Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

90 Views

This past week, there was a great disturbance in the conservative Force, as though millions of voices cried out in anger and were silenced. Turns out YouTube just demonetized Steven Crowder’s videos after a Vox reporter got mad at some of the “harassment” he received from Crowder’s fans. That Vox reporter, Carlos Meza, refers to himself as queer and, surprise surprise, got upset when Crowder called him one! (Granted, there were other statements made to deride Meza, but the point is still the same.)

After YouTube initially said Crowder didn’t violate their Terms of Service, they reversed field like an NFL running back and demonetized his videos, meaning they wouldn’t be promoted and he wouldn’t receive ad revenue from them. Had it not been for Meza’s complaining to YouTube about their allowing Crowder a platform, we might not have the chance to analyze this relatively new Leftist tactic to shut down conservative speech: deplatforming.

deplatforming

What the Left thinks it means – not allowing hateful or potentially dangerous speech an audience

What it really means – a Leftist tactic to discourage discourse they don’t like

There is a key concept central to understanding deplatforming: this isn’t directly a free speech issue. Our right to speak doesn’t guarantee an audience. This principle is backed up by the fact so many talk shows get cancelled after the first season. Complicating matters in Crowder’s case is the fact YouTube is a private company and can set its own rules for use.

That is as long as those rules are enforced equally. And in YouTube’s case, they make Barney Fife look like Sherlock Holmes. Put simply, YouTube’s enforcement is all over the board, with conservatives and those perceived as conservatives (i.e. hateful according to Leftists) bearing the brunt of the punishment. Channels that promote racism, homophobia, and general hatred are struck down while those that promote racism, heterophobia, and general hatred go untouched.

And it’s not just on YouTube. Leftists on college campuses (or would it be campusi?) have found ways to prevent people from Ben Shapiro to Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus through the use of procedural roadblocks, false security issues, and general overall whining, while they allow more radical left-leaning speakers a free pass in spite of outrage at what these speakers have said and done in the past.

As a side note, I’ve created a pretty reliable test for parents and students to determine the best schools. It’s called the Mumia Test. If the college your son or daughter wants to attend has had or would consider infamous cop-killer and Leftist icon Mumia Abu Jamal speak via telephone or other communication method, don’t send him or her there because it’s too far gone.

Anyway, the Left is able to have its cake and eat it too through deplatforming. They can still portray themselves as champions of free speech (that they approve of) while making a case that not all speech is worth hearing. And it’s consistent with the letter of the First Amendment, but not the spirit. Back in the Founding Fathers’ day, their remedy for bad speech was good speech. They didn’t run to George Washington whenever something bad was said about them (and, believe me, a lot was said about Thomas Jefferson that would make TMZ look like the New York Times before Leftists took it over and turned it into, well, the print version of TMZ.

The reason Leftists rely on deplatforming conservatives whenever they can is simple: they can’t hang in the marketplace of ideas. Leftist ideology is all about control: what you see, what you hear, what you do, what you think. If they eliminate the competition, they have more control over all of that. Part and parcel of that approach is they don’t have an answer for what conservative rhetoric outside of name-calling and forcing platforms to abide by its own rules, even when it would require using situational and biased decision making.

This is why YouTube demonetizing Steven Crowder (and many others who are being caught up erroneously by YouTube’s algorithms) is such a big deal. Crowder’s comments/insults were crude and over the line, but others who have said far worse have been given a lighter punishment…if they’ve been punished at all. And if you think this is “whataboutism” to defend Crowder, check out fellow YouTuber Gazi Kodzo, whose nickname in some parts of the Interwebs is “Black Hitler.” He has been just has hateful as Crowder (if not moreso, given his open hatred for whites and straights), but there does not appear to be any attempt to demonetize him on YouTube.

Yes, I know the tech giants went to Capitol Hill and swore up and down they were enforcing the rules right down the middle, but that’s as believable as Joe Biden writing his own material. The truth is YouTube, Google, Facebook, et al, lean left and apply the rules with that in mind. Hence, Crowder gets deplatformed and Kodzo gets ad revenue. Unfortunately, those tech giants are pretty much the only games in town if you want an online presence.

That’s why it’s important to fight back within the rules, and that starts with your mindset. If you express any opinion to the right of Che Guevara, no matter how reasonable it may be, Leftists will attack you, often personally as a means to get an emotional reaction out of you. As someone who’s been at the receiving end of such vitriol, it’s hard not to fight fire with fire, but I’ve learned to fight fire with sugar water. Don’t sink to their level, address the meat of their concerns (provided they have any meat), and let them keep escalating. In time, they will either get frustrated you aren’t taking the bait or will act in a way that even the Leftist gatekeepers can’t ignore the bad behavior of their online allies and drop the hammer. Most of the time, it will be a Nerf hammer, but the goal isn’t to get them deplatformed because you complained. It’s to protect yourselves and let the haters deplatform themselves.

It’s harder to do the same on college campuses than it is online, but it’s not impossible. Demand to hear other speakers from all sides of the ideological spectrum. If the colleges and universities can’t or won’t fulfill that need, find ways around it. Nothing says a college conservative club can’t have an off-campus event with a famous or semi-famous figure in conservative circles. Plus, the added bonus is if there are any threats of violence from Leftists or actual violence and property damage from Leftists, the police can get involved, thus bypassing campus security altogether. And I’ll bet there would be more than a few members packing heat (check local CCW/open carry laws before attempting), so security shouldn’t be an issue. Just serve cake and punch and you’re set!

Although deplatforming isn’t against free speech, it’s certainly a corrosive force that undermines it. With a little intellectual judo, though, it can be overcome while maintaining a true appreciation and love of free speech.

Plus, there could be punch and cake involved, so that’s a win-win!

Implausible Deniability

90 Views

This past Sunday, Liz Plank of Vox (America’s #1 online fake news source) was on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” (America’s #1 cable fake news source) discussing the latest developments in the Jussie Smollett case. If you haven’t heard or were smart enough not to pay attention, Smollett is now being suspected of fabricating the alleged hate crime he said happened, using two of his “Empire” co-stars as fall guys. Defending her fellow journalists, Plank said she felt the accusations of the “crime” being committed by two guys wearing MAGA hats was the result of celebrity Tweets and not true journalists.

With all the introspection of a, well, Vox employee, Plank didn’t bother to look at what other media outlets, including CNN, had said about the alleged hate crime. Had she done so, she might have noticed the screamingly obvious: the media ran with the hate crime narrative without checking the facts because the story fit their preconceived biases. And now they’re pretending they had no part in pushing a narrative that fix these biases by saying “We were just reporting the facts.”

Wrong.

The “we were just reporting the facts” is a variation of the “we’re objective journalists” line the media use to shield themselves from criticism when they fail to act like they claim they do. The problem is they don’t always act like they say they do. Most of the time, they’re Leftist stenographers who rarely, if ever, give credence to any other point of view. Take their more recent attempts to discuss global climate change. Leftists have pressured media providers into denying the so-called “climate deniers” on shows to debate the issue and the science behind global climate change. I’m not sure how much pressure they needed to put on their media cohorts, but the point remains. Those in charge of the media are controlling what you see, hear, and believe, either through overt promotion of an ideology or covert censorship of any opposing views.

And when the media make a mistake, they either don’t apologize, post an apology on Twitter well after their initial report, change the subject, or stick any corrections so far back you’re lucky to find them. In this case, Leftist Twitter has done its job and tried to change the subject from Smollett’s possible/probable deception to what impact it will have on real victims of hate crimes.

Like, say, MAGA hat wearers? Naaaaaaah!

The Left doesn’t consider Donald Trump supporters to be victims in the Smollett case because the Left hates them. In their minds, Trump supporter (real, imaginary, or supposed) are subhuman, which makes mocking and slandering them okay. But when those same people call the media “fake news,” Leftists battle to be the first to call out such “vile behavior.” And don’t you dare question the integrity of the press. These brave men and women put their lives on the line to get us the stories that no one else is talking about (except for everyone else in their circles)!

Thin-skinned egotistical hypocrites say what?

If the Smollett case were the first time the press had jumped to a conclusion, I might cut them from slack here. Unfortunately for them, it isn’t, thus no slack and no quarter will be given. And if the press wants to know why, it started with their coverage of Saint Trayvon of Martin. Although neither party involved was an angel, the media portrayed (and continue to portray) Martin as a poor victim instead of a possible criminal who got shot in the process of committing a violent crime. From there we had Michael Brown, “Mattress Girl,” the Covington Catholic school boys, and many other stories that had more sizzle than steak (mmmmm…steak). As of yet, we are still waiting on apologies from the media outlets who pushed these and other ideologically driven stories for not getting the facts right. Want proof? We still have people thinking “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” is a thing!

And media types of Brian Stelter of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” wonder why the public doesn’t trust them anymore.

Then again, he’s the guy who thought someone from Vox would be reliable and/or a source, so there’s that.

Regardless, the media are part of the problem, but they can be part of the solution if they can learn something I learned as a boy: admit when you screwed up, and learn from it so you don’t screw up the next time. Given how long they’ve made the same mistake over and over, I’m guessing it’s above the media’s paygrade.