Where can one go to learn these controversial truths? I would love to see a list of these facts that apparently only insiders can talk about. Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?
It's not the "truth" and the "facts" that people are afraid to discuss. It's their opinions about truth and facts.
When you see phrases like "wrong/right side of history" and you see things happening like mass cancellation of brands or people for their opinions, you are seeing it. When a police officer is immediately fired and then charged with murder for performing his job the way he was trained to do it, you are seeing people fear the mob more than they care about the truth.
JK Rowling and Terry Crews are two famous people that come to mind who recently stated unpopular opinions and were attacked by mobs of people. There was no desire on the part of the mob to look for logical reasons for someone to have a
valid opinion that differs from the mainstream.
Maybe we should find a more accurate alternative for “attacked by mobs of people” to avoid equating flamewars with, I don’t know, the Tulsa Massacre. We still need to have the capacity to describe the relative horror of that.
I'm sorry, am I supposed to emphathize with a multimillionaire best-seller author who, instead of enjoying her wealth in some yacht somewhere (or whatever it is rich people do), decided to spend her free time riling up some trans people on twitter?
It's fair to claim Rowling's opinions are bad and it's also fair to say she was dumb to express them. But it seems like a non sequitur to point those things out when someone produces her as an example of someone being attacked for expressing their controversial opinions.
If you want an example of a current person with a true belief that is not accepted by their society that seems by definition hard to produce. Especially to an anonymous member of the society.
>Where can one go to learn these controversial truths?
Bits and pieces are strewn all over the place. But you have learn to separate the wheat from the chaff for yourself. Then you might start noticing the places with limited quantities of slightly more observant commentary.
>Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?
No, they just don't exist on the internet the same way most real conversations don't exist on the internet. The internet is great for information of the type that would be found in traditional publications, is of professional interest, or are marketing materials. It sucks for everything else.
People being real exist in very small quantities, usually on lighter topics to avoid exposing themselves, and are always outnumbered by people preforming for the audience or (untempered by people openly talking like reasonable people) have taken an extreme position on the topic.
The “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS liberal” videos that pop up on YouTube sometimes come to mind. Ben Shapiro was obviously a (probably very successful) high school debater and the guy thinks and responds fast. Not that those traits are good for actual discussion or coming to agreement.
He also claims him voicing his opinions about politics got him blacklisted from his dream job of being a Hollywood writer.
When he’s talking on a platform like Joe Rogan or having a leisurely chat he’s much more willing to be moderated by others opinions, and demonstrates the sort of give and take of a normal human being in a conversation. He’s certainly not some bastion of liberal values, and has principles he believes in, after all he’s an Orthodox Jew, but people like him exist because there’s a market for it and he’s carved out this public persona.
The people performing to the audience will get views from people like my uncle who just wants to see “Stephen Crowder OWNS libs” and has no interest in being right, only in feeling right. Unfortunately they’re going to likely always have the larger audience.
I don't think the Shapiro is the one signal boosting the whole "own libs thing".
It's very simple. Suppose the following.
1) A man has a law degree from Harvard and was publishing nationally when he was in high-school.
2) He has a set of opinions and schools invite him to speak.
3) Lot's of students ask him questions many who strongly disagree with him and attempt to "take him down".
4) All of this is on video, hours and hours of video.
OK
Now, in what possible world would this person not "own" people at a high frequency?
If he wasn't "owning" at a high frequency then that person should be embarrassed.
You see "Ben Shapiro owns X" and not, Ben Shapiro in conversation with Ezra Klein, or Ben Shapiro telling his audience that their opinions aren't worth anything if they don't spend time reading and listening to the best voices on the other side.
"Ben Shapiro the guy who owns people" is a meme because he's more of a threat then "Ben Shapiro the guy who certainly should speak slower, has reasonable arguments, even when he's wrong" because that Ben Shapiro, that second one is actually scary. People could listen to what he has to say.
The right's loudest voices have never been the brightest, or when they were bright, the most reasonable. Shapiro raises the level of discourse on the right by a mile.
I have yet to hear Ben Shapiro say something novel or interesting. I like him though, because for the first time a popular voice on the right is educated and can reason from premises to conclusions, in steps, and is willing to discuss the validity AND soundness of his arguments.
By consistently doing that alone, he's in the top 1% of journalists. He's the exact opposite of what the right is "supposed" to look like.
And if you look to reasonable then you'll become a "Ben Shapiro owns" meme or a "binders full of woman" meme.
There is a pizza restaurant in suburban Arlington, Virginia in which these truths are stored in a filing cabinet in the basement. Certain inner-circle members of those who know are familiar with its whereabouts and its indexing system.
I am going to respond with a paraphrasing of a well known quote about one such truth. The truth is that you are a slave in a prison without walls where prisoner never dreams of escaping.
They exist, but the woke crowd is purging them hard now. Any moment now I expect Columbus city to be renamed.
Any moment now I expect Columbus city to be renamed.
There’s a movement to have Yale renamed as it was named after a slave trader, not merely a slave owner. But so far Yale has managed to frame it as a troll
>They exist, but the woke crowd is purging them hard now.
Yes, thereby creating tomorrow's woke crowd. Tomorrow's woke crowd will ultimately purge today's woke crowd. So we may as well just politely state our opinions because self-censoring and trying to be nice won't save us.
But, and this is the important point, stating your opinion today may actually hurt you ( job loss, public media shaming, loss of business ) regardless on how politely it is stated.
In a sense, it is starting remind of me stories my parents told me of the old country during communist regime. Political jokes could and were reported by your friends. This could result in various social sanctions including 'wolf ticket' ( effectively blacklist of dissidents ) preventing you from getting a job, car, you name it.
Amusingly, today you find out, who your friends are by being unflinchigly open.
