WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can I stop now professor or do I need to waste more of my time listening to that garbage?

It depends on what one is after.

Presently, and in your recent comments, you seem to be reacting. Reaction could be a waste of time, or it could be a means of impulsion toward whatever you believe to be the right & proper foundation for your life.

It all depends on how you choose to respond to that which challenges or threatens your perspective. If you have a perspective, your commitments flow from that, right? In your case a sort of vague, emoted liberalism with emphasis on the downtrodden.

Sorry. That last sentence was a bit of a jab.

[Gary Childress]

Can I stop now professor or do I need to waste more of my time listening to that garbage?

It depends on what one is after.

Presently, and in your recent comments, you seem to be reacting. Reaction could be a waste of time, or it could be a means of impulsion toward whatever you believe to be the right & proper foundation for your life.

It all depends on how you choose to respond to that which challenges or threatens your perspective. If you have a perspective, your commitments flow from that, right? In your case a sort of vague, emoted liberalism with emphasis on the downtrodden.

Sorry. That last sentence was a bit of a jab.

I found the last sentence pretty accurate. It's fine by me. Did you intend it as a "jab"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Does it matter?

[Gary Childress]

Does it matter?

Probably not. If that's your idea of an insult, I'm cool with it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, all is resolved then.

Are you ready to kiss the papal ring?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, why has it come about that theistic perspectives have been revised, and atheistic perspectives rejected (or transcended)?

And what bearing does this have on our present?

The collapse of positivism and its attendant verification principle of meaning was undoubtedly the most important philosophical event of the twentieth century. Their demise heralded a resurgence of metaphysics, along with other traditional problems of philosophy that verificationism had suppressed. Accompanying this resurgence has come something new and altogether unanticipated: a renaissance in Christian philosophy.

The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result. Theism is on the rise; atheism is on the decline. Atheism, although perhaps still the dominant viewpoint at the American university, is a philosophy in retreat. In a recent article in the secularist journal Philo, Quentin Smith laments what he calls “the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s.” He complains that:

[N]aturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism...began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians....in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, 'academically respectable' to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for the most intelligent and talented theists entering academia today.

— William Craig/JP Moreland

[Gary Childress]

Well, all is resolved then.

Are you ready to kiss the papal ring?

I'd rather not. Why do you ask?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It’s called humor, Gary.

[Gary Childress]

It’s called humor, Gary.

Is it?

[henry quirk]

It wasn't remotely relevant to anything. It was a waste of everybody's time. That's what I object to.

You waste everyone's time with your nonsense about atheists can't be moral. Do I get to throw any nonsense in or do you have special privy to posting nonsense.

That's nothing I ever said, so you'll have to own that one yourself.

Meanwhile, stop insulting people, and say something relevant and to-the-point, or go find some other site on which to play with cream pies.

I'm sure he spends time enough already on Porn Hub.

[Immanuel Can]

You waste everyone's time with your nonsense about atheists can't be moral. Do I get to throw any nonsense in or do you have special privy to posting nonsense.

That's nothing I ever said, so you'll have to own that one yourself.

Meanwhile, stop insulting people, and say something relevant and to-the-point, or go find some other site on which to play with cream pies.

What "cream pies" are you referring to?

Go back to your earlier comment to Henry. Start there.

[Gary Childress]

That's nothing I ever said, so you'll have to own that one yourself.

Meanwhile, stop insulting people, and say something relevant and to-the-point, or go find some other site on which to play with cream pies.

What "cream pies" are you referring to?

Go back to your earlier comment to Henry. Start there.

Fair enough. Since it's put you in such grief, I retract my comment to Henry.

[Gary Childress]

You waste everyone's time with your nonsense about atheists can't be moral. Do I get to throw any nonsense in or do you have special privy to posting nonsense.

That's nothing I ever said, so you'll have to own that one yourself.

Meanwhile, stop insulting people, and say something relevant and to-the-point, or go find some other site on which to play with cream pies.

I'm sure he spends time enough already on Porn Hub.

Is there something wrong with Porn Hub?

[Will Bouwman]

Credit to Gus for at least trying, but very little of what Alexis Jacobi and Immanuel Can offer qualifies as evidence that the main stream media even 'flip flops', much less lies. For example:

...the Jussie Smollett nonsense...

1) Jussie Smollet, a Black actor with a TV program, staged an attack on himself by hiring two Nigerians and paying them. He asserted to the police that his assailants were White and that it was a racially-motivated attack. The MSM reported on it and fit it into the general line. The police believed, then doubted the story, and later it was proved (in court) that it was all made up. But Smollet never admitted it. In fact he has clung to his assertion.

Certainly celebrities and politicians were quick to support Smollett, including the then President:
President Donald Trump on Thursday called the attack on “Empire” star Jussie Smollett “horrible,” condemning the assault by individuals who the actor alleged referenced the president’s campaign slogan as they attacked him...“It doesn’t get worse, as far as I’m concerned,” Trump said of the attack during an Oval Office exchange with the White House press pool on Thursday.
Katie Galioto
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... tt-1140398

The claim Alexi Jacobi and Immanuel Can are making amounts to the main stream media, of which CNN and MSNBC I take to be examples, making an effort to persuade their audience of something they knew to be untrue. On 29 January, 2019, the day of the incident, CNN reported as follows:
“Empire” actor Jussie Smollett was attacked in the early morning hours on Tuesday in what Chicago police are calling a possible hate crime.
Smollett was attacked by two people who were “yelling out racial and homophobic slurs” and “poured an unknown chemical substance on the victim,” police said.
One of Smollett’s alleged attackers also put a rope around his neck, according to police. Both fled the scene.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/29/ente ... index.html
So while the journalist, Sandra Gonzalez, was a little injudicious to open with "was attacked", in the same piece, she gathers her composure and refers to "alleged attackers".

The next report by CNN is dated 15 February, 2019, by which time Lisa Respers France wrote:
Smollett’s attorneys, Todd S. Pugh and Victor P. Henderson, issued a statement to CNN. They stated that Smollett was angry about the latest developments, which included two police sources telling CNN that Chicago police believe the actor paid the brothers to orchestrate the assault on him.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/15/ente ... index.html

Here's MSNBC reporting on the day in question:
https://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watc ... d_ms_tw_ma
None of that strikes me as irresponsible, far less mendacious journalism.

In the earliest contribution from Fox News that I can find, 10 December 2021, Brian Flood and Joseph A. Wulfsohn write:

CNN and MSNBC have continued to treat Jussie Smollett with kid gloves despite him being found guilty Thursday on five of the six charges against him stemming from the hate crime hoax he orchestrated in 2019.

As Smollett’s story crumbled, he emerged as a prominent symbol of how liberal media organizations often run with their preferred narrative before facts are known. Liberals peddled the false narrative that Smollett was attacked by two MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporters at 2 a.m. during the polar vortex in Chicago. Everyone from Democratic politicians to left-wing cable news pundits were quick to believe Smollett’s unlikely tale, which has now been officially debunked in court.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc ... servatives
Anyone watching Fox might think the story is about their competition. That they call it "Smollett’s unlikely tale" shows what a wonderful thing is hindsight.
As for this:

...the "mostly peaceful protests" coverups...

2) The riots over that Summer were extraordinary. If a Right-leaning faction had ever done something remotely similar the National Guard would be called out. The MSM seemed to support the raging violence, underreported the deaths and destruction that resulted, and in general down-played it. There was one clip of a news presenter, with raging fires behind him, stating calmly that the protests were *mostly peaceful*. The Orwellian implication should be obvious!

"That Summer" is a bit vague; there have been riots each of the last few years. More to the point, that the "MSM seemed to support" seems like an opinion.
Much the same applies to this:

...the multitudinous COVID lies...

3) The COVID stuff is material I assume you are enough familiar with.

What lies?
And this:

...the Biden laptop discovery...

4) The laptop I already went over. Apparently, there is a good deal more evidence on it that could well implicate the Biden family in criminal activity.

"Apparently?"

...the Russia hoax...

5) The assertion that Russia was *interfering in our elections* in a degree that had significant impact. There were numerous assertions that Russia was *hacking our democracy* and other misrepresentations/lies.

What evidence do you have of "misrepresentations/lies"?

...the alleged precipitation of the Ukraine war...

6) There is an assertion that the US provoked the Russian invasion by deliberately attempting to extend the NATO pact to Ukraine. This sort of thing -- if one reads and accepts the Left and critical sources -- is typical for the US. To create situations of conflict that then become regional wars. True, it is a standard tactic for many nations.

An assertion, eh?
If you could give me something specific to investigate, I shall do so.

But where I believe that I different from you is that you seem *mystified* and *stuck* in a morass in which (I gather) you assume there is no way to arrive at a truthful perspective or interpretation. My view is different: to the degree that we can drop our own *cherished theories* or our *preferred perspectives* as well as our own ideological desires, to that degree can we see into and through power dynamics and how they really operate.

It should take more than assertions and accusations to achieve that.

[Immanuel Can]

What "cream pies" are you referring to?

Go back to your earlier comment to Henry. Start there.

Fair enough. Since it's put you in such grief, I retract my comment to Henry.

"Grief"? No. Boredom. I'm tired of seeing irrelevancies where I expect philosophy. I'm eager for all the nonsense to be gone.

And I can't figure out why everybody else doesn't see exactly the same point, because insults go nowhere. Sticking to the topic stands a chance of advancing knowledge. Insults don't.