4
4
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
The best part of this interview is hearing the NPR interviewer denying the charges that Milo is leveling against the media. He claims to be looking at specific media that Milo mentions and sees nothing wrong, nothing stilted, nothing untrue in it. Well, guess what? He doesn't see it because he agrees with it. In every survey of "journalists". the vast majority identify as Democrats, Leftists, or liberals (as they prefer to describe themselves inasmuch as Leftist doesn't have good connotations). Facts in their news reports are lost in the weeds of ideological propaganda. Everyone, even the greatest journalists of old, had points of view, ideologies, and political persuasions. However, they kept their reports brief to avoid allowing personal views to creep into their writing. Who, what, where, when, and how were answered usually in the first sentence, sometimes the first sentence of a news article. Facts are now secondary to opinion. As Milo says, "virtue signaling" takes precedence over knowledge of what's happening in the world. What is "virtue signaling"? Think of it like a bumper sticker. When someone puts a message on the bumper of their car, such as "Save the Whales", does the bumper sticker help save the whales? Of course not. Then why stick the message on your bumper? It's there to signal others that they are virtuous, more virtuous than those who do not have a like bumper sticker. Two motorists with the same bumper sticker can honk and wave to each other, thus reinforcing their mutual feelings of virtue. So when a journalist brands those of another party, or race, or religion, as bigots, etc, they are both diminishing the virtue of those with whom they disagree and seeking approval from those with whom they agree. And when the vast majority of the media engages in such virtue signaling, they are creating what in propaganda is know as the band wagon effect. They attract new adherents by making it seem that "everyone" is on board with their ideology. I attack these miscreants as rationally as possible. Milo attacks them by being just as outlandish as they are. Sadly, it seems that Milo's strategy is more effective than mine.
(4)
(0)
MSgt James Mullis
SSG Michael Hartsfield - Its anti-free speech when you suppress the right of someone to say something what they believe simply because you disagree with the message.
(0)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
MSgt James Mullis - Touche. However, one can still chose where and when that person can exercise it, ala the RNC and the DNC "free speech zones."
(0)
(0)
MSgt James Mullis
SSG Michael Hartsfield - Free speech zones are just another way of limiting speech you dislike but can't ban. Free speech zones are the very antithesis of free speech.
(0)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
MSgt James Mullis - That's a noble sentiment BUT try it during an election cycle
(0)
(0)
Read This Next