2. At 12:42 of the stream Ben from Meidastouch claims I said they got Neil Young and others to boycott spotify.
I never said that.
They're trying to make me look like a conspiracy theorist by attributing claims to me I never made
3/ At no point did I say they had anything to do with Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, or any other famous artist.
3. At the 30:00They claim they had nothing to do with the @patriottakes video of Joe Rogan Saying the N-word.
This is a dodge, but I'll need to explain exactly how...
4/ @MeidasTouch did not create the video, that's not the point. In my thread I said that they "had a hand in it." What I mean there is the hand Meidastouch had in that video by spreading, amplifying, and boosting the signal of that video. It wasn't just retweets. I'll show you...
5/ This is the twitter feed of Ben Meiselas (@meiselasb) of Meidastouch.
His whole feed is just tweet and RT's of Joe Rogan clips that make Rogan look bad. Ben has 162k followers. He is not just RTing for agreement...he is reaching for "saturation."
What's "Saturation" you ask?
6/ Saturation is when you make sure a message (usually an ad, but it can be any messaging) has been repeated enough times in enough places that everybody hears it.
Running an ad once won't work not enough people see it. So, you need to run it many times.
That's what Ben did...
7/ He is tweeting and RTing ugly Rogan clips over and over and over because he knows people are on twitter at different times (and the algorithm can be unpredictable) and he wants to achieve saturation and make sure everyone who might see his tweets will see an ugly Rogan clip...
8/ Thebfeeds of Jordy and Brett, and also the @MeidasTouch account are filled with tweets and RT's of ugly Rogan clips.
All 3 of meidastouch owners have more than 140k followers and the meidas touch account has more than 700k
Thats more than a Million people.
Get the point?
9/ The Meidastouch crew did not create the video, but they worked with @patriottakes to amplify and boost the signal of the video so it would get traction and go viral.
They were manufacturing virality, and they knew precisely what they were doing because they are professionals.
10/ 4. At 33:08 Ben says Meidastouch never called for Rogan to be terminated.
This is nonsense.
What they did is amplify a tweet from @patriottakes that demanded Spotify terminate Joe Rogan. and they followed that tweet up with a fundraising plea for @patriottakes...
11/ So yes, they were calling for Rogan to be fired.
And just to be clear, an RT may not be an endorsement, but if you QT a demand for Rogan to be fired and in that QT congratulate the people making the demand, and then fund-raise off that work...then yes that is an endorsement.
12/ 5. At 35:30 Ben from Meidastouch says I claimed he was part of a cabal.
I never claimed this.
6. At 37:30 Jordy from Meidastouch said @stoolpresidente "can't have a conversation with Wokal like you're having with us."
The current heat on Joe Rogan is a result of a well organized social media campaign carried out by professionals and the resulting outrage is about as organic as a gummy bear, and we need to stop pretending otherwise.
/fin.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think Critical Theory is a lot like what Robert Nozick called Normative Sociology: "The study of what the causes of things *ought* to be"
Critical Theorists analyze problems in terms of what they *want* the cause to be, rather then what the cause of that problem actually is.
The result is that there are large number of errors because rather then dealing with the thing that is actually creating the problem, they end of trying to solve the problem by analyzing the thing that they were hoping was the cause of the problem.
A problem occurs when Critical Theorists doing "Normative Sociology" think everyone is obligated to agree that the cause of the problem is whatever the Critical Theorists say it is; and then go about morally shaming and scolding anyone who disagrees about the cause of the problem
1/ The attack on Winston Churchill and the revisionist WWII history is a the right wing version of the "everything is problematic" move the woke have been using for years.
It's a right wing 1619 project that wants to destroy the "Post-war consensus" by making America look bad.
2/ This is a right-wing "Critical Theory" of America's involvement in WWII.
The goal is to delegitimize the American order that emerged in the wake of WWII, and so the people doing this magnify America's mistakes during WWII and minimize the horror of what the Nazi's did.
3/ Doing this allows them sow doubt as to who was really responsible for WWII and this then allows them to go about undercutting and subverting the moral authority that America gained by helping to defeat the Nazi's.
They want to drain the moral authority of post-war America.
1/ Darryl Cooper is to WWII what Norman Finklestein is to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Cooper buries people in historical minutia knowing the average person isn't equipped with a deep enough understanding of WWII to properly contextualize the historical points Cooper uses.
2/ The average persons understanding of WWII does not have a high enough resolution to historically locate and properly contextualize the points Cooper brings up, so they aren't properly equipped to determine the relevance, importance, or implications of the facts Cooper presents
3/ When someone can't integrate a set of facts into their understanding of something, they can become intellectually disoriented and begin looking for a way to make sense of the new facts.
This disorientation is what Cooper is trying to create with his deluge of minutia.
1/ Critical Theory gets almost everything wrong. Here's Why:🧵
There is a certain type of argument one often hears coming from the “woke” Social Justice left (often associated with Critical Theory), which claims that quite literally everything is political.
2/ The argument is that the intellectual force of every justification depends on accepting the value structure that is assumed by whatever it is one is defending. The defense of anything relies on values pre-supposed by what one is trying to defend.
3/ This argument is taken by Critical Theorists to be proof that rational justifications merely assume the values and validity of the very thing they are justifying, and so the justifications only work if you already accept the validity of the thing in question.
Imagine how bewildering the world must seem to 10 year old boys:
Boys shirts are about being lazy and playing video games while Girls shirts are about being future CEO'S and leaders.
They call masculinity toxic and say boys are privileged while also saying the future is female
On the one hand if all the boys win, thats very bad cause boys winning is not fair to girls, but girls only like the boys who win.
And also, all girls winning is good, all boys winning is oppression.
How are 10 year old boys supposed to make sense of this?
I'm genuinely asking this because the male S U I C I D E epidemic is at an all time hight, and the rates of men offing thenselves starts to take off at 15.
1/ One reason Gender Ideologues hijacked our institutions is that woke activists don't understand how *LEGITIMACY* works
I'll explain:
The woke think legitimacy is a matter of power and authority: A thing is legitimate when people with power and authority say it's legitimate...
2/ As such, they think that the legitimacy of various types of medical interventions (IE: puberty blockers, mastectomies, and cross sex hormones for 15 year olds) depends entirely on whether or not the people with the power and authority in the medical system say it is.
Now...
3/ Most of us believe that the legitimacy of medical treatments rest on a foundation of objective truth, objective standards of quality, rigorous criteria for safety, attention to detail, and careful application of sturdy medical ethics.