Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Well, actually, I suspect that last one has been sufficiently reflected upon in two of my more recent posts: Or, the FBI Is Lying and Death of a High Trust Society: The ‘Circling the Drain’ Edition. It is becoming undeniably clear that we have national “law enforcement” entities that are, at best, under the control of one of the political parties…the alternative is that they have gone rogue. That they don’t appear at all interested in promoting an unquestionably clean public image and, in fact, seem to be at least passive-aggressively promoting a secretive fear campaign against political enemies is even more chilling.
<< CRICKETS >>
Working backward through my title list, a post elsewhere titled “Who decides?” (via Instapundit) a few days ago got me thinking of those willfully ignorant among us. The discussion started around this:
NEW – Biden’s new “disinformation” czar wants “trustworthy verified people” like her to be able to “add context” to other people’s tweets.
To which the author noted:
Who decides who is trustworthy enough to provide context on a tweet? …
Everyone likely has people they trust to make those determinations. The problem is that not everyone trusts the same people. While Nina Jankowicz may, for example, trust CNN or CBS News, I don’t. I don’t generally find them particularly trustworthy.
There are other news sources I personally favor, but I’m sure Jankowicz disagrees.
So who gets to decide?
The problem here is that it is too easy to set this up as an honest disagreement between sources and world views. The bifurcation of news and truths since “Trump” is sad fiction. The intellectual contortionism it takes to believe almost anything as “reported” by the CNN/MSNBC side of things is an insult to thinking third-graders everywhere. (I saw Chuck Todd interviewed on a morning show yesterday or the day before almost choke on his ridiculous planted talking point that the Saudis were to blame for our high prices at the pump. Almost felt sad for that pathetic little man. But I digress.)
Much like when one of our locals claimed in a total vacuum of supporting information that “I have not found Powerline to be a reliable source of information…”, I fully reject that Nina Jankowicz, or anyone she is likely to choose to assist her, is capable [of] intellectually honesty…by all indications, she is unwilling and/or unable to identify the truth and pass it on to her subjects except by the happy (and rare) accident that some minor detail lines up with the current progressive narrative. In all other cases, she and her ilk are completely and reliably incurious. Worse, and to no one’s surprise here, they are prone to – not “add context” but – actively and demonstrably lie about the exact issues they claim to be czar-ing the disinformation out of.
My fun example today comes from none other than Powerline:
… pointing out that Ilhan Omar married her brother on paper to ease his immigration [issues is a form] of “Russian disinformation.”
For those interested in the longer story, with a special thanks to Flicker for playing along last August, I will point you to the rather substantial and well-reasoned non-Russian-disinformation behind the “married her brother” story, but here I do enjoy the simple demonstration of just how pathetic the reliable incuriosity of media outlets can be:
Since August 2016 we have reported voluminous — I would say conclusive — direct and circumstantial evidence that Omar married her brother. My Somali friends who know the parties have confirmed it several times over. When the Star Tribune assigned two excellent reporters to review the evidence in its June 2019 story, they couldn’t find a single piece of evidence to support Omar’s indirect denial (i.e., imputation of bigotry to the paper for pursuing the story).
But, hey, Nina knows best. Right?
I will end with the closing sentiments from the Tilting at Windmills link reference above:
At the heart of all of this, we have to remember that if we’re going to start policing thought, allowing certain actions by the right people and not those same actions by the wrong sort, someone had to be the arbiter of which is which.
It’s easy to be fine with that when you’re convinced you and yours will always be in charge, but I wouldn’t count on it always being that way, which is why these ideas should be universally terrifying.
The fact that one side is openly proposing them, however, is another matter entirely.
We are already feeling the effects of the reliably incurious, willfully ignorant, and just plain evil like The Iron Heel they are…and “one side is openly proposing” even more. (Well, one side plus some help. Thanks, Liz.) When does the chill become too much?
Into the abyss…Published in