When my father lay wounded on a beach in the Pacific defending his country in World War II, America more than lived up to her promise. When Americans walked on the moon, we were the brightest star in the firmament. If you weren’t owned by China, you might love this country, too. https://t.co/XpOEK0BEKN
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.
– 1984
Some stories seem silly. They seem meaningless and trivial. Often, the opposite is true. Those silly, meaningless stories are actually a coordinated plan of microaggressions aimed at manipulating you. Things that pass right by our conscious into our subconscious can have a subtle but compounding effect on our psyche.
Google “happy black woman” Then “happy Asian woman” Then “happy white woman”
Alright. I’m sensing a pattern. Let’s add Indian women.
Now Latinas.
Ok. If youGoogle search ‘happy ____ woman’ you get images of happy women from that demographic. What’s the problem then?
Wait. We didn’t finish the challenge. We added a couple more searches to the original challenge but we have one more to go.
Oh my. It seems we’ve stumbled onto something. These images don’t fit the pattern. They are completely different than the other search results for the same thing.
Funny thing about those silly, meaningless stories we barely notice. We don’t believe them even though we see them. They can’t be true because they are just so ridiculous.
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.
– 1984
Do we get the same results using another search engine?
Duck Duck Go:
Uh oh. That’s the results Google search should have given us for the pictures if they were consistent.
Well, there’s that link at the top but the images are what should have shown up in Google.
Now … why do you think Google would show happy images of women of color in a completely different fashion than happy white women? Why are the other search engines showing consistent results for that search but Google isn’t?
“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels
Jeffrey Toobin masturbated in front of coworkers. That’s indefensible. Literally, everyone knew that already, but just in case the #MeToo movement put all that to bed.
So imagine a newspaper in America taking the position that it’s YOU who has the problem with masturbation. Enter the New York Daily News.
OPINION: Jeffrey Toobin’s history of bad sexual judgment is really about our unease with masturbation.
But I’m guessing you do the same, dear reader. Maybe you should stop feeling weird and guilty about that, @PennGSE's Jonathan Zimmerman writes.https://t.co/vLjlds8HWE
The article starts with a tone-deaf disconnect with reality.
So let’s suppose Jeffrey Toobin had been caught on camera having sex with a partner instead of touching himself. Would he be the most mocked man in the United States right now?
Yes, of course he would have been. The author naively suggests otherwise. That really isn’t the point though, is it? Toobin masturbated in front of coworkers, during a meeting. That’s not remotely the same as accidentally getting caught having sex with a partner.
During a meeting, Toobin CHOSE to take out his penis and masturbate. He CHOSE to angle the camera to frame his penis while masturbating. Beyond that, the details are moot.
The article ends just as ludicrous as it began:
News flash: Toobin masturbates. But I’m guessing that you do the same, dear reader. Maybe you should stop feeling weird and guilty about that. Then we can all stop making fun of Jeffrey Toobin.
News flash: that isn’t the point and it’s completely irrelevant to the story.
The author also mentioned Toobin’s old affair but left some of the horrible bits out. They failed to mention that Toobin also has a laundry list of sexual harassment allegations too. In other words, there’s a history of disturbing behavior.
Here’s an example:
According to one of the women (apparently book editor and publisher Judith Regan), Toobin tried to force his way into her hotel room, telling her, “You know you want it,” and he left “several sick messages” on her voicemail.
I also found this article to particularly interesting because the New York Daily News wasn’t this kind to Louis C.K. during his masturbation scandal. Friendly reminder, Louis C.K. had permission from the women to masturbate in front of them. Toobin did not.
The NY Daily News said Louis C.K. was “creepy” and committed “sexual misconduct.”
I’d assume a paper that took that position just two years ago would have the same values today. Especially after the #MeToo movement. Apparently not.
An editor of a major paper allowing a published piece excusing and defending undeniable sexual misconduct in this day and age is inexcusable and a firable offense.
