RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17189/should-anything-be-off-limits-to-debate

The fact that we even have to ask these questions demonstrates the precarious state of freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas in the cancel culture….

Professors are being fired for private discussions of grades and race. Students are terrified of expressing politically incorrect views, especially about race, sex, sexual orientation and even politics. Even silence is not always an option.

There are several exceptions to this cancel culture rule. You can say almost anything negative about Jews, as evidenced by the recent Grammy awards, during which three overt anti-Semites were honored. These bigots did not even try to disguise their anti-Semitism behind the facade of anti-Zionism.

There has never been a time when respectful and nuanced debate has been more needed, especially about race and other taboo subjects— taboo unless you toe the line of political correctness.

Slate’s decision to suspend Peska strikes a blow against diversity. Yes, diversity! —which includes diversity of views about every issue including how best to deal with racism and how best to achieve equality.

Slate should end Peska’s suspension, apologize to him, and encourage debate about the issue over which he was suspended.

Slate — the online magazine known for its provocative content—has indefinitely suspended one of its star podcasters, Mike Peska, for debating with a colleague, on an inter-office messaging platform, whether it is ever appropriate for a non-Black person to use the N-word in the context of a discussion about race. It is not clear whether in the course of the discussion Peska actually uttered the word itself or just used the term “n-word.”

In defending Slate’s decision, a Black staffer argued that “For Black employees, it’s an extremely small ask to not hear that particular slur and not have debate about whether it’s OK for white employees to use that particular slur.” Not have debate?

Should anything be off limits to debate and discuss? Is this issue not reasonably debatable? Can only Black people debate this issue, as my colleague Randy Kennedy brilliantly did in his book whose title is the actual word—spelled out? Can the issue be discussed in racially mixed classrooms? Should that depend on the race of the teacher? Must a teacher who wants to have such a discussion issue a trigger warning? Is a trigger warning enough? Must he obtain permission from Black students in the class to discuss the use of the word even if the word itself is not uttered? Do these restrictions apply only to this word and only to slurs against Blacks, or do they apply as well to derogatory words against other groups.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/18/watch-rep-byron-donalds-says-bidens-tax-increases-will-hurt-low-income-americans/

Freshman congressman Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., blasted President Biden’s for hinting at tax increases during his recent “Good Morning America” interview Wednesday.

Speaking to Jan Jeffcoat on The National Desk Thursday, Donalds explained why raising taxes hurts even lower-income Americans.

“If you take money away from people, even the quote-unquote rich, what happens is they have less money to spend. If there is less money to spend, there is less money flowing through the economy. If there is less money flowing through the economy — who does that hurt? It hurts middle-income Americans and poor Americans,” Donalds said.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/what_weird_contradiction_will_anthony_fauci_spin_next.html

Fauci is his name, and deception his game.

Various questions remain, even a few months after the emergency use authorization of vaccines designed to target the enigma that is COVID-19.

Is the ultimate purpose of the non-FDA-approved vaccines to stop the spread of infection, or is it primarily to lessen the symptoms and severity of COVID-19?  If viral spread is at least partially attributed to asymptomatic carriers, how will a lessening of symptoms via mass vaccination prevent further spread?  And if a majority of those infected don’t have symptoms, why should they take the vaccine?  How is herd immunity achieved if the vaccines offered only lessens the symptoms?  These are just a few of the questions that Dr. Fauci has thus far insufficiently addressed.

Thankfully, Mexican comedian Eugenio Derbez is doing the job our compromised media are paid not to.  (See here, with excellent audio commentary at the 27 minute mark.)

Fauci is a living, breathing barrage of circular reasoning and manufactured confusion.  He is the Tasmanian devil of doublespeak, a tireless truth-spinner with a shameless capacity to contradict himself at every turn.  His expertise in immunology pales in comparison to his mastery of duplicity.  The scope and magnitude of his contradictory affirmations astound as Fauci continues to promote the same molecular tests he admitted are set to CT levels that produce the majority of false positives, which in turn are used to establish the perception that asymptomatic infection is the default catalyst for mass viral spread despite the fact that Fauci himself claimed that “in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks” as recently as January of last year.