The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, Prozac said:

Last time I checked, the guy with the highest rated evening “news” show was most definitely “in the bag for a particular side”. Just not the one that supports your narrative. Here’s a newsflash: no media source is impartial.

The point is that CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS/NYT/WaPo and their pundits are all taken as "legitimate" news sources; no one is confused or doubts that Tucker Carlson provides "news with perspective" or that he happens to have the #1 rated show. Juxtapose this with the fact that most people take Jim Acosta, Jeffery Toobin, Don Lemon, Briana Keilar, George Stephanopolous, Yamiche Alcindor, Brian Stelter, and the rest of the bunch as un-biased, and what's more, they wear the equivalent of "blue check marks" in the news business - they are considered un-opinionated and non-political. How do I know this? No one openly scoffs them. People do openly scoff Tucker.

It is the sum total of the above phalanx that has a far, far greater effect on what the nation is aware of and thus who gets to determine the framing of issues in the country than does the Tucker gadfly (and hence the fact that he as an individual happens to have a larger audience is irrelevant).

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

Yes it does. This is a ridiculous assertion. GWB lying about WMDs, Clinton lying about BJs, Obama lying about tax cuts - they all are bad and matter. Trump being a terrible leader is a large reason why Jan 6 happened and why the nations Covid response was so stupid.

Well, you missed my point. The point is not that what the President says doesn't matter. Remember, GWB had numerous detractors (including me when I was less than a 2nd Lt); Clinton was impeached for lies about BJs; Obama lost a democratic majority extremely rapidly. So you're right, all those issues (and the lies told around them) matter, and in each of those cases there was vigorous and spirited debate that took place around them.

What is novel about the lab-leak theory, and what makes it stand apart from those you listed, is the concerted, direct, and coordinated effort by the media establishment to dismiss the theory outright - without evidence - because it was supported by Trump. There was no debate. That's the point.

[Prozac]

24 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

The point is that CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS/NYT/WaPo and their pundits are all taken as "legitimate" news sources; no one is confused or doubts that Tucker Carlson provides "news with perspective" or that he happens to have the #1 rated show. Juxtapose this with the fact that most people take Jim Acosta, Jeffery Toobin, Don Lemon, Briana Keilar, George Stephanopolous, Yamiche Alcindor, Brian Stelter, and the rest of the bunch as un-biased, and what's more, they wear the equivalent of "blue check marks" in the news business - they are considered un-opinionated and non-political. How do I know this? No one openly scoffs them. People do openly scoff Tucker.

It is the sum total of the above phalanx that has a far, far greater effect on what the nation is aware of and thus who gets to determine the framing of issues in the country than does the Tucker gadfly (and hence the fact that he as an individual happens to have a larger audience is irrelevant).

I hear a TON of people on the right openly scoffing Acosta, Lemon and the like, ALL THE TIME. In many cases, rightfully so. It’s funny, but somehow people can see the bias of the pundits that they disagree with, but tend to defend the ones they agree with. The truth is that “news” hosts on all matter of televised (and internet-ized) media make a shit ton of money for themselves and their networks by keeping you (the royal you) outraged. They will spew all manner of bullshit in the name of fresh content. People have ingested so much of this garbage, for so long, that a good chunk of our country literally thinks of the opposing viewpoint as the enemy and is ready to take up arms against their countrymen. Guess who is benefiting from all of this unrest? Hint: it ain’t U.S. and A.

[ViperMan]

12 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I hear a TON of people on the right openly scoffing Acosta, Lemon and the like

 

[Prozac]

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

 

That’s kinda my point: people on the right scoff Lemon. People on the left scoff Carlson. Nobody wants to admit/ can’t see that their guy is as shitty as the rest of ‘em. 

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, Prozac said:

That’s kinda my point: people on the right scoff Lemon. People on the left scoff Carlson. Nobody wants to admit/ can’t see that their guy is as shitty as the rest of ‘em. 

Right. You're announcing that people on the L scoff Tucker and people on the R scoff Lemon - no one disputes that, and it wasn't part of my argument even though you're responding to it as though it was.

The group of people I'm talking about are those in the "middle" who generally consider themselves disengaged from the world of politics, but who may get brought in to varying degrees depending on what's going on around them (different from those who know they are on the L or R). These are the "most" people (who I was careful to not distinguish by labeling them as R or L) I'm talking about when I quote myself:

15 hours ago, ViperMan said:

most people take Jim Acosta, Jeffery Toobin, Don Lemon, Briana Keilar, George Stephanopolous, Yamiche Alcindor, Brian Stelter, and the rest of the bunch as un-biased...

I'm pointing out that the biased group of people I list above carry a special cloak in relation to the "most" group I'm distinguishing: they work for "legitimate" news sources (CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/NYT/WaPo) and thus they are not approached with the same suspicion that Tucker Carlson is (by most - not just those on the L). That's the core reason they wield more power than the Tuckers - because they aren't judged as L leaning by most in the same way most can distinguish Tucker as R leaning. They get the benefit of the doubt that being approached by someone looking for "straight news" comes to them with.

The net effect is that the mainstream media is L biased, but most people don't see it as so. The dangerous consequence of this is seen by the legacy media establishment's ability to dismiss, outright, a credible hypothesis about the origins of COVID. I would compare and contrast this with the whataboutism that is the discussion surrounding Fox news' "pushing" of Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, or whatever else - the national discussion about prevention/cures didn't shift based on what Fox news was talking about. The national discussion on the origins of COVID did shift based on what CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/NYT/WaPo were pushing.

A simple way for you to tell what group you're a part of: do you consider the group of people I listed above to be as L leaning as Tucker is R leaning?

[Prozac]

I think you’d have a good point if this was 20 years ago. I honestly don’t think there are that many people in the middle anymore. Certainly not most people. We’ve done a fantastic job of sorting ourselves into our respective tribes and anyone who doesn’t buy in fully isn’t one of “us”.  I’m not leveling this argument at you personally btw. I think the discussion here is far more civil and open than in other circles (ahem…airline cockpits). But for most people (there’s that term again), sorting one’s self into tribe x and buying most, if not all of what their selling, bullshit or otherwise, seems to be the easiest choice. Neither side has a monopoly on this phenomenon. 
 

Now to address the second part of your post WRT COVID-19 origins. Yes, the “mainstream” media absolutely did the American people a disservice by not covering/dismissing  what turned out to be a legitimate story. However, comma… I haven’t exactly kept my feelings for DJT a secret here, so what I’m about to say next probably won’t be a surprise. I absolutely believe that this is an excellent example as to why you don’t want someone like him as president. When so much of what comes out of his mouth is poorly thought out drivel, lies, bombast, xenophobia, middle school level insults and the like, it gets hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Apparently there were likely a few good ideas and truthful statements that came out of the man’s mouth. It was easy for a lot of the country to miss. 

[brickhistory]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-stelter-asks-jen-psaki-what-the-media-gets-wrong-in-covering-biden/

 

“Busy summer ahead, infrastructure, election reform,” Stelter began. “What does the press get wrong when covering Biden’s agenda?”

[arg]

The way some news shows are swooning over the newly elected president speaks volumes.

[Prozac]

12 hours ago, arg said:

The way some news shows are swooning over the newly elected president speaks volumes.

You mean like some news outlets swooned over Trump?

C’mon guys. Yeah, the coverage is biased. But I don’t buy this “it’s all stacked against conservatives” bullshit. The conservative media has plenty of power. Maybe more than the liberal side. Tucker and the like have been apologists for, and are complicit in the armed insurrection of the Capitol of the United States for gods sake. 

[brabus]

The fact you refer to it by the MSM’s label of “armed insurrection” shows bias. Absolutely there were people present who were out of control and did illegal/stupid shit, and this isn’t an apology for that group. Fuck them. But, have you actually talked to people who were there? It was 99% peaceful, and not remotely the event that has been portrayed. Again, yes some crazy assholes did some dumb shit (e.g. forcing their way in), but the preponderance of the crowd did not. Your mind, and much of America’s, was made up based on the words of journalists sitting 1000s of miles away from the actual event slamming away on a keyboard. Fear and hyperbole sells. 
 

However, I do agree with you bias and corruption is rampant across the entire media, from the left to the right. Defending either “side” is disingenuous. 

[DosXX]

On 6/18/2021 at 10:20 AM, ViperMan said:

The net effect is that the mainstream media is L biased, but most people don't see it as so.

4 years of "CNN is fake news" and people still argue there's a huge perception gap with the public that doesn't exist.

Edited June 19, 2021 by DosXX

[Springer]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/22/military-has-watchdog-stopping-extremism-now-it-wants-teeth-and-independence.html?ESRC=eb_210623.nl

The Military Has a Watchdog for Stopping Extremism. Now, It Wants Teeth -- and Independence

 

In this Jan. 6, 2021 photo, protesters try to break through a police barrier at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)

22 Jun 2021

Military.com | By Stephen Losey

The Defense Department's Office of Inspector General is asking Congress to take steps to empower its new deputy IG in charge of rooting out extremism in the ranks, and secure its independence.

The Pentagon's deputy inspector general for diversity and inclusion and extremism in the military was established by the National Defense Authorization Act that took effect Jan. 1. It is in charge of conducting audits and investigations into supremacist and criminal gang activity in the armed forces.

Advertisement

 

In a report to Congress released last week, the IG's office said that it is already working on projects that directly cover those areas, such as evaluating the Pentagon's efforts to address extremism, diversity and inclusion programs, and sexual assault at the Naval Academy.

Read Next: After Capitol Riot Indictment, Marine Major Remains at His Quantico Job

And the IG has its eyes set on more projects it could work on beginning next year, such as auditing how well military entrance processing stations identify supremacist, extremist or gang member recruits. But if the office doesn't get more resources, it said, it won't be able to get all of those projects done.

The IG said it needs more funding starting in fiscal 2022 to hire 80 more employees over a two-year period, as well as additional facilities, equipment and operational expenses, to work on diversity, inclusion and extremism. The Office of Personnel Management also gave the IG permission to hire three more Senior Executive Service members, including the new deputy IG.

The hiring will start this year with a dozen new staff members, paid for with money already in the budget, to stand up the office and lay the groundwork for its mission. If the IG gets the rest of its funding in 2022, it will hire the rest of the core staff then.

The Pentagon's IG also needs money to speed up the deployment of an investigations case management system to other IGs throughout the military, the report said. The Pentagon and the IG must develop new ways to track and report extremist, supremacist and criminal gang activity by service members, it added.

But the IG cautioned that Section 554 of the NDAA, as it is currently written, has provisions that "significantly challenge" the office's independence and should be changed.

The IG's office said the section of the law giving Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin the power to appoint and assign duties to the deputy IG, and having the deputy IG report to him, is particularly problematic.

As written, the deputy IG would be "required to simultaneously serve two leaders with distinct and often divergent interests," the IG's report said. "In practical effect, the deputy inspector general is a DoD employee detailed to duties in the DoD OIG, which undermines the independence of the DoD OIG from the DoD and the secretary of Defense in fact and appearance."

This could undermine the new deputy IG before it even gets started, according to the report. If complainants don't believe their concerns will go to an independent, objective organization, they might not come forward with reports of extremist, supremacist or criminal gang activity in the military, it explained.

The IG also said the NDAA has redundant reporting requirements that compromise the office's independence. Section 554 of the NDAA requires the new deputy IG -- not the Defense Department's IG -- to submit semiannual reports to the secretary of defense and the IG.

But the deputy IG also is required to submit annual reports to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, as well as other additional reports when directed by the SecDef or the IG.

The defense secretary's authority to direct the deputy IG to write reports puts the office's independence at risk, the IG wrote.

For now, a temporary fix appears to have been found. Austin agreed to delegate power to appoint the new deputy to the Pentagon IG, and clarified that the deputy will be a member of the defense IG's leadership team.

But the IG said it is still possible -- albeit unlikely -- that a future SecDef could rescind that delegation and reclaim power to appoint the deputy.

The IG said it has worked with lawmakers' staff and the DoD Office of Legislative Affairs to propose an amendment to the law that fixes the independence issues, clarifies roles and responsibilities, and clears up the redundant reporting requirements.

 

[Blue]

Quote

 

The Pentagon's deputy inspector general for diversity and inclusion and extremism in the military.

 

Well that's.......interesting.  First time I've seen responsibilities for "Diversity and Inclusion" lumped in with "Extremism."

Does that mean all the various "Head of Diversity" positions scattered throughout the DoD are now going have additional responsibilities for rooting out "Extremism?"

Edited June 23, 2021 by Blue

[tac airlifter]

16 minutes ago, Blue said:

Well that's.......interesting.  First time I've seen responsibilities for "Diversity and Inclusion" lumped in with "Extremism."

Does that mean all the various "Head of Diversity" positions scattered throughout the DoD are now going have additional responsibilities for rooting out "Extremism?"

Good point.  That’s some scary ass commissar stuff.

[kaputt]

3 hours ago, Springer said:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/22/military-has-watchdog-stopping-extremism-now-it-wants-teeth-and-independence.html?ESRC=eb_210623.nl

The Military Has a Watchdog for Stopping Extremism. Now, It Wants Teeth -- and Independence

 

 

Scary stuff when you really read between the lines.

I continue to stand by the fact that the real extremism threat to this country is far left extremism packaged behind nice words like diversity, inclusion, and my absolute favorite: EQUITY.

Anyone who believes in a free society should get shivers down their spine when they hear politicians, the military, private companies, etc... using the word equity. 

[SurelySerious]

Equity: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[Pooter]

Pushing for "equity" is a master stroke by the left because it can never be achieved. You will always have more work to do in the pursuit of perfect equity so it always gives them a racist/classist boogeyman to point at when things between groups are inevitably inequitable. 
 

I think the best strategy for republicans is to try and educate the public that equity between all groups is never possible and has never happened in the entirety of human history at any time or any place. The fact that the equity goal is vague and the goalposts are always moving is the feature, not the bug.
 

 

[Guardian]

Equity as used by the left is racism.

[timberlin]

1 hour ago, kaputt said:

Scary stuff when you really read between the lines.

I continue to stand by the fact that the real extremism threat to this country is far left extremism packaged behind nice words like diversity, inclusion, and my absolute favorite: EQUITY.

Anyone who believes in a free society should get shivers down their spine when they hear politicians, the military, private companies, etc... using the word equity. 

The problem is they don't really even care about how perfect equity would shake out in practice.  If they truly wanted equity, their end goal should be equal representation in all fields, which we know it isn't.  They obviously mean more minority/female representation in the desirable and high esteem career fields within the military (i.e. aviation), but they seem to care little about the less glamourous side. I highly doubt we'll see female applications at MEPS turned away from the personalist and medical positions they currently predominantly occupy and offered only MX or CE to even out those demographics as well.

[Majestik Møøse]

What did you guys think of Gen Milley’s comments about woke culture and critical race theory? I thought they were pretty reasonable, and i also think that Laura Ingram went off the deep end. Also, Gaetz is a doucheclown.

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

What did you guys think of Gen Milley’s comments about woke culture and critical race theory? I thought they were pretty reasonable, and i also think that Laura Ingram went off the deep end. Also, Gaetz is a doucheclown.

Agree on all points. 

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

What did you guys think of Gen Milley’s comments about woke culture and critical race theory? I thought they were pretty reasonable, and i also think that Laura Ingram went off the deep end. Also, Gaetz is a doucheclown.

Agreed on Ingram and gaetz. But hugely object to putting  CRT trash like that on the reading list just to be "well read."  I noticed that Marx, Lenin, etc.. aren't on there. Which is a good thing because those are bad ideas and antithetical to fundamental American principles. 
 

We should know what CRT is, but only for purposes of debunking it. Featuring critical race theory on the chiefs reading list is a de-facto endorsement, and I would bet the good general was "strongly encouraged" to include those titles by administration officials who have a vested interest in this ideology that goes much deeper than being "well-read" and "understanding the American people"

Edited June 25, 2021 by Pooter

[Prozac]

5 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Agreed on Ingram and gaetz. But hugely object to putting  CRT trash like that on the reading list just to be "well read."  I noticed that Marx, Lenin, etc.. aren't on there. Which is a good thing because those are bad ideas and antithetical to fundamental American principles. 
 

We should know what CRT is, but only for purposes of debunking it. 
 

 

Interesting point of view. Would you agree with the idea that knowing one’s adversary is essential to cultivating an effective counter to it? That’s the contextual umbrella I understood Gen Milley’s statements to be under. 

[Pooter]

3 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Interesting point of view. Would you agree with the idea that knowing one’s adversary is essential to cultivating an effective counter to it? That’s the contextual umbrella I understood Gen Milley’s statements to be under. 

To your first point - Absolutely. As for Gen Milley's context, it could be a "know ones adversary" situation or it could be more of an endorsement of those ideas on his part. 
 

I air toward the second option when you look at what else makes up most of these reading lists: bonafide military history/strategy books and organizational/leadership self help books. I don't see him putting kendi on there just to play some devils advocate.. especially on a hugely hot button issue. 
 

There's also a third option: he was pressured to include it on the list, and "know thy enemy" is just the excuse he's using to try to pass it off. Probably why he's a four star and I'm not.