Thursday, February 02, 2023
Sunday, January 29, 2023
Wednesday, July 27, 2022
Saturday, June 11, 2022
Friday, June 03, 2022
Sunday, May 22, 2022
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Monday, January 03, 2022
Saturday, January 01, 2022
Thursday, September 09, 2021
Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Wednesday, June 09, 2021
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
Saturday, April 24, 2021
Tuesday, April 13, 2021
Thursday, April 08, 2021
Thursday, March 25, 2021
Monday, March 13, 2017
Why does Social Justice embrace Islam?
One of the more confusing aspects of the Social Justice movement is the embrace of Islam, and a fight against “Islamophobia”. In Canada there are competing resolutions, one offered by the liberals that specifically names Islamophobia as something the government opposes, and one offered by the conservatives that only includes crimes against individuals based on their religion. The liberal resolution is interesting, because it is specifically an attack on a set of beliefs and not actions based on any particular beliefs.
The Women’s March featured two speakers / organizers, both of whom may be considered questionable. One was a woman who has been found guilty of raping and murdering a man. The other was a woman who states that Islam is the most feminist friendly religion and that Sharia Law is feminist. This is the same set of law that states that women must be covered, that women are the property of men, that adult men can marry pre-pubescent girls. This is considered a belief system highly compatible with feminism.
Social Justice is opposed to the patriarchy, specifically the white cis heteronormative patriarchy. Why then would these people advocate tolerance for and acceptance of Islam? And where do they classify, given that religion isn’t listed in the progressive stack?
The roots of this can be found in the campaigns of Hillary Clinton. Her two attempts to run for President of the United States can be considered the basis of Social Justice acceptance of Islam. It started with Occupy Wall Street, which was supposed to be a protest about financial activities by the major financial corporations and their deep ties with government. It was subverted into a movement about social justice and ultimately destroyed from within. Then it was replaced by the forced movement Black Lives Matter.
Once a movement about finance was replaced with more identity politics, there was one problem left for the Hillary Clinton campaign to solve, and that was her large donations from countries that have very repressive laws against many of the minorities she claims to represent. Given that in predominantly Muslim countries there are harsh laws that repress women and harsher laws that result in the death of anyone who is not cisgender and heterosexual. It was necessary for the Hillary Clinton campaign to cast Muslims in predominantly Christian countries as minorities. The Syrian refugee crisis was a perfect vehicle for this, in spite of the trouble European countries are having with a rape epidemic committed by refugees from African and Middle Eastern countries.
Through the close ties between the Hillary Clinton campaign, most media outlets, and many identity politics groups, acceptance of Muslims as an oppressed minority group was forced downward. Now all over the Western world, from Europe to North America to Australia, female Muslims are expressing the idea that Islam is the most feminist and progressive religion. This is in spite of all the ample evidence to the contrary, and anyone who dares say this is considered oppressive.
Islam isn't a race, it is a religion. A religion is a set of beliefs. It is not an act of oppression to analyze and criticize a set of beliefs. Fear of a set of beliefs should never be considered a crime in any free society, even if that fear is irrational, which is not to suggest that anyone desiring freedom should lack concern about Islam. For women, homosexuals, and transsexuals to defend Islam is, however, quite irrational.
The Women’s March featured two speakers / organizers, both of whom may be considered questionable. One was a woman who has been found guilty of raping and murdering a man. The other was a woman who states that Islam is the most feminist friendly religion and that Sharia Law is feminist. This is the same set of law that states that women must be covered, that women are the property of men, that adult men can marry pre-pubescent girls. This is considered a belief system highly compatible with feminism.
Social Justice is opposed to the patriarchy, specifically the white cis heteronormative patriarchy. Why then would these people advocate tolerance for and acceptance of Islam? And where do they classify, given that religion isn’t listed in the progressive stack?
The roots of this can be found in the campaigns of Hillary Clinton. Her two attempts to run for President of the United States can be considered the basis of Social Justice acceptance of Islam. It started with Occupy Wall Street, which was supposed to be a protest about financial activities by the major financial corporations and their deep ties with government. It was subverted into a movement about social justice and ultimately destroyed from within. Then it was replaced by the forced movement Black Lives Matter.
Once a movement about finance was replaced with more identity politics, there was one problem left for the Hillary Clinton campaign to solve, and that was her large donations from countries that have very repressive laws against many of the minorities she claims to represent. Given that in predominantly Muslim countries there are harsh laws that repress women and harsher laws that result in the death of anyone who is not cisgender and heterosexual. It was necessary for the Hillary Clinton campaign to cast Muslims in predominantly Christian countries as minorities. The Syrian refugee crisis was a perfect vehicle for this, in spite of the trouble European countries are having with a rape epidemic committed by refugees from African and Middle Eastern countries.
Through the close ties between the Hillary Clinton campaign, most media outlets, and many identity politics groups, acceptance of Muslims as an oppressed minority group was forced downward. Now all over the Western world, from Europe to North America to Australia, female Muslims are expressing the idea that Islam is the most feminist and progressive religion. This is in spite of all the ample evidence to the contrary, and anyone who dares say this is considered oppressive.
Islam isn't a race, it is a religion. A religion is a set of beliefs. It is not an act of oppression to analyze and criticize a set of beliefs. Fear of a set of beliefs should never be considered a crime in any free society, even if that fear is irrational, which is not to suggest that anyone desiring freedom should lack concern about Islam. For women, homosexuals, and transsexuals to defend Islam is, however, quite irrational.
Wednesday, March 01, 2017
Why PewDiePie is important
Normally a person would not mention Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos, and PewDiePie in the same context. PewDiePie is non-political and fairly inoffensive for all that he is the single most popular content creator on YouTube. For all that, he has something in common with the other two, in that he is at the center of a war between the old media and the new media.
YouTube user Sargon of Akkad has demonstrated the campaigns against both Milo Yiannopoulos and PewDiePie with the following video.
Moreover Sargon of Akkad launched a petition drive in support of PewDiePie on Twitter, which in spite of overwhelming support was removed from the trends by Twitter.
PewDiePie is basically an innocent victim caught in the cross-fire between the mainstream media and the new alternative media. He was chosen because of his high profile, to demonstrate to the alternative media that the mainstream media still has the power to control the narrative.
That the narrative is slipping is shown by Donald Trump and his infamous use of Twitter. Through his use of that platform he is able to communicate directly to the people, bypassing the media’s role as the gatekeepers between events and the public. He will make tweets that he must know are outrageous, simply to provoke a reaction from the media. That he restricted certain media outlets from his press conferences is called a threat to the First Amendment freedom of the press, in spite of him not taking any actions that would shut down those media outlets. He is denying their role in shaping the narrative, which is why so many in the media are saying he should shut down his Twitter account.
Both Donald Trump and PewDiePie are fighting a war against the power of the mainstream media. PewDiePie is doing it out of necessity due to him being a victim of a smear job the same way as Milo Yiannopoulus. Anyone who supports the free flow of information and opposes media smear campaigns should support PewDiePie.
As a side note, it has been noted that Daily Stormer has declared itself the number one fan site of the Wall Street Journal.
YouTube user Sargon of Akkad has demonstrated the campaigns against both Milo Yiannopoulos and PewDiePie with the following video.
Moreover Sargon of Akkad launched a petition drive in support of PewDiePie on Twitter, which in spite of overwhelming support was removed from the trends by Twitter.
PewDiePie is basically an innocent victim caught in the cross-fire between the mainstream media and the new alternative media. He was chosen because of his high profile, to demonstrate to the alternative media that the mainstream media still has the power to control the narrative.
That the narrative is slipping is shown by Donald Trump and his infamous use of Twitter. Through his use of that platform he is able to communicate directly to the people, bypassing the media’s role as the gatekeepers between events and the public. He will make tweets that he must know are outrageous, simply to provoke a reaction from the media. That he restricted certain media outlets from his press conferences is called a threat to the First Amendment freedom of the press, in spite of him not taking any actions that would shut down those media outlets. He is denying their role in shaping the narrative, which is why so many in the media are saying he should shut down his Twitter account.
Both Donald Trump and PewDiePie are fighting a war against the power of the mainstream media. PewDiePie is doing it out of necessity due to him being a victim of a smear job the same way as Milo Yiannopoulus. Anyone who supports the free flow of information and opposes media smear campaigns should support PewDiePie.
As a side note, it has been noted that Daily Stormer has declared itself the number one fan site of the Wall Street Journal.
Monday, February 20, 2017
Pewdiepie did nothing wrong
YouTube user Pewdiepie is the single most popular content provider on YouTube. Having had his videos monetized, he has made millions of dollars per year for making videos. His subscriber count is over 50 million. For comparison, the Wall Street Journal's YouTube channel has almost 500,000 subscribers. He is so influential on the site that the owners of YouTube actually listen to his opinion, and he is aware of this. He will actually speak up for less popular and influential users when the issues don't directly relate to him but he feels it is important for the site as a whole.
Most of his videos are lighthearted, made simply for general entertainment value. Recently, upon finding a vendor who offers to make a video of themselves holding up a sign with any message, he decided to see if they were sincere. He commissioned them to hold a sign with an anti-Semitic message. He did not do this because of personal beliefs in anti-Semitism, but because he wanted to see if they would actually do it. Upon being called out on anti-Semitism, he went further. He stated that his accusers would take clips of his videos out of context, and inserted a clip of him watching a speech by Adolph Hitler, to dare them to take the clip out of context.
The Wall Street Journal rose to the occasion. Someone at the Wall Street Journal decided to accuse Pewdiepie of being an anti-Semite based on these out of context clips. These people at the Journal also pressured both YouTube and Disney to stop doing business with him, costing him a large amount of revenue. His YouTube channel still exists, but videos have been demonetized.
Rather laughably, when people started reacting to the smear campaign by the Wall Street Journal, they offered to give him a platform from which he could respond to allegations by the Journal, even though they had already cost him revenue. His subscriber count is more than one hundred times theirs, and they offered to give him a platform.
The print media is losing importance. One person with a YouTube channel, without any bosses to tell him what videos to make, may have more influence than the entire Wall Street Journal. Not in all areas or in all ways, but at least in some areas this one person is more influential. When the media lashed out at him, he was able to respond, able to get his version of event out. This goes beyond the old model of the internet keeping alive a story that the media wants to bury, this goes to a direct challenge against a media narrative. This is a direct challenge by someone who isn't even a politician, such as when Donald Trump bypasses the media and speaks directly to the public through Twitter. This one person who has gotten wealthy by making YouTube videos, has sufficient influence to counter the chosen media narrative directly.
This fight that the Wall Street Journal picked with Pewdiepie is the old media lashing out at the new media, in a manner akin to an injured animal thrashing wildly. And the way they chose to do it is so pitiful, because unlike in the earlier era of media dominance, anyone can see the source videos under discussion. They are still on YouTube. Anyone even mildly curious, even if their curiosity is "I want to see what that bigot said so I can hate him too" can go see the videos and see they are not what the Journal said they are.
This actually serves as a well deserved humiliation of the mainstream media. Between the election of Donald Trump, the vote for Brexit in the United Kingdom, and the possible election of Marine Le Pen in France, the media is already losing control of the narrative. Choosing to fight with someone who is actually harmless, and losing because he is more influential in some areas, and more influential in the long run, is actually pitiful. To do so after the media recently embarrassed itself by having a discussion about fake news is humiliating. Pewdiepie did nothing wrong.
Most of his videos are lighthearted, made simply for general entertainment value. Recently, upon finding a vendor who offers to make a video of themselves holding up a sign with any message, he decided to see if they were sincere. He commissioned them to hold a sign with an anti-Semitic message. He did not do this because of personal beliefs in anti-Semitism, but because he wanted to see if they would actually do it. Upon being called out on anti-Semitism, he went further. He stated that his accusers would take clips of his videos out of context, and inserted a clip of him watching a speech by Adolph Hitler, to dare them to take the clip out of context.
The Wall Street Journal rose to the occasion. Someone at the Wall Street Journal decided to accuse Pewdiepie of being an anti-Semite based on these out of context clips. These people at the Journal also pressured both YouTube and Disney to stop doing business with him, costing him a large amount of revenue. His YouTube channel still exists, but videos have been demonetized.
Rather laughably, when people started reacting to the smear campaign by the Wall Street Journal, they offered to give him a platform from which he could respond to allegations by the Journal, even though they had already cost him revenue. His subscriber count is more than one hundred times theirs, and they offered to give him a platform.
The print media is losing importance. One person with a YouTube channel, without any bosses to tell him what videos to make, may have more influence than the entire Wall Street Journal. Not in all areas or in all ways, but at least in some areas this one person is more influential. When the media lashed out at him, he was able to respond, able to get his version of event out. This goes beyond the old model of the internet keeping alive a story that the media wants to bury, this goes to a direct challenge against a media narrative. This is a direct challenge by someone who isn't even a politician, such as when Donald Trump bypasses the media and speaks directly to the public through Twitter. This one person who has gotten wealthy by making YouTube videos, has sufficient influence to counter the chosen media narrative directly.
This fight that the Wall Street Journal picked with Pewdiepie is the old media lashing out at the new media, in a manner akin to an injured animal thrashing wildly. And the way they chose to do it is so pitiful, because unlike in the earlier era of media dominance, anyone can see the source videos under discussion. They are still on YouTube. Anyone even mildly curious, even if their curiosity is "I want to see what that bigot said so I can hate him too" can go see the videos and see they are not what the Journal said they are.
This actually serves as a well deserved humiliation of the mainstream media. Between the election of Donald Trump, the vote for Brexit in the United Kingdom, and the possible election of Marine Le Pen in France, the media is already losing control of the narrative. Choosing to fight with someone who is actually harmless, and losing because he is more influential in some areas, and more influential in the long run, is actually pitiful. To do so after the media recently embarrassed itself by having a discussion about fake news is humiliating. Pewdiepie did nothing wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)