Displaying posts published in

January 2022

Brown University’s Woke Professors Battle Diversity (of Viewpoint) By Jack Wolfsohn

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/brown-universitys-woke-professors-battle-diversity-of-viewpoint/

One of the best places on campus for genuine intellectual discourse is being targeted by those who prefer left-wing conformity.

A mid the leftist-infused classrooms of Brown University lies a small, unassuming white building that houses the Political Theory Project (PTP). As an interdisciplinary research center committed to free inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, the PTP has been a haven for conservative and libertarian students for the past 19 years. But it’s not merely a “safe space” for the Right; it has, rather, fostered genuine intellectual inquiry for anyone interested in it.

Now, however, the PTP is under a sadly familiar sort of attack from many of Brown’s left-leaning professors. These professors feel threatened by the PTP because the courses offered by the center, such as “Bleeding Heart Libertarianism,” “Capitalism: For and Against,” and “20th Century Political Economy” tend to offer a centrist or libertarian angle on issues that challenge the progressive orthodoxy on campus. Their criticisms of a bastion of free thought at Brown are misguided and should be rejected.

The Political Theory Project makes clear in its mission statement its commitment to viewpoint diversity and freedom of speech and expression. Thus, the PTP has sought to bring to campus through its Janus Forum Lecture Series ideologically diverse speakers to debate issues such as the extent of the threat of climate change, whether the U.S. should support Israel, and whether “rape culture” exists on campus. For years, the PTP has held free-flowing conversations at which participants sparred openly on contentious issues and debated controversial opinions. But rather than welcoming such exchanges, some students and professors have accumulated negative feelings toward the project that now spill over into open denunciation.

Let the Genocide Games Begin! By Rick Moran

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2022/01/30/let-the-genocide-games-begin-n1554381

This Thursday, thousands of athletes from more than 100 nations will arrive in Beijing to participate in the Winter Olympiad, a made-for-TV spectacular.

In 2011, NBC agreed to a $4.38 billion contract with the International Olympic Committee to broadcast the Olympics through the 2020 games, the most expensive television rights deal in Olympic history. NBC then agreed to a $7.75 billion contract extension in 2014, to air the games through 2032.

Over the fortnight during which the games are played, the spectacle will be watched by more than a billion-and-a-half people at one time or another, including an unknown number of Uyghur Muslims. The significance of carrying on with the games at this point in the history of the Uyghurs is that China is seeking to destroy their culture, their way of life, and their religion in the name of conforming to the Communist ideology.

In December, an independent tribunal found the People’s Republic of China guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of committing crimes of torture, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Uyghur people.

The U.S. State Department has also condemned the PRC, accusing them of “arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government; forced disappearances by the government; torture by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison and detention conditions; arbitrary detention by the government, including the mass detention of more than one million Uyghurs and other members of predominantly Muslim minority groups in extrajudicial internment camps and an additional two million subjected to daytime-only ‘re-education’ training; … arbitrary interference with privacy; pervasive and intrusive technical surveillance and monitoring; serious restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including physical attacks on and criminal prosecution of journalists, lawyers, writers, bloggers, dissidents, petitioners, and others as well as their family members, and censorship and site blocking; … severe restrictions and suppression of religious freedom; substantial restrictions on freedom of movement; … forced sterilization and coerced abortions; forced labor and trafficking in persons.”

The Pressure Campaign on Spotify to Remove Joe Rogan Reveals the Religion of Liberals: Censorship Glenn Greenwald

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-pressure-campaign-on-spotify

All factions, at certain points, succumb to the impulse to censor. But for the Democratic Party’s liberal adherents, silencing their adversaries has become their primary project.

American liberals are obsessed with finding ways to silence and censor their adversaries. Every week, if not every day, they have new targets they want de-platformed, banned, silenced, and otherwise prevented from speaking or being heard (by “liberals,” I mean the term of self-description used by the dominant wing of the Democratic Party).

For years, their preferred censorship tactic was to expand and distort the concept of “hate speech” to mean “views that make us uncomfortable,” and then demand that such “hateful” views be prohibited on that basis. For that reason, it is now common to hear Democrats assert, falsely, that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not protect “hate speech.” Their political culture has long inculcated them to believe that they can comfortably silence whatever views they arbitrarily place into this category without being guilty of censorship.

Constitutional illiteracy to the side, the “hate speech” framework for justifying censorship is now insufficient because liberals are eager to silence a much broader range of voices than those they can credibly accuse of being hateful. That is why the newest, and now most popular, censorship framework is to claim that their targets are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.” These terms, by design, have no clear or concise meaning. Like the term “terrorism,” it is their elasticity that makes them so useful.

Poll: large majority of Americans not into affirmative action in SCOTUS nominations Jazz Shaw

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/01/30/poll-large-majority-of-americans-not-into-affirmative-action-in-scotus-nominations-n445119

The Democrats are relishing the prospect of Joe Biden chalking up a win for his base this year when he gets the chance to nominate his first person to the Supreme Court. His supporters immediately moved to pressure him to keep his campaign promise to nominate a Black woman to the court and a quick glance at the shortlist of potential candidates shows that he has no intention of disappointing them. But how much of a “win” will this really be in the minds of the public? A new ABC News/Ipsos poll out this week suggests that Biden and his party are once again failing to read the room. On the one hand, many people are losing faith in the Supreme Court because they believe that it’s now driven by political ideology. But when it comes to the topic of presidential nominations, a surprisingly large majority want the President to consider all of the best-qualified candidates rather than immediately winnowing the field to a small list of people based on nothing more than the color of their skin and the lack of a Y chromosome.

North Korea missile tests: Biggest launch since 2017

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-60186538

North Korea has conducted what is thought to be its biggest missile launch since 2017.

It said the ballistic missile was an intermediate range Hwasong-12.

Japan and South Korea said it reached a maximum altitude of 2,000km before coming down in the Sea of Japan or East Sea. Both countries have condemned the launch, the seventh test this month.

The UN prohibits North Korea from ballistic and nuclear weapons tests, and has imposed strict sanctions.

But the East Asian state regularly defies the ban, and leader Kim Jong-un has vowed to bolster his country’s defences.

North Korean state news agency KCNA said the missile had been launched to “verify its accuracy”. Mr Kim was reportedly not present.

It was launched to “the highest angle firing system from the north-western area to the East Sea of Korea in consideration of the security of the neighbouring countries”, the agency added.

Seoul-based website NK News tweeted the first pictures from the launch.

Heart of Scold Neil Young’s censorious crusade against Joe Rogan exemplifies the Left’s increasing hostility to free speech. Zaid Jilani

https://www.city-journal.org/neil-young-v-joe-rogan-and-free-speech

Earlier this week, legendary Canadian-American musician Neil Young laid out an ultimatum to the streaming music service Spotify. “I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,” he wrote in an open letter he posted on his website. “They can have [Joe] Rogan or Young. Not both.”

Young was furious at the “fake information about vaccines” on Rogan’s podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, which gets an average of 11 million listeners per episode, according to some estimates. In recent months, Rogan has interviewed various medical experts and scientists, some of whom have voiced skepticism about the Covid-19 vaccines.

Though Young quickly scrubbed the letter from his website, it appears that his ultimatum was serious. The streaming service has begun taking down the singer’s music.

In a way, the market worked here. Young decided that he couldn’t share Spotify with Rogan; Spotify stood by Rogan. Each party in the dispute chose his own path: Rogan got to keep his independence, while Young can avoid the discomfort of sharing a platform with someone whose views he finds abhorrent. The censors didn’t win.

If you doubt that “censor” is an appropriate word to describe those pressuring Spotify to dump Rogan, consider this: the platform is the world’s largest streaming service, with a whopping 31 percent market share in the second quarter of 2021. When a private corporation controls such a large portion of an information ecosystem, its content decisions are more than mere acts of moderation; it is laying out the boundaries of the discourse itself. That’s precisely why Young believed that Rogan’s views shouldn’t have a platform.