Questionable Motives

August 10, 2020

Is censoring reality to support a BLM narrative causing real harm to real people in real life?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 10:25 am

From Heather McDonald, one of those pesky well educated people who thinks reality should have some say…

YouTube has already taken this video down for breach ‘community standards’, which is why there is a link here instead.

This is what happens when narrative trumps reality. We are fooled. And we are the easiest people to fool when we think we are being virtuous, acting as champions of the supposedly downtrodden. That’s why all of us need a reality check from time to time, to allow reality to arbitrate our beliefs about it, and to stop presuming a narrative can be believed first because it makes us feel good about ourselves and then have reality submit. That’s not how reality operates – it is, in fact, delusional thinking – but it is how faith-based thinking leads away from what’s true.


  1. I still remember when Google’s corporate motto was “Don’t be evil”.

    Now they routinely demonetize, shadow-ban and delete accounts that dare to question the official narrative. Ditto for Twitter and Facebook. It’s the equivalent of electronic book-burning. Thankfully, alternative forums like BitChute have sprung up to give voice to the disenfranchised.

    “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ― George R.R. Martin, “A Clash of Kings”

    Comment by Ron — August 10, 2020 @ 11:15 am | Reply

    • Thanks Ron.

      Comment by tildeb — August 10, 2020 @ 11:18 am | Reply

    • Dear tildeb and Ron,

      Heather Mac Donald has been (deemed to be) biased, misguided and misinformed on many fronts, in spite of her credentials and regardless of whether she should be censored or not.

      Here is an excerpt from an article entitled “Words Which by Their Very Utterance Inflict Injury: College students urging the punishment of speech that “wounds” risk silencing the causes they support”, published at

      In response, a group of student activists sent him a petition demanding a revised statement. They wrote, “If engaged, Heather Mac Donald would not be debating on mere difference of opinion, but the right of Black people to exist.” That is an inaccurate rendering of her views, which I know well, having disagreed with her for years on policing, which we both cover—Mac Donald’s explicit and oft-repeated position is that “there is no government agency more dedicated to the idea that black lives matter than the police,” a conclusion she reached after years of reporting on New York City, where a sharp decline in the murder rate, which she attributes to improved NYPD tactics, saved hundreds of would-be black murder victims, a trend she believes to have been exported to other cities through “the NYPD diaspora.”

      There are many solid critiques of her earnestly held positions (and many people of all races who basically agree with Mac Donald). Unfortunately, the petition signed by petitioners at the Claremont Colleges mostly raises and then begs the wrong questions.

      “Heather Mac Donald is a fascist, a white supremacist, a warhawk, a transphobe, a queerphobe, a classist, and ignorant of interlocking systems of domination that produce the lethal conditions under which oppressed peoples are forced to live,” it states. “Why are you, and other persons in positions of power at these institutions, protecting a fascist and her hate speech and not students that are directly affected by her presence?”

      The language is striking to anyone familiar with the critical race theorists, the Supreme Court cases that their scholarship drew upon, and the people who are typically punished when speech restrictions are successfully implemented in the United States. These students, who seek to weaken free speech norms, do not see how vulnerable to punishment their own speech would be under an alternative paradigm. Not only are they dubbing someone a “fascist,” a word the Supreme Court specifically held to inflict injury at its very utterance, they are doing so at a moment when there is a national movement urging the punching of fascists—and a White House and Congress that leans on authoritarian-inflected populism more than any in a generation, making it especially likely that new speech restrictions would be used to suppress dissent.

      It is similarly easy to see how another strategy of critical race theorists—the attempt to punish some speech by declaring it “group libel”—could be coopted to punish everything from pro-Palestinian activism to group insults like “fuck the police” or “fuck white tears,” or even analytic claims about “white fragility” or “cisgender privilege.”

      At times, the Claremont petitioners do recognize the value of free speech, if only by way of trying to qualify it. “Free speech, a right many freedom movements have fought for, has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions,” the students write. “It has not just empowered students from marginalized backgrounds to voice their qualms and criticize aspects of the institution, but it has given those who seek to perpetuate systems of domination a platform to project their bigotry.”

      In any case, I have been trying to analyze the costs and fallouts of extreme partisanship and diametrical opposition to shed some light on these thorny issues in my post entitled “Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity“, which has been continually expanded. Quoting my own writing from this said post as follows:

      There exist the balancing push-and-pull factors pertaining to the social aspects of people and society versus the technical aspects of organizational structure and processes of social media, insofar as behind the fight lie the deep fissure and persistent tension between the progressive and conservative factions of society in promulgating their respective narratives on the one hand, and the sociotechnical mediation that enables diverse voices and disparate ideologies to lay claim to freedom of speech on supposedly democratic forums such as the ones afforded by social media on the other hand. The fissure and tension stressing the relations(hips) between opposing factions in society can be dramatically intensified by the (re)production of misquotations, misinformation and disinformation, even more so under the shadow or influence of post-truth politics and demagogy. Within such a tension-filled atmosphere, social media, which play a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all and sundry partaking in the contemporary information ecosystem, are caught between respecting the right to freedom of expression on the one hand, and subordinating freedom of speech and participatory affordances to the social and legal ramifications of induced conflict, harassment, sedition or even insurrection on the other.

      You are welcome to give me your feedback at the comment section of my said post. In addition, please feel free to inform me if or when you think that I should include or incorporate some piece(s) of information, findings, statistics, critique and/or analysis into any of the twelve section(s) of my said post.

      Happy June to both of you!

      Yours sincerely,

      Comment by SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ — June 8, 2021 @ 6:32 pm | Reply

  2. Here’s a post by Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution is True about some of the effects on local business in Portland by the CHAZ occupation. Take note of the role of antifa and ask yourself what it might FEEL like to be targeted by the mob… not just directly by armed protestors but later put on a blacklist as a ‘KKK sympathizer’ because you tried to stand up to criminal and destructive behaviour on your premises. That’s the chilling effect of the Woke movement has in real life on real people causing real harm that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any version of social justice but its opposite injustice and everything to do with empowering by our tacit and sometimes active support of Orwell’s Big Brother. This is how this blank cheque support of BLM looks like in action and it comes about by trusting narrative over reality. The politics of it – Left or Right – is a diversion. Trusting the narrative first – having a religious kind of trust called ‘faith’ – leads here.

    Comment by tildeb — August 10, 2020 @ 12:05 pm | Reply

  3. Several points: notice how the counter argument to MacDonald’s data driven assessments is not an argument: it is moral pronouncement against her character using as many emotionally laden charges of prohibited discrimination as possible. That’s a clue.

    Free speech is a fundamental and necessary legal right for a liberal democracy. That’s why it’s under such profound attack. The goal of Critical Race Theory (CRT) is to destroy liberalism – the legal equality of individuals – and replace it with a Marxist model of equity between groups. Rather than install a dictatorship of the proletariat after destroying the bourgeoisie, the CRT model is to install a dictatorship of the anti-racists (who have coopted the term ‘progressive’ with a regressive ideology) over the racists, all of whom just so happen to be white. To accomplish requires the destruction of liberalism, the legal equality and autonomy of all individuals. So the legal understanding of what free speech actually is matters. Anti-racists must destroy this value systemically by changing the law to favour equity over equality. Whacking away at each liberal principle one chunk at a time using justifications like ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’ and ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ and other judicial words as if motivated only by social justice and improved treatment of victimized groups. Free speech is targeted so that speech can be legally subjected to vague ‘hate’ laws that themselves are based on ‘causing violence’ that looks identical to hurt feelings and offence (the Brits have written something like 200,000 non-criminal citations against those dastardly fascists who have caused ‘offence’). So the understanding of what free speech is places the right of free speech between impeding and compelling the speech of others… constrained by using speech to harm the same right of others. That’s a fundamental key stone liberal principle that must be torn down to achieve the right to determine ‘correct’ speech, compelled speech or silence, and that’s what we’re seeing today with the CRT goal to foster self-censorship in the name of all kinds of noble sentiments. The use of counter charges such as the accusation of racism is a tactic to use what is presumed to be free speech to undermine its use in criticism against CRT. That’s why it’s currently unconstitutional. But we see this mob bullying tactic clearly used – and to effect – against people like MacDonald not to respect what’s true but to to avoid having to deal with the data that stands in conflict with the claims carefully selected by those trying to promote critical race theory.

    Comment by tildeb — June 8, 2021 @ 11:15 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: