Political Correctness

[Jed]

In a nutshell Brad, that's what it's always been about with the CBC. No state television can rise above party politics, which is normally those governments that offer them lots of money and bonuses. One only needs to look at how many regular individuals, at CBC, that are wearing the Order of Canada or how many have been seconded right to government jobs when they leave the CBC.

It is impossible for them to report just the facts. They put the government political spin on it for the people that pay them. It's not the individual stories or facts that matter. It is the social conditioning and lack of interpretation, other than the party line. In the case of CBC, their masters are Laurentien Elites. It's more about how the government will solve a problem, the PMs feelings, the thespian outrage instead of the individual that brought the problem into the public eye. Unless the perp is integral to the agenda, IE: race, religion, political persuasion etc. These days, if it plays to sensationalism and allows the government to forward their agenda, it's used. If a caucasian went into a synagogue and killed a number of people with a .22 Cooey. The shooter will be branded as an alt-right, anti-semite that legally obtained that .22. Within days the government will be crowing about the availability of those firearms. The medium changes. It's no longer about the shooting, but the governments plan to curtail sale of .22 cal rifles. And the CBC will dutifully say whatever the PMO says. It has nothing to do with the fact that the shooter was mentally unbalanced, off his meds and would have picked a shopping mall if he'd seen that first. And like Polytechnique, they will drag it out over next 100 years to further their agenda. You'll hear the mosque shooting in Parliament every time the Liberals want to talk about tolerance towards muslims. It's not muslims we are against. We are against the barbaric culture that islam perpetrates, not the people. But that's not the message the government wants you to concentrate on, so they spin it as a racism problem. If they were called upon to defend the culture, they would be thrown out of power. Much easier to let the religion aspects stay off the table and talk about the, supposed, human plight.

"The medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan


edit: spelling.

Man, I could not expressed my point of view better than if I would have written it myself.

 

[a_majoor]

How to fight Political Correctness. We need to see more of this by our own politicians and others, to shatter the illusion (or Narrative) and get some actual debate on serious subjects (like here!)

https://spectator.org/trump-is-beating-the-media-at-its-own-game/

The left’s own politics by shorthand is now being turned against it.

Once asked by an aide to respond to a letter to the editor from one of his critics, Vladimir Lenin refused, saying: “Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There’s no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything.”

That has been the modus operandi of the left for decades. It doesn’t respond to arguments with arguments but with stigmatizing names designed to end debate. As the communications arm of the left, the media conforms perfectly to Lenin’s method. Instead of rebutting the arguments of conservatives, it has found it easier to brand them as “enemies” of science, women, minorities, the poor, and so on.

Whenever editors say that they refuse to acknowledge “two sides” on such matters as “marriage equality” or Darwinism or climate change, they are paying homage to Lenin’s devious politics by shorthand. They pay homage to it whenever they substitute their opinions of the news for actual reporting of the news. Even the squabbling among journalists recently over whether or not to suspend “conventional reporting” in Trump’s case, or whether front-page stories should declare his misstatements “lies,” is a tacit acknowledgment of that politics. With Lenin, the Christiane Amanpours have no use for the peskiness of precise responses. Just call Trump a “liar,” their attitude goes, and “everyone will understand everything.”

But that demagogic shorthand only works as long as Republican politicians defer to it. For years journalists opined self-servingly under the guise of objectivity and got away it because Republicans were too afraid to shatter that illusion of objectivity. They permitted the media to serve as the arbiter of what qualifies as “mainstream,” “extremist,” “racist,” and so forth, and made sure to stay within the media-determined parameters of any discussion.

Donald Trump has blown up that absurd arrangement and is beating the media at its own game. He labels reporters in the same way that they label him. He upends their dishonest framing of debates by treating them as what they are, liberal partisans. His exchange last week with April Ryan, a correspondent for the American Urban Radio Network, captured that perfectly. She asked him a loaded question not as a neutral reporter but as a water-carrier for the Congressional Black Caucus. So he treated her that way. “I’ll tell you what, do you want to set up the meeting?” the president said to her, after she asked if he would meet with the CBC. “Do you want to set up the meeting? Are they friends of yours?” Of course, they are friends of hers and she was trying to score a partisan point for them. Had Trump not deconstructed that for the audience, her question might have done him damage. Instead, it fell flat and looked unserious.

Reporters are thrown by a president who questions them as aggressively as they question him. And they resent that he refuses to accept as “facts” what is nothing more than their biased interpretation of the facts.

Everything they accuse Trump of is on display in their own coverage. One can only laugh at the eruptions of prissy sanctimony over Trump’s tweet calling reporters an “enemy of the people,” given the invective in which they have indulged over the last year. Having called him a despot and worse, who are they to scold anyone on intemperate language?

From ill-mannered reporters come lectures on manners. From partisans come demands for non-partisanship. Almost all of the complaints of the press can be boiled down to one demand: that its conservative targets unilaterally disarm. We fight, you surrender — that is the media’s idea of civility.

So expect the squeals of the media to grow in proportion to Trump’s exposure of its fraudulence. Bret Stephens and company can pompously say that Trump is an opponent of “objectivity itself.” But all that means is that he rejects their phony claims of objectivity and impedes their partisan wishes. In the end, it just means he is not a chump who is going to let them control politics by passing off liberal propaganda as “news” before which all must genuflect.

Contrary to the whining of Jake Tapper at CNN, last week’s press conference was not a distraction from his governance but an essential component of it. He recognizes that his agenda can only move forward if the people tune out the media’s distortions of it. Were Trump to take the media’s advice, he couldn’t govern. The more he neutralizes the media, the more successful he will be.

If he treats it as an opposition party, that’s because it is one. The fury of the media is the fury of exposed partisans, for whom ruling had once come so easy and now is too hard.

 

[a_majoor]

The end point of Political Correctness was always to silence the opposition. Now people are refusing to be silenced, and the Left does not like it:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/13/the-totalitarian-consensus/

The Totalitarian Consensus
David Krayden
Contributor
4:34 PM 03/13/2017

Ask yourself just what is it that has angered the anti-Trump forces with such an adamant refusal to acknowledge the results of the last presidential election and infused their protests with a perverse vitality that chronically transmutes non-violent dissent into an angry mob of hate? Well, ask yourself and you will have to admit that it really has nothing to do with just losing an election or assessing President Donald Trump as “unfit” for office or engendering a plague of bigotry and isolationism across America.

The Left hates Trump because he has destroyed the totalitarian consensus that former president Barack Obama had assiduously built over the last eight years and is now in tatters.

The totalitarian consensus is a virulent and pervasive characteristic of the left-wing thought that used to be isolated to its more extreme manifestations but that now dominates and defines liberalism writ large. It does not seek a forum to express liberal ideas, nor does it even seek the hegemony of that liberal discourse; its goal is the elimination of any thoughts and opinions contrary to its prevailing notions and a consensus that there are indeed no other ideas worth considering — and it seeks the total surrender of any dissidents who still proclaim an opposing truth and ultimately a solemn confession that they have been wrong all along and please forgive their foolishness and revisionism.

This is precisely why liberals relish the opportunity to declare various issues as “settled” because they have deemed them to be so. Take the issue of abortion: for the pro-abortion forces that Hillary Clinton represented, it was not only an alienable right for a woman to choose to have an abortion; it was an obvious fact that was beyond discussion. Hence, the abortion movement decided to eradicate the word “rare” from the old Clinton mantra that abortion in America should be “safe, legal and rare.” Why rare if you really embrace abortion as both a sacred right and something to be celebrated?

But along came Trump and rather fearlessly declared Clinton’s position on abortion to be “extreme” because it didn’t represent mainstream opinion. He also shot down a host of liberal assumptions that had been “settled” during Obama’s reign or even before that. He had the audacity to suggest that the climate change swindle might demand some reappraisal, especially given the enormous cost of enforcing this environmental religion. Settled? Forget it.

But try to question the totalitarian consensus on climate change and you immediately confront a world view that demands subservience and labels opponents as “deniers” not worthy of rational consideration.

Is this not more than vaguely reminiscent of another brand of totalitarianism that sought utter and blanket ideological conformity?

It’s neo-Stalinism, isn’t it?

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was not just characterized by megalomania, paranoid and consciousness brutality; he also possessed a fervent passion to annihilate all opposition and to have his victims recant for their heretical thinking just before the NKVD bullet hit them in the back of the head. It was not enough that they were wrong; they had to publicly admit that they were wrong through a full confession.

Stalin was adored by the young communists, not only in the Soviet Union but around the world, for his toughness and refusal to tolerate dissent. The millennials who are mindlessly trashing campuses or carefully articulating intellectual obsessions around microaggressions and white privilege would have been lining up to shake Stalin’s hand because here was a man who insisted that everyone comprehend and agree with the party line.

Just as Marxist theory was a fantasy of double-talk that the working people it pretended to represent could not begin to decipher, so the liberals have become the ultimate elitists who have little time for the little people with their mundane lives and archaic belief systems that should have been exorcised decades ago.

Hillary’s anticipated victory was supposed to signal their ultimate silence.

But they have found their voice again and have decided that neither an apology nor acquiescence is in order.

 

[mariomike]

Regarding the above post,

Any predictions as to how future historians will rank the current occupant of the White House, compared to his predecessor?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+12th&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F1%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A&tbm=#spf=1

 

[a_majoor]

Future historians, if they are honest, will compare measurable results such as economic growth, labour participation rates, inflation and so on. It will be more difficult to assess things like foreign policy since starting conditions are different each time, but certainly President Trump laid out a series of ambitious goals, so future historians can assess how well did he do in achieving them. Certainly anyone reading some future history might have to take into account the historian's background; I suspect a traditional academic historian from a Blue State will write a much different history than someone from a Red State background. Time also changes perspectives,  Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man" will seem quite shocking to people brought up with the "conventional" narrative of the Great Depression, FDR and the New Deal, even though all the evidence she cites has been in the archives for decades.

Ask again in 2020, and 2024.

 

[mariomike]

Ask again in 2020, and 2024.

Hopefully, his ratings will improve,

"The 37% of Americans who approved of Trump’s job performance in a Saturday Gallup poll was lower than at any point during Barack Obama’s two terms."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/historic-approval-ratings-trump-bad-week-article-1.3003732

 

[Jarnhamar]

Same NYDailynews?

"Clinton has major lead over Trump in poll taken days after final debat"
"Despite scandals and two unpopular presidential candidates, history shows Hillary Clinton will win"
"Clinton takes lead over Trump in latest election poll"

Misinformation is now a full time business, polls are about as trustworthy as a Wainwright D-1  sickchit.

 

[mariomike]

Gallup: "Trump's approval tanks and hits a point that Barrack Obama never reached."
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=nTLRWLHTJ8eC8QenkYCwAg&gws_rd=ssl#tbs=qdr:w&q=trump+obama+37+gallup&&spf=1

"Donald Trump lost the popular vote by a bigger margin than any other US president in history."

"Trump’s Electoral College Victory Ranks 46th in 58 Elections."

Good luck in 2020!

 

[Jarnhamar]

*wrong thread

 

[QV]

Misinformation is now a full time business, polls are about as trustworthy as a Wainwright D-1  sickchit.

Agreed. 

 

[mariomike]

Misinformation is now a full time business, polls are about as trustworthy as a Wainwright D-1  sickchit.

Regarding trust,

"Now he’s President, and he needs support beyond the Breitbart cheering section that will excuse anything."

"Two months into his Presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump’s approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn’t show more respect for the truth most Americans may conclude he’s a fake President."

Wall Street Journal
Mar. 22, 2017