I’ve been interviewing people to see how their views on moral issues are formed, especially the Christians. I noticed that most people don’t have time to consult evidence when forming their opinions. Whether they have a progressive worldview or the conservative view, it’s just easier to form that view based on wanting to feel good and be like instead of based on evidence.
Here’s some evidence from Quillette about one issue where views are often formed from feelings and peer-approval, instead of reason and evidence:
The claim that there’s an “epidemic” of fatal anti-transgender violence in the United States has been made widely in recent years. A Google search for the phrase “epidemic of anti-trans violence” turns up pieces from the New York Times, NBC National News, ABC National News, and the Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBT lobby group—among 2,500,000 other results. The HRC’s primary on-point article was headlined ‘A National Epidemic: Fatal Anti-Transgender Violence,’ while the Times led with ‘Eighteen Transgender Killings This Year Raise Fears of an Epidemic.’ Transgender Day of Remembrance has been celebrated since the late 1990s to honor those “members of the transgender community whose lives were lost in acts of anti-transgender violence,” and the American Medical Association has stated on record that fatal attacks on transgender people—particularly minority trans women—constitute a large part of an “epidemic of violence” against the trans community.
What’s interesting is that even the far-left Human Rights Campaign, which leads the fight to suppress free speech critical of the gay agenda, admits that the numbers are tiny:
The Human Rights Campaign maintains a year-by-year database containing every known case of a transgender individual being killed by violent means, and gives this number as 29 in 2017, 26 in 2018, and 22 in 2019. Not only do these figures not reflect a year-by-year increase in attacks on trans persons—they are remarkably consistent, and may be trending slightly downwards—they also indicate that the trans murder rate is significantly lower than the murder rate for Americans overall.
Let’s crunch the numbers. Taking the HRC’s highest recent estimate of trans fatalities (29) as representative, and assuming the transgender population to be 0.6 per cent of the U.S. population—although some trans activists argue the true figure is as high as 3 per cent, which would make the murder rate even lower—the total number of murders in a hypothetical all-trans USA would be roughly 4,800 per year (4,833). In other words, if you multiply the population of the US (327,167,434) by 0.6 per cent you get a current transgender population estimate of 1,963,004.6, and if you divide that figure by 29 (the number of murders) you get 67,690—one murder per 67,690 trans citizens. That works out as a projected annual total of 4,833 murders (327,167,434/67,690) in an all-trans America, with an annual murder rate of 1.48 per 100,000 Americans. That’s about one-fourth of the actual current murder rate: there were 16,214 recorded homicides in the United States in 2018 (five per 100,000) and 17,294 in 2017. While LGBT advocates may be correct that there is some under-reporting of the transgender murder rate because not all trans individuals are “out,” the fact is that the murder rate for trans people would have to increase by 300-400 per cent to match the murder rate for the general population.
Well, to be fair, even one person being murdered is too much, but most of these victims were not killed because of any kind of discrimination or “hate”:
Not only is there no “epidemic” of murders of transgender individuals, it’s also not true that most trans murders are motivated by “hate.” The first case I reviewed while researching this article, that of Claire Legato, involved a trans woman killed while attempting to break up a physical dispute over a financial debt between her own mother and a close family friend. This was not atypical. The conservative writer Chad Greene, himself a member of the LGBT community, recently reviewed a sample of 118 of the cases of anti-trans homicide compiled by the Human Rights Campaign. His conclusion: exactly four of the perpetrators were clearly motivated by “anti-trans bias,” animus, or hatred. In contrast, 37 of the murders were due to domestic violence, and 24 involved sex workers and were largely the result of the dangerous working conditions associated with illegal sex work.
[…]In addition to not being hate crimes, the majority of transgender murders are intra-racial. According to Greene, whose conclusions align with my own analysis, 34 of the 37 identified murderers of black trans persons killed between 2015 and 2019 (89.5 per cent) are themselves black.
I think these numbers are useful to have at hand, should someone try to convince you to accept their view by claiming that not accepting their view has led to “a national epidemic” of violence. I’m against trying to convince people by bullying them with victimhood in any case. If you have a rational case that some view is morally right or wrong, then make your case. I am always very interested to see how secular leftists try to argue for a moral standard that is binding on those who disagree with them, when they believe the universe is a random accident with no plan or purpose.
I’ve been following the anti-Christian, anti-conservative bias of Big Tech for years now, and blogging about each new revelation. We’ve seen pro-Democrat bias over and over in the products and services of Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Spotify, Pinterest, etc. But I never thought I’d see Jewish exegete Dennis Prager and Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro called “Nazis”.
But before we see who called these Jews “Nazis”, let’s see how a Google Executive in charge of censoring content explained in precise language how Google alters its products and services to benefit the Democrat Party.
A new Project Veritas video that includes testimony from a whistleblower, leaked internal documents, and undercover footage of a Google employee discussing how the company is working to prevent “the next Trump situation” has been pulled by YouTube, a platform owned by Google, “due to a privacy claim by a third party.” This is the second Project Veritas Big Tech exposé video taken down by the platform in two weeks.
On Monday, Project Veritas released its latest Big Tech report, this time focusing on ways an insider says Google manipulates what information its users access in order to promote an ideological and political agenda. In the video, the whistleblower — whose identity is protected — walks Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe through internal Google documents that he says show that the search engine is a “highly biased political machine” that manipulates searches for the purpose of promoting its “fair and equitable” priorities, filtering out or deemphasizing even factual information if its creators deem that information “unfair.” To accomplish this, the company works to prevent “algorithmic unfairness.”
The video features clips of Project Veritas undercover reporters’ secretly recorded discussion with Jen Gennai — head of Google’s “Responsible Innovation” team, which monitors the responsible implementation of A.I. technologies — in a restaurant in San Francisco. In the video, she discusses the rationale behind the company’s A.I. principles. “The reason we launched our A.I. principles is because people were not putting that line in the sand, that they were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we are a big company, we’re going to say it,” she says, adding: “The people who voted for the current president do not agree with our definition of fairness.”
[…]”We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was — the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over — so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again,” she says in another clip.
[…]By the end of the day, YouTube pulled the video “due to a privacy claim by a third party.”
A newly-published leaked document contains what appears to be an email exchange among Google employees participating in a “transparency-and-ethics” discussion that includes a reference to PragerU, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro as “nazis using the dog whistles.”
The document was published by Project Veritas Tuesday, a day after the conservative group released its report on how political and ideological bias influences the ways in which Google connects users to content. The group obtained the “newly leaked document from Google” via their tipline.
[…]”Today it is often 1 or 2 steps to nazis, if we understand that PragerU, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro et al are nazis using the dog whistles you mention in step 1,” reads the email that appears to have been sent to over a dozen other Google employees. “I can receive these recommendations regardless of the content of what I’m looking at, and I have recorded thousands of internet users sharing the same experience. I don’t think correctly identifying far-right content is beyond our capabilities. But if it is, why not go with Meredith’s suggestion of disabling the suggestion feature?”
This firing of the Republican software engineer makes me wonder whether Google has a policy of discriminating against employees to make sure that no Republicans can work at Google.
According to the Washington Examiner, Google, YouTube and other Google-linked companies gave 90% of their political donations to Democrats:
A study released Thursday found that 90 percent of political donations by Google, YouTube, and other subsidiaries of Alphabet have gone to Democrats.
In 2016, when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, Alphabet employees donated more than $5.8 million to Democratic candidates and causes, while only $403,042 was contributed to Republicans. Ninety-four percent of Alphabet contributions in that year went to Democrats.
Would that be a sign that their products and services are biased to support Democrats?
Google executives caught on film
Here are some highlights of a sting video featuring Google executives crying about the Democrat election loss:
This was filmed a company-wide meeting, and it clearly communicates the political bias of Google leadership to their employees. The message seems to be: “if you want to work here, you have to be a Democrat” and “if you want to rise in this company, then you have to be a Democrat”. Does this open adoration for the Democrat party by Google executives affect Google products and services?
Studies show bias in Google products and services
What about the study showing that they promote progressive news sources ahead of conservative or unbiased ones?
Breitbart News reported in March 2019 on how Google used their products to influence elections:
New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country.
The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge.
This confirms a previous study from 2016:
The research follows a previous study conducted in 2016 which showed that biased Google results pushed votes to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Democrats and Google executives have disputed these findings.
[…]Users performing Google searches related to the three congressional races the study focused on were significantly more likely to see pro-Democrat stories and links at the top of their results.
Google’s bias towards left-wing media outlets has been laid bare by an algorithm which detected that it favors sites including CNN and The New York Times over others.
According to data compiled by researchers from Northwestern University, the search engine promoted those sites over others repeatedly in November 2017.
Of the 6,302 articles that appeared in Google’s ‘top stories’ page that month after a term was searched, more than 10 percent were by CNN.
The New York Times was the second most favored and accounted for 6.5 percent of articles. The Washington Post was third with 5.6 percent.
By contrast, Fox News, the most right-wing outlet in mainstream media, was the source of just three percent of the stories which appeared.
See for yourself the difference it makes:
I think we really need an investigation to get to the bottom of this.
Now, you might be thinking, what can we do to stop Google, YouTube and other big technology fascists? And the answer is, you need to switch to alternatives like DuckDuckGo.
And you need to vote Republican, and do everything you can to help Republicans win elections.
Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley are all over these companies.
Senator Ted Cruz:
Are there any SENIOR EXECUTIVES AT GOOGLE who voted for Donald Trump? She’s not aware of any. What about the $1.315 million given to Hillary Clinton in 2016 by Google employees and $0 given to Donald Trump? She has no answer.
Senator Josh Hawley:
Congressman Louie Gohmert adds this on his official Congressional web site:
Congressman Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement today regarding the undercover video of Google released by Project Veritas:
“This video shows Google’s biases are now a threat to a free and fair election, all while they hide behind the immunity given by Congress years ago when they were supposed to be a simple ‘town square’ where everyone’s voice could be heard without biased results. In fact, Google references a significant role they see themselves fulfilling in the 2020 elections. This discovery should set off alarm bells throughout the country. It is no secret that Google has a political agenda. Multiple brave tech insiders have stepped forward and exposed Google’s censorship of content and specialized algorithms. This media giant’s ‘social justice narrative’ should distress all Americans who value a free and open society. Google should not be deciding whether content is important or trivial and they most assuredly should not be meddling in our election process. They need their immunity stripped and to be properly pursued by class action lawsuits by those they have knowingly harmed.”
projectveritas.comInsider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam
I used to be a regular listener of Dennis Prager, but I switched over to Ben Shapiro and Andrew Klavan, because their podcasts are free. My favorite hour on conservative radio is Dennis Prager’s “male-female hour”, which had some of the most reality-based talk about men and women you could find anywhere. These two Jewish talk show hosts are extremely popular with Christian conservatives. It’s not evangelical Christian conservatives who have a problem with Jews. It’s the secular leftist socialists who run Big Tech.
When is it OK to incite violence against people on Twitter? Well, you just have to be a CNN journalist, and your victim just has to be a white male. In the past few days, journalists from CNN and other mainstream media outlets have called for violence against Catholic high school students.
When an edited clip of Catholic teenagers surrounding a Native American man first emerged, it was billed as evidence of racist high school students harassing an Indigenous person.
Journalists, celebrities, and others with blue checkmarks on Twitter rushed to condemn the kids as racists, even though it was clear from the beginning that something was amiss.
As The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti previously reported, the original video does not show what it was alleged to have shown and was clearly taken out of some larger context. Still, this did not stop the verified Twitter users from condemning and threatening kids based on no more evidence than the media’s say so and the fact that they were white boys wearing Make America Great Again hats.
On Monday morning, Mediate posted an article collecting some of the various tweets that have since been deleted after more information became available and exonerated the students who were waiting for a bus when they were taunted with racial slurs from some Black Hebrew Israelites and confronted by the Native Americans.
That Daily Wire article explains how a New York Times journalist named Kara Swisher tweeted several times that the boys in the edited video clip were Nazis. Actual Nazis.
Another New York Times editor named Tina Jordan accused the students in the edited clip of racism, despite his never speaking a word!
But there were THREE CNN employees who attacked the Catholic students on Twitter.
Here’s the first CNN journalist:
Here’s another CNN journalist:
This tweet from CNN employee Reza Aslan is still up at time of writing:
There was a lot more discussion of the biased news media on the Ben Shapiro podcast from Monday night. He was furious.
Ben Shapiro responds to media bias
Here is the full show:
At 14:30, Ben Shapiro does something that that CNN would not do. He shows the confrontation in context.
The video clearly shows the students ignoring anti-white racism directed against them, and it also shows that Phillips walked right up to them. They didn’t accost him. He walked up to the students, and banged his drum right in their faces. He sought out the crowd, walked into the middle of it, and caused the confrontation.
CNN could not do show the confrontation in context, because it did not fit with their progressive Democrat narrative. And CNN could not interview the students, they only interviewed the liar, because he agreed with them.
This resulted in the students and their parents being harrassed, and targeted with threats of violence, and even death threats. Death threats, thanks to false journalism by CNN. This is nothing more than libel that incited violence against innocent people.
Ben Shapiro only talks about the confrontation for the first 30 minutes or so, but I still think it is worth watching just so that people have the appropriate level of distrust for the mainstream media.
A few people in my office listen to NPR and they think that it’s an unbiased news source. So I think it is important to analyze how NPR lies about the news, and how they respond when other journalists from conservative sources catch them in a lie. The story in question is about Donald Trump Jr.’s Senate testimony.
NPR falsely claimed that Donald Trump Jr.’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2017 conflicted with an account given by a former attorney for President Donald Trump.
Here is NPR’s false write-up of that testimony:
Trump Jr. told the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2017 that although there had been negotiations surrounding a prospective Trump Tower in Moscow, they concluded without result ‘at the end’ of 2014.
‘But not in 2015 or 2016?’ Trump Jr. was asked.
‘Certainly not ’16,’ he said. ‘There was never a definitive end to it. It just died of deal fatigue.’
Trump’s account contrasts with the new version of events given by Cohen on Thursday in a guilty plea in federal court. In that new version, Cohen says the discussions with at least one Russian government official and others in Moscow continued through June 2016, well into Trump’s presidential campaign.
In fact, Senate investigators were asking Trump Jr. about a series of efforts to develop property in Russia, going back several years. Reporter Phil Ewing (reporter Tim Mak contributed to the story) conflates one of those efforts with another separate effort. That conflation results in the false news report.
That’s from her article on the day the false story was posted. NPR did not issue a correction to the story for 5 hours. But a lot was going on to save the story during that 5 hours, because NPR wanted to spread the story around. Then later they could admit it was a lie, the better for the Democrat party.
The original title is “Trump Jr.’s 2017 Testimony Conflicts With Cohen’s Account Of Russian Talks”.
The original story said this:
Donald Trump Jr.’s testimony to Congress about his family’s real estate negotiations with powerful Russians does not comport with the new version laid out by Donald Trump’s ex-attorney Michael Cohen, official transcripts show.
After the lie was discovered, that title changed into “Cohen’s Account Of Russia Talks Raises Questions About Trump Jr. 2017 Testimony”.
And the paragraph claiming that there is a conflict disappeared.
In situations like this, the false story is shared and re-tweeted thousands of times. The correction is shared and re-tweeted a tiny fraction of that. The effect is that the public is deceived by the original story, and never sees the correction. NPR knows this is how social media works. If they wanted to really reverse the damage, then they would have retracted the story, fired all the reporters involved, and posted a correction on their front page. You have to judge their intent by how far they go to fix the damage they caused.
It’s time to cut off all taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS. I’m fine with them being stupid and deluded, but I don’t see why I should have to pay them to do it.
Politifact is a web site run by some left-wing journalists at the Tampa Bay Times. As you might expect from academic studies of media bias, their content might as well be written by the Democrat Party. But it’s not enough to just declare Politifact a Democrat propaganda operation – I need to actually give you details and examples. And so I will, in the rest of this post.
Let’s start with two recent examples, then I’ll show you the worst example of media bias I have ever seen from Politifact.
On Tuesday, Politifact, which purports to be a neutral fact-checking website but in fact leans heavily to the left, got caught protecting a member of the Democratic Party: Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Politifact took issue with the ad from The Senate Leadership Fund, a pro-Republican super PAC, that claimed that McCaskill said “normal people” could afford private planes.
[…]After they were corrected, Politifact acknowledged the mistake, writing,
Initially, we published this fact-check with a rating of False, because based on the video available, it did not appear that McCaskill was talking about private planes. After publication, we received more complete video of the question-and-answer session between McCaskill and a constituent that showed she was in fact responding to a question about private planes, as well as a report describing the meeting. We re-assessed the evidence, archived the original version here, and published the version you see here with a new rating of Half True. We apologize for the error.
Daily wire also linked to some more failed Politifact “fact checks”: here, here, and here.
Arizona Senate Race
Politifact also screwed up their fact-check for the Arizona Senate race.
PolitiFact incorrectly labeled it “mostly false” that Democratic Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema “protested troops in a pink tutu” during its live fact-check of the Arizona Senate debate Monday night.
It’s an established fact that Sinema, a former Green Party activist who co-founded an anti-war group, wore a pink tutu at one of the multiple anti-war protests she attended in 2003.
“While we were in harm’s way, she was protesting our troops in a pink tutu,” Republican candidate Martha McSally, a former Air Force fighter pilot, said during Monday night’s debate.
Here’s their Politifact’s evaluation of McSally’s claim:
And here’s the photo of Kyrsten Sinema, protesting the troops, in a pink tutu:
The Daily Caller notes:
A 2003 Arizona State University news article at the time described Sinema wearing “something resembling a pink tutu” at one of the protests.
[…]Sinema openly associated with fringe elements of the far-left during her anti-war activism.
She promoted an appearance by Lynne Stewart, a lawyer who was convicted of aiding an Islamic terrorist organization, in 2003.
Sinema also reportedly partnered with anarchists and witches in her anti-war activism and said she did “not care” if Americans wanted to join the Taliban.
Colonel Martha McSally, as I’ve blogged about before, is a former U.S. Air Force A-10 fighter pilot, and squadron commander. She logged a lot of hours leading actual combat missions against America’s enemies – the sorts of people who sell and rape Yazidi girls. She fought them.
And now for the big one: Politifact’s fact-checking of Obamacare.
Obama’s claims about Obamacare
Avik Roy, health care policy expert at Forbes magazine, wrote about Politifact’s assessment of Obama’s promise to Americans about keeping their health plans after Obamacare.
In 2008, before the presidential election, PolitiFact rated Obama’s claims about Obamacare “True”:
Roy writes: (links removed)
On October 9, 2008, Angie Drobnic Holan of PolitiFact published an article using the site’s “Truth-O-Meter” to evaluate this claim: “Under Barack Obama’s health care proposal, ‘if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it.’”
And she concluded:
[…]…people who want to keep their current insurance should be able to do that under Obama’s plan. His description of his plan is accurate, and we rate his statement True.”
PolitiFact’s pronouncements about Obamacare were widely repeated by pro-Obama reporters and pundits, and had a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election. Indeed, in 2009, PolitiFact won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 campaign.
Here’s the screen capture from 2008:
Before the election, it’s true! And Obama got re-elected, because people believed that. But what happened after the election?
In 2013, after the 2012 election, PolitiFact rated Obama’s claims about Obamacare “Pants On Fire”:
Roy writes: (links removed)
On December 12,  the self-appointed guardians of truth and justice at PolitiFact named President Obama’s infamous promise—that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”—its 2013 “Lie of the Year.”
[…][N]one of the key facts that made that promise “impossible” in 2008 had changed by 2013. The President’s plan had always required major disruption of the health insurance market; the Obamacare bill contained the key elements of that plan; the Obamacare law did as well. The only thing that had changed was the actual first-hand accounts of millions of Americans who were losing their plans now that Obamacare was live.
And the screen capture from 2013:
So when Politifact rates a statement by a Democrat as true, what they really mean is that it’s pants-on-fire-false, but it’s election time so they don’t say that. It’s not like the critical assessments of Obamacare from health policy experts were not out there between 2007-2012. I know, because I blogged on every study and report on the predicted effects of the law that I could find. But the intellectually lazy journalism-major clowns at Politifact couldn’t be bothered to read those studies and reports.