time: 6:47
If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
Tweet
5 Comments
The non sequiturs introduced by several undergrads (ok, everyone interviewed) are your stock standard responses when someone attacks the premises to their arguments. Usually they’ve never considered the premises of their arguments—who needs to when one has learned ideological dogmas by rote in every stage of one’s schooling—so when they are attacked they do not defend them with reason but get emotional.
My favourite bit of nonsense brought up was the lack of a differing opinion published side by side with Mike’s article. The chutzpah is too much—when something affirming their beliefs is published they will never raise the issue of publishing a differing opinion. It’s only called for when they’re challenged, they think they’re entitled to a right of reply/damage control. It’s most humorously observed when a documentary is aired and there will be a panel of experts (read: political officers) discussing the “fallacies” in the documentary, whether before or after the showing, or both. Usually the panel discussions are longer than the actual documentary…
We must take control of our future European American narrative for it does (and will depend) on OUR intelligence. Otherwise, the nation will continue to implode into a mix of mediocrity and miscegenation.
That’s not America.
Good on Polignano for not backing down even though the coverage was, as expected, one-sided.
Is this intended to be an example of what not to do?
Why would you think that?