Patrick Shyu: One of the Most Polarizing Figures in Tech - "Shyu criticized Facebook harshly when he was fired -- there were at least five videos about the company's shortcomings. In one, Shyu talked about a tendency for the company to be “very political.” “When you walk around the Facebook campus, you will see posters and art everywhere. Nearly every piece of art is political in nature,” said Shyu, “It is about LGBT pride or it may be about immigration, equality, and gender-free politics, all of this diversity stuff... I think it’s great. I just think it’s a little too heavy handed.”... In the video “Why Diversity is garbage (as an ex-Google tech lead),” Shyu criticizes the growing frequency of diversity programs, especially those that focus on giving underrepresented groups exclusive opportunities... Shyu, however, said programs that prioritize these underrepresented groups are creating a field hostile to other groups -- mainly White and Asian populations. Additionally, he claimed they are discriminatory in nature, and could even be illegal. He said this is not the type of field he wants his son to enter when he gets older... In a recent video entitled “Exposing #BlackLivesMatter: it's just reverse-racism.”, Shyu shared his thoughts and criticisms of the Black Lives Matter Movement. Shyu criticized the movement saying that people are taking on the “victim mentality.”"
Meme - "A nation dies when its people are taught to hate their own history, heritage and culture."
Follow me back in time to the year 2013 when Serena Williams told a story that would get her canceled in 2024 - "Way back in 2013 Serena Williams was asked by David Letterman what would happen if she were to face off against a male opponent on the clay, and her answer may surprise you (since you live in 2024)... Never forget, people: It's not the leftists who have changed and become more radical, it's you — everyday Americans — you're the radical ones with your "men can't play women's sports and they can't get pregnant either" propaganda!"
High schooler says he was advised he could lose college acceptances for criticizing ideological conformity - ""Just when my friends and I should be trying out many perspectives and figuring out where we stand, we’re self-censoring, following familiar scripts," he wrote. "I had to wonder, if we spend our teenage years afraid we might share our thoughts in the wrong way or at the wrong moment, how is this affecting a crucial ingredient in becoming an adult: the ability to think critically?"... The high school student wrote that he notices "teenagers unintentionally becoming more unforgiving and judgmental rather than open-minded and compassionate." "When we can’t or don’t talk freely, we lose the chance to find real common ground, acknowledge complexity or grasp that even our own opinions can be malleable. If we listen only to those who already agree with us, we won’t make wider connections. We won’t grow." Gottlieb shared that he was advised not to share his story of ideological conformity in the classroom because he "could get canceled online, cut off by peers and perhaps even rejected by colleges." "That’s a risk I’m willing to take," he wrote. Gottlieb also told a story of a conversation at lunch, during which one student "brought up transgender females getting banned from British rowing." British Rowing released new eligibility guidelines that will restrict transgender athletes from competing in women’s events in order to "guarantee fair and meaningful competition," the sports governing body announced earlier this year. "Letting trans women compete on a women’s rowing team, one kid said, would be like allowing a trans LeBron James to compete in the WNBA," Gottlieb recounted. "A girl we were sitting with immediately called him transphobic and patriarchal. She didn’t just disagree with him. She demanded that he retract what he said.""
Almost 1 in 10 college students threatened with punishment for their speech: study - "Our 2022 survey of college faculty yields similarly depressing results. About one in six professors report that they have either been threatened with punishment or actually investigated for their academic freedom or free speech... a student is roughly as likely to face disciplinary censorship as they are likely to be left-handed. And what kind of speech can get you investigated according to the study? For a New York University student, it was participation in a pro-Palestinian group. For a University of Pennsylvania student, it was expressing the opinion that the U.S. was right to have invaded Iraq. And for a Drake University student, it was simply being overheard by fellow students telling a professor about her mental health. The survey also revealed that students should watch what they say in their most private of spaces. Of those who were threatened or disciplined, a quarter faced punishment for speech in their dorm room. That disturbing focus on living spaces isn’t unusual. For all of FIRE’s 24-year existence, "residential life" administrators who run the dorms have been major enforcers of university speech codes. While the situation is clearly very bad for students, for professors it’s even worse. Given that faculty political diversity has never been lower, with some departments having left-leaning supermajorities and others having no conservative faculty at all, one would think that professors would not be targeted as often. And one would be wrong. Since 2014, as Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott explain in their new book "The Canceling of the American Mind," we know of over 1,000 attempts to get professors sanctioned for their speech or research. About two-thirds of those attempts were successful, resulting in some form of punishment and almost 200 fired professors. This number dwarfs any period in U.S. higher education history since the early 1970s, when the Supreme Court cemented freedom of speech as a right on college campuses and academic freedom as a special concern within that right. Facing a cancel culture that targets both students and faculty, how did administrators respond? With transparent political litmus tests that enable and encourage the purge. More than half of the large universities in the country require "diversity, equity, and inclusion" statements, which are often vague and nebulously defined political litmus tests pressuring professors to adhere to the dominant ideology on campus. Wherever they appear, from student admission to faculty post-tenure review, these requirements reinforce the ideological status quo, suppress viewpoint diversity, and increase the risk that what passes for curriculum today will be dogma tomorrow. One place those litmus tests appear is in the hiring of more administrators, and make no mistake: At most schools, administrators, not faculty, decide what happens, when it happens, and how much to spend in doing it. Yale has a one-to-one ratio of administrators to students, with Harvard not far behind. At the U.S. News & World Report’s top 50 schools in the country, there are three times as many administrators and non-instructional staff as there are faculty, according to a recent report from the Progressive Policy Institute. Once again, one might well think that hiring would slow down, giving the looming "enrollment cliff" – the demographic shift where the college-age population shrinks due to lower birth rates. But that’s never stopped colleges before. From 2015 to 2018, when enrollment and instructional employees declined, administrative staff grew over 6%. The surge in non-teaching positions is one of the primary reasons why the cost of educating a single student has gone up so dramatically over the past several decades. Making matters worse, many of the new administrators consider policing the speech of students and faculty part of their job. Indeed, DEI administrators have been involved in some of the highest-profile cancellations, including federal Judge Kyle Duncan at Stanford this year, Harvard professor Carole Hooven last year, and University of Central Florida professor Charles Negy in 2021. And if administrators are part of the Bias Related Incident team at a particular college, part of their job is to police speech on campus, often investigating anonymous reports of students or professors engaging in allegedly offensive speech. A study released this year by North Dakota State University found that nearly two-thirds of students favored reporting professors who engaged in "offensive speech," made up of statements of opinion – or even fact – the students didn’t like. The situation for free speech on campus has gone from bad to grim over the last decade. It will be no easy task to fix it. But one of the first steps to both a freer and less expensive college experience is to dramatically decrease the campus bureaucracy, eliminate positions that exist to police speech, and make sure every university employee is informed that their job is to protect free speech and academic freedom, not to squelch it... The Canadian media is currently making the argument that our existence is crucial for democracy. But democracy, at heart, rests on the public’s right to have a say. You can’t claim to defend democracy if you don’t believe in listening to your fellow citizens."
Meme - 28 @luckychristin: "I really hate sex scenes in movies and tv shows, like real bad. I wish they would use like 2 secs to imply they had sex n then cut to the next scene."
i guess rubbed it too hard @MeatCheeseMeat: "My issue is that we the viewer have not consented to participate. We're the third person in the room when these acts are being committed in front of us, and the lack of consent is icky at best"
The media must start listening to the public it serves - "Trust in media is low these days. So low, in fact, that leadership has been forced to contemplate why. And the reasons that Canadian media executives come up with are manifold. The problem is an overall decline in trust in public institutions. Or it’s fractured attention online. Or news fatigue and avoidance. Or misinformation and disinformation. Or political polarization, populism, politicians antagonizing the press. Or else, it’s social media. It’s Big Tech’s fault. But it’s really not that complicated. The problem is us. As reporter Matt Taibbi said at the 2022 Munk Debate, “When you’re a journalist and people don’t trust you, it’s always your fault.” The media has been busy blaming everyone but the media itself. But in the meantime, the public has been sending us a clear message: they don’t trust us because they think we’re biased. When I left the CBC, citing a lack of viewpoint diversity, I received a deluge of comments from the public. Overwhelmingly, people told me that they’d lost faith in the media because we no longer seemed politically neutral. Their ask was simple: gather the facts, to the best of our ability, and report that information. And then trust people to make up their own minds about what, if any, action should be taken. In other words, stop trying to influence public opinion. This sentiment is a relatively recent one—and it helps explain why we’ve seen trust fall over the past few years in particular. According to the 2023 Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, just 40 percent of Canadians trust most news most of the time, down from 58 percent in 2018. So, what’s changed during that time period? Here’s what happened: in 2016, American mainstream media experienced an existential crisis... the general public is not made up solely of progressive activists. And so, large swaths of our population—of all identity groups—were underrepresented by the media that’s supposed to serve them. We were not covering the stories that mattered to them. We did not reflect the plurality of perspectives they hold, and encounter, in their own communities. And we were often either ignorant of, or openly hostile to, their experiences, values, and opinions. And when that same public told us—in comments sections, on social media, during call-in radio shows, in complaints to the CBC’s Ombudsman, at public panels, on the street—that it wanted more politically neutral news, the response has often been that we journalists know better. That, in fact, what they’re asking for doesn’t exist. That the public’s desire for more balanced, factual, and objective news is antiquated. And that we will drag them into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if we must. As such, our editorial ethos has become one of condescension. And of distrust towards the public. Can it be any wonder, then, that they don’t trust us?... it would mean taking cues from independent media, which is already doing much of this work, instead of ignoring, disparaging, or lobbying against the start-ups. At a governmental level, it would mean, as past CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies has suggested, phasing out press subsidies. Which, Blacklock’s Reporter has noted, have coincided with plummeting confidence in our industry. It would also mean a full mandate review for the CBC, as The Line editor Jen Gerson has suggested, to refocus our national public broadcaster, and its budget, on the kind of journalism that the public actually wants and needs. (It goes without saying that the CBC, as it lays off hundreds, should rethink awarding millions in bonuses.)"
The CBC prioritizes allyship over objectivity in Sask. parental consent coverage - "A common argument in favour of defunding the CBC is that its news content exhibits ideological bias. In particular, it has been subject to criticism that it is too progressive and Liberal-friendly, including for instance in its recent coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and Chinese interference in Canadian elections. However, the assumption of the CBC’s progressive bias has rarely been tested empirically. To remedy this, I conducted an analysis of the CBC’s coverage of an issue that became a sustained national news story this past fall: Saskatchewan’s parental consent policy for children’s gender pronoun changes in schools. The public debate around Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy involves complexity, competing perspectives, and evolving public opinion. It’s the sort of issue for which the role of the news media is presumably to establish and situate the facts, present the different points of view, and help Canadians work through the nuances. Yet, as my analysis shows, that’s not how the CBC’s reporting handled the issue... Even before reading the articles, the headlines betrayed the direction of the CBC’s coverage: while no headline made an explicit argument against the policy, fourteen (37 percent) contained what I call “attributed criticism” of Saskatchewan’s policy—denunciation from someone other than the reporter. Examples include “Families of trans kids, activists say they’re angered, scared, disgusted by Sask.’s pronoun law” and “Sask. Opposition says pronoun and naming policy motivated by politics, transphobia.” By contrast, not one of the 38 articles contained attributed praise of the policy; the closest, “Sask. premier touts survey showing support for informing parents of name, pronoun changes in school,” referenced the Premier himself. As these headlines show, CBC reporters relied heavily on outside sources to describe the policy’s purported impact. To determine who those sources were, I coded every person or organization quoted in the 38 articles into three categories: supporters of the government’s policy, critics of the policy, and sources who were neutral towards the policy (I excluded quotes from the government, politicians, and the judicial injunction itself). I also distinguished between those whose opinions were clearly sought by the CBC and those whom the CBC quoted from the public record. Across 38 articles, the CBC quoted more than five times as many critics of Saskatchewan’s policy as supporters (81 critics, 15 supporters, and five neutral). Moreover, supporters were grouped into a small number of articles, with six of the 15 supporters quoted in a single story about competing public rallies. Only 16 percent of the total articles (six of 38) quoted at least one supporter of the policy, compared to 95 percent of articles (36 of 38) that quoted at least one critic of the government’s policy. And support was never presented independent of criticism: all six articles that included a quote from a supporter also included at least one quote from a critic. The critics quoted by the CBC were also far more likely to be in a position of authority, while supporters were almost entirely laypeople... The only expert the CBC quoted in defence of the rationale behind Saskatchewan’s policy (from the public record) was Dr. Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist and a trans woman who presented an affidavit for the Saskatchewan government in court. The CBC article presented Dr. Anderson in a negative light, calling her a “vocal critic” of youth gender transition while failing to mention her decades of research and clinical experience. Most egregiously, the CBC article did not quote from Dr. Anderson’s affidavit even though the affidavit was the topic of the article (and even though much of it was quoted in the publicly available judicial injunction). Yet the same article included a quote from UR Pride’s legal counsel criticizing Dr. Anderson’s affidavit. The selective presentation of content was even more apparent when it came to the CBC’s reporting on public opinion polls... two surveys with differently-worded questions released a day apart produced very different results. How did CBC report on this disjuncture? Simple: it reported on the spark*insights poll, but not the Leger poll... it is not as if the poll flew under the national radar: it was the subject of a news story written by a Canadian Press reporter and published by CTV News, Global News, The Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star. The CBC had even used a Canadian Press story about Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy by the same author a month earlier. Yet somehow, a poll that happened to complicate the CBC’s preferred narrative on Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy was simply not mentioned in the CBC reporting... The 38 CBC articles were written by a combined 15 reporters, 13 of whom were CBC employees. Yet there was virtually no attempt to understand the justifications for a policy of informing parents about their children’s pronoun changes. The articles weren’t just one-sided; they were entirely predictable. Perhaps this can explain why Canadians are increasingly shrugging their shoulders at the idea of a defunded CBC. If the CBC continues to push allyship over objectivity—and to do so in a way that leads to a less informed public—its $1.3 billion annual public subsidy will become increasingly harder to defend."
CBC media bias is a myth
Harvard professor argues for 'abolishing' white race - "A Harvard professor wants to abolish the white race. Noel Ignatiev, a founder of a journal called Race Traitor and a fellow at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute, a leading black-studies department, argues in the current issue of Harvard Magazine that “abolishing the white race” is “so desirable that some may find it hard to believe” that anyone other than “committed white supremacists” would oppose it."
When you don't even use the euphemism "whiteness" anymore
shul saad on X - "Americans need to come to Malaysia and see how affirmative action and quota to so-called re-dress equity has screwed up the country within 40 years. In the early 70s, Malaysia used to be richer than its southern neighbor, Singapore. Today, even with oil, it is a mess."
Thread by @whyvert on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Anna Krylov, a chemistry professor, has published several pieces on how left/woke ideology is undermining science. Here's her latest. She gives examples of four main issues:
1. Policing of language. Ever longer list of forbidden words like "healthy weight".
2. Rewriting the history of science. More and more scientists having their names stricken from buildings, textbooks, awards, etc...
3. Suppression of viewpoints and research results. Paper retractions, censorship of valid research. E.g. in 2022, Nature Human Behaviour (NHB) published an editorial stating that the journal will not publish valid research that the editors consider ‘harmful’ to groups.
4. Replacing merit-based publication by quotas for editors, authors, reviewers, ‘citation justice’, etc. E.g. Royal Society of Chemistry journals have a target quota of 36% of women editors and reviewers.
Anna Krylov grew up in the USSR. Similar kinds of ideological abuse of science are now happening in the West."
Critical Social Justice Subverts Scientific Publishing - "A rapidly growing list of scientists who have had their names stricken from buildings, textbooks, awards, and more (Krylov Reference Krylov2021: 5371; Krylov and Tanzman Reference Krylov and Tanzman2021; Bodmer Reference Bodmer, Bailey, Charlesworth, Eyre-Walker, Farewell, Mead and Senn2021: 565; Powell Reference Powell2022; Krylov Reference Krylov, Tanzman, Frenking and Gill2022b) includes such luminaries as:
William Shockley (inventor of transistors);
Fritz Haber (developer of nitrogen fixation process);
Erwin Schrödinger (discovered the wave equation of quantum mechanics);
Isaac Newton (Newton laws, calculus);
Robert Millikan (oil drop experiment);
Ronald Fisher (modern statistics);
Thomas Henry Huxley (evolutionary biologist, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’);
Edward O. Wilson (evolutionary biologist);
James Webb (former head of NASA)".
Wilfred Reilly on X - "A very basic point, from a legal perspective, is that the Civil Rights Act covers whites - to a far more significant degree than gays or trans-identifying people, who were partially added to it by later cases. It is...illegal to hold public events and bar Caucasians. You guys just have not, until recently, been suing."
In the face of neighbors’ loud music, jittery Anglos need to hum a new tune – The Denver Post
From 2005. If you don't like noise, you're racist. Is it still a myth that "minorities" are noisy?
Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts | Facebook - "Researchers study racist behavior on campus and find the vast majority of students treat differing racial groups the same and that only a small percentage of students were responsible for racist behavior. What’s surprising is that this result surprised the researchers. It reflects what happens across America every day."
Studies pin some forms of discrimination on small proportion of campus community
This is why the definition of racism keeps expanding
Christians are being persecuted worldwide. Why no liberal outcry? - "Even in Canada they are targets, from the nativity scene Moncton city council tried to nix along with its traditional Hanukkah menorah to the creeping ban on Christian prayer by military chaplains on Remembrance Day. And the creeping ideology behind it whereby the Canadian Human Rights Commission just denounced Christmas as a toxic part of so-called “Canada’s history with religious intolerance … deeply rooted in our identity as a settler colonial state.” Unlike what paragon of enlightenment? The Soviet Union? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Wikipedia allows delicately that “The contemporary persecution of Christians includes the genocide of Christians by the Islamic State and persecution by other terrorist groups, with official state persecution mostly occurring in countries which are located in Africa and Asia because they have state religions or because their governments and societies practice religious favouritism.” If you’re wondering which “state religions,” well, “non-state actors” of “particular concern” to the U.S. State Department including Nigeria’s Boko Haram, Yemen’s Houthis, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Taliban and Syria’s Tahrir al-Sham. Though give credit also to Communists in Cuba, China and North Korea. The Vatican estimates that over 360 million Christians, “one out of every seven” worldwide, “suffers high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith.” And “persecution” here doesn’t mean living in countries where stores have Ramadan displays. It means blowing up churches and forced marriage after rape. Where are the feminists?” A report by Open Doors lists “the 50 countries where Christians face the worst persecution” which seems like a lot. Where are the liberals? Of course the history of Christianity, as it involves human beings, is not spotless. But who else ever really expressed concern over slavery, women’s equality or other core enlightened “human rights” we assume are universal though they only ever seem to roil “the West?” As Tristin Hopper wrote, Canada’s remarkable history of religious tolerance going back before Confederation to the 1851 Freedom of Worship Act in the Province of Canada failed to impress the CHRC. But it’s real, and exists because the “Dominion of Canada” was founded on explicitly Christian principles, with its name and motto “From Sea to Sea” coming from Psalm 72, as Canadian Heritage scrupulously avoids noting. No non-Christian country ever had an abolitionist movement, let alone went to war to stop non-Christians enslaving other non-Christians. But the CHRC blathers “No one is free until we are all free,” particularly from patriarchal religion, though maybe we get to keep a plastic Santa or two, plus an elf in a rainbow shirt. Tom Holland, author of Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, later explained that in studying antiquity’s “apex predators,” especially the Romans, “I came to feel they were increasingly alien, increasingly frightening to me.” They, and the Greeks, glorified power and lacked compassion in ways we had renounced so completely even atheists in a “Christian” civilization found them intolerable."
Weeknd does it again with another asian fetish video : aznidentity
Criticising this is anti-blackness
Have any fellow Asian quit dating apps because they feel fetishsized? : aznidentity - "Yellow fever is why stuff like these keeps happening. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/women-pushed-ravine-german-castle-recent-illinois-college-graduates-rcna90267 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yingying_Zhang"
If an Asian woman is killed, even if we don't know the motive or killer, the reason must be yellow fever
First Minister on X - "On the 35th anniversary of the Lockerbie air disaster, First Minister @HumzaYousaf has expressed sympathies to those who lost loved ones on board Pan Am Flight 103 and on the ground. He also paid tribute to emergency workers and others who responded in the immediate aftermath."
Stephen Knight 🎙️ on X - ""Air disaster"? It was an Islamic terrorist attack. It's like referring to JFK as having "passed away in his car"."
Harvard/Harris Poll: Huge Majorities of 18-to-24-Year-Olds Believe Jews, Whites "Are Oppressors" - "There is an ideology that white people are oppressors and nonwhite people and people of certain groups have been oppressed and as a result should be favored today at universities and for employment. Do you support or oppose this ideology?...
Do you think that Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors or is that a false ideology?"
67% of 18-24 year olds think Jews are oppressors, and 79% think white people are oppressors
Bo Winegard on X - "Strangely, white identity is called divisive and dangerous by the same people who endlessly stoke racial antipathy by publishing tendentious articles about systemic racism and white supremacy while ignoring the real causes of racial disparities."
X on X - "tune into Spaces a little more privately with our new anonymous listening mode. it’s available now on iOS and web"
Scott Adams on X - "Yay! Now I won't be kicked out of Spaces for being white and politely listening to interesting content. Yes, that really happened. The host announced it before doing it."
Meme - "The "Dark humor" fan
"Dark humor doesn't mean racism, dude"
Claims to be bipartisan. Almost exclusively makes fun of republicans and Christianity
Doesn't seem to understand that Dark humor is about making light of taboo subjects
"That's not funny my guy."
His "dark humor" is the humor equivalent of mayonnaise
"Hey man I'm all for dark humor but that's not ok"
Only mocks socially acceptable subjects"
