2016 election I'd argued that Trump was something of a loose cannon, a bull in china shop, some of which was in serious need of breaking. Though there's still the danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But reminds me of a quip falsely attributed to Voltaire:
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Amusingly the creation of "Kevin Alfred Strom", "an American neo-Nazi, who first said those words in 1993."
But you might also have some interest in this post by Heather Heying -- a more or less credible American biologist (she once argued, in the UK Times, that being male or female was only a matter of having, or having had, gonads of "past, present, or future functionality") -- on why she's voting for Trump:
I think Trump, to some extent is *still* a loose cannon. He's a fascinating individual. He definitely says some odd stuff, is sometimes very hard to follow (ramble or weave?), and doesn't pay careful enough attention to the facts. He's prone to over-exaggeration and somewhat full of himself.
Despite all that his instincts on many things seem to be in the right place - even if he quite often articulates things unclearly or badly. He's also a showman - and his desire to be funny and entertaining and provocative sometimes gets him into trouble. Especially in these times when people seem not to be able to properly understand rhetoric and the spirit behind a particular utterance. Or a joke.
In a lot of ways I find it a refreshing change from the traditional po-faced seriousness that is expected of our politicians. But it also can be irritating at times.
But the individual characters of the candidates are, for me, of secondary importance anyway. We've seen the Democrats ramp up the information tyranny over the last few years - and also *explicitly* call for the curtailment of the First Amendment. That's not evident on the other side.
I like Heying - she's very smart, a great writer, and an all-round sensible person with some really interesting insights to offer. I did see that post.
I'm still of two minds as to whether Harris or Trump is the proverbial "lesser of two weevils". Though I definitely sympathize with your "characters are of secondary importance". Apropos of which, my comments on Freddie deBoer's Substack:
But that is largely why I've been supporting Helen Dale's & Helen Joyce's view that transgenderism is a "civilization threatening/ending movement". You might want to take a close look at Joyce's argument, in particular, on that point:
But not terribly impressed with Heying -- she blocked and banned me for challenging her quite unscientific definitions for the sexes. Though she at least refunded my subscription ... 😉🙂
"On Being Defrauded by Heather Heying; A Tale of Hypocrisy in Two Acts"
They are ramping it up again. Every time I go to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription for an elderly relative they offer me, a demonstrably healthy person, their selection of jabs: more covid; flu; flu on steroids, RSV, shingles,· Pneumococcal, etc. AT NO COST. They are practically dragging people off the streets into their pharmacy to get vaccinated. Someone is making an awful lot of money off of this.
I had to go pick up my dog's prescription the other day. (Yes, it has to be filled at the pharmacy. 😖) The person in front of me was "offered at least 1 jab by the tech. I was not looking forward to it being my turn. The actual pharmacist stepped in to wait on me. I thought I was really in for it. He completed the sale and that was all. I was relieved and overjoyed! It made my day!
A way to tell if an info-source is surely not to be trusted - put their site in Google ("Washingtonpost.com" and "Hydroxychloroquine" "Trump". And again for "Ivermectin" "horse". If they tried, especially repeatedly, to discredit viable simple treatments for the illness they fearmongered about 24/7, by conflating hcq with Bad Man and ivm with horses ... that says a lot ...)
As someone who grew up with very socialist leanings (UK style - not Stalin style) I find it a bit odd that I'm continually arguing for the Republicans in the US - but I don't recognise any of the values I grew up with (and still hold to a very large extent) in the current Democrats - or, indeed, in the Labour Party in the UK.
But I think the real distinction these days isn't really between "right and left", whatever those terms even mean today. It's between authoritarianism and collectivism and those who want to preserve some degree of individual liberty. It's fascinating that fascism is definitely all about the *collective* and very against the importance of individual liberty in the scheme of things.
Now imagine such a video made, about the number of innocents robbed, mutilated, raped and murdered by moslem migrants.
Problem is, you try and make one and post in Youtube, it'll get removed licketty-split and you'll be banned, and since you are in the UK, you'll also get the Tommy Robinson-treatment*.
I mention it because if we have a Problem (New Virus) and that Problem can be broken down in sub-categories (Origin, Severity, "Transmitability", et c), analysis of the sub-categories and their interplay can then yield possible solutions - correct or incorrect, feasible or not, human or cruel, and so on - solutions which can then be further analysed and eventually implemented.
And the implementation also analysed to see if and what (didn't) work or what made things worse, as that's always a risk too.
But so many topics are banned. And banning debate, analysis, and information always increases the odds - to near certainty eventually - that whatever you do do, is the wrong thing. (Insert earlier screed on building a deck here, and the two main different ways of thinking about things.)
And it doesn't have to be moslems acting according to type either. Feel free to insert CHAV or pikey or Norwegians sacking Lindisfarne as desired. The points are the stifling of free speech, and the problem as such.
"But so many topics are banned. And banning debate, analysis, and information always increases the odds - to near certainty eventually - that whatever you do do, is the wrong thing"
Very nice. Your hidden (but not so hidden) message is that you think that freedom of speech will be safer with Harris' lot than with Trump's lot. But I think you're wrong. I also think the safety of the world is important. Of course it will be very safe when president Xi of China runs everything. That's why I don't want Trump to win though I find the other candidate not exactly convincing. But then I'm a guy with balls and I wouldn't trust my country in the hands of a woman. In fact, I don't trust any strong concentration of power. I'm an armchair anarchist. Hence I'm for Harris and the Democrats because I think there's a little more intelligence in that crown than in the other crowd.
I'm not sure why you think freedom of speech will be safer under the Dems given the various mechanisms and institutions they've created and supported to combat "misinformation" and the like - and their *explicit* statements on how they want to curtail freedom of speech. Harris, Walz, Pelosi, Kerry are just some recent examples of people saying very clearly that they want to restrict that freedom. We've also seen how they operated behind the scenes to force their viewpoint on everyone (The Twitter Files, for example).
If that's *better* than what Trump will do, then I don't know how you're coming to that conclusion.
"But then I'm a guy with balls and I wouldn't trust my country in the hands of a woman"
I've no idea what you mean with this statement. You only have to look at people like Thatcher, von der Leyen or Merkle to see that women are every bit as capable and competent at leadership. Granted these are/were also fairly ruthless individuals and you can love or loathe them, but their intellect and competence is difficult to question. I'd love to see a woman as US President - just to prove this point really - but Harris should not be that historic first.
If there's more intelligence in Harris/Walz than in the other crowd, then you have an exceptionally dim view of the Republicans 😂
But all the personality issues aside (which are kind of fun) there are some very serious systemic issues that I think will only be made worse with another 4 years of the Democrats. I don't see them taking on the whole 'woke' thing at all. DEI, gender woo, the horrible and destructive focus on race - none of that will be challenged and wound back under the Democrats and it will be more than likely accelerated.
Then there's the border and immigration issue. Controlled immigration where you bring in people who are going to make a real difference is a great thing - uncontrolled not so much. I don't think the numbers that have flooded in these past 4 years is a sustainable thing. Too much, too soon.
And the eye-watering level of national debt in the US. It's way beyond any sane level now and getting worse every year. Someone needs to take a firm hold of that, and I don't see the Democrats as being the ones capable of doing what's necessary.
Then there's the whole Climate Change thing. We need someone who is going to take a more hard-nosed look rather than the wishy-washy emotive bullcrap that's taken over everywhere. I think the Republicans by instinct are sceptical of the whole thing - but it's the proposed "solutions" we need to be most sceptical of. I think the whole climate hysteria thing will only accelerate under the Democrats.
Then there's the relatively minor issue of how they hid Biden's infirmity and incapacity for nigh on 4 years. Obviously it was progressing - we could all see that (anyone who bothered to take their blinkers off) - but just *who* was fulfilling the duties of the Executive? It's amazing to me that this hasn't been a scandal that completely broke the Democrats (it's orders of magnitude more nefarious than any Watergate) - but I suppose when you've got a tame press in your pocket it's easy to avoid scrutiny.
That's just a few of the issues that concern me and which I think the Democrats are going to make *worse* - but the free speech one tops them all for me.
...a little more intelligence in that crown...." A little more intelligence than what? An amoeba? They're, and you evidently, called "low information voters" for a reason. There's not much goin' on upstairs.
I am listening to the debate between Ben Shapiro and Sam (almost typed Kamala) Harris hosted by the Free Press, and this is the one piece (and maybe I missed it— it’s long) that I’m not sure Shapiro emphasized enough: the Democrats’ suppression of free speech and true bodily autotomy (in collusion with social and legacy media) vs. Trump’s supposed “fascism.”
See, fascism is defined as “a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed.” The part the Democrats (and Harris in his debate) pinpoint as reprehensible are the powerful leader and national pride. In fact, the parts of the definition that are truly concerning are the state control and suppression of political opposition, and these are to be found in the current iteration of the so-called Democratic Party. While I would not go to low as to compare my fellow countrymen as fascists, it is why I find it difficult to see this party as liberal right now. It is using the technique of smearing a single individual and those who vote for him as so potentially evil as to justify oppression, repression, and suppression. These are not the techniques of the good guys— even if they are correct in their assessment of Trump. (Time will tell. I voted for him, and by the way, I’m not sure my politics would have changed or if I wouldn’t be enthusiastically supporting Kamala right now if not for how Biden and his party responded to and politicized Covid and the vaccines. That truly made a lot clear about their commitment to preserving our freedom and exactly how they feel about bodily autonomy when it comes to anything except abortion.)
I haven’t trusted the media for very long time. As a child, I was the subject of a newspaper story that was incredibly inaccurate. It was an eye-opening event that shaped my outlook forever.
Yup. Something a little bit similar for me. My dad was a professional footballer (many decades ago) and a newspaper printed an interview with him after his debut match. Problem is, he never gave the interview 😂
It was a fairly innocuous example with untruths of no consequence - but still a valuable lesson.
👍👌😉🙂
"Auspicious" reading of the entrails with the parallel to Fawkes there Rudolph. In the lead-up to the 2016 election I'd argued that Trump was something of a loose cannon, a bull in china shop, some of which was in serious need of breaking. Though there's still the danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But reminds me of a quip falsely attributed to Voltaire:
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Amusingly the creation of "Kevin Alfred Strom", "an American neo-Nazi, who first said those words in 1993."
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/to-learn-who-rules-over-you-quote-wrongly-attributed-to-voltaire-idUSL1N2UE2LM/
Stopped clocks and all that.
But you might also have some interest in this post by Heather Heying -- a more or less credible American biologist (she once argued, in the UK Times, that being male or female was only a matter of having, or having had, gonads of "past, present, or future functionality") -- on why she's voting for Trump:
https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/why-i-am-voting-for-trump?utm_medium=reader2&triedRedirect=true
I think Trump, to some extent is *still* a loose cannon. He's a fascinating individual. He definitely says some odd stuff, is sometimes very hard to follow (ramble or weave?), and doesn't pay careful enough attention to the facts. He's prone to over-exaggeration and somewhat full of himself.
Despite all that his instincts on many things seem to be in the right place - even if he quite often articulates things unclearly or badly. He's also a showman - and his desire to be funny and entertaining and provocative sometimes gets him into trouble. Especially in these times when people seem not to be able to properly understand rhetoric and the spirit behind a particular utterance. Or a joke.
In a lot of ways I find it a refreshing change from the traditional po-faced seriousness that is expected of our politicians. But it also can be irritating at times.
But the individual characters of the candidates are, for me, of secondary importance anyway. We've seen the Democrats ramp up the information tyranny over the last few years - and also *explicitly* call for the curtailment of the First Amendment. That's not evident on the other side.
I like Heying - she's very smart, a great writer, and an all-round sensible person with some really interesting insights to offer. I did see that post.
I'm still of two minds as to whether Harris or Trump is the proverbial "lesser of two weevils". Though I definitely sympathize with your "characters are of secondary importance". Apropos of which, my comments on Freddie deBoer's Substack:
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/big-mommy-is-not-coming-to-save-us/comment/74647660
But that is largely why I've been supporting Helen Dale's & Helen Joyce's view that transgenderism is a "civilization threatening/ending movement". You might want to take a close look at Joyce's argument, in particular, on that point:
https://lawliberty.org/podcast/when-does-sex-matter/
More into your bailiwick, a post on the TransAtlantic on the Royal Society's motto, "Nullius en Verba":
" 'Nullius in Verba' - Identity Ideology vs. the Scientific Disposition; The Dangers of Self-ID"
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/self-id-or-nullius-in-verba-between
"The dislocations experienced around gender identity ideology have revealed the great threat couched in abnegation of the scientific disposition."
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/self-id-or-nullius-in-verba-between/comment/47238283
But not terribly impressed with Heying -- she blocked and banned me for challenging her quite unscientific definitions for the sexes. Though she at least refunded my subscription ... 😉🙂
"On Being Defrauded by Heather Heying; A Tale of Hypocrisy in Two Acts"
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying
They are ramping it up again. Every time I go to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription for an elderly relative they offer me, a demonstrably healthy person, their selection of jabs: more covid; flu; flu on steroids, RSV, shingles,· Pneumococcal, etc. AT NO COST. They are practically dragging people off the streets into their pharmacy to get vaccinated. Someone is making an awful lot of money off of this.
I had to go pick up my dog's prescription the other day. (Yes, it has to be filled at the pharmacy. 😖) The person in front of me was "offered at least 1 jab by the tech. I was not looking forward to it being my turn. The actual pharmacist stepped in to wait on me. I thought I was really in for it. He completed the sale and that was all. I was relieved and overjoyed! It made my day!
A way to tell if an info-source is surely not to be trusted - put their site in Google ("Washingtonpost.com" and "Hydroxychloroquine" "Trump". And again for "Ivermectin" "horse". If they tried, especially repeatedly, to discredit viable simple treatments for the illness they fearmongered about 24/7, by conflating hcq with Bad Man and ivm with horses ... that says a lot ...)
Love your writing.
Thanks Ellen.
As someone who grew up with very socialist leanings (UK style - not Stalin style) I find it a bit odd that I'm continually arguing for the Republicans in the US - but I don't recognise any of the values I grew up with (and still hold to a very large extent) in the current Democrats - or, indeed, in the Labour Party in the UK.
But I think the real distinction these days isn't really between "right and left", whatever those terms even mean today. It's between authoritarianism and collectivism and those who want to preserve some degree of individual liberty. It's fascinating that fascism is definitely all about the *collective* and very against the importance of individual liberty in the scheme of things.
Now imagine such a video made, about the number of innocents robbed, mutilated, raped and murdered by moslem migrants.
Problem is, you try and make one and post in Youtube, it'll get removed licketty-split and you'll be banned, and since you are in the UK, you'll also get the Tommy Robinson-treatment*.
I mention it because if we have a Problem (New Virus) and that Problem can be broken down in sub-categories (Origin, Severity, "Transmitability", et c), analysis of the sub-categories and their interplay can then yield possible solutions - correct or incorrect, feasible or not, human or cruel, and so on - solutions which can then be further analysed and eventually implemented.
And the implementation also analysed to see if and what (didn't) work or what made things worse, as that's always a risk too.
But so many topics are banned. And banning debate, analysis, and information always increases the odds - to near certainty eventually - that whatever you do do, is the wrong thing. (Insert earlier screed on building a deck here, and the two main different ways of thinking about things.)
And it doesn't have to be moslems acting according to type either. Feel free to insert CHAV or pikey or Norwegians sacking Lindisfarne as desired. The points are the stifling of free speech, and the problem as such.
"But so many topics are banned. And banning debate, analysis, and information always increases the odds - to near certainty eventually - that whatever you do do, is the wrong thing"
This. Definitely this.
Very nice. Your hidden (but not so hidden) message is that you think that freedom of speech will be safer with Harris' lot than with Trump's lot. But I think you're wrong. I also think the safety of the world is important. Of course it will be very safe when president Xi of China runs everything. That's why I don't want Trump to win though I find the other candidate not exactly convincing. But then I'm a guy with balls and I wouldn't trust my country in the hands of a woman. In fact, I don't trust any strong concentration of power. I'm an armchair anarchist. Hence I'm for Harris and the Democrats because I think there's a little more intelligence in that crown than in the other crowd.
🙂
I got what you meant hehe.
I'm not sure why you think freedom of speech will be safer under the Dems given the various mechanisms and institutions they've created and supported to combat "misinformation" and the like - and their *explicit* statements on how they want to curtail freedom of speech. Harris, Walz, Pelosi, Kerry are just some recent examples of people saying very clearly that they want to restrict that freedom. We've also seen how they operated behind the scenes to force their viewpoint on everyone (The Twitter Files, for example).
If that's *better* than what Trump will do, then I don't know how you're coming to that conclusion.
"But then I'm a guy with balls and I wouldn't trust my country in the hands of a woman"
I've no idea what you mean with this statement. You only have to look at people like Thatcher, von der Leyen or Merkle to see that women are every bit as capable and competent at leadership. Granted these are/were also fairly ruthless individuals and you can love or loathe them, but their intellect and competence is difficult to question. I'd love to see a woman as US President - just to prove this point really - but Harris should not be that historic first.
If there's more intelligence in Harris/Walz than in the other crowd, then you have an exceptionally dim view of the Republicans 😂
But all the personality issues aside (which are kind of fun) there are some very serious systemic issues that I think will only be made worse with another 4 years of the Democrats. I don't see them taking on the whole 'woke' thing at all. DEI, gender woo, the horrible and destructive focus on race - none of that will be challenged and wound back under the Democrats and it will be more than likely accelerated.
Then there's the border and immigration issue. Controlled immigration where you bring in people who are going to make a real difference is a great thing - uncontrolled not so much. I don't think the numbers that have flooded in these past 4 years is a sustainable thing. Too much, too soon.
And the eye-watering level of national debt in the US. It's way beyond any sane level now and getting worse every year. Someone needs to take a firm hold of that, and I don't see the Democrats as being the ones capable of doing what's necessary.
Then there's the whole Climate Change thing. We need someone who is going to take a more hard-nosed look rather than the wishy-washy emotive bullcrap that's taken over everywhere. I think the Republicans by instinct are sceptical of the whole thing - but it's the proposed "solutions" we need to be most sceptical of. I think the whole climate hysteria thing will only accelerate under the Democrats.
Then there's the relatively minor issue of how they hid Biden's infirmity and incapacity for nigh on 4 years. Obviously it was progressing - we could all see that (anyone who bothered to take their blinkers off) - but just *who* was fulfilling the duties of the Executive? It's amazing to me that this hasn't been a scandal that completely broke the Democrats (it's orders of magnitude more nefarious than any Watergate) - but I suppose when you've got a tame press in your pocket it's easy to avoid scrutiny.
That's just a few of the issues that concern me and which I think the Democrats are going to make *worse* - but the free speech one tops them all for me.
...a little more intelligence in that crown...." A little more intelligence than what? An amoeba? They're, and you evidently, called "low information voters" for a reason. There's not much goin' on upstairs.
Sorry, I meant safer with Trumps' lot than with Harris' lot. Why can't I edit a past posted comment?
Click the three lil dots at the bottom of your post.
Thanks! I'm getting old, cataracts, I didn't see them
I am listening to the debate between Ben Shapiro and Sam (almost typed Kamala) Harris hosted by the Free Press, and this is the one piece (and maybe I missed it— it’s long) that I’m not sure Shapiro emphasized enough: the Democrats’ suppression of free speech and true bodily autotomy (in collusion with social and legacy media) vs. Trump’s supposed “fascism.”
See, fascism is defined as “a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed.” The part the Democrats (and Harris in his debate) pinpoint as reprehensible are the powerful leader and national pride. In fact, the parts of the definition that are truly concerning are the state control and suppression of political opposition, and these are to be found in the current iteration of the so-called Democratic Party. While I would not go to low as to compare my fellow countrymen as fascists, it is why I find it difficult to see this party as liberal right now. It is using the technique of smearing a single individual and those who vote for him as so potentially evil as to justify oppression, repression, and suppression. These are not the techniques of the good guys— even if they are correct in their assessment of Trump. (Time will tell. I voted for him, and by the way, I’m not sure my politics would have changed or if I wouldn’t be enthusiastically supporting Kamala right now if not for how Biden and his party responded to and politicized Covid and the vaccines. That truly made a lot clear about their commitment to preserving our freedom and exactly how they feel about bodily autonomy when it comes to anything except abortion.)