Escaping the collective

Between them, Google, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo and Twitter carry enormous power to shape the public conversation.  What’s worse, all of those companies have shown themselves willing to censor and eliminate speech they dislike.  It’s time to find alternatives:

DuckDuckGo may never become a verb the way “Google” did, but at least their search engine doesn’t track your every move.  I moved to the Pale Moon browser after Mozilla threw out their highly successful CEO for having donated to the cause of not recognizing gay “marriage” in California. That same CEO has now created a new browser, Brave, which I use for most web work. You may also have noted over the past few months that some of my links go to Infogalactic, not Wikipedia anymore. And yes, Jemison Thorsby has a Gab account, though I use it to listen, not to broadcast. (Yet.)  I’m still looking into some of the email platforms noted in the video.  If I have recommendations later, I’ll pass them along.

Vox Day and his fellow travelers who have the chops to do so are trying to create content-neutral platforms as an alternative to the gulag-inclined monopolies that exist today. I don’t have the tech skills to help them, but I CAN contribute by using and promoting these alternate platforms.

And so can you. Silicon Valley needs to be overthrown as the biased gatekeepers of the national discussion.

Advertisements

Agenda uber alles

To the Left, everything — absolutely everything — must be subordinate to the Narrative.  Truth, tradition, facts, common sense — all must be jettisoned if they threaten to break the spell of today’s Wormtongues.  In academia, the social sciences have long since bent the knee.  Even the ‘hard sciences’ aren’t immune:

Academics and scholars must be mindful about using research done by only straight, white men, according to two scientists who argued that it oppresses diverse voices and bolsters the status of already privileged and established white male scholars.

Geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argued in a recent paper that doing so also perpetuates what they call “white heteromasculinism,” which they defined as a “system of oppression” that benefits only those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” (Cisgendered describes people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.)

Mott, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Cockayne, who teaches at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, argued that scholars or researchers disproportionately cite the work of white men, thereby unfairly adding credence to the body of knowledge they offer while ignoring the voices of other groups, like women and black male academics. Although citation seems like a mundane practice, the feminist professors argue that citing someone’s work has implications on his or her ability to be hired, get promoted and obtain tenured status, among others.

And in a sane world, citing someone’s work because of their position in the victimization hierarchy instead of the quality of the work itself would ALSO have implications on hiring, promotion and tenure for those who engage in such practices.  In fact, in a sane world, one’s first question after reading the passage above should be “what does any of this have to do with geography… the complainants’ professed profession?”  Is it possible a couple special snowflakes have found real geography work too tedious or difficult, and have decided this is the best way to make names for themselves?  Academic citations are now a “system of oppression?”  This is just the latest example of why our entire higher education system needs to be plowed under and started anew, with an emphasis on facts and results.  Oh, wait… that’s oppressive, too…

We simply do not live in a sane world, as I’ve shown in an earlier Saturday Sounds post that strikes just a little too close to home these days.  Every week seems to see new heights to the insanity that’s been unleashed.

On a related note, my family will no longer watch the long-running BBC series “Dr. Who.”  We’ve enjoyed several seasons of the “new Who” these past years, but even from the beginning there were clear hints this popular sci-fi series was being used as a vehicle for certain agendas.  Once the series’ arch enemy “The Master” was transformed into “Missy” (an obvious trial balloon), I told the Musketeers’ Mom if they did the same for the Doctor, we were done.  They did, and we are.

“Social Justice Warriors” ruin everything they touch, from entertainment to engineering.  Maybe after all the castles in the air they’ve built for themselves come crashing down as reality inevitably reasserts itself, we can get back to the work of restoring Western Civilization.

 

Goofy: putting agenda ahead of revenue

About a week ago, I noted how Disney was using its new live-action version of “Beauty and the Beast” to add a “gay moment,” in the words of the director.  At the time, I pointed out that Disney has become so committed to this agenda that they will accept a ratings plunge just to add it to children’s shows.

And now it appears Disney would rather lose part of the lucrative overseas box office than remove the objectionable scene:

Walt Disney has shelved the release of its new movie “Beauty and the Beast” in mainly Muslim Malaysia, even though film censors said Tuesday it had been approved with a minor cut involving a “gay moment.”

The country’s two main cinema chains said the movie, due to begin screening Thursday, has been postponed indefinitely. No reason was given…

“We have approved it but there is a minor cut involving a gay moment. It is only one short scene but it is inappropriate because many children will be watching this movie,” Abdul Halim told The Associated Press.

He said there was no appeal from Disney about the decision to cut the gay scene.

There can be no doubt that the gay agenda has become more important to Disney than its own revenue.  All I can ask is, “where are the stockholders?”  It would seem time to shake up the leadership of the company, if one is going to invest there to try to make a profit.

One other note: many Hollywood productions travel the globe, where they essentially represent America to foreign audiences.  Shortly after 9/11, one pundit pointed out how Americans might be able to discern reality vs. fantasy in films like “Natural Born Killers,” but foreign audiences could conclude this represents actual American society. Given decisions like Disney’s latest, is there any question as to whether that is helping or harming our image around the world, in a war of ideas where image is critical?

Meanwhile, I hope anyone reading this will make the commitment my family has to avoid Disney or any of its properties.  No trips to Disneyworld (which is vastly overpriced anyway).   No movies in the theater, including Star Wars and Pixar, both of which are sure to be subverted to this agenda at some point.  If we think they’ve produced something worth watching, we’ll catch it on Netflix so they don’t get ticket receipts.  Our days of buying any Disney merchandise are over, too.

Companies like Disney and the tech industry can afford to be “social justice warriors” because they have good cash reserves to make up for temporary hits to the bottom line.

That can’t last forever.   (H/T: Vox Day)