Leftists Suggest “Re-education Camps,” “Firing Squads,” Banning Talk Radio to “Deprogram” 75 Million Trump Supporters

Leftists responded to a Twitter thread asking “how do you deprogram 75 million people?” by suggesting Trump supporters should be interned in “re-education camps” and that all conservative talk radio should be banned.

“No seriously…how *do* you deprogram 75 million people? Where do you start? Fox? Facebook?” asked David Atkins (pronouns in bio), a regional director for California Democrats. “We have to start thinking in terms of post-WWII Germany or Japan. Or the failures of Reconstruction in the South,” he added.

Keep reading

The National Association of REALTORS® to start policing private lives of members.

The newly Woke National Association of REALTORS® has long had requirements that you behave in a professional manner while on the job.

“The recommendations propose a new Standard of Practice, 10-5, that states: ‘REALTORS® must not use harassing speech, hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Sure, a list like that can be problematic, but at least now it only applies TO YOUR ENTIRE LIFE.

“Additionally, the recommendations propose changes to professional standards policy to expand the Code of Ethics’ applicability to all of a REALTOR®’s activities, not just those that are real estate–related.”

Their speech codes no longer only apply to real-estate related activity but also to everything-related activity as well. What if your activities include being active in your church and your faith is at odds with current progressive orthodoxy?

Why, it’s almost as if the NAR’s rules prohibiting discrimination against someone for their religious beliefs themselves discriminate against people for their religious beliefs. This suggests the motive here might be something other than being anti-discriminatory.

Which reminds me, you know why the NAR is really excited about these new rules?

“We have this amazing ad campaign that says ‘That’s Who We R,’ ” Difanis said, which includes being leaders and role models in the community, ‘and this is who we need to be.'”

Whatever it takes to get that “SOLD!” sign!

Of course, we all have to remember that this is not a government or state actor enforcing a law. It’s merely a private organization with great cache, they are America’s largest trade association after all. They hold enormous sway over state licensing boards requiring that you behave in a manner they prefer ALL the time. If you don’t comply with the new speech codes, you risk being reported as a bigot to your state licensing board which determines whether or not you can continue to work as a real estate agent.

“As a result, associations would be required to share with the state real estate licensing authority final ethics decisions holding REALTORS® in violation of the Code of Ethics in instances where there is reason to believe the public trust, as expanded by the proposed revision, may have been violated.”

But it’s not like that’s censorship or anything.

That would be wrong.

“Discussions started in the wake of nationwide social unrest after the death of George Floyd and after local, state, and national REALTOR® associations fielded an ‘unprecedented’ number of complaints about members posting hate speech on social media.”

Work as a real estate agent? Watch what you say because they can search your social media accounts going back three years should there ever be an alleged infraction.

But this is not censorship, okay? Stop thinking that.

Hmm, maybe we can discipline you for that, too.

Speaking freely has suddenly become really problematic. After all, what is a “slur?” The definitions of words are a lot more fluid than they used to be. Remember a month ago when “sexual preference” was okay? Yeah, it’s not anymore.

Keep reading

Philosophy Is Being Hijacked by Woke Twitter Mobs

Philosophers tend to be highly influenced by their environment, and can often be found rationalizing instead of critically examining the conventional views of the people around them. But if anything warrants philosophical scrutiny, surely it is our national taboos. As a philosopher of biology, one taboo is of particular interest to me: the taboo on considering the possibility that genes play a role in group differences in psychological traits. So I wrote a paper arguing that, while nothing can be definitively proved, there is strongly suggestive evidence that genes are involved in group differences, and we should stop suppressing and censoring research into this topic.

I submitted the paper to Philosophical Psychology—a respected journal that publishes work on the connection between philosophy and psychology, which at the time was co-edited by Mitchell Herschbach (a philosopher) and ‪Cees van Leeuwen (a psychologist). To my pleasant surprise, I received two positive referee reports along with a request for revisions. After two rounds of review, the paper was accepted and published in the January 2020 issue of the journal.

The paper was accompanied by an Editors’ Note written by van Leeuwen and Herschbach, saying:

The decision to publish an article in Philosophical Psychology is based on criteria of philosophical and scientific merit, rather than ideological conformity… In sum, Cofnas’ paper certainly adopts provocative positions on a host of issues related to race, genetics, and IQ. However, none of these positions are to be excluded from the current scientific and philosophical debates as long as they are backed up with logical argumentation and empirical evidence, and they deserve to be disputed rather than disparaged.

Needless to say, heterodoxy about politically sensitive issues is not always well received in academia, so it was gratifying to see the editors of an important journal taking a stand for free inquiry. “2020 is gearing up to be the best year ever,” I thought to myself.

It didn’t take long for the paper and Editors’ Note to come to the attention of the wokerati on Twitter. Macquarie University philosophy professor Mark Alfano deemed my paper “shit” and announced his plan to “ruin [my] reputation permanently and deservedly.” He started a petition on change.org demanding an “apology, retraction, or resignation (or some combination of these three)” from the journal editors. A number of philosophers—many of whom did not even read the paper—joined the campaign to get it retracted and/or smear me. University of South Carolina professor Justin Weinberg promoted Alfano’s petition on his widely read philosophy blog, Daily Nous. He also published a guest post that falsely and preposterously claimed that I defended “segregation” and “apartheid schemes.”

But the editors of Philosophical Psychology stood firm. Van Leeuwen and Herschbach wrote a statement on Facebook reiterating that the review process had been carried out properly, and declaring, “Efforts to silence unwelcome opinion… are doing a disservice to the community.”

Keep reading

Moral Outrage Is Self-Serving, Say Psychologists

When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don’t affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.” But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as “moral outrage”—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one’s own status as a Very Good Person.

Keep reading