Posts
The Woke World News reported that a French bus driver in the city of Bayonne was viciously attacked and beaten to a pulp by five men when he asked them to wear a mask, as required by law. The driver was unrecognizable to his wife and was taken off the ventilator.
Who were these "men"? Why did the MSM mudia refuse to disclose their race? Why was it my 95% hunch that they were migrants?
The MSM doesn't want to report on the assailant's race because it is determined that nothing interfere with its social agenda. Anything which calls into question its agenda is labeled "irrelevant." But of course the passengers knew, the wife knew, the neighbours knew. Six months from now the factually sanitized pundits in the press will be genuinely shocked at anti-migrant protests which they will then piously label as "racism."
They started this back in the late sixties when they substituted "inner city youth" for "young black man in his early 20's." To tell the truth, they argued, would "perpetuate a stereotype."
Bullshit. No it doesn't. What perpetuates a stereotype is how you react to the facts, not the facts themselves. If you say to yourself. "Typical! That's what Muslims (or Blacks) do" then you have resorted to a stereotype. But the facts didn't cause that. You caused it by your thinking.
If on the other hand, you say to yourself: "Hmmm, I keep on reading about Blacks (or Muslims) attacking people, I wonder why that is" then you have confronted a social reality and have tried to understand its social causes. Without the fact being published you would not do that because you wouldn't see a pattern and a problem in the first place. Race, religion, gender, is never "irrelevant" any more than the valence of atoms is "irrelevant"
This is why I began to despise the liberal press in the late 60's. They resorted to massaging realities to conform to their expectations. The result was a world in which nothing was connected to anything else. "People" just attacked people on buses or in the street for who know what reason. Oh Gee. Life is full of such "random violence." That's awful... but at least I don't have to think about whether my political vote or my economic cluelessness has created that "random" violence.
And it doesn't even have to as broad and general as that. Knowing that the men in this incident were Muslims, is it possible, just possible, that the driver made a derisive remark when he "requested" them to wear masks? That would not excuse the assault, but it would be part of the explanation for it.
By the way... I think it's Lincolnshire in the UK that has a "random violence" problem. Every week there were stories about "youths" attacking people in public places. Damn Jamaicans, right? No.... they were all ruddy faced Brit Boys. So like maybe Conservative Party policies are creating Clockwork Orange?
Sanitizing facts is no better than abusing them. We need more factual reporting.
©wcg
Who were these "men"? Why did the MSM mudia refuse to disclose their race? Why was it my 95% hunch that they were migrants?
The MSM doesn't want to report on the assailant's race because it is determined that nothing interfere with its social agenda. Anything which calls into question its agenda is labeled "irrelevant." But of course the passengers knew, the wife knew, the neighbours knew. Six months from now the factually sanitized pundits in the press will be genuinely shocked at anti-migrant protests which they will then piously label as "racism."
They started this back in the late sixties when they substituted "inner city youth" for "young black man in his early 20's." To tell the truth, they argued, would "perpetuate a stereotype."
Bullshit. No it doesn't. What perpetuates a stereotype is how you react to the facts, not the facts themselves. If you say to yourself. "Typical! That's what Muslims (or Blacks) do" then you have resorted to a stereotype. But the facts didn't cause that. You caused it by your thinking.
If on the other hand, you say to yourself: "Hmmm, I keep on reading about Blacks (or Muslims) attacking people, I wonder why that is" then you have confronted a social reality and have tried to understand its social causes. Without the fact being published you would not do that because you wouldn't see a pattern and a problem in the first place. Race, religion, gender, is never "irrelevant" any more than the valence of atoms is "irrelevant"
This is why I began to despise the liberal press in the late 60's. They resorted to massaging realities to conform to their expectations. The result was a world in which nothing was connected to anything else. "People" just attacked people on buses or in the street for who know what reason. Oh Gee. Life is full of such "random violence." That's awful... but at least I don't have to think about whether my political vote or my economic cluelessness has created that "random" violence.
And it doesn't even have to as broad and general as that. Knowing that the men in this incident were Muslims, is it possible, just possible, that the driver made a derisive remark when he "requested" them to wear masks? That would not excuse the assault, but it would be part of the explanation for it.
By the way... I think it's Lincolnshire in the UK that has a "random violence" problem. Every week there were stories about "youths" attacking people in public places. Damn Jamaicans, right? No.... they were all ruddy faced Brit Boys. So like maybe Conservative Party policies are creating Clockwork Orange?
Sanitizing facts is no better than abusing them. We need more factual reporting.
©wcg
No comments:
Post a Comment