Connect with us

censorship

150 Top Intellectuals Sign Open Letter Decrying Cancel Culture

Numerous public figures including Noam Chomsky and Salman Rushdie oppose totalitarian march of ” ideological conformity”.

Published

on

Getty Images

150 of the world’s top intellectuals, authors and activists have signed an open letter decrying leftist cancel culture, censorship and the totalitarian march of “ideological conformity.”

Signatories include liberal icon Noam Chomsky and ‘Satanic Verses’ author Salman Rushdie.

The letter, which was published by Harpers Magazine, is also signed by J.K. Rowling, Fareed Zakaria, Garry Kasparov, and, perhaps surprisingly, feminist activist Gloria Steinem.

“The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides,” states the letter, highlighting how “the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted” as a result of “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”

“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes,” states the letter.

This is creating a climate of risk aversion that is preventing anyone from dissenting from the monolithic consensus of social justice rhetoric, creating a “stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time,” according to the letter.

The letter highlights the fact that there are still some genuine “liberals” left in society who are willing to stand behind the increasingly endangered species of free speech.

However, some would ask where they’ve been hiding for the past three years since mass censorship, particularly by monopolistic social media giants, has been significantly ramped up.

The idea that an open letter will do much to stop the rampaging virus of cancel culture is also up for debate. Why don’t these intellectuals organize a major conference or a massive protest march to showcase their principles?

The irony of course is that if this letter gains any traction at all, its signatories will immediately become targets for cancellation from the unhinged, woke far-left.

The full letter is reprinted below.

——————————————–

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

censorship

News Outlets Announce They’re Abandoning “Objectivity” Because It’s Racist

A relic of “white newsrooms”.

Published

on

Diy13 via Getty Images

Top news outlets have openly announced that they’re abandoning “objectivity” because it’s a racist relic of “white newsrooms”.

No, this isn’t a Babylon Bee story.

The decision arose from a series of interviews conducted by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward.

“The media figures argued that journalists should include their own beliefs, biases, and experiences to convey truth, and that journalistic objectivity was either unrealistic or undesirable,” reports the Daily Caller.

Downie Jr. argued that objectivity distorts the news because the standard “was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world.”

Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, put it even more explicitly asserting, “objectivity has got to go.”

So there you have it.

“Diversity” is hostile to objectivity (truth) and for diversity to win, the truth must be abolished in favor of pushing narratives that benefit so-called minority groups (which are now endorsed and empowered by every major institution in America).

Downie Jr. insisted that covering both sides of a story, particularly one “about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects,” prevents individuals who belong to such groups “pursuing truth in their work.”

Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor at the Associated Press asserted that objectivity was a standard set by “White, educated, and fairly wealthy” people and should therefore be abolished.

Chris Menahan pointed out one such example of how journalists dispensing with objectivity actually serves to bury the truth.

The New York Times reported the claim of a 12-year-old girl being racially bullied by referring to her as “Black” and her bullies as “White”.

After it emerged that the claims had been totally invented and the story was a lie, they removed both “Black” and “White” from subsequent reporting of the story.

null

“What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever ‘objectivity’ once meant to produce more trustworthy news,” said Downie Jr., obfuscating the fact that jettisoning objectivity actually achieves the exact opposite of “truth-seeking”.

“Their statements are all objectively idiotic but they don’t even realize it because they’ve abandoned all objectivity!” remarked Menahan.

As we previously highlighted, fact-checking institute Poynter demanded that local news stations reduce coverage of stories that connect “Black and brown communities” to violent crime because it is fueling “systemic racism.”

They are literally at war with truth.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

PJW Shop

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Get early access, exclusive content and behind the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

censorship

German Public Broadcaster Hides Migrant Background of Terrorist to ‘Preserve Democracy’

More concerned about preventing “racism and xenophobia” than telling the truth.

Published

on

GREGOR FISCHER via Getty Images

A major German public broadcaster revealed that it had deliberately avoided mentioning the migrant background of a terrorist who killed two teenagers in order to prevent racism and ‘preserve democracy’.

A 33-year-old asylum seeker was arrested last week after murdering a 17-year-old girl and a 19-year-old man during a frenzied knife attack on a regional train service near the town of Brokstedt which left several others injured.

The culprit was described as a “stateless” Palestinian who had been living in Germany since 2014.

Ibrahim A., who had been working as an Amazon delivery driver, had numerous previous convictions and was released from pre-trial detention despite having threatened people with a knife in 2021.

Even the suspect’s own lawyer said he was surprised that Ibrahim had been released on January 19th.

With the German public reeling from yet another terror attack carried out by a migrant who had entered the country illegally, top broadcaster NDR was seemingly more concerned about maintaining politically correct narratives.

After Norddeutscher Rundfunk refused to detail the migrant background of the perpetrator, social media users called out the broadcaster for censoring the story.

NDR then ludicrously claimed that “the origin of the perpetrator is not relevant to the report” and that even mentioning such detail “leads to discriminatory generalizations or misinterpretations” and that “ridding our pages of racism and xenophobia” was more important.

The broadcaster’s final absurd claim, before they closed comments on the story entirely, was to assert that hiding the true background of the terrorist was “not censorship, but preservation of democracy,” a phrase which sounds like it was lifted directly from George Orwell’s 1984.

Striking a similar tone, regional interior minister Sabine Sütterlin-Waack demanded that “no room should be given to assumptions and speculations that are currently being circulated” on social media.

“This is not the first time the German establishment media has been taken to task over omitting facts from reportage some consider important context for helping the public build an informed opinion on the events of the day,” writes Oliver JJ Lane.

“Public broadcaster Tagesschau was criticised after their coverage of New Year’s Eve riots this year omitted the overwhelmingly migrant character of those known to be involved.”

Lane points out that top German news outlets also refused to report on the infamous mass molestation of women by migrant men in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015 until it became an international scandal.

As we previously highlighted, German media outlets responded to violent riots in Sweden last year mainly involving Muslim migrants by falsely claiming the unrest occurred as a result of “right-wing demos.”

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

PJW Shop

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Get early access, exclusive content and behind the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

censorship

Video: Leftist Talking Heads Claim Letting Trump Back On Facebook Will “Destroy Democracy”

“Do you want to be that institution that really helps take down the country?”

Published

on

Steve Watson

Screenshot

Reacting to the news that Facebook is to allow President Trump access to its platform after a two year ban, leftist ‘journalists’ on MSNBC claimed that it will “destroy democracy”.

Trump derangement syndrome is well and truly back, with New York Times editor Mara Gay, Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway, and historian Jon Meacham crying about Meta helping to “take down the country” by allowing Trump to return.

Conway said “They think, ‘Well oh, the fire’s out, so even though this guy has a cache of matches and gasoline that he carries around with him, let’s let him just play with matches again.”

Meacham described Facebook’s decision on Trump as a “devil’s bargain” claiming that Meta needs more money and Trump needs to gain relevance again.

“If you are one of these companies, do you want to be the means by which an autocrat mounts an assault on the Constitution itself?” he added.

Gay chimed in “As a country or as a company, you don’t want to hand over the keys to democracy to have someone destroy that democracy. Do you want to be that institution that really helps take down the country?” 

She went on to compare Meta’s decision to reinstate Trump to chemical companies pushing for wars so they can sell weapons.

More video below:

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/ PJW Shop

ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————

  • Continue Reading

    Trending