There’s a lot of talk about ‘tyranny’ these days, but so many of the fingers are pointing the wrong direction.
How are the Hall Monitors of ‘Progressive’ society any different than China’s Communist party visiting doom upon any perceived threats to their stranglehold on the social status quo?
The American version of Thought Police are not bulldozing churches or throwing Uighurs into work camps like their Chinese counterparts have been.
But that doesn’t make them ‘tolerant’.
They, too, have systematic plans to take down people guilty of ‘wrongthink’.
Their designs to corner the market on the Digital Public Square are already playing out, just as Media Matters said they would in their ‘War Plan’. Here is David Brock’s 49 page war manual for defeating the American right.
Here, some social media bigwigs talked about how they would force Red States to turn Blue, bragging that they pulled it off with Cali, and could do the same in the rest of America: Leftists Want A ‘New Civil War’ – This Post Is Disturbing
And we already knew about a guy who had been fired from Google for ‘wrongthink’.
But now someone from the inside is saying the company is in the process of radicalizing.
“If left unchecked,” Wacker wrote, “these outrage mobs will hunt down any conservative, any Christian, and any independent free thinker at Google who does not bow down to their agenda.”
In one case, Wacker describes a fellow Republican employee who was reported for saying nice things about the University of Toronto academic Jordan Peterson. He was given a note in writing that said, “One Googler raised a concern that you that you appeared to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns, and this made them feel unsafe at work.”
Wacker himself was twice reported via the company’s anonymous reporting channels.
“You wrote in the activists-us@ group: ‘The definition of ‘Google’s values’ that matters is the one used by Google’s activists, who could only be described as ‘nonpartisan’ in the same sense that the Women’s March could be described as inclusive towards pro-life Jewish women,’” reads a note he received in January. “Other members of the group responded that your statement was percieved [sic] as hateful/incendiary/inflammatory. [redacted].”
Wacker wrote an open letter on Medium. We encourage you to read the entire piece. Here are some excerpts:
So what exactly is the definition of hate speech? Well, let’s just ask the outrage mobs at Google that succeeded. One outrage mob formed when Google sponsored CPAC, and they created an internal petition titled, “Google, Don’t Sponsor Hate.” Another outrage mob formed when Kay Coles James, President of the Heritage Foundation, was appointed to an AI ethics panel, and they created an external petition from a Medium account called “Googlers Against Transphobia and Hate.”
But don’t worry, these outrage mobs are not opposed to all conservatives. They are only opposed to the “hateful” conservatives.
Source: Medium
He continues:
These outrage mobs against “hate” have become honeypots for toxic, hostile, and uncivil discourse. While some of their rhetoric is so outlandish that you have no choice but to laugh it, the psychological effects that these outrage mobs have on their targets is nothing to laugh about. Just read this excerpt from Kay Coles James about her own experience with Google’s outrage mob:
In 1961, at age 12, I was one of two-dozen black children who integrated an all-white junior high school in Richmond. White parents jeered me outside the school, and inside, their kids stuck me with pins, shoved me in the halls and pushed me down the stairs. So when the group of Google employees resorted to calling names and making false accusations because they didn’t want a conservative voice advising the company, the hostility was reminiscent of what I felt back then — that same intolerance for someone who was different from them.
I won’t lie, that was a tough part to read. But if you ask the outrage mob, that wasn’t the real problem. The real question was this:So the real question to this is whether or not we think there’s value in having the Grand Wizard of the KKK on this board.
What sort of alternate universe do you have to live in to think this sort of rhetoric is OK? And what sort of alternative universe do you have to live in where you would turn a blind eye to that rhetoric?As I explained in a previous post, these outrage mobs and witch hunts don’t just target outsiders like CPAC and Kay Coles James. They also target insiders and Google’s own employees. But whether the target is external or internal, the goal of these outrage mobs and witch hunts is the same: to control who belongs at Google.
More importantly, if you can control who belongs at Google, then you can also control what content belongs on Google.
Source: Medium
From that same letter, an example within the company:
One Google employee, who gave me permission to share his story, was once hauled into a meeting with management and HR over some of his writings on company message boards. He was not directly punished in that meeting, but the meeting did carry a strong implied threat of future punishment. Here was one of the issues that was mentioned to him in writing after that meeting:
One Googler raised a concern that you that you appeared to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns, and this made them feel unsafe at work.
Allegedly, Google is a company that supports a freedom of expression, but Google is also a company where you can get in trouble with HR for defending Jordan Peterson’s stance that the government cannot compel speech, including compelling the usage of preferred pronouns.
Source: Medium
For anyone paying attention, Jordan is more than happy to address his individual students any way they would like to be addressed. His now-famous objection is *specifically* to government legislation of COMPELLED speech.
Not that subtle distinctions like that matter to proto-Soviets like the ones apparently now roaming the halls at Google.
Political Correctness is a plague. And the only thing likely to get their attention is to strip them of the legal protection being allegedly a ‘neutral platform’ affords them.
If they are going to behave as a publisher playing favorites with content, they should be subject to the same legal parameters as any other content curator.
Including libel.
And then, let the chips fall where they may.
By the way, since Facebook has unpublished ClashDaily’s page, your best bet to keep in the loop is to Subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:
Become a Clash Insider!
Sign up for our free email newslettaer, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.
We’re also moving onto a new platform, MeWe. It’s like Facebook without the data breaches and censorship.
Sign up and you can still get all the ClashDaily goodness by joining our MeWe group.
Do you love what we’re doing at Clash?
Do you want to kick in to our ‘war chest’ so that we Happy Warriors can maximize the size of the footprint we leave on Leftism’s backside? Here’s a link for ya to do just that.
Stay Rowdy!
