The lesson here is that if you have a platform and social trust, don't abuse that platform to lie, even in the name of "social justice". It's tempting, but it won't work. The truth will come out, and you'll have irreversibly damaged your reputation.
The lesson here is that if you have a platform and social trust, don't abuse that platform to lie, even in the name of "social justice". It's tempting, but it won't work. The truth will come out, and you'll have irreversibly damaged your reputation.
Thanks!
Try scanning, say, the Unz Review once in a while. Hold your nose and look at the content. Yes, everyone respectable will denounce the place, but make up your own mind. Occasionally, you'll see an article that makes you say, "Hrm. That makes sense." You'll have been trained to reject this feeling, to attribute it to something evil within yourself. You'll want to go running back to your comfortable lies. Ignore this sensation, just for a moment, and give new ideas the benefit of the doubt.
I suppose one thing that's safe to talk about is the campus rape issue. The official story is that the American college is about as dangerous as a third world country when it came to sexual assault. After Rolling Stone's piece was revealed to be a complete fabrication, this claim started to lose its currency. But until this debunking, everyone went along with the idea that campus was some sort of awful, dangerous place and that men were demons. The Jackie article was far from the first one painting an unreal image of gender relations.
I'm having a hard time thinking of anything other examples I can denounce in polite company. All I can say is that the official story is that human being are blank slates upon birth, with all characteristics socially constructed, and that this idea is false. Nothing in our society makes sense if you ascribe to the blank slate idea, but the media pushes it anyway. The intellectual contortions that the mainstream media uses to preserve the blank slake hypothesis are embarrassing and credibility-destroying.
The fact that you would ask such a question belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work. You are thoroughly embedded in the system and don't realize it yet :) The academy (which is overwhelmingly left wing outside of the hard sciences, math, and engineering) establishes the "truth" regarding matters of "race, gender or sexuality" - whereby "truth" means the opinions you may express without being exiled from polite urban society, without losing your job, without being vociferously attacked by an enraged mob.
Note that the old media is staffed by people who were all educated by the very academy you are expecting to perform a truth-checking function! To be clear, there are no "marching orders", but everyone understands the game, and everyone is incentivized to say what they are supposed to say. You may as well ask for Soviet academic papers giving concrete examples of Pravda lying about industrial production!