Monthly Archives: February 2022

Covid, Brexit and the great resignation – Creative Review

Posted: February 24, 2022 at 2:19 am

Image: Shutterstock

Much has been written about the effects of the pandemic on so many aspects of the creative industries. While some were lucky enough to be able to pivot or remain industrious through the past couple of years, we all know actors whove retrained as electricians, comedians doing shifts as truck drivers, and designers with food delivery sidelines.

However, we also know that people left their jobs in unprecedented numbers, the highest since 2009, and that the level of open vacancies is the highest on record. So what does it all mean for the future of the industry?

GRASS IS GREENER

This so-called great resignation has been seen across the board, though especially in the creative industries. The WeTransfer Ideas Report, released in November 2021, surveyed more than 10,000 creatives globally and found that 45% of global creatives were thinking of changing their jobs in the next six months.

Laurent Simon is executive creative director at ad agency YMLY&R, managing a large creative department. He says hes certainly seen a great deal of movement as a result of the pandemic. There are definitely signs of people moving around and people being interested in seeing whether the grass is greener, and this is the case for freelance and permanent roles, he says. This movement, he says, seems to be inter-agency, but hes also seen an increase in applicants whove been working in-house at brands.

We recommend activating Javascript in your browser.

The rest is here:

Covid, Brexit and the great resignation - Creative Review

Posted in Brexit | Comments Off on Covid, Brexit and the great resignation – Creative Review

Keir Starmer hasn’t voted 48 times to take the UK back into the EU – Full Fact

Posted: at 2:19 am

23 February 2022

Keir Starmer has voted 48 times to take the UK back into the European Union.

This is not correct. The figure appears to be based on how Mr Starmer voted in 48 votes related to Brexit. But some of these votes were not about whether Britain should be part of the EU, and all but three took place before Britain left the EU. Mr Starmer has often opposed the Government in Brexit votes, but has also voted a number of times in support of Brexit.

He [Keir Starmer] voted 48 times to take this country back into the European Union.

He [Keir Starmer] voted 48 times to take this country back into the EU.

The Leader of the Opposition not only voted 48 times to go back into the EU...

Boris Johnson has claimed at least three times in the House of Commons that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer voted 48 times to take the UK back into the European Union. This is untrue.

We first spotted Mr Johnson making the claim during Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) on 26 January 2022. He made it again in a statement to Parliament on 31 January and for a third time at PMQs on 9 February.

The claim appears to be based on an analysis of Mr Starmers participation in 48 votes in the House of Commons between 2017 and 2020. But while these votes were all related in some way to Brexit and saw Mr Starmer repeatedly oppose the Government, only a handful were directly about whether Britain should be part of the EU and some were not related to the main withdrawal agreement or process around it. All but three of the votes also took place before the UK formally left the EU on 31 January 2020. Mr Starmer has also voted a number of times in support of Brexit.

When we asked Number 10 what Mr Johnsons claim was based on, it told us this was a political question and referred us to Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ). CCHQ sent us a list of 48 votes and said: Through directly voting against, voting in favour of wrecking amendments and voting against eleven of the Statutory Instruments required for delivering Brexit, Keir Starmer voted to hinder our exit from the EU at least 48 times.

The 48 figure has also appeared in the media at least twice. It was the subject of an article by Camilla Tominey published by the Telegraph on 8 November 2021, headlined: Sir Keir Starmer: The self-styled bastion of democracy who made no fewer than 48 attempts to block Brexit. A similar article published the following day by the Express quoted Ms Tominey and appears to echo what she wrote. When we asked Ms Tominey about her analysis, she declined to reveal the source but provided a list of the 48 votes mentioned in her article. This list appears to be the same as the list sent to us by CCHQ.

The Telegraph and Express articles allege Mr Starmers votes were attempts to block various Brexit plans, while CCHQ said the votes served to hinder our exit from the EU. However, neither of these claims are the same as Mr Johnsons repeated assertion that Mr Starmer voted 48 times to take this country back into the European Union. We asked CCHQ for confirmation that Mr Johnson was referring to the same list of 48 votes, and why he claimed they show Mr Starmer was voting to take the UK back into the EU, but we have not received a response.

The 48 votes listed in the analysis shared by both CCHQ and the Telegraph cover a wide range of issues relating to Brexit. As the list does not appear to have been published, weve included it in full below. The votes span a number of different pieces of Brexit-related legislation, but appear to fall into three broad categories:

At least six of the votes were directly to do with whether or not Brexit should happen. Some of the 48 votes could be described as a choice between whether or not the UK would leave the EU, though as they took place while the UK was still in the EU, they were not about returning to the blocand some might argue they were as much about how the UK should leave the EU as whether it should.

Altogether, Mr Starmer directly voted six times against versions of the Brexit deal. In 2019, he voted against the deal put forward by then-Prime Minister Theresa May in what were known as the Meaningful Votesonce in January and twice in March 2019. (Mr Johnson also voted against it in January, but in favour of it twice in March.)

Once Mr Johnson had become Prime Minister, Mr Starmer then voted against his EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill at its second reading on 22 October 2019. And shortly after the 2019 general election, Mr Starmer voted twice against Mr Johnsons EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill, at its second and third reading, though the Bill passed due to the Conservatives majority.

Most of the votes were about how withdrawal would work and what the UKs future relationship with the EU would look like, not directly about whether the UK should be in the EU. To some, Mr Starmers votes on these questions could be seen as hindering the process of exiting the EU, but it would be inaccurate to say they amounted to voting to take the UK back into the EU.

For example, in March and April 2019 Mr Starmer voted for a confirmatory public vote on Brexit during the Indicative Votes process. This was narrowly defeated, but would have required a public vote on any Brexit deal before Parliament could ratify it.

He also voted for other procedural amendments such as the Cooper-Letwin Bill, which was designed to ensure that ministers could not allow the UK to leave the EU in a no deal scenario without parliamentary approval. This category also includes Mr Starmers votes on amendments to the withdrawal billsome on quite specific questions. For example, Mr Starmer voted in favour of the UK seeking full membership of the Erasmus student exchange scheme, voted for Europeans who had lived in the UK for more than five years to be granted automatic citizenship and supported a move for UK ministers to seek an agreement with Brussels to allow unaccompanied child refugees to join their relatives.

While many of these votes were on amendments to the withdrawal bill, none were directly on whether or not to return the UK to the EU.

At least eight votes were not on the main withdrawal bill or the parliamentary process around it, but on other pieces of Brexit-related legislation. This includes votes on the Customs Bill, the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill.The purpose of the Customs Bill (officially the The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill) was to allow the government to create a functioning customs, VAT and excise regime for the UK following Brexit.

The Trade Bill, in combination with the Customs Bill, was designed so the UK could continue its existing trade policy as far as possible immediately after Brexit.

The purpose of the Agriculture Bill was to design a replacement for the EUs agriculture policy, which the UK left as part of Brexit.

The topics covered by these bills were closely linked to some of the key issues surrounding Brexit, so it may be possible to argue, as CCHQ has, that they were votes that would hinder our exit. However, they were not votes on whether to continue with or subsequently resume membership of the EU, as Mr Johnson has suggested.

Its also worth noting that on two of the votes weve included in this category (the second and third readings of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill) Mr Starmer is not listed as having voted at all.

As the list of 48 votes related to Brexit shows, the Labour leader has repeatedly opposed the Government on its specific Brexit proposals. But we could find no evidence to support Mr Johnsons claim that Mr Starmer voted to take this country back into the European Union 48 times, or even that there were 48 opportunities to directly vote on such a matter.

Its also worth noting that there are some occasions which werent included in the list of 48 votes supplied by CCHQ where Mr Starmer voted in support of Brexit.For example, Mr Starmer voted in favour of triggering Article 50 (the legal mechanism which had to be triggered by the government ahead of our departure from the EU) twice, at both its second and third reading in the House of Commons in February 2017.

According to online voting records, the last vote explicitly relating to the European Union that Mr Starmer participated in appears to be the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill at its third reading on 30 December 2020, during which he voted alongside the vast majority of Labour and Conservative MPs to approve Mr Johnsons trade bill ahead of the end of the UKs post-Brexit transition period.

A spokesperson for UK in a Changing Europe, an independent and politically impartial research organisation which examines the relationship between the UK and the EU, told Full Fact: On no reading of parliamentary proceedings around Brexit can it be said that Keir Starmer voted to take the UK back into the EU 48 times.

He voted both to trigger Article 50 in February 2017 to start the Brexit process, and for the final Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

At various points he did oppose specific deals on offerbut he was joined in the opposition lobby twice on the so-called meaningful votes proposed by the May government by Boris Johnson. On other occasions he voted to try to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal, but that is not the same as voting to stop Brexit.

The list of 48 votes supplied by CCHQ does not appear to have been published, so were including it here for reference. We have removed the additional commentary supplied and simply listed the name of the vote and date, with either the link supplied or a corrected link where the link given no longer worked. There are a few cases where theres some uncertainty, either over which vote was being referred to or whether Mr Starmer actually votedwhere thats the case, weve indicated it.

Continued here:

Keir Starmer hasn't voted 48 times to take the UK back into the EU - Full Fact

Posted in Brexit | Comments Off on Keir Starmer hasn’t voted 48 times to take the UK back into the EU – Full Fact

What are the different types of atheism? – Big Think

Posted: at 2:18 am

It is widely thought that there are roughly 10,000 religions in the world, today. Most of us are familiar with the big ones Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on but hundreds of millions believe in folk, traditional, or tribal faiths, too.

Theologians, anthropologists, and sociologists are very good at classifying religions. People devote their entire lives to delineating between the tiniest, most esoteric of differences. Iconography, creed, ritual, worship, prayer, and community serve to draw the borders between these faiths.

But this misses something. Outside of the churches, mosques, temples, and pagodas is a shifting, enigmatic, indefinable mass: the group of people who belong to some type of atheism. It is no small fringe, either. Over a billion people do not follow a religion. They make up roughly a quarter of the U.S. population, making it the second largest belief. Roughly 60% of the UK never go to church, and there are now more atheists than believers in Norway.

Notably, not all atheism is the same. The various types of atheism deserve greater examination.

The problem is that these statistics do not tell a full story. The term non-religious is so broad as to be almost meaningless. The words secular, agnostic, atheistic, humanistic, irreligious, or non-religious are not synonyms. This is not some nit-picky pedantry. For the billion plus people in the world who are one particular type of atheist, the difference matters.

It is no easy task to delineate these belief systems, not least because a vast number of them balk at being defined as believers at all. Some suggest it is better to describe non-religion as a scale (such as the 1-7 likelihood of God scale Richard Dawkins suggests in The God Delusion). But this, too, puts the cart before the horse. Not all religion is about probability, certainty, or assent to various truth claims.

Broadly speaking, atheists can come in three varieties: the nonreligious, the nonbelievers, and the agnostic. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and the types of atheism often overlap.

The first type of atheism means not subscribing to one of the big, traditional religions.

Consider China. It is a country, on first glance, that is hugely irreligious: 91% of Chinese adults can be called atheist. But so much of this data, as in most demographic surveys, hinges on self-identification by respondents. The issue is that most people in the world today will understand religion in a particular way. They see it as being the formal creeds or practices of the established, organized religions. It means going to church, praying five times a day, or believing the Four Noble Truths. But religion is much broader than that.

In the case of China, while 91% claim to be atheist, 70 percent of the adult population practices ancestor worship. Twelve percent self-identify with some folk belief, and the vast majority practice the pseudoscientific, quasi-religious traditional medicine.

For a lot of people, atheism means not believing in this or that formal religion. For others, the word might bear closer resemblance to its etymology, in which a-theism means anti-theistic belief (allowing Buddhism, for instance). Many in this category we might describe as mystics that is, they do not think any image or idea of God(s) is right, but they feel that there is some kind of spiritual reality.

It is a curiosity seen all over the world. An atheist might also believe in angels, fairies, karma, a divine plan, a soul, ghosts, spirits, or Ouija boards. None of these, alone, make up an organized belief, but they are beliefs of a sort.

The second type of atheism is one which argues against or rejects certain belief statements.

These atheists will define religion (rightly or wrongly) as being a set of creeds, beliefs, and quasi-factual statements that they call false. It is the type of atheism that most are familiar with, and it is often the type which most often pops up on internet message boards.

These atheists will say Jesus rose from the dead, Yogic flying is possible, or, The Angel Jibril spoke to Muhammed are all statements that can be disproven or should be disbelieved. They are facts to corroborate or dismiss. Modern atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and older ones like David Hume or John Stuart Mill, belong to this kind. They point out what they perceive to be the inaccuracies, contradictions, or absurdities of what religion teaches.

The nonbeliever type of atheism will often attack the values of a religion or even the religious themselves. They claim that religion is what leads to intolerance, prejudice, racism, misogyny, genocide, violence, cruelty, superstition, ignorance, and so on, so it must be rejected out of hand.

The third type of atheism is non-committal. Its called agnosticism.

If we define atheism as a belief statement namely, I am 100% sure God(s) do(es) not exist then there are very few atheists. A lot of the nonbeliever types concern themselves with probabilities and verifying belief-claims. But, with many of religions claims being supernatural, it is impossible to rule them out entirely.

Humans are physical beings, with fallible senses and variable intelligence. As such, very few people will claim certainty about the metaphysical and infinite. A lot of those who call themselves atheist are actually agnostic. They might be those who think religion is very, very unlikely to be right (as Dawkins does) or who accept that there is some varying degree of possibility. Others might suspend judgment there is no (accessible) data either way, so why commit?

As William James argues in his essay The Will to Believe, agnosticism of this kind (or skepticism as he prefers) is tantamount to atheism. If we go about our days without consideration of religion, without living the life of the believer, then it is as if we positively chose to disbelieve. The difference between agnostics and atheists is simply an epistemological one. For both, religion simply is not important.

Talking about belief (or the lack thereof) is something we could all be better at. Half of U.S. adults seldom or never talk about religion with people outside their family. In the UK, former spin doctor for Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell, once said, we dont do God. His point was that religion is a personal (and often unpalatable and awkward) conversation topic for most British people.

Yet, so much is lost in the process. Our beliefs, religious or otherwise, are the most important things about who we are. Sharing and discussing them with others not only helps us understand ourselves more but brings us all closer together. Conflict is often born of misunderstanding and ignorance, and a lot of discord could be avoided by dialogue that seeks to elucidate peoples beliefs.

Examining the types of atheism also reveals another exciting topic: disbelief. All of us have beliefs, but we also all have disbeliefs. Even theists reject the existence of some gods.

Jonny Thomson teaches philosophy in Oxford. He runs a popular Instagram account called Mini Philosophy (@philosophyminis). His first book isMini Philosophy: A Small Book of Big Ideas.

See more here:

What are the different types of atheism? - Big Think

Posted in Atheist | Comments Off on What are the different types of atheism? – Big Think

Short Prayers 13: Faith | Faith and Reason – Patheos

Posted: at 2:18 am

Short Prayers? By Faith, not Sight.

My atheist social media partners snarl and demand of believers: prove that God exists! But, what I find more important than proving that some sort of deity exists is this question: what kind of God do we have? I only want a gracious God. and, I believe that is the kind of God we have.

Blessed are those who have not seenand yet have come to believe. (John 20:29b)

Elizabeth was four years old. Each day I had to pick her up at the Bancroft Nursery School and drive her home. This particular day she looked pensive.

Daddy, she said, I cant see God.

What? I asked. Oh, I had heard the question all right. I was asking her to repeat it just so I could buy some time to think up a response.

I cant see God, she went on with increased frustration. I look everywhere. I look at home. I look at church. I look at the nursery school. But nowhere do I see God. How come?

On the one hand, the question worried me because I thought Elizabeth might be exhibiting the tendency of the modern post-Enlightenment mind to rely solely upon empirical knowledge, thereby leading to premature atheism because spiritual realities cannot be empirically verified. On the other hand, I felt confident because I, a fully trained systematic theologian with a doctorate in the field, should be well prepared to take on just such a query. So I launched into what I thought was a rather astute response.

Well, Elizabeth, remember that God is omnipresent, ubiquitous. This means God is everywhere. Now if God is everywherestrewn throughout the length and breadth of this gigantic universethen there is nowhere where God is not present. Now to perceive anything we have to be able to distinguish what it is from what it is not. We need to see it in relief. But there is nowhere we can go to see where God is absent. We cannot physically contrast God with what is not God. We can contrast God only according to qualities such as righteousness versus unrighteousness, love versus non-love..

Elizabeth was growing perceptibly impatient with my dissertation, despite my erudition. So, she interrupted. Daddy, does God love little children?

Yes, of course.

Good, she said with a smile returning to her face, and the conversation came to an end.

In the centuries of long battle between faith and reason, faith had a little victory that day. Elizabeth believes in what she cannot see, because what she cannot see is the source of divine love.

Unsearchable, invisible, God only wise, give us the faith of your children. Amen.

Ted Peters is a Lutheran pastor and emeritus seminary professor. He is author of Short Prayers and The Cosmic Self. His one volume systematic theology is now in its 3rd edition, GodThe Worlds Future (Fortress 2015). He has undertaken a thorough examination of the sin-and-grace dialectic in two works, Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society (Eerdmans 1994) and Sin Boldly! (Fortress 2015). Watch for his forthcoming, The Voice of Public Christian Theology (ATF 2022). See his website: TedsTimelyTake.com.

Excerpt from:

Short Prayers 13: Faith | Faith and Reason - Patheos

Posted in Atheist | Comments Off on Short Prayers 13: Faith | Faith and Reason – Patheos

Richard Dawkins and Evolution – Daily Times

Posted: at 2:18 am

In 1859, a British man, Charles Darwin published a book called On the Origin of Species. This book was based on his study of creatures he had encountered during his travels to many overseas locations, including the Galapagos Islands. He put forward the theory that all living creatures that exist today, including human beings, have evolved for perhaps millions of years, from more primitive life forms to how they are today by a process of natural selection. Another name for this random development of species is blind evolution.

Darwin was a natural science graduate of Cambridge University and a geologist. He was also a Christian. Darwin did not intend to challenge religious beliefs with his book but many religious believers responded to it with fury, because his theory of evolution by natural selection was at odds with how religion explains the process of creation.

Darwins Theory of Evolution was published in 1859, which later became known to the world at large. Few theories have impacted the human mind as much as did Darwins theory. It had created a class of his disciples, the most prominent of which was Richard Dawkins.

Born in 1941, Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist and author. The Selfish Gene, published by him in 1976, established Professor Richard Dawkins as a leading figure in evolutionary theory and popularized the idea that replicating genes are the central force behind evolution, not individual organisms or species. His other landmark books include The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth, and The Blind Watchmaker in which he repeated the same theorem.

Dawkins was criticised as too strong in his criticism of religion, and thus rightly dubbed as fundamental atheist.

The common criticism was that Dawkins was too strong in his criticism of religion, and was thus rightly dubbed as fundamental atheist.

For anyone who would spend some time on this topic, two questions have always seemed quite a puzzle. Whence he came from at the time of his birth, and where he will go after his death. Every community and class of people have different views. When a community or creed takes a combined view, they form into one religious group. Their religious bonds keep them united in most of the activities. They believe that their births and deaths are ordained by God, who is the creator of this universe, and in this belief, they have firm faith.

Some critics hold that Richard Dawkins has educated and inspired many millions of people around the world, spanning generations, cultures, languages, and beliefs. His lifes work has been to open our minds to the beauty of science and to cast a fresh look on our closely held beliefs. He has been instrumental in demolishing the taboo around atheism, helping to bring non-believers into the mainstream of public discourse.

In the research done on this theory of evolution so far, three limitations of Darwins theory embrace the idea that all forms of life, great and small, were derived from a common primordial cell or organism which requires a scientific basis. The various religions, current and extinct, typically elevate humans above other forms of life.

The three limitations of Darwins theory concern the origin of DNA, the irreducible complexity of the cell, and the paucity of transitional species. Because of these limitations, the author predicts a paradigm shift away from evolution to an alternative explanation.

The objections to Darwinism are as follows:

(1) Darwin could not explain the origin and cause of variations that are generated during evolution.

(2) He emphasized the importance of the fittest organisms. Later, it has been suggested fit and fitter forms can also co-exist.

(3) The principle of inheritance was not present during Darwin.

By and large, there is no fundamental change in Darwins Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Nor can this Theory be termed as a threat to our traditional religions, despite the fact that the theory was propounded in 1859 i.e about 163 years earlier. It has however won many supporters and now stands at a much sounder footing than before. The people are complacent because there is no immediate danger from the impact of this Theory, and the organic change due to natural selection is taking place so slowly. Even after millions and billions of years, it would not cause a physical shock to humanity, although with time, it may mould their minds to move away from conventional religions. Over time, things will seem to be normal.

Paradoxically even the intelligentsia, the well-to-do, the common citizens, and the poor all have simply overlooked its inherent impact, as it is not going to affect their beliefs or ideas in any forcible future, nor is going to benefit any particular religion over the other. Everyone, except a few people, who have been aware of its implications for far too long.

The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence.

Original post:

Richard Dawkins and Evolution - Daily Times

Posted in Atheist | Comments Off on Richard Dawkins and Evolution – Daily Times

The realities of life and the lies of abortion – Lake County Record-Bee

Posted: at 2:18 am

A baby was born on Feb. 2 because, when a scared late teenager walked in for an appointment at an abortion clinic months earlier, someone explained to her what would happen during the abortion process. A doctor would stop the babys heart from beating. Im sure the person doing the explaining didnt use the word baby, but once you know it has a heart, its hard to pretend it isnt a human.

Abortion thrives in the darkness of euphemisms and lies.

This particular mother was still early on in her pregnancy, and yet doctors would have to stop her unborn childs heart from beating. The young mother wanted nothing of that reality. She left without getting the abortion. When the truth is told, women are set free.

And yet the New York Times recently ran an article with the headline Abortion Opponents Hear a Heartbeat. Most Experts Hear Something Else.

The Times wants you to believe that because the heart of a 6-week-old fetus isnt fully developed, its beat doesnt count. Its only a primitive tube of cardiac cells that emit electric pulses and pump blood.

The piece contends: The consensus among most medical experts is that the electrical activity picked up on an ultrasound at six weeks is not the sound of a heart The sound expectant mothers hear during a scan is created by the machine itself, which translates the waves of electrical activity into something audible.

You dont have to be a doctor to find this absurd.

Fresh off giving birth, former atheist blogger-turned Catholic Leah Libresco Sargeant responded to the Times article on Twitter: This objection is quite odd. By the same logic, an ultrasound picture isnt real because it translates sound waves into a visual representation.

Instead of admitting there is a heartbeat early on, the abortion industry wants you to believe that heartbeat bills are merely pro-life propaganda.

But if you go to Planned Parenthoods own website, the abortion giants answer to what is happening with a fetus during weeks five and six of pregnancy is: A very basic beating heart and circulatory system develop.And my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out that even the paper of record has acknowledged that heartbeats are detectable at six weeks in a pregnancy, on more than one occasion. They were simply stating fact at the time, but to state fact now is impermissible, because it means that unborn, developing babies will be seen as just what they are. And our culture of convenience and death doesnt want that.

Experts are quoted, as is convenient for the Times. The medical realities cannot be spoken now because most Americans arent hardened ideologues when it comes to abortion. Stopping a beating heart sounds quite barbaric. I talked with a woman who was 12 weeks pregnant recently, who was in the process of a two-day abortion. On the first day, doctors insert a device to widen the cervix. She was desperate and resigned. She told me she was dizzy. She looked like she was about to throw up.

This is the reality of abortion in America. Anyone who has a heart would be honest about it and work together whatever our political and moral views are to make sure women know what they are getting into and have an actual choice, at the very least. Acknowledging that women deserve better should be the goal.

(Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, editor-at-large of National Review magazine and author of the new book A Year With the Mystics: Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living. She is also chair of Cardinal Dolans pro-life commission in New York. She can be contacted at klopez@nationalreview.com.)

Read the original post:

The realities of life and the lies of abortion - Lake County Record-Bee

Posted in Atheist | Comments Off on The realities of life and the lies of abortion – Lake County Record-Bee

Meet the rabbi queering religion at the Jesuit Catholic University of San Francisco – JTA News – Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Posted: at 2:18 am

(J. The Jewish News of Northern CaliforniaviaJTA) Since becoming University of San Franciscos rabbi-in-residence in 2019, Rabbi Camille Angel has been busy, whether shes creating inclusive on-campus spaces, teaching classes, officiating Jewish lifecycle events or leading Passover seders.

All in a days work for a campus rabbi, perhaps, but her impact is being felt well beyond the universitys Jewish community.

When Angels hiring was announced, it madeheadlines. A Jesuit Catholic university appointing a rabbi-in-residence was unprecedented, especially when that rabbi is a lesbian andlongtimeLGBTQ activist.

I was trained and Im a rabbi to serve Jews, and I do I led a shiva two nights ago, so Im definitely still serving Jews, Angel told J. But theres something remarkable for me and totally unexpected about my rabbinate being primarily among non-Jews at this point and that my teaching is primarily with non-Jews.

According to Angel, there is only one Jewish student in her Queering Religion class of 40. The other students represent a mix of religious affiliations, but they gravitate to Angels classes and programs because of the inclusive queer community she has cultivated on campus.

I actually didnt know much about Judaism and what a rabbi was or what they did, said Jade Peafort, a senior sociology major from Redwood City. But honestly, I love it. Ive learned from her that in Judaism, some of the core values are just working with other people and for other people and as a community. Its not just about yourself.

Angel said its important for her to be a visibly Jewish and queer presence on campus both in and out of the classroom. She regularly wears an embroidered kippah and keeps a rainbow pride flag displayed in her office window. She emphasizes how much real representation and inclusion matter, especially when many students have never interacted with Judaism or Jewish thought or even met a rabbi.

Students will often ask me, What should I call you? Professor? Doctor? Rabbi? Angel said. I tell them to call me rabbi, because everyone needs a rabbi, and if you didnt have one before, now you do.

Before joining the seven-person University Ministry staff as the on-campus rabbi, Angel had been lecturing at USF for several years as part of the Swig Program in Jewish Studies and Social Justice, which she largelycredits for her presence on campus.

Ordained rabbi at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Angelplaces a lot of emphasis on being a positive, identity-affirming spiritual adviser regardless of students backgrounds or belief systems. Angel finds that many of her students relationships with religion often are complicated by negative experiences due to their sexual orientations or gender identities. But they are also curious and seeking for themselves to figure out whether they want to explore spirituality.

When I was teaching my first [theology] class, I encountered so many people whod been really damaged and hurt by religion, or who had chosen not to be associated with religion, because they could see that it hurt people they loved, said Angel. According to USF, a majority of undergraduate students are unaffiliated with a religion, while others identify as Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, atheist or Protestant. Fewer than half are Catholic.

According to a 2020 study bythe Trevor Project, LGBTQ young adults whose parents held negative religious beliefs about homosexuality were at twice the risk of attempting suicide.

In her Queering Religion class, Angel teaches from a Jewish perspective how to navigate religious contexts, especially those religions that have often attempted to negate queer people. Many students credit Angel and this class with helping them re-evaluate and reconnect with their respective spiritual traditions.

This was the case for Luis Anaya, a senior sociology major, for whom growing up Mexican American and Catholic went hand in hand, but being queer and Catholic, not so much.

I had a lot of reservations around religion because growing up and being queer, I innately had a different experience and different perspective on Catholic teachings, said Anaya, who was born in Mexico City but grew up in Stockton.

When he took Angels class, he said, he also was taking strides in exploring and navigating his queer identity, so the intersection of queer narratives and spirituality was particularly meaningful for him. He also said exposure to Jewish thought helped to repair his strained relationship with Catholicism.

Rabbi Angel talks a lot about pluralism, how different identities can coexist at the same time, and the idea of not reading the text literally, but rather interpreting it to get a better perspective of what these people were trying to write about and the messages that they were trying to convey, Anaya said. To question things and almost approach them with a grain of salt.

Peafort had a similar experience. Raised Catholic, she stopped going to church in her teens. She says she struggled with Catholicism for several reasons, but especially when her older sister came out as queer. She says the tools she learned in Angels class helped her figure out how to deal with her conflicting beliefs around religion. Peafort says Angels class also helped her feel comfortable exploring her own sexuality and identity as a Fillipina woman and sister.

Even though I felt like I didnt fit into Catholicism and their values, I was still able to take little pieces and apply it to myself or just reframe it in a way that applies to me and my life and my identity, said Peafort.

With Angel as a facilitator, Anaya and several other students started a peer-led LGBTQ group on campus called Qmmunity, which Anaya describes as a sort of extension of Angels class and the Jewish values she teaches. On Thursdays, the group hosts a lunch program called Breaking Bread and the Binary, in which students come together to share a meal, their thoughts and reflections on current events.

The first session this semester was held Jan. 27 on Holocaust Remembrance Day and shortly after the Jan. 15 Colleyville, Texas hostage crisis. Angel expressed how significant the gathering felt and how it reminded her of the importance of creating inclusive spaces not just for Jewish students but for all marginalized people.

Being in this group out and proud, here and queer, on the lawn in front of the church, its the biggest satisfaction that Hitler and the Nazis and fascism and fundamentalism dont rule our lives, Angel said the next day, reflecting on the session. Were here, together, and we wont be frightened back into our respective closets.

Next month, Angel will host the inaugural Alvin H. Baum Jr. Memorial Lecture, in honor of the San Francisco philanthropist known as a community pillar in the Jewish, civil rights and gay communities who died last year. In April, shes leading a social justice-centered interfaith Passover seder focused on themes of climate justice, interfaith solidarity, peace, health and freedom. She also has plans to expand community outreach to address the issue of food insecurity among college students, something that affects LGBTQ people at twice the rate of others, according to theU.S. Census Bureau.

All throughout, her core focus is on the intersection of religion and queerness.

I think its so refreshing to hear a different perspective, Peafort said, and even if its based on a religious point of view, it doesnt necessarily feel like it is. It just feels like shes a very wise woman, and a mentor and a friend.

This article was originally published inJ. The Jewish News of Northern California, and is reprinted with permission.

Continue reading here:

Meet the rabbi queering religion at the Jesuit Catholic University of San Francisco - JTA News - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Posted in Atheist | Comments Off on Meet the rabbi queering religion at the Jesuit Catholic University of San Francisco – JTA News – Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Joe Rogans Spotify controversy: Its bigger than the n-word clip – Vox.com

Posted: at 2:17 am

2022 has not started off well for Joe Rogan even before the headline-grabbing Spotify controversy that has made him a perhaps unwitting figurehead for extremist rhetoric. First, hundreds of health experts complained that he was frequently spreading Covid-19 misinformation through his massively popular podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. Then a jaw-dropping compilation video of Rogan saying the n-word 24 times in his 12 years hosting the podcast surfaced.

These things seem like the hallmarks of a far-right ideologue, but Rogan, who called Barack Obama the best president we have had in our lifetime, cant easily be pigeonholed as racist. He also cant be easily pigeonholed as an anti-science bigot, despite having made misogynistic, anti-feminist, fatphobic, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-vax statements. Its not even easy to peg the podcaster, who famously endorsed progressive candidate Bernie Sanders in the 2020 election (before anti-endorsing Biden), as right-wing.

In fact, one of the things that makes Joe Rogan so popular among his millions of fans is that his politics are so difficult to pin down. Rather than simply and easily slotting into a box labeled conservative, liberal, or even reactionary, he mainly holds both the far right and the far left in contempt; depending on which day you check in, hes either a left-leaning centrist or a right-leaning libertarian. But his contrarian tendencies lead him to embrace and toy with lots of ideas, including those from the fringe.

As his critics are quick to point out, in portraying himself as open-minded, Rogan platforms a lot of people whose ideas are dangerous. And without a background in journalism or seemingly any type of journalistic editorial oversight, Rogan, who has spent most of his podcasting career as a fully independent media host, hasnt always been the best person to critique or fact-check his highly influential guests.

When Rogans more polarizing guests and their unchecked influence join with his own long history of saying offensive things, the results can be grim. Alongside the reasoned political debates and philosophical arguments, his massive audience of primarily mainstream, middle-American men gets dosed with toxicity and extremism. Rogan is always quick to defend his shows content in the name of free speech and preserving the voices of straight white men. But as the New York Times noted in a 2021 profile of Rogan, while his self-deprecating brand of authenticity has made his listeners view him as just another regular guy, his influence has grown hulking, enough to make him one of the most formidable single voices in media to exist maybe ever.

What we have, then, is a problem that is both unique to the internet and reflective of the giant problem of the internet as a whole: Like the internet itself, Rogan and whatever dangerous misinformation, conspiracy theories, jerky bigotry, or offensive views he wants to serve up today are all unstoppable and essentially answerable to no one. He has all of the audience, money, attention, and prestige of a traditional gatekeeper, but with barely any real pressure to assume responsibility for repeatedly making high-profile mistakes on the job.

The publics growing lack of trust in traditional journalism and legacy media outlets a wariness evinced by media throne usurpers like Rogan himself has made it even less likely for him to be effectively held accountable or face real consequences for repeated mistakes. After all, fans who are already prone to distrust the media are hardly going to support the journalism they dislike for trying to call out the podcaster they do like especially not for what they see as foibles rather than serious flaws.

That, too, is a unique problem: If Rogans audience doesnt agree that his guests or his rhetoric are problems to begin with, or that his pattern of platforming bigotry and misinformation is an issue, then whos to say theyre wrong?

Rogans exclusive Spotify deal, announced in May 2020, should have been an easy win for the company, which has been investing heavily in expanding its podcast content across a wide variety of genres and target audiences. The deal, which was initially reported as netting Rogan around $100 million but was recently reported as closer to $200 million, placed the vast majority of Rogans staggering episode vault currently up to nearly 1,800 eps exclusively on the Spotify platform.

But from the beginning, there were issues. Spotify quietly had Rogan remove about a dozen episodes interviews Rogan had done with alt-right figures like Milo Yiannopoulos and with Gavin McInnes, founder of the extreme-right Proud Boys movement. The Times recently reported that Spotify staff had vocalized their concerns about Rogans content as early as September 2020.

Then came Rogans increasingly skeptical views on generally accepted Covid-19 medical advice. On the show, Rogan advised young adults not to get vaccinated, claimed to be treating himself with harmful rogue treatments including an animal dewormer not recommended for Covid-19, and hosted anti-vax guests. The scientific communitys response to his spread of misinformation peaked in January with the open letter to Spotify. In response to the physicians criticism, legendary rock musician Neil Young protested Rogan by pulling all of his music from Spotify.

It was a jarring callout for Rogan, whose fans say they love him for being a moderated, reasoned voice in the middle of an increasingly polarized media space. And that fan base is enormous: His own estimates put the shows regular listening audience big enough to rival the Super Bowl, although those numbers are self-reported. And while his influence may have declined since moving to the platform, a Spotify spokesperson told Business Insider that Rogans listenership had actually grown since his move to Spotify.

The Neil Young controversy had barely been doused Rogan apologized, sort of, explaining, Im not a doctor, Im a fucking moron before another erupted. This time, another musician, India Arie, threatened to pull her music from Spotify over Rogan, sharing on her Instagram the video of Rogan saying the n-word 24 times on the podcast. In his subsequent apology, Rogan admitted that hed previously had a long history of saying the actual racial slur instead of saying the n-word.

I thought as long as it was in context, people would understand what I was doing, he said. But it is not my word to use. Im well aware of that now ... I never used it to be racist because Im not racist, but whenever youre in a situation where you have to say, Im not racist, you fucked up.

In response to the video and Rogans apology, Spotify asked Rogan to remove an additional 70-ish offensive episodes from the platform, including episodes where he made racialized remarks and joked about sexual assault. With that unpleasantness out of the way, the company stood firmly by Rogan. We should have clear lines around content and take action when they are crossed, but canceling voices is a slippery slope, company CEO Daniel Ek stated in a published memo to Spotify employees.

Rogan stressed that the video which has been floating around the internet for a while had been taken out of context, compiled over his shows 12-year history. Still, the implication that Rogan only said the n-word on-air an average of two times a year (as The Daily Shows Trevor Noah described it, like he bought it in bulk at Costco) is pretty galling by itself. It doesnt help that the video also included the time Rogan described entering a Black neighborhood as like entering the planet of the apes a statement Rogan claimed he only made to be entertaining, not to be racist.

As Rogan himself admitted, all of this looks and sounds horrible. But with zero consequences being laid at his door and his fan support unwavering, does any of it ultimately matter?

Rogan got his start in comedy and still primarily identifies as a comedian though that may be difficult for people who are mainly familiar with his more recent career to parse. As a standup comic, he performed in Boston, then moved to Los Angeles and scored roles on the 90s sitcoms Hardball and NewsRadio. His comedy career continued around his entertainment jobs, including the role that launched him into stardom: the often confrontational host of NBCs eat these worms reality show Fear Factor. Rogan has said he took the job as Fear Factor host so hed have more material for his standup routines. But in fact, his hosting abilities would pave the way for a career in podcasting.

When Rogan began The Joe Rogan Experience on Christmas Eve in 2009, the landscape of podcasting looked hugely different from how it looks today. Some legacy media had forayed into the podcasting world, most notably This American Life, which began distributing episodes as a podcast in 2006. But barring some rare exceptions, podcasting was almost entirely an independent, amateur, grassroots space not an industry at all, but rather a community of predominantly high-income, extremely online tech nerds, mostly men, flocking to the audio equivalent of a blog. The small-town intimacy of podcasting in those days allowed podcasts like Rogans to do well, not only because of listener loyalty but also because they were the only game in town. If you wanted to listen to a funny, comedian-centered chat show, or a meaty, lengthy interview, Rogan was right there with plenty of content to chew on.

Rogan was fast, prolific, and consistent, putting out long weekly, then biweekly, then multi-weekly episodes like clockwork. These initially featured long interviews with other comedians like Dane Cook or Bill Burr, but it didnt take long for other high-profile interviews to sneak in: Kevin Smith, Anthony Bourdain, Melissa Etheridge. Rogans wide-open approach to guests was effective but unwieldy: By 2013, he was chatting with scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson, but also courting fringe conspiracy theories of every variety, ranging from his long-held belief that the moon landing was faked to the existence of DMT elves.

Rogans podcast debut coincided with the introduction of Googles Android into the smartphone space, a development that exacerbated the rise not only of modern social media but also of the podcast as a ubiquitous smartphone presence. It also coincided with the increasing obsolescence of traditional media; between 2006 and 2016, awareness of podcasting doubled while trust in media on the whole plummeted, reaching new lows year over year.

Even more crucial to Rogans success was YouTube: Rogan filmed and released his podcast episodes on YouTube as well, giving him access to two growing online ecosystems. These were increasingly united not only by a common DIY ethos but a sense that influence and authority, if not expertise, could be earned through nontraditional pathways.

For Rogan, that authority took the form of embracing his masculinity and encouraging his listeners the vast majority of whom were and are young men to do the same. He offers a motivational shove in the general direction of success and happiness, a clarion call for audiences to step up and take control of their own lives that fits somewhere between a Tony Robbins seminar and Reddits favorite lawyer up and hit the gym mantra. In his bio, Rogan highlights his longstanding side gig as an MMA commentator and notes that he had a black belt in tae kwon do as a teen. Its perhaps significant that he lists those accomplishments before his Fear Factor hosting gig the latter might be a more recognizable achievement to the general public, but the former underscores the stamp of authentic machismo that his fans value.

But Rogan also, perhaps surprisingly, eschews toxic masculinity (even as Rogan himself eschews the whole idea of toxic masculinity and a potpourri of other progressive buzzwords). He urges listeners to be vulnerable, to forge close male friendships, to celebrate male energy. As Andrew Sullivan recently observed, He readily admits when hes wrong and often self-deprecates. Hes not afraid to show emotion and choke up whether its over the triumph of female fighters or putting down a puppy or the death of Chadwick Boseman. ... His masculinity is unforced, funny and real.

While a desire to uphold men and masculinity might make Rogan more relatable to his audiences, however, it also leaves them more receptive to Rogans wide-ranging social and political views and the extremist views of some of the guests he platforms. For example: Even after the 2018 collapse of his Infowars empire, right-wing extremist conspiracist Alex Jones continued to reach a massive mainstream audience as a guest on Rogans show, thanks to a 2019 appearance that was downloaded more than 30 million times before its eventual Spotify removal. Rogans most recent episode with recurring guest and right-wing philosopher Jordan Peterson was over four hours long; excerpts of it have already been viewed millions of times on YouTube alone. Thats a lot of potential new eyes and ears turned toward a man whose reactionary politics have won him a huge following among white supremacists.

Rogan has also increasingly faced charges of being an alt-right gateway drug, despite and perhaps even because of his progressive political endorsements and research into YouTubes ballooning far-right sphere of influence has borne out some of that alarm. Though Rogan has never overtly courted the internet manosphere, with its long tail of toxicity and function as an introduction into harder extremism, many of his fans are drawn to his podcast for the same reasons theyre drawn to the manosphere: Rogans permissive, understanding approach to being a man in a world increasingly critical of masculinity.

None of this context fully explains how Rogan arrived at the injecting himself with dewormer stage of Covid-19 conspiracies. But it does imply that unlike, say, a right-wing news anchor who might preach vaccine wariness while being fully vaccinated themselves, Rogans mistrust of authority and anti-establishment contrarianism are more than just words. The complicated reality is that Rogan seems to genuinely dislike woke progressive politics and what he perceives as the hypersensitive, overly semantic identity politics of leftism, while also despising Donald Trump and everything he represents. Recognizing that the two arent mutually exclusive moral vectors is arguably one of Rogans strengths; he wont cancel you for disagreeing with him. I disagree with myself all the time, hes said.

His fans likewise see his self-deprecating openness about his own ignorance as a value rather than a flaw. And all the racist language? That, too, is a nonstarter with fans as a serious criticism of Rogan which makes sense when you consider that one of the main ways modern racism flourishes is through a reliance on nuance that skirts the line between ironic racism and actual racism, between intent and effect. NPR critic Eric Deggans calls Rogans Im not X-ist, despite doing these many literally X-ist things approach to these topics bigotry denial syndrome, which he defines as the belief that, because you personally dont view yourself as a bigot, you dont believe that you can say or do something that is seriously bigoted or damaging.

The problem here isnt just that Rogan may have hurt feelings or given offense, Deggans writes. The bigger issue is the way such jokes foster acceptance of stereotypes that are damaging and persistent. ... In fact, you can argue that by providing more palatable ways for fans to use a horrible racial slur and laughing off a joke he admitted was racist Rogan did damage that is tougher to address than an admitted racist openly advocating white supremacy.

Deggans is focused here on Rogans history of racist language usage. But hes also pinned the slippery, bigger problem with Rogan as a public figure. Rogan is the influencers influencer a new-generation media mogul whose fame is predicated less on being accurate or being professional than on being popular and relatable. Paradoxically, that allows him not only to get away with professional-level mistakes errors that might have ended his career if he had a boss, worked in an office environment, or had anyone to hold him accountable but also to claim ownership of those glaring mistakes as a part of his brand of relatability and honesty.

Instead of being canceled (hes too big to cancel), Rogan has dragged us all in the opposite direction: Hes just respectable enough, and more than powerful enough, to have helped shift the Overton window of acceptable, respectable social views toward a messier, uglier roundtable that, sure, includes Bernie Sanders and Neil deGrasse Tyson, but also includes Alex Jones and a bunch of alt-light right-wingers. Spotify might have been the driving force that could have attempted to hold Rogan accountable for his decision to consistently platform extremists, but Spotify, battling its own set of problems in the podcast space, kowtowed to Rogan and graciously gave way.

In other words, Rogan, one of the most powerful voices in the world, now may have more freedom than ever to dictate the terms of public conversation to decide who and what gets to be listened to, and why. As Deggans notes, that sort of influence is much harder to fight than out-and-out extremism.

Its in that gray space that Rogan flourishes. Its in that gray space that his listeners, exhausted by the endless polarization of sociocultural discourse, find comfort in Rogans ambiguities and contradictions and uncertainties. But its also that gray space that harbors bad actors, bad science, misinformation, and disinformation. By playing host to them all but claiming it all as fair game in the name of free speech, Rogan has taught his followers a simple but effective playbook for how to appear balanced without actually being balanced.

Whether Rogan himself believes his dedication to cultivating a moderate and open viewpoint is almost beside the point: It only takes one bad seed to yield a lot of bad apples. And for every Roganite who gravitates to his show because of his more moderate guests, there are the Roganites who come for the Elon Musks but get drawn to the Jordan Petersons and Ben Shapiros. Thats all part of Rogans appeal, no matter how much his fans might insist that it isnt. And the more he teaches his followers how to weaponize that denialism, the harder it gets to pass off Rogans brand as that of a relatable guy whos just royally fucking up once in a while.

Yet what if Rogan were to drop the artifice? If he were to actually admit that there are limits to the acceptable nature of the views hes been platforming? For all Rogans shows of authenticity, that level of honesty seems almost unthinkable.

Rogan, and people like Peterson alongside him, have been able to stretch the Overton window because not enough of his followers and the general public are convinced that what theyre preaching is socially unacceptable discourse. But if Rogan admits that it is, then hes turned his show into yet another moral line in the culture war sand and another hill for his fans and far-right reactionaries to die on. If Rogan admits that amplifying abhorrent views in the name of free speech isnt worth the trade-off, then the safe comfort zone hes spent 12 years constructing for his audience comes crashing down.

And if Rogan admits, out loud, that the safe zone he built hides monsters, then we all have to reckon with having allowed him to build it. And to reckon, not just with Joe Rogan but with the past decade of our cultural conversation constricting itself in knots in order to establish a legitimate platform for white supremacy, white nationalism, and a bottomless cauldron of hate. For ideas that should never have been treated as legitimate to begin with.

Surely, rather than unpack that mess, its easier for everyone to let Joe Rogan keep Joe Roganing for Spotify to sidestep a distasteful canceling, and for fans to continue viewing Rogan as a vanguard of moderated discourse.

The only problem is one of attrition: The more we let Rogan get away with it, the more we set ourselves up for something worse down the line for something even more unacceptable to slowly become acceptable.

Whats more unacceptable than 24 n-words? We can barely imagine. But one thing already seems like an inevitability: The next Rogan-esque influencer who comes along may have even less pretense, and even more fans who are willing to follow him into the dark.

Read the original:

Joe Rogans Spotify controversy: Its bigger than the n-word clip - Vox.com

Posted in Alt-right | Comments Off on Joe Rogans Spotify controversy: Its bigger than the n-word clip – Vox.com

They do not bend the knee: US right courts UFC as NFL nods at social justice – The Guardian

Posted: at 2:17 am

Last week, Republican senator Ted Cruz posted a photo of himself alongside UFC legend Chuck Liddell. The photo, which showed the two men posing with raised fists, was the latest example of a politician using an athletes star power, in this case to pander to a younger demographic. It also underscored the American rights ongoing love affair with the UFC.

Over the past few years, UFC has become synonymous with rightwing politics due to its well-documented relationship with former president Donald Trump. As previously reported by the Guardian, the organization effectively became the sports arm of the Maga regime and was an ideal platform for Trump to espouse his political agenda.

UFC president Dana White was among Trumps most boisterous supporters, having campaigned for the former president as far back as 2016. White has since defended Trumps policies, produced a documentary on him Combatant-in-Chief, and even used his relationship with the former president to defy government mandates at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.

During the 2020 presidential election, Trump deployed several UFC fighters as campaign surrogates, placing them in front of crowds at rallies in swing-states such as Florida in order to secure a key demographic that forms the majority of mixed martial arts fanbase: young men.

And though Trump lost the election, Republicans continued to flirt with the UFC in order to benefit from the organizations popularity.

UFC fighters and executives have become regular guests on conservative shows such as those hosted by Sean Hannity and Candace Owens. Over the past few months, Owens has invited fighters like UFC lightweight Beneil Dariush to discuss the woes of communism while White was brought on to discuss the supposed importance of keeping politics out of sports.

Its America, White told Owens in April 2021 when asked about the UFCs supposed political apathy. Thats the way its supposed to be. And you shouldnt have to go to work and listen to that shit.

While Whites assertion is tenuous at best due to his own history with Trump, his comments endeared him to conservative audiences dissatisfied with the rise of social justice narratives in leagues such as the NFL and NBA. By taking saying the UFC does not support so-called woke politics, White is essentially positioning the organization as a fitting alternative for the American right. This, in turn, has warmed conservative pundits and politicians to the organization, which they now view as a market for their ideology.

Among the politicians who embraced the UFC over the past year is Floridas governor, Ron DeSantis, who invited the organization to host UFC 261, a capacity-crowd event in Jacksonville, Florida, in April 2021. DeSantis, who is viewed as a contender for the Republican nomination in 2024, has been criticized for using his states limited Covid restrictions to increase his political clout. Hosting a capacity-crowd UFC show during a particularly difficult period during the pandemic was a clear show of defiance.

This is going to be the first [indoor] full-throttle sports event since Covid hit anywhere in the United States and I think its fitting, DeSantis said to a cheering crowd at the UFC 261 pre-fight press conference. Welcome to Florida. You guys arent the only ones looking to come to this oasis of freedom.

It is worth noting that UFC 261 was celebrated by the likes of Steve Bannon, as well as user wrote on a QAnon Telegram channel with more than 20,000 subscribers. Watch UFC.

UFC fighters have also stepped into the political arena in recent months. In December 2021, lightweight contender Michael Chandler spoke at Turning Point USAs Americafest event alongside conspiracy-monger Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump Jr, and alt-right personality Jack Posobiec.

Chandler first made his political leanings clear when he questioned the results of the 2020 presidential election, tweeting at the time is Joe Biden really just taking the mic to talk about how patient we have to be and how long we are going to have to wait AKA we are going to contest these resultshard #wakeupsheep. The fighter deleted the tweet shortly thereafter.

Other UFC fighters such as Colby Covington, whom the Guardian described as the athletic embodiment of Trumps politics, continues to strengthen his ties to prominent conservatives such as Trump Jr and Owens. In fact, Owens revealed that it was Covington who helped her become a fan of the UFC and that she plans to attend his upcoming fight against fellow Trump loyalist Jorge Masvidal at UFC 272 next month.

I will definitely be there [at UFC 272], Owens said on Full Send podcast. 100% will be there. I love Colby.

Owens previously called for the UFC to replace the NFL as Americas national pastime, a term that was once reserved for baseball. [The UFC] is exploding right now and its because they do not get involved in politics. They are not woke and they do not bend the knee, Owens said, adding that the UFC is the only real sport left.

It is perhaps no surprise many on the right identify more with the UFC than the NFL. Although the league is currently being sued for racial discrimination in a high-profile lawsuit, it has at least paid lip service to social justice in recent years, particularly after the police murder of George Floyd. According to a recent survey, approximately one-third of those polled stated that they were less of a fan of the NFL now than they were five years ago. The poll found that those who did not approve of the NFLs current stance on social justice were disproportionately Republican, and that 45% of those who identified themselves as Republican believed the NFL was doing too much to show respect for Black players. Whether this disapproval is actually making a difference to the NFLs bottom line is debatable. Viewing figures for the 2021 regular season were up 7% on the year before, so some Republicans are clearly still tuning in.

Nevertheless, since the NFLs policies no longer coincide with Republican ideals, the American right has since shifted much of its attention to the UFC, a hyper-masculine sport that is popular among young men.

As Republicans forge ahead with shaping the GOPs post-Trump future, they will continue to rely on the UFC as an ideological incubator and a breeding ground for future supporters.

Visit link:

They do not bend the knee: US right courts UFC as NFL nods at social justice - The Guardian

Posted in Alt-right | Comments Off on They do not bend the knee: US right courts UFC as NFL nods at social justice – The Guardian

Twitter for the right: a look at Truth Social, Trump’s ethically dubious social media platform – The Conversation AU

Posted: at 2:17 am

Few people in recent times have created as much controversy as Donald Trump. A year after his utterances got him banned from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, his new enterprise, Truth Social, has made its debut on Apples App Store.

The platform, which is available as both an app and website, was made available to download on the US Apple App Store yesterday, and has so far topped the download charts. It will also be coming soon to the Google Play Store and other countries.

The timing of Truth Socials debut on the symbolic US Presidents Day is certainly no coincidence. Is it, at the end of the day, another tool in Trumps political arsenal?

Lets just say Trump is likely keeping his options open.

The Truth Social website has reportedly already been the target of hackers. It seems some users who managed to get early access also secured user handles including donaldtrump and mikepence.

The site is offline at the time of writing this article, presumably while its cyber-security capabilities are upgraded. It may be the site came under a sustained attack, or developers realised the need to thoroughly debug it before it goes live.

Truth Socials developer, the Trump Media and Technology Group (or T Media Tech LLC), said the platform will routinely collect data about users browsing history, contact information (including their phone number) and any pictures or videos they post. Importantly, this information will be linked to the users identity.

The platform will also gather non-identifiable data on how the user interacts with the application supposedly to analyse usage patterns and personalise the users experience.

However, while these data are described as not being linked to a users identity, they nonetheless include the users email address and ID. This suggests they are, in fact, personally identifiable.

Having such richly textured information puts Truth Social in a position not only to learn about users opinions and behaviours, but also to target them with personalised political messaging.

The legalities of this practice would have been carefully vetted to be on the right side of the law (morally questionable as it may be). And the technology for it already exists. It was used in the now infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal which, as evidence suggests, could have aided Trumps victory in the 2016 US presidential elections.

Big data analytics is advancing fast, made possible by ever-smarter algorithms, larger datasets and more powerful computers. Its a game-changer in the high-stakes world of politics.

Its also no accident Truth Socials user interface closely resembles that of Twitter: the platform used to greatest effect by Trump. In a 2019 interview, Twitter cofounder Evan Williams described Trump as a master of the platform.

It could be argued his 57,000 Tweets helped in no small way to make him the 45th President of the United States.

Read more: Despite being permanently banned, Trump's prolific Twitter record lives on

In the case of Truth Social, most of the opinions and ideas expressed will likely fall within the right of the political spectrum everything from hardcore alt-right ideologies, to those slightly right of centre.

However, as the platform is reliant on Apple and Google distributing it on their app stores, its unlikely the Truth Social platform can afford to become a mouthpiece for the far-right, as Gab has become.

If it is to survive, it must avoid the fate of Parler. This hard-right Twitter clone was delisted by Apple and Google for hosting comments that incited violence during the pro-Trump riots at the US Capitol in January 2021.

Read more: Parler: what you need to know about the 'free speech' Twitter alternative

It remains to be seen whether Devin Nunes, who heads up T Media Tech LLC, can avoid the platform becoming stridently right-wing and being delisted.

Success will depend on Truth Social attracting a spectrum of political views from a substantial number of users. This is something previous Twitter alternatives Parler, Gab and Gettr all failed to do.

Only time will tell whether Truth Social can avoid the mistakes made by other similar platforms. But it does appear to be trying to distance itself from being perceived as hard right. It has adopted a so-called big tent approach. To quote from the app store listing:

Think of a giant outdoor event tent at your best friends wedding. Whos there? The combination of multiple families from all over the United States, and the world. Uncle Jim from Atlanta is a proud libertarian. Aunt Kellie from Texas is a staunch conservative. Your cousin John from California is a die-hard liberal Although we dont always agree with each other, we welcome these varied opinions and the robust conversation they bring.

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labour in the Clinton administration, outlines seven ways unscrupulous politicians exercise control over the media.

These include berating and blacklisting dissenting media and raising a lynch-mob mentality. Opponents are demonised, sometimes with the added threat of legal action.

Also in the playbook is the exclusion of critics from interviews and comments. And last but not least is the exclusion of news outlets altogether, by using platforms such as Twitter to communicate directly with the public.

Before he was banned, Trump used Twitter to divert attention away from issues that could harm him. And research suggests diversionary tweets can be used to suppress coverage of certain issues, allowing the tweeter in question to exercise control of the narrative.

For example, heightened media coverage of the Mueller investigation was countered by multiple tweets from Trump about unrelated issues. It was observed this was followed by reduced coverage of the Mueller investigation.

All of this adds up to the distinct possibility that Trump has already begun campaigning for election in 2024. Instead of settling into comfortable retirement following his defeat in 2020, he has stayed in the limelight behaving more like a candidate-in-waiting.

Original post:

Twitter for the right: a look at Truth Social, Trump's ethically dubious social media platform - The Conversation AU

Posted in Alt-right | Comments Off on Twitter for the right: a look at Truth Social, Trump’s ethically dubious social media platform – The Conversation AU