The Anointed And De-Platforming (Why Google, Facebook, Twitter And YouTube Are Starting To Suck): Part Five

AIM’s ad does much more than cause monetary harm–. It likewise promotes physical harm to those who follow its dangerous guidance. The Physicians Committee therefore requests that FTC permanently prohibit AIM from disseminating. Triggering the dissemination of, the advertisement at problem and need AIM to provide a public retraction of and restorative statement regarding the ad.

As I make sure you know, some scientists recently examined the research studies on meat and health and concluded there’s little to no evidence meat causes heart disease or cancer. Nina Teicholz blogged about the research study and the reaction in the Los Angeles Times: The red meat research studies utilized one such review system, understood as GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations). In appropriately prioritizing clinical trials over observational research, GRADE always pushed epidemiology off its pedestal, and this triggered the GRADE team of 40-plus scientists from more than 10 countries to conclude that lowering your consumption of meat is very unlikely to make you healthier.

The nutrition facility went crazy. Even prior to publication of the Annals documents, 14 heavyweights in the field signed a letter requiring a preemptive “retraction” of the review. All the signers were members of a group called the True Health Initiative that supporters for a plant-based diet.

Well, of course they freaked out. When people dare to disagree with them, that’s what The Anointed do. I’ve discussed before that whenever I require a best example of The Anointed in action, Dr. David Katz mores than happy to require. Here’s a recent tweet from Katz:

How do they validate lying about known truths and trying to silence other scientists who explain those recognized realities? Simple: by adopting the postmodernist mindset I’ve been composing about in this series of posts. According to postmodernists:

Just take a minute to cover your head around that. Researchers disagree with each other all the time. That’s how it’s supposed to be. That’s how science advances. The researchers who produced the meat will not kill you study aren’t accused of fabricating their data. They’ve simply reached a conclusion the vegan wackos don’t like. So PCRM is requiring the Annals of Internal Medicine be required to pull back the research study. Here’s a direct quote from the petition:

If you’re a supposed researcher but believe people should not eliminate animals to eat them, adopting the postmodernist viewpoint should be rather liberating. You no longer have to deal with those frustrating realities. You no longer need to think about studies revealing that consuming meat doesn’t cause heart disease or cancer. Due to the fact that if you feeeeeel that eating meat is incorrect, then by gosh, it’s incorrect … and any lies you need to tell or any accusations you have to make to frighten individuals away from meat are now completely acceptable. After all, you’re conserving the oppressed animals– and if that requires silencing the individuals who disagree with you, well, that’s okay. The greater good is at stake.

He’s cheering the vegan wackos at PCRM for asking the federal government to close down scientific debate.

Anyone who’s looked at the research studies on meat and health understands the conclusions are all over the place, as I stated in this post. If Katz and the PCRM don’t understand that, they’re clinical illiterates. I’m quite sure they’re not clinical illiterates (although the stopped working NuVal system designed by Katz ranked sugar-laden soy milk as far much healthier than a chicken breast), which means when they state there’s frustrating proof that meat triggers disease, they’re just flat-out lying.

  • There is no objective truth.
  • Reason and logic are unimportant.
  • Feelings are more crucial than factor.
  • Language is not a tool we use to recognize the truth; it’s a weapon to be wielded.
  • It’s perfectly acceptable to identify those who disagree with you as racists, sexists, etc.– the charges need not be real, merely effective.
  • In the hands of the “bad” people, totally free speech can cause actual harm.
  • To bring back “real flexibility,” freedom of speech need to be withdrawn from those who support the oppressors, even unknowingly.

For another example of the mindset at work, here’s a tweet by Kevin Bass, a big fan of the “cholesterol kills!” theory:

Back in the day, universities acted as a bulwark against such childish thinking by demanding mental rigor from their trainees. The postmodernists invaded the universities. Now childish thinking is encouraged by many teachers. It’s a “various method of knowing,” ya see.

Sure, cite the realities. Make the rational argument. Just keep in mind that you’re dealing with people who aren’t the least bit persuaded by logic or evidence. Yes, they’ll occasionally mention a study or whatever, but don’t expect them to evaluate it logically and even understand it. They’re not pointing out the research study as part of a sensible argument. They’re merely shooting a weapon. If you mention a huge defect in the research study, or mention that the study in fact negates their argument, they do not care. That just implies the weapon misfired. They’ll drop it and get another one.

That’s typical of the postmodern cancel culture. If you disagree with me, you are immediately an evil individual, you should have any bad thing that happens to you, and you are worthy of to be silenced. Only the viewpoints I concur with must be allowed any public forum.

Man, I guy believe the way you vegans are okay with killing all those eliminating critters in the farm fields and ruining the planet messing up so you simply feel good about yourself great eating a soybean burger. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You plainly don’t care about animals or the environment like I do.

It’s not a video game to scientists who’ve been hounded out of their jobs for disputing the postmodernist narrative. For my final post in this series, we’ll look at a book that deals with that topic.

BOOM! The head takes off.

If need be, they will merely make @ #$% up.

Here’s Bass proving he’s a major Basshole by tweeting a reaction to the news that Dr. Berry’s home was harmed by fire:

You’re going to run into more and more of these people if you spend any time disputing problems on social media (or in real life). Offered everything we’ve covered in this series of posts, I ‘d suggest keeping a few things in mind when dealing with people contaminated by postmodernism and the cancel culture:

Because postmodernists feel totally free to reject factor and neglect those little annoyances called “realities,” they can just embrace a position that feeeeels ethically exceptional, then presume anybody who does not support the position needs to be evil … rather than being a realist.

Debate a postmodernist, and they’ll toss out all type of “realities” that merely aren’t true. Once again, we’re talking about individuals who don’t believe in objective truth and who view words as weapons, not tools to recognize the reality. So don’t be amazed when they tell you numerous research studies have actually shown that meat triggers colon cancer! If you challenge the “realities”– say, asking for some sort of evidence– they’ll most likely overlook the challenge and attempt to alter the argument.

That part is factual. We move to the enjoyable part, which would be something like …

It was intriguing when I found myself debating him on censorship and whether Facebook prohibiting a low-carb diet plan group is simply a matter of “editorial focus.” (Facebook, obviously, has no “editorial focus.” There are groups for vegans, predators, Jews, Catholics, atheists, Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, communists, and so on, and so on. They run out of an “editorial focus” than the bookstore on Amazon.)

Yes, I’m sure that’s how science advances– and by requiring censorship and prison terms for those who disagree with him, Bass has shown himself an extremely excellent scientist indeed.

Do not bother. Don’t go on defense– that’s what they anticipate. Rather, go on offense and explain why the postmodernist’s position makes him an evildoer. You don’t need to in fact believe the postmodernist is an enemy, you comprehend. You simply need to take that position for the fun of it. Then stand back and watch the disaster.

Because it makes them feel morally exceptional while excusing them from dealing with tough realities, Dennis Prager wrote a column in which he opined that individuals adopt radical-left positions. I agree. It’s easy-peasy to offer a speech excoriating grownups for not dealing with climate change to your complete satisfaction … without having to handle the reality that we can not perhaps eliminate nonrenewable fuel sources (yet) without crashing the world’s economies. It’s easy-peasy to support Free Health Care and Free College For All! … without having to discuss how a country already running trillion-dollar deficits will spend for the “free” stuff. It’s easy-peasy to insist that individuals shouldn’t consume meat because innocent animals are eliminated … without needing to deal with the truth that many animals are killed to raise crops.

I confess: I do this now and then, simply to watch a postmodernist’s head blow up. Keep in mind, you’re dealing with people whose belief system is based completely on a feeeeling of moral superiority. You’ll never create a rational argument to shake that belief. You’ll never encourage the postmodernist you’re not an evil individual, just somebody who deals with truth and truths.

So do not be shocked when you make what you believe is a logical, practical argument, just to have your debate challenger reveal that you’re clearly a racist, sexist, animal-murderer, planet-killer, tool of the big bad meat market, or whatever. That’s the Alinsky strategy at work: if you can’t discuss your challenger on the facts, alter the argument by calling him a racist instead.

Which causes …

The subjectivist thinkers who taught that logic isn’t appropriate and feelings matter more than reason didn’t develop illogical individuals who are unsusceptible to realities, naturally. They’ve constantly been around. More than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle discussed that some people make choices based upon factor and logic, while others make decisions based upon emotions.

I advised Bass my degree is in journalism, which consisted of studying topics like censorship and editorial focus. By continuing to argue with me, he was breaching his own rule about bowing down before people with degrees. I paraphrased one of his own tweets, something to result that the viewpoints he forms based on Google searches don’t equal my degree.

If you pick to obtain my approach, just keep hammering home how evil the postmodernist’s habits or position is. Don’t relent. Ignore any protestations or offers of evidence that no, no, no, the postmodernist is a Good Person. Do what they do: keep insisting they’re awful individuals. Eventually (most likely quicker) you’ll be blocked. Consider that a triumph in an enjoyable plot and happen with your day.

What the subjectivists did was persuade people that making decisions about what is and isn’t real based upon feeeeelings is proper. The postmodernists then took that ball and ran with it, supplying a reasoning for presuming anybody who disagrees with you is evil and must be silenced– since if that’s what you feeeeel, it must be true.

Goodness. I was under the impression that diet and health science was far from settled, with phds and doctors disagreeing with each other all the time. Apparently Kevin Bass (and just Kevin Bass) is so talented and brilliant, so familiar with all the research study and all its implications, he is 100 percent particular that his opinion on the matter is 100 percent appropriate– and anyone who disagrees with him must be charged with a felony and tossed in jail.

Once again, I was under the impression the”Cholesterol Kills!”theory was far from shown. Numerous people, myself consisted of, have had “high” cholesterol for decades, yet reveal zero calcium on a coronary calcium test. Kevin Bass is 100 percent sure he’s 100 percent proper that cholesterol causes heart disease, and anybody who disagrees is triggering individuals to die … so it’s good if that person’s house burns.

If you’re feeling mischievous, you can have a helluva lot of fun by giving up reasoning and reason and arguing exactly like they do.

Don’t be upset, and don’t get sucked in. The label actually has nothing to do with anything you stated or any position you’ve taken. Believe me, the postmodernist chosen you’re a wicked individual prior to the debate even started. They do not care about realities, and the childish belief in their own moral superiority is all they really have.

Like lots of individuals infected with the postmodernist mindset, Bass isn’t exactly a paragon of consistency. He likes to remind people in his tweets that by gosh, he has a degree in this field, and those of us who don’t have no service arguing with him. We should bow down before the degree.

Logic, facts and reason will bounce off their heads like little rubber bullets.

He responded by obstructing me. That’s what occurs when you face postmodernists with arguments they can’t respond to.

Eventually, they will start insisting you’re a wicked individual.

: I’ve had vegans inform me that by consuming meat, I’m contributing to global warming– and I’m animal killer too. I respond that by consuming soybean hamburgers, they’re responsible for countless animals being eliminated in soybean fields that require chemical fertilizers that are destroying the planet, then those soybean burgers are trucked all over the country in gas-guzzling trucks, hence adding to international warming and more messing up the planet.

Considering that this series handled the postmodernist beliefs motivated by the subjectivist thinkers–. I happened to have my two friends in town for a check out while writing it–. We rapidly worked up our version of The Philosophers Song by Monty Python.

< iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" enable="accelerometer. Autoplay. Encrypted-media. Gyroscope. Picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen > < div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom" > < div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_32 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="" data-a2a-title="The Anointed And De-Platforming (Why Google, Facebook, Twitter And YouTube Are Starting To Suck): Part Five" > < a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target =" _ blank" > < a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target =" _ blank" > < a class="a2a_button_email" href="" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target =" _ blank" > < a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="" > < img src="" alt="Share" >

As I’m sure you know, some researchers recently examined scientists just recently analyzed meat and health and concluded there’s little to no evidence meat causes proof disease or cancerIllness Anybody who’s looked at the research studies on meat and health understands the conclusions are all over the location, as I recounted in this post. If you’re an expected researcher however believe individuals shouldn’t eliminate animals to consume them, adopting the postmodernist viewpoint needs to be rather liberating. Like many individuals infected with the postmodernist state of mind, Bass isn’t exactly an apotheosis of consistency. Dennis Prager wrote a column in which he believed that people embrace radical-left positions due to the fact that it makes them feel ethically remarkable while excusing them from dealing with difficult truths.