From Dan O'Donnell: Bill Penzy is a Massive Hypocrite

Facebook Censorship: Can’t Criticize Transgenderism

This speaks for itself as an example of how transgenderism has become an intolerant orthodoxy in large sectors of U.S. society.

Update

The above was posted on our Facebook timeline, and embedded here.

Facebook censored it on our timeline. So here is the post for all to see:

Russian Facebook Influence: Coming Down on Both Sides

In the Woody Allen movie “Bananas,” one scene has U.S. paratroopers flying down to intervene in the fictional Central American republic of San Marcos. The dialogue:

• First Paratrooper: Which side are we on?
• Second Paratrooper: The CIA is not taking any chances this time. Half of us are for, half of us against!

In spite of all the hysteria, and hyperventilating, this is the story of the much ballyhooed Russian “intervention” in U.S. politics.

From the Washington Post:

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released about 3,500 Facebook ads purchased by Russian agents around the 2016 presidential election on issues from immigration to gun control, a reminder of the complexity of the manipulation that Facebook is trying to contain ahead of the midterm elections.

The ads, from mid-2015 to mid-2017, illustrate the extent to which Kremlin-aligned forces sought to stoke social, cultural and political unrest on one of the Web’s most powerful platforms. With the help of Facebook’s targeting tools, they delivered their disinformation to narrow categories of users – from black or gay users to fans of Fox News.

In doing so, Russia’s online army reached at least 146 million people on Facebook and Instagram, its photo-sharing service, with ads and other posts. Sometimes, Russian trolls also tried to fuel rallies and protests, endeavoring at one point in 2016 to pit Beyoncé fans and critics against each other in New York City.

You read that right. The Russians were on both sides.

“They sought to harness Americans’ very real frustrations and anger over sensitive political matters in order to influence American thinking, voting and behavior,” [Adam] Schiff said in a statement. “The only way we can begin to inoculate ourselves against a future attack is to see first-hand the types of messages, themes and imagery the Russians used to divide us.”

For its part, Facebook stressed in a statement: “This will never be a solved problem because we’re up against determined, creative and well-funded adversaries. But we are making steady progress.”

Note the assumption that this is a terrible problem that needs to be “solved.” The highly partisan Democrat Adam Schiff (along with Facebook) are doing what liberals have long chided conservatives for doing: hyping the sinister, evil machinations of the Red Menace.

In total, ads purchased by agents tied to the Kremlin-backed IRA reached about 10 million U.S. users around the 2016 presidential election, according to Facebook’s own estimates. But the ads are only part of the story: They sought to hook American voters into clicking “Like” or following Russia-created Facebook profiles and pages, which published organic content, like status updates, videos and other posts, which would later appear in users’ News Feeds.

Yes, we know that the sinister Russians scored a major propaganda coup by getting their posts “liked” on Facebook. We can’t imagine the damage that Facebook “likes” will do our republic.

Click on image to enlarge

In many cases, the Kremlin-tied ads took multiple sides of the same issue. Accounts like United Muslims of America urged viewers in New York in March 2016 to “stop Islamophobia and the fear of Muslims.” That same account, days later, crafted an open letter in another ad that accused Clinton of failing to support Muslims before the election. And other accounts linked to the IRA sought to target Muslims: One ad highlighted by the House Intelligence Committee called President Barack Obama a “traitor” who had acted as a “pawn in the hands of Arabian Sheikhs.”

For two years, Russian agents proffered similar ads around issues like racism and causes like Black Lives Matter. They relied on Facebook features to target specific categories of users. An IRA-backed account on Instagram aimed a January 2016 ad about “white supremacy” specifically to those whose interests included HuffPost’s “black voices” section.

At times, Russian agents also sought to influence Facebook users’ offline activities: One ad from the IRA-aligned page Black Matters promoted a March 26, 2016, rally against “confederate heritage,” which had 161 people saying they would attend. Another by Heart of Texas urged viewers to “honor your ancestors” and join a rally for the state to secede – a post that had been shared 266 times before Facebook removed Russian-generated content.

On Instagram, one of the IRA’s ads in February 2016 sought to target people believed to be police officers, firefighters and military officers, urging them to appear at a protest of Beyoncé outside of NFL headquarters. At the same time, another account — targeting black users — directed viewers to a pro-Beyoncé protest at the same location. Neither effort appeared to gain any traction, according to data supplied by the social giant to Democratic lawmakers. But it offered one example of the extent to which Russian trolls sought to exploit both sides of major national debates – including football players who knelt during the national anthem to bring attention to issues of racism.

The documents released Thursday also reflect that Russian agents continued advertising on Facebook well after the presidential election. Until August 2017, Russian-aligned pages and profiles advertised their opposition to immigrants, targeting a range of users, including those who appear to like Fox News. They marketed a page called Born Liberal to likely supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the data show, an ad that had more than 49,000 impressions into 2017. Together, the ads affirmed the fears of some lawmakers, including Republicans, that Russian agents have continued to try to influence U.S. politics even after the 2016 election.

Conclusion

The notion that the Russians somehow elected Trump gets no support at all from these ads. It’s true that after Trump because the nominee, the weight of the ads supported Trump and opposed Hillary. This could not have been because the Russians thought Hillary could win.

If they thought that, their analysts should be brought to the U.S. and installed as pundits in every major news organization.

Rather, they wanted to weaken Hillary, whom they viewed as the certain winner.

They, of course, would have nothing to fear from Hillary, associated as she was with the feckless, passive foreign policy of Barack Obama. Trump, on the other hand, they would have viewed as a loose cannon. Who would know what he might do?

But the efforts of a handful of geeks in St. Petersburg were pretty trivial. What defeated Hillary was her own defects as a person and a candidate. And the polarization in American politics is all “Made in the U.S.A.” The Russians’ efforts were not even a drop in the bucket.

Vandalizing of Anti-Abortion Display at Marquette in the News

It hasn’t been quite the fiasco the Assata Shakur mural was, but the vandalizing of an anti-abortion display (which has been approved by the university through normal channels) by leftist students (including members of the feminist campus group Empowerment) has gotten some attention.

• The Daily Caller. Notes that the College Democrats approved the defacing of the display.
• The Daily Caller. Notes that Empowerment, a recognized student group at Marquette, has applauded the vandalism, and said there is no need to tolerate anti-abortion opinions.
• Campus Reform. Also notes that the College Democrats approved the vandalism.
• Hypeline. Recounts basic facts of the case, and notes numerous other cases of vandalism and harassment directed at pro-life students at various universities.
• LifeNews.com. Also lists cases of vandalism by intolerant feminists at various campuses, and names one student who confessed on Facebook that she participated in the vandalism at Marquette.

More relevant, probably, because they have good penetration of the local market, are two reports on local TV news.

• WTMJ, Channel 4. Basic facts, and good interview with the vice president of Marquette for Life.
• WITI Channel 6. Says that “A group has taken responsibility for the defacement.” Not exactly true, but not exactly wrong either.

The issue now becomes: what will Marquette do in response? Will it discipline those responsible? Marquette’s incessant pandering to the campus left suggests the university will do nothing. But perhaps this case is so egregious that even the über-politically correct administration will have to come down on the side of free expression.

Petition in Support of Vandalized Anti-Abortion Display

From Catholics for Mission @ Marquette: a petition expressing support for the anti-abortion display that was vandalized by campus leftists week before last.

Astonishingly, two students who participated in the vandalism have admitted their actions on Facebook. It’s clear that the vandalizing was done by members of the Feminist group Empowerment, which issued a statement condoning the defacement. And the College Democrats (a group which traditionally has been more moderate than the hard leftists) has endorsed the vandalism.

All of which it is important for people to speak up and condemn the egregious attack on free expression.

Militant Students Defend Vandalism of Pro-Life Display at Marquette

The vandalism of a pro-life display at Marquette, lamented by the Young Americans for Freedom on their Facebook page, has attracted support from several people, who have defended the vandalism, and attacked the Young Americans for Freedom in vile terms in comments following the post.

This is a window into the virulent bigotry of the politically correct left on campus.

Social Media Censorship in Europe

Yes, the social media giants have promised to ban “hate speech” on their platforms in Europe. The obvious problem: any politically incorrect opinion is labelled “hate speech” by the authoritarian left.

Anti-Social Media

Attempt to Fire Warrior Blogger: Marquette Getting Pounded on Facebook

Marquette posts President Michael Lovell’s grossly hypocritical “A call for decency” attacking this blogger on the Marquette Facebook page, and the comment section explodes.

While a few comments support Lovell, the vast majority pound him for has lack of support for free speech and for the Catholic mission of Marquette.

See this post and the comments under it.

And the criticism of Lovell spills over in comments to posts that have nothing to do with this blogger.

For example, one about “Summer Studies / / Marquette University”

Another example: “See Yourself at Marquette University”

This is significant, since people who visit the Marquette page are not a group self-selected on the basis of their political views. Of course the people who comment on our case on the National Review site or the Breitbart site will tend to agree with us. But it seems those who post on the Marquette Facebook page do too.

One final note: At the moment, there are no “Guest Posts” on the page. There were several, pounding Marquette over its attempt to fire us, and they have been deleted.

Anti-Social Media

Feminist Harpies at Oxford (and on Facebook)

Surfing around The Spectator (U.K.) we happened on any article titled “Oxford’s new feminist hit squad.” It’s a group of bullies on Facebook whose reach extends into the Oxford student body, having the ability to marginalize those with even mildly politically incorrect attitudes.

The Spectator euphemistically calls the group “Country Living,” and it can indeed be found on Facebook.

It’s a closed group, but one need not be able to see the posts to see how intolerant the people running it are. From the group description:

Welcome to the Facebook group loosely affiliated with the Oxford University-based feminist zine (also online here http://cuntrylivingmagazine.tumblr.com/)! smile emoticon Anyone is free to join and contribute, but please take some time to read the guidelines first.

This is intended to be an intersectional, sex positive online space in which we can challenge patriarchy and share our experiences of oppression.

When commenting please bear in mind that in this space the voices of those who are typically marginalised and oppressed in wider society are prioritised. New members of the group, especially cis men: please take some time to read the posts and conversations here before participating.

This group is intended to be as safe a space as possible. Healthy debate is welcomed, but we do not want members of the group to feel threatened and/or marginalised and/or shouted down by people who do not have an understanding of oppression. No one is under any obligation to educate anyone else, especially if their experiences are being attacked or questioned. Just taking some time to read the threads is an educational experience in itself.

Please listen to accounts of lived experiences, reassess your view in light of responses from oppressed and/or marginalised people, and apologise if you offend/upset people with your views. If you are ignoring/talking over individuals with first hand experience of oppression, you will be warned about it. If you ignore that warning, you will be removed from the group. Derailing threads with #notallmen and so on is counterproductive and will result in a warning. Hateful and oppressive language will result in immediate removal from the group. Because this is a safe space, it’s also important that members don’t question the validity of an account of abuse and/or harassment.

If anyone here feels unsafe or threatened on here, please tag one of the admins (Georgiana Jackson-Callen, Nicole Antoinette, Alyson Cruise or Shaina Yang) in the relevant post or message one of us — we will do everything we can to rectify the situation.

If you believe that material you are posting may be triggering, please use a trigger warning (you can find advice on how and when to use those here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Trigger_warning) For sensitive material that is not triggering, please provide a brief content note (you can find advice on those here:

http://trigger-warning-guide.tumblr.com/triggers) If you’re not sure whether something needs a content/trigger warning, it’s best to err on the side of caution.

Helpful guides on privilege: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146, http://www.robot-hugs.com/privilege/, http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/02/4-ways-push-back-privilege/

How to respond when you’re called out on something: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/called-out-acknowledging-oppression/

Privilege list: http://privilege101.tumblr.com/post/5988512297/list-of-privileges-permanently-in-progress

The message to people who don’t agree with the extreme views here: shut up. This being a Facebook group, the administrators do have the power to shut up opinions they don’t like.  But they are working to extend that power over all of society.

Yet Another Faked “Racist” Incident on a College Campus

It has happened with some regularity: some “racist” incident on a college campus that was actually faked by leftist “diversity” activists in an attempt to goad the institution into pushing a leftist agenda. This one, a few months ago, was at the University of Chicago.

As described by The College Fix:

University of Chicago plays down the lie that provoked a federal investigation

A University of Chicago student who claimed his Facebook page was hacked and filled with racist and violent messages against him and another student has now admitted he faked the attack.

Intended to shame the school into making drastic changes around race and speech on campus, the hoax appears to have worked.

The students behind the ruse, the hoodwinked university and the school newspaper have argued that the hoax – which provoked a federal investigation – should not detract from fixing the school’s “culture of racial intolerance,” in the words of a petition demanding policy changes.

Anatomy of a Hoax

The hoax was the culmination of a long list of racial grievances leveled by the perpetrator, Derek Caquelin, and his friend and fellow activist Vincente Perez.

Indeed, before Caquelin admitted they made the whole thing up, Perez told The College Fix not to ask for more details on the racist Halloween incidents they alleged and instead focus on the hostile “culture” of the university.

The hoax started with an allegation against a shadowy hacker group that calls itself the UChicago Electronic Army, which has feuded with activists who circulated a list of men they claim were sexual threats on campus.

As reported by Chicago area media including Red Eye Chicago, Caquelin’s Facebook page was allegedly hacked by the group Nov. 18.

Caquelin initially said the hacked Facebook status was in retaliation for his online complaints about Halloween costumes depicting Mexican criminals and a corresponding push by Caquelin and Perez to address the concerns of minority students. The Facebook status also said Perez would be the next target.

The petition, co-written by Perez, called for the university to create a “campus climate survey” and “mandatory cross-cultural competency program,” as well as “clearly” lay out its responses to “racially insensitive actions,” incorporate racial and ethnic studies in the Core Curriculum and diversity the faculty, according to the Chicago Maroon.

The Fix could not reach Caquelin for comment.

In a hostile email exchange with The Fix days before Caquelin confessed to the hoax, Perez said: “Please do NOT try to focus on the individual students their identities and their costumes. This movement is about revealing the entire culture of intolerance at the University.”

Despite complaining about racist costumes in multiple Facebook posts and possessing a photo of the students who wore them, Perez said the issue was “not about the students who wore the costume, or the hacking, but about the culture that exists at UChicago where Admin does not address students concern for their safety adequately and promptly.”

Perez declined to refer Caquelin to The Fix for more details, saying it was a “disservice” to the activists “fighting for this culture to be challenged.”

Perez nonetheless shared the widespread media coverage frequently on his Facebook page in a bid to get visitors to sign his petition to the university.

Shortly after receiving a followup email from The Fix, Perez posted a screenshot of his response and claimed he was “exhausted” from responding to media inquiries: “This burden is unfair.”

Muted response to a hoax revealed

Campus leaders, even while acknowledging the hoax and the federal resources expended to investigate a fake threat, couldn’t bring themselves to call for any punishments against the students who cried wolf.

Instead, they endorsed the political agenda behind the hoax.

The university, which said Nov. 20 that the “hateful and anonymous Facebook posts” were part of a “larger pattern,” issued a weak retraction four days later.

“Based on our ongoing investigation we now are confident that the Facebook posting was not created by a hacker,” Karen Coleman, vice president for campus life and student services, told the community Nov. 24.

“That conclusion does not erase the seriousness of this episode, the harm it has caused to individuals and our broader community, or the consequences for those responsible,” Coleman said. “Whatever its purpose, the language used in this incident does not constitute discourse and will not be tolerated.”

Coleman said the school would host “special sessions” for students, faculty and staff who wanted to talk about the incidents and “get support.”

In a Facebook post the same day, Caquelin confessed to the hoax.

“Do not defend my name. I am behind this, and only I,” Caquelin wrote. “No others were involved, so I really would like to ask you to leave them alone. There is no excuse for hate, which includes what I did.”

The editorial board of The Chicago Maroon wrote Nov. 25: “The sentiments that existed before the Facebook post still ring true, and should be treated accordingly. The conversations surrounding diversity and inclusion on campus must continue in light of recent developments.”

The revealing of the hoax “should not de-legitimize the issues of racism that have been raised, or mitigate the seriousness with which they should be addressed,” the editorial said.

In fact, incidents like this should de-legitimize the “issues of racism” that have been raised by leftist activists.

If the evidence of racism is bogus, and the people pushing the cause are dishonest, rewarding these people by pandering to them is grossly irresponsible.

And the charade is made worse in that genuine racism is extremely rare among college students today, whether at Chicago or Marquette. So the activists have to find “racism” in the mere expression of politically incorrect opinions, or the lack of “sensitivity” to the overwrought sensibilities of the perpetually aggrieved or some “microaggression” real or imagined.

But college administrations, who lack the courage to tell the politically correct activists they are being silly, and who indeed welcome an excuse for more bureaucratic initiatives, are easy prey for the race (and gender and sexual orientation) hustlers.

Online Liberals More Likely to Block People Who Disagree With Them

Liberals like to claim that they are open-minded and tolerant, but nobody besides liberals believes that. Indeed, liberals’ claim to be open-minded and tolerant is itself a form of close-mindedness, based on the assertion that other people are less tolerant than they.

But now we have a Pew Poll with fairly extensive information on people’s behavior on social networking sites (Facebook, etc.), including information on who has blocked or otherwise excluded people because they disagreed with their political opinions.

So who is more likely to block somebody somebody on the basis of their political opinions? Liberals, of course.

The absolute percentage of liberals who have blocked somebody (16%) does not look large. But then a lot of Facebook users sign on very infrequently, and a lot of others have Facebook friends who pretty much always agree with them, or friends who just don’t post about politics (perhaps because they are not very political). So 16% is probably a very large proportion of the the users who actually find political content that they dislike on Facebook.

The corresponding number for conservatives is 8%.

It’s possible, of course, that conservatives do a better job of “friending” only people with whom they agree. But at the minimum, this data fails to give any support to the notion that liberals are more open-minded toward diverse opinions and points of view.

The Tolerant, Compassionate Left: Facebook Death Threat Against Vicki McKenna

Here is the story about it, and below is the screen capture of a nasty threat made against conservative talk show host Vicki McKenna.