Friday, June 30, 2017

"Progressive Journalism" => Cultural Appropriation of (Phony Facade of) Journalism

Progressive Journalists Are Outraged At The NRA For Pointing Out Leftist Violence
Two days before an assassination attempt on Republicans, the NRA posted a video on Facebook warning of leftist violence. Progressive journalists are now pretending political violence is the NRA's fault.

The fact of the matter is that it wasn’t the NRA that tried to murder a bunch of its political opponents. It wasn’t the NRA that published the location and security details of its foes. It wasn’t the NRA that surveilled a park and confirmed that everyone in it had the “wrong” politics before unloading on them. No, that was done by a progressive Democrat activist. All the NRA did was point out leftist violence and note that Americans have a God-given right, affirmed by the U.S. Constitution, to defend themselves and their loved ones from that very violence.

To Golfarb and Applebaum and McKesson, the NRA’s crime wasn’t committing or fomenting violence. The NRA’s crime was refusing to let leftist violence go unnoticed.


yonose said...

Hello there!!

Long time no see!

The information I have here is not about the topic in hand, in relation with this blog entry.

I've found an interesting, mind-opening book a Medical Doctor questioning Neo-Darwinism as a plausible theory for explaining the basic concept of information management and phenotypes in the casoe of human beings.

Because he is not an university academic with conflicts of interest in that particular topic, he seems to be honest.

Be aware that, despite his valid counterpoints against Neo-Darwinism, he does not explicitly advocate Intelligent Design or Creationism. At the same time, he does think that there should be a better theoretical framework for the understanding of human beings as biological systems with work with information.

This is why I believe more in open-minded physicians and Sheldrake, who defy academic dogma, than almost everybody else. Also, phyisicians tend to be more practical, so when medical genetics makes itself into a more mature discipline, we will see Neo-Darwinism for the historical paradigm it should be.

I'm reading the book and, about most of his arguments, I find them convincing. Evolutionary theory needs a shift, instead of being full of people doing name-calling --like IDer or Creationist--.

HERE, The Collapse of Darwinism!

In the reviews, you will see how dogmatic Neo-darwinists have become. Maybe this book has touched a nerve. Too many fundamentalists to fathom. Yet, this inidicates that Neo-Darwinism is one of the paradigmatic fortresses to conquer.

Kind Regards!!

Stan said...

Good to have you back, and thanks for the book information. How is your schooling progressing?

Biologist said...

This yonose folk is making absurd statements. Biology is not dogmatic; people who reject established science facts are!

Stan said...

The term "established science facts" indicates a complete ignorance of the actual contingent character of real science. Any "scientist" or "science" which claims "facts" is fake, fraudulent and false. You obviously are not involved in science, and are repeating Leftist crap, in a dogmatic fashion.

It is true that biology is not dogmatic. However, evolution is not biology, it is a collection of unprovable fantasies and not a science at all, by any definition of science. Yet evolutionists are dogmatic, exclusionary and eliminationist: local tyrants, bullies and ignoramuses.

yonose said...


--Part 1--

"This yonose folk is making absurd statements. Biology is not dogmatic; people who reject established science facts are!"

Hello, Mr/Ms/Mrs Biologist. I clearly said " dogmatic Neo-darwinists have become...", so I did NOT say evolutionists as a whole group, that is, if you apply an argumentum ad verecundiam regarding Dariwinian theory of evolution. Micro-evolution is something we see daily in our lives, but, a common ancestor? deep time? maybe not so scientific, don't you think?

"Established science facts" sound much like dogmatic sycophantic factoid repetition, pretty much like much -isms one sees in life: political sloganism.

If you are an open-minded biologist, or even a biologist at all, you will realize that science is not about accumulation of factoids into an ideological-paradigmatic-fortress of the only factoids "I subjectively want to see or hear".

Science is the application of the baconian method, for whatever reason the observer(s) see fit. So if you believe anything other than the material world is woo-woo, that's you and another few people. To avoid myself falling into an argumentum ad populum or arugmentum ad verecundiam, as many people do when discussing stuff they DO dislike, it is imperative to understand that, science may be applied experimentally to frameworks that may prove and also disprove philosophical materialism.

I rejected philosophical materialism in the grounds that, it is a metaphysical proposition with a totally eliminative intention: refute all the first principles of metaphysics. Because metaphysics is not disproved by science using a metaphysical proposition, it is evident that philosophical materialism is not an adequate proposition to disprove metaphysics, and philosophical materialism is an obsolete ideology, pretty much like racism and phrenology.

I'll give you a categorically correct philosophical method which philosophers like Dennett have been talking about even if not explicitly: Functionalism. Keep in mind that functionalism does not prove or disprove metaphysics either.

yonose said...


--Part 2--

Oh my! did I say something? You know what (Neo)Darwinism, racism and phrenology have in common? that such old-school sciences do base their assertions in morphology, not physiology, nor pathology either. Darwinism and Lamarckism are the incomplete sciences which have had justified institutionalized racism for more than a century, for example: remember IQ is a mixture of genetics, epigenetics and cultural constructs, and does not say everything about neuroplasticity and the functional aspects of every facet of human intelligence. Remember, even brilliant minds love to mix politics with the science of the time.

Morphology, like anatomy, and physiology, is a branch of Biology, not necessarily of any of the health sciences. So, like many if not all branches of science, there always will be a dogmatic interpretation of the observations found. By the time Darwin published his book "The Origin of the Species", there were published books about eye physiology(!!), which I presume you did not research because of cognitive and normalcy bias?

Neo-Darwinism might plausibly be expandable to physiology thanks to genetics, but the genealogical tree regarding the ancestry of species is still on speculative grounds. Neo-Darwinism implies that, the complexity of a multicellular organism -like us- is directly proportional to the size of the genome and proteome, something that has not even been proven as a positive correlation between different genders of life forms and theirs species, unless the correlation is in morphological size and complexity. You see, Neo-Darwinism only works for morphology(!!!).

When did I explicitly said "Biology is Dogmatic"??

So, to end the discussion here, let me add these words:

That was you, and only you. Projections are the common behavior of people who, by hiding their deficiencies, instead of accepting them and making them less deficient, like an honest human being, prefer to "blame" their own deficiencies in other people, just to make feel themselves better. Just like I did many times over when I was in trouble, you really need to see a therapist.

Kind Regards!!

yonose said...

@ Stan

Hello Stan!!

I'm OK, doing some housekeeping. I just hope everything is stable over there in North America. Here the situation is not much better either, maybe worse. South America won't see any positive change soon enough.

Kind Regards!!