27 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-20-22

  1. See HRW, this is why it’s a story.

    First the WaPo, one of the largest papers in the US doxes the woman with the intent of turning the leftist rage mob on her, then they lie about it too, and say they didn’t.

    But the internet remembers, and so do their own archives….

    ——–

    ——–

    Like

  2. Also, the hack pretending to be a journalist complains when the same tactic is turned on her.

    ——–

    And why is it OK when leftists do what LibsOfTikTok did, post the crazy leftist in their own words from their own videos?

    Talk about hypocrites.

    Like

  3. More fake news exposed from the thankfully dying CNN. Their intent here as well was to create conflict, pit Americans against each other, and to cue the leftist outrage mob.

    “Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Claims He Witnessed Incident Where CNN Tried To Falsify News”

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-claims-he-witnessed-incident-where-cnn-tried-to-falsify-news

    “Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said on Monday evening that he knows that CNN promotes false news reporting because he witnessed the far-left network try to cause conflict during the Ferguson, Missouri riots back in 2014.

    Dorsey made the revelation in a response to a tweet from Miss Universe Iraq 2017 Sarah Abdali Idan who said, “Even @CNN sometimes sell false news. I know this from covering Iraq events in 2019. People need to understand every media is prone to either mistakes or deliberate corruption. Do your own investigation before believing what they’re selling you.”

    Dorsey responded, “I know this from being on the streets of Ferguson during the protests and watching them try to create conflict and film it causing the protestors to chant ‘f*** CNN’.”

    Idan’s tweet stemmed from an earlier remark that Dorsey made on the platform when he called out CNN’s Brian Stelter and a columnist for The Washington Post on Monday over a tweet that took aim at Fox News host Tucker Carlson.”

    Like

  4. Get woke, go broke.

    Seems appropriate.

    Way to kill your products there geniuses. Shareholders need to rise up and end this stupidity, or the free market will.

    Only churches and colleges saw improvement. 🙂

    Like

  5. Mariupol is hanging by a thread.

    And how’s that European reliance on Russian gas working out?

    “Ukraine Updates: Explosions Across Donbas, Russia Holding Back Gas to Europe”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/ukraine-updates-explosions-across-donbas-villages-impossible-to-evacuate/

    “Russia has been in Donbas since 2014. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. But it continues to get worse.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the second phase of the war has begun in Donbas. Reports coming out of east Ukraine seem to confirm this fear.

    The situation in Mariupol is still deteriorating.”

    —-

    “Gazprom Holding Back Gas
    Russia owns Europe:

    Russia has kept European gas traders guessing about how much gas it will send to the continent, as state-controlled energy giant Gazprom opted again not to book extra pipeline capacity.

    While markets are worried that Putin could turn off the taps, a spell of warmer weather and an easing in prices have started to temper demand.

    Gazprom chose not to reserve capacity for exports to Germany via the crucial Yamal-Europe pipeline in May. That’s the fourth straight month it’s chosen not to book the link.

    It comes after the Kremlin hinted that buyers still have time before Putin’s demand for gas payments in roubles kicks in.”

    Like

  6. Yet another reason this WaPo disaster matters….

    ———-

    Like

  7. Good. We need more like this, and less indoctrinating leftists in the field.

    “I Refuse to Stand By While My Students Are Indoctrinated

    Children are afraid to challenge the repressive ideology that rules our school. That’s why I am.”

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-refuse-to-stand-by-while-my-students?s=r

    “I am a teacher at Grace Church High School in Manhattan. Ten years ago, I changed careers when I discovered how rewarding it is to help young people explore the truth and beauty of mathematics. I love my work.

    As a teacher, my first obligation is to my students. But right now, my school is asking me to embrace “antiracism” training and pedagogy that I believe is deeply harmful to them and to any person who seeks to nurture the virtues of curiosity, empathy and understanding.

    “Antiracist” training sounds righteous, but it is the opposite of truth in advertising. It requires teachers like myself to treat students differently on the basis of race. Furthermore, in order to maintain a united front for our students, teachers at Grace are directed to confine our doubts about this pedagogical framework to conversations with an in-house “Office of Community Engagement” for whom every significant objection leads to a foregone conclusion. Any doubting students are likewise “challenged” to reframe their views to conform to this orthodoxy.

    I know that by attaching my name to this I’m risking not only my current job but my career as an educator, since most schools, both public and private, are now captive to this backward ideology. But witnessing the harmful impact it has on children, I can’t stay silent.

    My school, like so many others, induces students via shame and sophistry to identify primarily with their race before their individual identities are fully formed. Students are pressured to conform their opinions to those broadly associated with their race and gender and to minimize or dismiss individual experiences that don’t match those assumptions. The morally compromised status of “oppressor” is assigned to one group of students based on their immutable characteristics. In the meantime, dependency, resentment and moral superiority are cultivated in students considered “oppressed.”

    All of this is done in the name of “equity,” but it is the opposite of fair. In reality, all of this reinforces the worst impulses we have as human beings: our tendency toward tribalism and sectarianism that a truly liberal education is meant to transcend.

    Recently, I raised questions about this ideology at a mandatory, whites-only student and faculty Zoom meeting. (Such racially segregated sessions are now commonplace at my school.) It was a bait-and-switch “self-care” seminar that labelled “objectivity,” “individualism,” “fear of open conflict,” and even “a right to comfort” as characteristics of white supremacy. I doubted that these human attributes — many of them virtues reframed as vices — should be racialized in this way. In the Zoom chat, I also questioned whether one must define oneself in terms of a racial identity at all. My goal was to model for students that they should feel safe to question ideological assertions if they felt moved to do so.

    It seemed like my questions broke the ice. Students and even a few teachers offered a broad range of questions and observations. Many students said it was a more productive and substantive discussion than they expected.

    However, when my questions were shared outside this forum, violating the school norm of confidentiality, I was informed by the head of the high school that my philosophical challenges had caused “harm” to students, given that these topics were “life and death matters, about people’s flesh and blood and bone.” I was reprimanded for “acting like an independent agent of a set of principles or ideas or beliefs.” And I was told that by doing so, I failed to serve the “greater good and the higher truth.”

    He further informed me that I had created “dissonance for vulnerable and unformed thinkers” and “neurological disturbance in students’ beings and systems.” The school’s director of studies added that my remarks could even constitute harassment.

    A few days later, the head of school ordered all high school advisors to read a public reprimand of my conduct out loud to every student in the school. It was a surreal experience, walking the halls alone and hearing the words emitting from each classroom: “Events from last week compel us to underscore some aspects of our mission and share some thoughts about our community,” the statement began. “At independent schools, with their history of predominantly white populations, racism colludes with other forms of bias (sexism, classism, ableism and so much more) to undermine our stated ideals, and we must work hard to undo this history.”

    Students from low-income families experience culture shock at our school. Racist incidents happen. And bias can influence relationships. All true. But addressing such problems with a call to “undo history” lacks any kind of limiting principle and pairs any allegation of bigotry with a priori guilt. My own contract for next year requires me to “participate in restorative practices designed by the Office of Community Engagement” in order to “heal my relationship with the students of color and other students in my classes.” The details of these practices remain unspecified until I agree to sign.

    I asked my uncomfortable questions in the “self-care” meeting because I felt a duty to my students. I wanted to be a voice for the many students of different backgrounds who have approached me over the course of the past several years to express their frustration with indoctrination at our school, but are afraid to speak up.

    They report that, in their classes and other discussions, they must never challenge any of the premises of our “antiracist” teachings, which are deeply informed by Critical Race Theory. These concerns are confirmed for me when I attend grade-level and all-school meetings about race or gender issues. There, I witness student after student sticking to a narrow script of acceptable responses. Teachers praise insights when they articulate the existing framework or expand it to apply to novel domains. Meantime, it is common for teachers to exhort students who remain silent that “we really need to hear from you.”

    But what does speaking up mean in a context in which white students are asked to interrogate their “white saviorism,” but also “not make their antiracist practice about them”? We are compelling them to tiptoe through a minefield of double-binds. According to the school’s own standard for discursive violence, this constitutes abuse.

    Every student at the school must also sign a “Student Life Agreement,” which requires them to aver that “the world as we understand it can be hard and extremely biased,” that they commit to “recognize and acknowledge their biases when we come to school, and interrupt those biases,” and accept that they will be “held accountable should they fall short of the agreement.” A recent faculty email chain received enthusiastic support for recommending that we “‘officially’ flag students” who appear “resistant” to the “culture we are trying to establish.” ”

    ——

    Read on….

    Liked by 1 person

  8. What a concept! 🙄

    “Educators Should Practice Principled Neutrality

    Speaking with modesty and restraint doesn’t mean avoiding debate or controversy.”

    https://www.persuasion.community/p/educators-should-practice-principled?s=r

    “Across the country, schools are seeing increasing levels of strife on campus. Frustration with responses to the pandemic has combined with rising levels of partisan rancor and political polarization to divide and fracture school communities. From independent organizations demanding overhauls to history, social studies, and language arts curricula, to proposed state and federal legislation banning the teaching of “divisive topics,” to well-organized parent groups mobilizing to combat what they view as political “indoctrination” in the classroom, there seems almost no aspect of schooling that has not become the subject of furious controversy.

    With intensified conflict and attention on schools have come increasingly frequent calls for educational leaders to speak on issues of public concern. And not simply speak, but take forceful, unambiguous, and public stands, using the full weight of their position and authority. Over my relatively short time as head of school at Deerfield Academy, a position I have held since July of 2019, I’ve been asked to comment on any number of national and global events: mass shootings, the killing of George Floyd, protests against police violence, immigration policy, racist incidents at other schools and colleges, the 2020 election, and the storming of the Capitol on January 6, among others. Yet, with few exceptions, I have refrained from comment. Sometimes, I have come to believe, a studied, principled restraint is the best, and most appropriate, stance to take.

    Deerfield is a diverse school with students from 36 states and 45 countries, and I recognize that many events beyond the boundaries of campus touch the lives of our students and their families—from protests for democratic reform in Hong Kong to calls for racial and economic justice here in the United States to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some students may be disappointed that their head of school has recused himself from commenting on issues of such profound importance. And I don’t like disappointing students. But in doing so, I hope I am empowering them—encouraging their independence of thought, creating a space of inquiry where they can discover their own views, and, most importantly, protecting their civic agency.

    In the end, it’s not my voice that really matters, it’s theirs. In fact, my voice—and the platform I can claim as a head of school—can inhibit and constrain student agency. My view is that school leaders should speak with modesty and restraint on matters of public concern and assume a position of principled neutrality, recognizing that the public stands we take as educational leaders can inadvertently chill expression and narrow the range of conversation on campus.

    This kind of political neutrality does not mean educational leaders must remain neutral when it comes to values. In fact, when I speak as head of school, I do so in a way that affirms our school’s most important principles: civility, a commitment to disciplined inquiry, human dignity, kindness, and respect. But I believe schools can uphold values that support a kind, curious, and inclusive community free from attitudinal racism, harassment, and discrimination, without endorsing a particular political program or philosophy.

    These assumptions should inform not only school administrators but teachers as well. K-12 students are just beginning their journey as scholars and are uniquely susceptible to what the novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie calls “the danger of a single story.” For that reason, teachers need to recognize their influence and power over students. To cultivate exploration, intellectual agency, and independent thought among students, teachers should also strive for pedagogical neutrality.

    Such neutrality, however, does not mean that teachers need to avoid controversy or debate. To the contrary, just as we strive for pedagogical neutrality, so too should we embrace controversy in the classroom, and practice what I would call “argument-inclusiveness.” This means avoiding, as much as possible, simplistic and singular curricular narratives. Rather, teachers should approach teaching and learning as a great conversation—a conversation that both stages and supports student debate and contestation.

    Important conversations should be presented to our students as such. Here are four ways that teachers can approach classroom conversations in ways that support and encourage the practice of argument-inclusiveness:

    Incorporate Rival Thinkers
    In his essay “Pluralism in the Classroom,” the scholar and critic Wayne Booth describes what he calls a “rival thinkers” approach. He advises teachers to include texts and positions that rival or even reject their own particular perspective. This means including debate in the very design of school curricula so students can see how scholars, philosophers, and public intellectuals disagree with one another and why. Does the 1619 Project have a place in our classrooms? Of course. But we should also teach the arguments of those who have questioned its evidence and reasoning. Should “anti-racism” be taught? Absolutely. But teach that body of thought inclusively for what it is—a rich interplay of argument and counter-argument about the quest for racial justice—by placing disparate and divergent thinkers into conversation with one another.

    Students can, for example, learn a great deal about racism, systemic oppression, and the search for identity, among other important themes, from reading Ta-Nehisi Coates’ widely assigned and National Book Award-winning Between the World and Me; they can also learn from thoughtful critics such as author Thomas Chatterton Williams, who coordinated the now-infamous Harper’s Magazine Letter on Justice and Open Debate, and Columbia University Professor John McWhorter, who just last year published Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. So, too, can students learn from the organic conversations that follow these assignments.

    Remove Bias
    Psychologists have increased our awareness of the many forms of cognitive biases—motivated reasoning, in-group/out-group favoritism, and identity-protective cognition, among others—that obstruct clear thinking and judgment. Journalists have developed and employ practices that mitigate bias, such as fact-checking, the use of multiple sources, and a commitment to non-partisanship. Similarly, teachers and researchers have identified and utilize effective instructional practices to support open, pluralistic classrooms. These include how to sort live questions from settled ones and thereby avoid the trap of “both-siderism;” how to “debate-ify” and “academicize” static curriculum and thoughtfully include controversy by highlighting different perspectives; and when, if ever, it is appropriate for teachers to share with students their own political positions.

    The award-winning book, The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education, co-authored by Diana Hess, Dean of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Education, and her colleague and educational researcher Paula McAvoy, offers helpful and engaging protocols for selecting and framing political issues—including recommendations for how teachers might even begin to think about creating a “political classroom.” These protocols are particularly insightful given the very real challenges presented by political polarization and social inequality—with topics and examples as varied as torture, immigration, and same-sex marriage, and recommended approaches to each.”

    Like

  9. This is causing these people horrible pain, a life robbed of hope, as well as physical pain and mutilation, and it needs to stop. There are people preying and making money on the confusion they help create. It’s heartbreaking the harm this causes these young people. The victims need prayer and hope, not mutilation and drugs.

    CONTENT WARNING!!!!

    “The Testosterone Hangover

    The Biden administration says transgender kids are entitled to ‘gender-affirming’ medical care. These girls disagree. ‘I have this intense rage in me over the harm that was done to me.’”

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-testosterone-hangover?s=r

    “When Chloe woke up from an elective double mastectomy, she texted her mother in the waiting room: “Booba gone.”

    This was a little over two years ago. She was 15 at the time. “The typo was intentional,” she told me recently. “I thought it was funny.”

    “Is that a good thing?” her mom replied.

    “Yes,” Chloe texted back.

    “I don’t think that answer aged well,” she said to me.

    Chloe, who lives in California’s Central Valley, always hated her body. She spent a lot of time on Tumblr and learned words like “pansexual” and “bigender.” She remembers when she was 12, sitting on her bed, thinking, “Maybe I’m meant to live as a boy.”

    By 2018, at age 14, Chloe was well along the path to what she imagined was boyhood. She was going by Leo. She was taking puberty blockers. And her mother was administering her weekly testosterone injections. Two years later, in early June 2020, she went under the knife.

    Chloe was the beneficiary of what transgender activists call “gender-affirming care,” which means all the adults in her life—doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers, parents—actively supported her decision to become the person she believed she was meant to be, even if that person required an elective mastectomy in high school. Or taking puberty-blocking drugs. Or injecting cross-sex hormones, like testosterone.

    In this, Chloe is also the poster child for the Biden administration’s recently announced transgender policy.

    Gender-affirming care, the president’s spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, explained at a recent press conference, was “best practice and potentially lifesaving.” The point was: If trans kids weren’t able to transition, not just socially, but medically with cross sex hormones, puberty blockers, and surgeries, they might well kill themselves.

    The Biden policy was presented as commonsensical, but it is out of step with many progressive countries and some leading experts. Countries that have gone down the “gender affirming” road—like Norway, Sweden, France—are now reversing course in the absence of evidence that such care actually improves mental health outcomes for dysphoric children. Pioneering doctors, like Erica Anderson of the University of California San Francisco’s Child and Adolescent Gender Clinic—herself a transwoman who has helped hundreds of teens through their transitions—are warning of the dangers of this policy. Critics say that even the phrase “gender-affirming” is misleading—a euphemism for something closer to medical malpractice. When else do we trust children to self-diagnose and make lifelong medical decisions?

    And then there is the growing chorus of young people, including Chloe, who had come to regret—deeply—the decisions they had made and the gender-affirming care they had received.

    In the middle of this story are teenagers who are largely going unheard by a government and a medical establishment that’s plowing ahead. “I don’t think gender affirming care helps kids like me,” says Chloe. “There should be more regard to alternatives in treating dysphoria, especially when it comes to kids.”

    “I thought testosterone would transform me from being short and pudgy to lanky and male, but in a graceful type of way, not muscley,” said Helena Kerschner, 23. Helena is from Cincinnati, and she is one of the country’s most prominent detransitioners, as people who transition genders and then change back are called. She has a Substack with thousands of subscribers.

    Growing up in Ohio meant Helena could only transition with a parent’s consent. (This is true in most states. Washington, Oregon, and California gave minors more wiggle room to transition on their own). But she was 15, and her parents were definitely not on board. She wore boys clothes and a breast binder, and cut her hair short.

    The guidance counselor at her public school agreed with Helena that she was a man. She helped her make a budget for her transition, and referred her to the school psychologist, who was even more gung-ho. “I remember the psychologist saying, ‘Your mom is a transphobe,’ and telling me about suicide risks.” They had three or four meetings before inviting Helena’s mother to have a conversation with the both of them, which didn’t go well.

    “I had a ton of issues with my academics and my mental health, but I never really got help with that,” she said. “As soon as I said I was trans, it was all hands on deck.”

    Her parents—her mom is a doctor; her dad, an engineer—never came around. Days after she turned 18, Helena went to Planned Parenthood in Chicago. There, she saw a social worker, and then a nurse practitioner, who wrote a prescription for testosterone during that first visit. The nurse recommended a dose of 25 milligrams per week. “How high can we go?” Helena asked. Helena left the clinic with a prescription of 100 milligrams of testosterone. The whole thing took about an hour. She never saw a doctor.

    Two days later, she was moving into her college dorm. (For privacy reasons, she’d only say that she attended a small liberal-arts school in central Ohio.) Helena’s family helped her move in; she made sure to hide the glass vials and needles from them. She started going by Vincent, after her favorite anime character. She injected herself with testosterone weekly.

    The drug made her feel irritable and angry, and it gave her sex drive a massive boost that she called “overwhelming.” She began hitting herself, and once she cut herself with a serrated kitchen knife, which landed her in a psych ward for a week. After a year-and-a-half on testosterone, it began to dawn on her that “the reality I was living was not lining up with the fantasy I’d had as a teen.”

    Helena’s roommate, who was also a transman, made a video chronicling their friendship. It started on the second day of college, and it spanned a period of about a year-and-a-half, and it was supposed to be upbeat—a celebration of their shared liberation from the shackles of their girl bodies. But when Helena watched it, she saw herself becoming more despondent. (The roommate, as it turned out, eventually also detransitioned.) That was in early 2018. Slowly, Helena realized she wasn’t a boy. “It was a crushing and terrifying feeling,” she said.

    She went cold turkey off the testosterone, and bought a wig and make up and new clothes. (When I asked Helena whether living with another transman had had an influence on their decisions to transition, and to detransition, she said, “Definitely.” It was the inverse of the theory that the explosion of gender dysphoria among girls, starting about a decade ago, was really part of a social contagion.) Helena also started spending less time online—she was partial to Tumblr, too—and more in the real world interacting with real people, like her coworkers at her job at a bakery.

    The next year was “confusing and awkward,” she says. Over dinner, a few months after the video montage episode, she told her parents her decision to detransition. They said they thought she was making a good decision, but didn’t say much else. Now, she calls her relationship with them “cordial.”

    Proponents of gender-affirming care say its benefits dramatically outweigh the risks. But there’s little data to back that up, and in any case this is still a new phenomenon about which a great deal is not known. The American Medical Association staunchly supports gender-affirming care. Same with universities, especially elite universities. Same with the president of the United States. It’s unclear whether there is any academic or professional space left for the skeptics.

    Trans activists argue that trans patients knew the risks. The kids or their parents gave informed consent, they say.

    “There’s more to the story,” counters Helena Kerschner, who feels failed by her doctors and therapists.”The fact that there’s adults as high up as in the Biden administration putting out these claims that young people need to medically transition is really dangerous. There’s no logic to it.””

    ——

    Read the rest.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Prayers for us to have a media that will bring out the stories of those who have gone through this already and found no hope there, but went on to find the real Hope.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Embarrassing…..

    Pretty much sums up Biden in one word.

    Like

  12. Trump should have know this before he embarrassed himself.

    ———

    Like

  13. Why it matters…

    ———

    Like

  14. That’s it leftists….

    Double down, and keep defending the perverts….

    ——–

    Like

  15. Democrats built this. I hope their victims make them own it come midterms.

    “Leftists’ anti-police policies have led to a startling number of black, Latino crime victims”

    https://nypost.com/2022/04/19/leftist-policies-backfired-creating-a-crime-surge-with-more-black-latino-victims/

    “A Fox News story reports there was a staggering 43% increase in the murders of black Americans in 2020 compared to the past 10-year average.

    The finding is shocking — but not surprising. After all, New York proved decades ago that reducing crime disproportionally benefited blacks and Latinos because they comprise most of crime’s victims. Fewer crimes mean fewer victims of all races, but the drop is most pronounced among nonwhites.

    If we didn’t know it before, we now know the opposite is also true. More crimes mean more black and Latino victims.

    All this matters because the nation’s large cities are so swamped by horrific crime and violence that police, criminologists and a few honest elected Democrats are finally conceding the obvious: the progressive movement, including Black Lives Matter, that ostensibly aimed to protect minority racial groups by defunding the police and coddling criminals backfired big time.

    The people the progressives claimed to be helping actually were harmed by the anti-police, pro-criminal policies.

    Bill Bratton, who led the Los Angeles police between two terms as head of the NYPD, recently put it this way on a podcast: “The scales right now are tipped very heavily in favor of the reforms of the progressive left . . . and what we have as a result is this growing fear of crime, this growing actual amount of crime in almost every American city.””

    Like

  16. Looks like a good book by Ross Douthat

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/renew-decadent-evangelical-culture/

    ~ In his insightful 2020 book “The Decadent Society,” Ross Douthat describes the current condition of American social and political culture as one of decadence. Decadence, Douthat argues, is neither dynamic growth nor explosive disintegration. Rather, it’s typified by stagnation, institutional inertia, and a kind of tit-for-tat that’s perpetually looking to settle old scores and define out-group and in-group membership. According to Douthat, decadence is paralytic repetition: moral, economic, and societal atrophy that results from too little success and too much comfort. ~

    ~ Throughout American history, as Douthat points out, large-scale crises (like war or economic depression) have often functioned as the darkness right before dawn, fueling a dynamic resurgence of unity and innovation. Social unrest, a global pandemic, and a divided church culture could prove to be a final resting place for our evangelical movement, or it could prove to be the kind of providential trial that triggers revival and renewal. As the problems with the status quo become more inescapable, the desire and willingness for gospel-centered transformation become more compelling.

    Evangelical witness matters. Does it matter enough to us? ~

    From the book’s introduction:

    ~ What fascinates and terrifies us about the Roman Empire is not that it finally went smash,” wrote W.H. Auden of the last world empire in its endless autumn, but rather that “it managed to last for four centuries without creativity, warmth or hope.”

    “There was nothing left that could conquer Rome,” G.K. Chesterton wrote on the same theme, “but there was also nothing left that could improve it … It was the end of the world and the worst of it was that it need never end.”

    Whether we are waiting for Christians or barbarians, a renaissance or the Singularity, the dilemma that Auden and Chesterton described is now not Rome’s but ours. ~

    Like

  17. (Singularity: In technology, the singularity describes a hypothetical future where technology growth is out of control and irreversible. These intelligent and powerful technologies will radically and unpredictably transform our reality.)

    Like

  18. If we’re honest DJ, it already has transformed our reality. We have a generation of children who live their lives vicariously thru it. Most of their contact with others is thru tech, not face to face interaction. That’s why they seek to control the info that is allowed to get out and be absorbed by the public. Control the info, you control the narrative, and what’s considered truth. We’ve seen repeatedly how tech companies label truth as lies and restrict it’s availability. We’re seeing this happen right before our eyes.

    Like

  19. This is just gross, and so is she for saying it. Protecting children, which is what the Govs are doing, is the complete opposite you hack, and you know that.

    ———

    Like

  20. This is the price for your woke stupidity and grooming of children Disney.

    Enjoy! 🙂

    ——-

    Like

  21. I posted my 1:52 because I’d not heard that term before (Singularity).

    I fear we’re fast losing our open and free speech abilities that make democracy and self-governance even possible — often it comes out as social intimidation because of our inability anymore to listen to other points of view and engage without pummeling as a way to shut down debate and discussion.

    I think we’re in serious trouble in our nation right now.

    The next couple of election cycles will likely be quite viscous and could even lead to violence in some quarters. I hope I’m wrong. But I’ve never seen this country in such a foul mood as it’s in now.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.