Suppression/Propaganda in Media

[Grizzly]

https://rumble.com/viydv1-mark-milley-knows-nothing-about-critical-race-theory-or-january-6.html?mref=23gga&mc=8uxj1

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley Knows NOTHING About Critical Race Theory or January 6

I'm finding more and more blurring the lines of topics this could fit also in the 2020 PRESIDENTIAL thread, if not others...


I know, I know sombul here will immanently judge where this is posted from and then label me as that.... go fuck yourselves.

[Elvis]

So we've witnessed the government-tech complex -- and it was only ever the one machine, most of Silicon Valley is just DOD fronts helmed by dork bitch beards who die never understanding their own triumphant careers -- learning to flex new muscles and rapidly coordinate the identification and removal of, well,

the curious metabiology of talking points hijacking human nervous systems through images and text.

I often think that's what Godlike Productions actually is, I'd rather believe this than accept that actual human beings could be so fucking dumb.

Thanks for the great read!

[Elvis]

Damn them!

Apparently, it's not about the "misinformation" it's about US sanctions and some connection between presstv and the Red Guard.

Use presstv.ir — same thing, in English and everything.

link: https://www.rt.com/news/527292-us-seize ... -websites/

[stickdog99]

https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/statu ... 8158749703

[JackRiddler]

.

So, wait a minute. Five states have actually passed insane new censorship laws targeting teachers and threatening to defund universities for free-speech activity; and this has been coupled with a raging new PR campaign in Red-Scare style. They base this on a vast exaggeration about something they have no clue about, 'CRT' (actually critical race studies), a grad-level and law school field that has been turned into this year's 'Cultural Marxism'. More such laws are in the works, and will no doubt be challenged in the courts, since it's not unlike the anti-BDS laws that Abby Martin was able to win a first case against.

This is an open-and-shut case of violating the Bill of Rights and, as the thread title has it: Supression/Propaganda in Media. Certainly seems to belong in this thread.

But apparently the problem for some (and Greenwald did this too in a shockingly bad column, worst piece of argumentation I've ever seen from him) now is that a general -- after he was accosted at a Congressional hearing for allowing 'crt' to take over the military by one of the most right-wing of Trump stalwarts (context matters) -- delivered an anodyne, standard defense of reading widely and thinking freely as the values of a liberal democracy or any university, including the military colleges. Hell, if only!

I'm finding more and more blurring the lines of topics this could fit also in the 2020 PRESIDENTIAL thread, if not others...

I know, I know sombul here will immanently judge where this is posted from and then label me as that.... go fuck yourselves.

Dinesh D'Souza, seriously? Label you as what, should be deeply embarrassed by the level to which you have descended? Luckily, with him, there is never any shortage of idiocy in the argument, so it's easy just to judge it just by that. And also by the now usual trivialization, misrepresentation, and denial of the presidential coup attempt and shut-down of the legislature on January 6th by fascist forces invited by the president to help reverse the results of the election he had lost.

.

[Grizzly]

JR

I'm afraid I'm at a loss, as I have no idea who Dinesh D'Souza, is.... And not sure what that's got to do with the fathead fuck, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley. And his forever manipulation under auspicious gaslighting.

[JackRiddler]

JR

I'm afraid I'm at a loss, as I have no idea who Dinesh D'Souza, is.... And not sure what that's got to do with the fathead fuck, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley. And his forever manipulation under auspicious gaslighting.

Look him up.

.

[Grizzly]

Look him up

I did look him up, I still don't see what the hell that has to do with Mark Milley. If you bothered to explain yourself instead of drive-by snipes, maybe I could understand your fevered response to your enemy. And what does that has to do with what I posted.

[JackRiddler]

.

If I bothered to explain myself? Excuse me, what did you explain? I responded to your post with about 5 times more than you wrote. It's about the views you expressed and cited and you didn't reply to any of it except for a side matter that triggered your familiar rage response.

Here, second chance -- this time, try reading:

.

So, wait a minute. Five states have actually passed insane new censorship laws targeting teachers and threatening to defund universities for free-speech activity; and this has been coupled with a raging new PR campaign in Red-Scare style. They base this on a vast exaggeration about something they have no clue about, 'CRT' (actually critical race studies), a grad-level and law school field that has been turned into this year's 'Cultural Marxism'. More such laws are in the works, and will no doubt be challenged in the courts, since it's not unlike the anti-BDS laws that Abby Martin was able to win a first case against.

This is an open-and-shut case of violating the Bill of Rights and, as the thread title has it: Supression/Propaganda in Media. Certainly seems to belong in this thread.

But apparently the problem for some [...] now is that a general -- after he was accosted at a Congressional hearing for allowing 'crt' to take over the military by one of the most right-wing of Trump stalwarts (context matters) -- delivered an anodyne, standard defense of reading widely and thinking freely as the values of a liberal democracy or any university, including the military colleges. Hell, if only!

I'm finding more and more blurring the lines of topics this could fit also in the 2020 PRESIDENTIAL thread, if not others...

I know, I know sombul here will immanently judge where this is posted from and then label me as that.... go fuck yourselves.

.

Do you even read what you write? Issuing preemptive fuck-offs to unknown potential respondents: how are you not looking for a fight?

[JackRiddler]

.

Trump doing his latest re-entry by backing the totalitarian push to impose continuous surveillance, recording, snitching, and swift discipline by firing on all teachers in the United States to make sure they do not relativize the greatness of the nation and its constitution or imply that racism may have played a role in its history.

BANS ON THE SLIPPERY 'CRT' ARE LAWS. THEY HAVE PASSED IN FIVE STATES. HELLO?

[...] Trump... [in his op-ed run by Real Clear Politics...] draws on recent state efforts to ban “Critical Race Theory” (CRT) calling for a nationalization of these dystopian state efforts to declare critical race analysis a thought crime. As Trump writes about the CRT bans, “every state legislature should pass a ban on taxpayer dollars going to any school district or workplace that teaches critical race theory…and Congress should seek to institute a federal ban through legislation as well.” Of course, any thought crime would need to be punished through an enforcement mechanism, and an effective ban on CRT requires constant vigilance on the part of students and parents, who will be expected to rely on Big Brother-style surveillance to coerce teachers and professors into silence – monitoring every document, every utterance, and every assigned reading. As Trump explains in his op-ed:

“Parents have a right to know exactly what is being taught to their children. Last year, many parents had the chance to routinely listen in on classes for the first time because of remote learning. As students return to the classroom, states need to pass laws requiring that all lesson plans have to be made available to parents — every handout, article, and reading should be posted on an online portal that allows parents to see what their kids are being taught. Furthermore, in many places, there are rules preventing students from recording what teachers say in class. States and school boards should establish a ‘Right of Record.’”

And for teachers who violate CRT bans, Trump has an answer for that too: termination. As he proclaims in his op-ed: “States need to break the tenure monopoly in public K-12 schools…Educators who are alienating children from their own country should not be protected with lifelong tenure; they should be liberated to pursue a career as a political activist.”

Trump’s attack on teachers draws on fascistic eliminationist ideology, which depicts political “enemies” as a fundamental and existential threat to the nation that endangers its very existence, and which needs to be rooted out and burned away:

“Make no mistake: The motive behind all of this left-wing lunacy is to discredit and eliminate the greatest obstacles to the fundamental transformation of America. To succeed with their extreme agenda, radicals know they must abolish our attachment to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and most of all, Americans’ very identity as a free, proud, and self-governing people. The left knows that if they can dissolve our national memory and identity, they can gain the total political control they crave.”

For those who don’t know the difference between conservatism and fascism, Trump’s statement above isn’t garden-variety conservatism. Conservatism values a nation’s traditions and history for its own sake, but recognizes the right of individuals to disagree without suggesting that those with whom we disagree are a threat to the nation that needs to be eliminated. Trump’s rhetoric ventures into fascistic territory, alluding to need to identify and eliminate existential threats to the nation and its existence, while also maintaining plausible deniability by failing to explicitly call for murder, vigilante violence, or mass incarceration against alleged “enemies” of the state. Such language has the dual advantage for fascistic ideologues like Trump of mainstreaming fascistic ideology, while allowing him to deny that he’s trafficking in dangerous and extremist ideas. In this case, the eliminationism he’s calling for doesn’t involve concentration camps and gas chambers, but instead a youth and parental coordinated mass surveillance state that destroys freedom of critical thought, inquiry, and expression.

[Marionumber1]

The CRT bans are of course ridiculous, but I don't see all of these proposed measures as problematic, particularly the ones to ensure that parents know what their children are being taught and allow in-class recordings (unless doing so would violate two-party consent laws in the jurisdiction). For whatever ways those measures can be misused to "punish" teachers who defy problematic policies, they can also be used to hold accountable teachers who are problematic themselves. I see the real problem as being the bans themselves, whereas the impact of greater transparency is relatively neutral and can be used for a good or bad cause depending on the situation.

Invasive policies like the below, of course, are inexcusable (and should be considered by anyone who considers DeSantis an anti-establishment hero for his COVID policies, rather than perhaps wondering why it seems to primarily be right-wing authoritarians who are allowed to buck the lockdown agenda here in the US):

State university faculty, students to be surveyed on beliefs
Gov. Ron DeSantis suggested that budget cuts could be looming if universities and colleges are found to be “indoctrinating” students.

By Ana Ceballos
Published Jun. 22

TALLAHASSEE — In his continued push against the “indoctrination” of students, Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday signed legislation that will require public universities and colleges to survey students, faculty and staff about their beliefs and viewpoints to support “intellectual diversity.”

The survey will discern “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented” in public universities and colleges, and seeks to find whether students, faculty and staff “feel free to express beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom,” according to the bill.

The measure, which goes into effect July 1, does not specify what will be done with the survey results. But DeSantis and Sen. Ray Rodrigues, the sponsor of the bill, suggested on Tuesday that budget cuts could be looming if universities and colleges are found to be “indoctrinating” students.

“That’s not worth tax dollars and that’s not something that we’re going to be supporting moving forward,” DeSantis said at a press conference at a middle school in Fort Myers.

University faculty members have worried the new measure could create a chilling effect on their freedom of speech. Democratic lawmakers also have argued the bill might allow politicians to meddle in, monitor and regulate speech on campus in the future.

DeSantis, however, said the intent of the measure is to prevent public universities and colleges from becoming “hotbeds for stale ideology.”

“It used to be thought that a university campus was a place where you’d be exposed to a lot of different ideas,” DeSantis said. “Unfortunately, now the norm is, these are more intellectually repressive environments. You have orthodoxies that are promoted, and other viewpoints are shunned or even suppressed.”

No details offered

The governor did not name specific state universities or colleges with this problem. He was broad in his accusations about the higher education system and used vague anecdotes to justify the need for such a survey.

For instance, the governor said he “knows a lot of parents” who are worried that their children will be “indoctrinated” when they go off to college, and that universities are promoting “orthodoxies.” But he did not offer specifics on those claims.

Officials at some of the state’s major universities, including Florida State University and Florida International University, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the governor’s claims.

The University of Florida issued a statement that upheld the Gainesville-based school as a “marketplace of ideas where a wide variety of opinions are expressed and independent inquiry and vigorous academic deliberation are valued.”

“We believe the survey will reflect that, and we look forward to widespread participation across campus,” the statement said.

But in what appeared to be a coordinated effort, Senate President Wilton Simpson, R-Trilby, and House Speaker Chris Sprowls, R-Palm Harbor, slammed universities for lacking a “diversity of thought.”

Simpson, speaking at a state university system’s Board of Governors meeting on Tuesday in St. Petersburg, said there appear to be “socialism factories” in the state’s public university system.

“We always hear about the liberal parts of the university system, and we don’t hear so much of that from the college system,” Simpson said.

Sprowls echoed some of that sentiment at the governor’s press conference.

“As the governor said, we are at great risk, as a nation and as a state, on the lack of intellectual diversity that is on our university campuses,” Sprowls said. “We have decided that one ideological standard will win the day, but the thing is we’re losing because we’re not having real conversations.”

Debate during the legislative session

In House and Senate committee discussions before the bill was passed, Democratic lawmakers were concerned Republican leaders would use the survey’s results against higher education institutions.

Sen. Lori Berman, D-Boynton Beach, asked Rodrigues, R-Estero, if the information could be “used to punish or reward colleges or universities?” She wondered: “Might faculty be promoted or fired because of their political beliefs?”

Rodrigues said no. But the language in the bill, and the statements made Tuesday, do not back that assertion. The bill also offers no assurances that the survey’s answers will be anonymous, and there is no clarity on who can use the data and for what purpose.

What is specified is that the state university system’s Board of Governors and the State Board of Education will be required to select or create an “objective, nonpartisan, and statistically valid survey,” presumably through the boards’ public procurement or rule-making process.

In addition to the survey, the measure DeSantis signed into law will bar university and college officials from limiting speech that “may be uncomfortable, disagreeable or offensive,” and will allow students to record lectures without consent for educational purposes or to support a civil or criminal case against a higher education institution [note: Florida is a two-party consent state].

When debating the bill on the Senate floor, Rodrigues said students should be able to “shed a light” on wrongdoing in a classroom. Professors, however, would have civil cause of action against any student — whether they are an adult or a minor — if they publish the recording for any other purpose.

DeSantis did not go into all the details of the bill, but lauded it in broad terms, saying it will allow “robust First Amendment speech on our college and university campuses.”

“I think that having intellectual diversity is something that is very, very important,” DeSantis said.

DeSantis’ push to promote “intellectual diversity” and competing ideas on college campuses comes two weeks after he championed a ban on specific lessons and discussions in K-12 public schools related to racism’s reach in American society.

At DeSantis’ request, the State Board of Education voted to bar lessons and discussions on the concept of critical race theory and “The 1619 Project.”

None of Florida’s school districts taught the theory before the ban, state education officials acknowledged. But DeSantis, leading up to his reelection bid in 2022, has railed against critical race theory, a legal academic concept that examines systemic racism in American institutions and policies, because he says it is an attempt to indoctrinate children against the United States.

[JackRiddler]

The CRT bans are of course ridiculous, but I don't see all of these proposed measures as problematic, particularly the ones to ensure that parents know what their children are being taught and allow in-class recordings (unless doing so would violate two-party consent laws in the jurisdiction). For whatever ways those measures can be misused to "punish" teachers who defy problematic policies, they can also be used to hold accountable teachers who are problematic themselves.

Are you mad? This would be the end of the teaching profession. Seriously. And you know that's what is desired by the worst people in the world, the 'administrators' and 'reformers' (Gates, Zuckerberg, et al.) and tech contractors (Google etc.) of the educational sector. They envision having a handful of teachers who are more performers than anything else on video play-acting for several hundred students at a time, with the grading and 'evaluation' outsourced to Lithuanians and Indians at minimum wage, as a stage before it is (sooner or later) completely surrendered to The Algorithm. Surveillance of the teachers will one-hundred-percent go together with total surveillance of the students.

Zoom during Covid times is already a disaster, and threatens to destroy whatever was left functioning in the school system. But are you seriously saying that cameras and audio should be set up in physical classrooms, perforce? And the feed made available to all? Oh, my god! Everyone's going to have some kind of problem with the teacher! Every neurotic parent, every parent who plays Future Success Manager, every fucking religious nut is going to terrorize them or hound them out of the job. They could completely erase the CRT laws (which are EXTREME violations of educational integrity and speech rights) and just the camera and recording alone would guarantee that everyone would self-censor themselves to the point of saying NOTHING ANYMORE. The good news is, there will be major grade inflation. Ha. But that will last only as long as there are any actual teachers left. It will end up as I'm describing above. Trump was totally on board with this, this is what DeVos was all about, this is what's aimed at with 'Phoenix University' and most of the 'remote teaching' models.

Please rethink this. The trope of the bad teacher is used to demolish the system, not to actually eliminate bad teachers. Mostly it is used to crush teachers' unions and lower the number of teachers overall, and replace them with more administrators and consultancy-fakers. In the final stage, even most of the latter will be replaced with thinking machines.

Of course there should be no automatic recording in classrooms. The faculty are the rightful sovereigns of educational institutions. They should be electing their chairs and principals, or have co-principals (let's say, with one appointed by the municipality) and fewer administrators. All administrators should be required to teach a minimum of one course or class per week. (This is what my ideal dictatorship would force immediately, mwa ha ha.) Teachers should be setting curricula locally in coordination with a parent board, but with the teachers having the final say and their positions and incomes secured from parent whims. It is absolutely not the total right of the parent to control every aspect of school education. I'm certainly glad mine didn't!

.

[Elvis]

Classroom recording & streaming sounded to me like a good idea at first blush, until I thought about these ramifications, and what a nightmare being a teacher could become.

Every neurotic parent, every parent who plays Future Success Manager, every fucking religious nut is going to terrorize them or hound them out of the job. They could completely erase the CRT laws (which are EXTREME violations of educational integrity and speech rights) and just the camera and recording alone would guarantee that everyone would self-censor themselves to the point of saying NOTHING ANYMORE.

[Marionumber1]

Who said anything about "automatic recording", though? I certainly agree that the recording shouldn't happen continuously as an institutional policy, but I think there is value in allowing individual students (the people whom the educational system is meant to serve) to record certain occurrences in the classroom if they feel a need. There are what I consider to be justifiable instances of students recording awful things that teachers have said/done, like verbal abuse or racism and revisionist history. Do you think these aren't justifiable, and if so, what would the alternative be in a situation like that?

I do understand the risk of a chilling effect on teachers' academic freedom if they are worried about being recorded and unreasonably put under the microscope, so I would also support reasonable limitations on how these recordings can be used. Most of what you say, Jack, I am in complete agreement with. There is no doubt in my mind that these policy pushes from the right are an attempt to destroy, not fix, the educational system. I was just pointing out that I do not currently see all of those measures as problematic in their own right, just in how these bad actors are intending to put them to use.

[Elvis]

mario, I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.

I've never had a teaching job, but if I did, I'd probably be in trouble a lot.