Speech Evaluation Form: Fill & Download for Free

There are a lot of red flags in the video see (Nguyen Quoc Huy's answer to Why can't Antifa see their own hypocrisy? for more). First, the video is heavily edited. The most incriminating statement (transcript here)[1] is :“I got a hand gun. And we have 2 AK’s coming. …Do what you gotta do”Why are there elipses? Because right before, during, and after this statement he cut out. The most important part of the video he chose to eliminate. Similarly, with the ice pick he cuts out both before and after the icepick is shown. Even with the interviews from antifa people, he posts their answers without posting the actual question they are in response to, breaking one of the major rules of journalism.Why isn’t the media not jumping over this? Is the missing footage that important?Because context matters. A lot. Steve Crowder has gotten in trouble with this before.[2] In 2012, Steve Crowder published an edited 80 second video of him being punched in the face by a union activist in an apparent unprovoked attack which went on heavy rotation on Fox News. When the full video was published, it became apparent that the union activist was pushed to the ground first and responded by getting up swinging.[3] While the Michigan State Police initially said they would investigate (which they notably said they would not with the current antifa video),[4] the prosecutor ruled the attack self-defense after seeing the full video.[5]Most relevant, however is this comment in the edited video at 0:56[6]“I killed plenty of motherfuckers with a gun”The actual exchange in the unedited video:[7]Click <possibly a gun being cocked offscreen during a heated argument at 1:47>Union guy: “He’s got a gun!” <referring to one of the Americans for Prosperity members with Mr. Crowder during a scuffle>Union guy: “ You fucking pussies!”Union guy: “Bitch! He’s got a gun!Union guy: “I kill a motherfucker with a gun!”Union guy: “I killed plenty of motherfuckers with a gun!”The first edit makes it seems like he is threatening I will shoot you using a gun. The full version is basically, wtf, you pulled a gun on me. After the full video came out, he ended up being fired from Fox News.[8] I have no idea what the actual story is in the video. It could be as bad as he says. There is just no reason to trust Mr. Crowder about anything right now.Is there any other reason I should not believe this story?Stop and think about it. The conservative The Washington Times largely shunned the story. Young Americans for Freedom has refused to publicise the story.[9] Russia Today, which has been linked to fake anti-antifa Twitter accounts,[10] described it as ambiguous and difficult to understand.[11] Breitbart , as far as I know, has ignored it. The entire story requires you to believe there is a conspiracy between conservative media and the police to keep damaging information about a far left group quiet. Despite Mr. Crowder’s dire predictions, the actual event was largely peaceful.Tensions were high at the University of Utah ahead of and during Shapiro’s speech. Supporters and protesters remained for the most part peaceful — albeit with two arrests and some individuals detained after a series of scuffles — and some even hugged.Some other things that bother me about the video:Crowder: “Now let me be clear here. We do not want to dox anyone and we ask that none of you dox anyone.”Immediately proceeds to post the names, Facebook profiles, and phone numbers of the people involved in the original video. This is the reason the video kept getting taken down, not an elaborate conspiracy to suppress its content. The video went back up after the information was removed.Are there actual videos of people plotting violence at rallies?Yes, although the context is still somewhat ambiguous. I talk about it here. Unlike the video by Mr. Crowder, the Unicorn riot leak of the Unite the Right Charlottesville march is fully available in unedited form, and more importantly, confirmed by the subject of the leak itself. Unlike the Utah University event, the violence at Charlottesville actually happened and not just from one person with a car.[12]Edit: Crowder later released the full video. Doesn’t it prove his point?Not really. The answer was mostly a response to why the media hasn’t jumped on this story. The key to the whole conversation starts at around 5:00 minutes, which wasn’t in the original version, immediately before the handing out of the weapons,Woman 1: We got two AKs comingJared: This is just for defensive measures in case they may be carrying?Woman 1: YeahEdit: Wasn’t the video responsible for HoneyBee being arrested?No. The campus police evaluated the video and determined there was no credible threat.[13] She was arrested at the scene without any apparent assistance from Steve Crowder. I can’t tell what’s going on in the video and why she was arrested but the crowd, who admittedly might be biased, is insisting the police have the wrong person and the man in blue in the next two videos is the attacker.This is apparently the incident they were referring to in the arrest video:[14] Based on the people in the second video, “Don’t get in my way or I’ll fucking knock you out, bitch.” is directed at Honeybee.Edit: But Chris Nelson doesn’t speak for the police! And he didn’t talk to the FBI!As University spokesman, he does speak for the Campus Police, which he makes clear in multiple times in the second video. The FBI would not get involved in a simple assault case.Why am I writing about this?I wish I wasn’t.[15] There is a lot more important stuff going on.[16][17] I don’t want to defend somebody who, regardless of context, is saying some stupid shit. But the corrosion of trust in our news organizations has created a vacuum where alignment with one’s political views is more important then the traditional standards of journalism. This is a dangerous development for the US in the long term.Footnotes[1] About Steve Crowder’s thrilling exposé of Antifa’s violence[2] The Unmaking of a Conservative Pundit[3] Selective Editing by Fox News Contributor Revealed by Fox News[4] University of Utah Police evaluated undercover video of protesters at Ben Shapiro speech; determined no credible threat[5] Fox News’s Steven Crowder fistfight case: No charges[6] Fox News Steven Crowder & Americans for Prosperity use Breitbart-style film editing to show "union thug brutality" (updated) | Eclectablog[7] Fox News Steven Crowder & Americans for Prosperity use Breitbart-style film editing to show "union thug brutality" (updated) | Eclectablog[8] Exclusive-Fox News: Steven Crowder Attacking Hannity Confirms 'Decision to Part Company with Him' - Breitbart[9] Steven Crowder and producer infiltrate antifa prior to Ben Shapiro event, rip media silence[10] Russian Bots Are Trying to Sow Discord on Twitter After Charlottesville[11] Inside ‘Antifa’: Undercover video purports to show group plotting violence [12] Jeffrey Brender's answer to Will conflicts between the alt-right and the Marxist ANTIFA escalate into armed combat?[13] University of Utah Police evaluated undercover video of protesters at Ben Shapiro speech; determined no credible threat[14] Richards: What I Saw at the Ben Shapiro Protest – Daily Utah Chronicle[15] Jeffrey Brender's answer to Is the recent interest in Confederate Civil War monuments, the alt-right, white nationalists and neo-Nazis a diversion of some kind to keep us too distracted to focus on the Russia probe, North Korea, poverty, political corruption and health care?[16] With little food, water or power, Puerto Rico residents say 'no one has come' to help[17] Mattis pressed to defend Trump's rejection of US-North Korea talks

Simply put, it is the "freedom" advocated by Western politics.It includes two rights:the right to discuss politics in public media.the right to vote in elections.There is no voting system in China. Similar to doctors, Chinese officials are selected internally after passing examinations, internal evaluations, internal competition. China tried the village cadre voting system, which was abolished in 2019. The voting system is easy to buy and sell votes and form local forces and the effect is very bad. Now the local government directly appoints university student village officials to manage the village.If you are a doctor, you can direct the doctor's work. If you're a fitness coach or a businessmen, obviously, you can't guide surgery at will. Political policy concerns everyone's interests and can't jump to conclusions. So you can't talk nonsense in the media, therefore your political opinions need to be audited before they can be made public in the media.Very fair , also you can't say in the public media in China:1: We boycott Apple phones.2: I'm glad to see the shooting in the US.(advocate hatred)3: Trump made a lot of money by manipulating the stock market.(Fabricated)4：We support the independence of California and New Mexico. Overthrow the US government and let the poor get a better life.(Inciting political unrest）Western media describe this system as the absence of freedom of speech or CCP fascist-tyranny System. They often laugh at the fact that China has no right to insult the President. But the Chinese media are more pragmatic and people can get real information in the political field.The Western media deliberately distorted the facts, turning CCP strict censorship of political statements only in the public media into CCP deprivation of all citizens'right to speak. Let people mistakenly believe that they cannot say anything in China, they will be arrested at any time in China. Although this is a lie, it success scares many people. After all, not everyone can come to China.Media belongs to a kind of power, many people want to have it and expand their influence. The Rwandan genocide is to incite hatred against the Tutsi people through the media and call on the people to take up machetes and kill the Tutsi people. One million people died in three months. It can be said that all riots now need to be propagated through the media, like the riots in Hong Kong.At present, China's mainland is politically stable and people are concentrating on their work, thanks to the fact that the government only allows doctors to to perform operations, not an elected fitness coaches or a businessmen.At the beginning of this system, it was very immature and corrupt. But things are always getting better, and now they are getting mature. In 2019, it will be very difficult for China to buy political rights through money. It is obvious that the government is becoming more efficient and transparent than it was ten years ago. Nowadays there are fewer and fewer crimes and the society is very safe.The West Religionizes Politics, There are 3 characteristics:1: Lost the spirit of questioning. Only The West system is the only right one.2：Describe other political systems as evil, fascist-tyranny or pagans.3：Create contradictions and conflicts.Western media portray China's political system as evil and autocratic.Like doctors, some Hong Kongers want become doctors by vote. They demanded universal suffrage so that they could legally become doctors and have the right to operate.Hong Kong's current basic law does not give them such rights, so they use Western support to try to become doctors to operate for Hong Kong.Of course, this is impossible to achieve. Because it would throw Hong Kong into chaos and violate the interests of most people.Because Hong Kong is China's financial gateway, the Deep State wants to see Hong Kong in chaos. If Hong Kong falls into chaos, then the Hong Kong dollar will depreciate and a large number of assets will be withdrawn from Hong Kong, which will lead to a financial crisis in China. Because the US has listed China as a competitor, the chaos in Hong Kong is very beneficial to the US.Obviously, there is strong support for violence in Hong Kong. Western media publicized that the riot was spontaneously organized by Hong Kong people against tyranny. In fact, NGOs provide strong support behind the scenes.So you can see that they are equipped, organized and can last for more than one year. You can see they waved the American flag and the U.S. officials meeting members of the opposition. The leaders of the reactionaries obtained American political asylum and green cards.Now they want to lure the Chinese Army into Hong Kong, and then the US will legally revoke Hong Kong's right to a free port, so they continue to escalate violence. They also called on all Hong Kong people to take all their money from banks and convert it into dollars. Want to paralyse Hong Kong's economy.The Chinese are familiar with such democratic activities as 64 Tiananmen, the independence of Ukraine, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Arab Spring. This kind of democratic activity will plunge the country into chaos and eventually be completely controlled by the West, thus losing the opportunity for national development.I would like to say that because the Chinese government relies on doctors to perform operations, not elected businessmen or lawyers, their plans will not succeed.

Dehumanization literally means to remove human elements from a certain group of people. According to the often quoted paper Dehumanization: An Integrative Review, by Aslam 2006:The concept of dehumanization lacks a systematic theoretical basis, and research that addresses it has yet to be integrated. Manifestations and theories of dehumanization are reviewed, and a new model is developed. Two forms of dehumanization are proposed, involving the denial to others of 2 distinct senses of humanness: characteristics that are uniquely human and those that constitute human nature. Denying uniquely human attributes to others represents them as animal-like, and denying human nature to others represents them as objects or automata. Cognitive underpinnings of the "animalistic" and "mechanistic" forms of dehumanization are proposed. An expanded sense of dehumanization emerges, in which the phenomenon is not unitary, is not restricted to the intergroup context, and does not occur only under conditions of conflict or extreme negative evaluation. Instead, dehumanization becomes an everyday social phenomenon, rooted in ordinary social-cognitive processes.Dehumanization: an integrative review.In this paper, the author proposes a model for dehumanization where he suggests there are two types of dehumanization: depicting people as animals and depicted them as machines in some form.Dehumanization is usually mentioned in relationship to genocide, and the phrase of often used by left-wing people when they want to argue against anything that could lead to genocide. To quote from Aslam (p.252)Dehumanization is arguably most often mentioned in relation to ethnicity, race, and related topics such as immigration and genocide.However, it seems to me that dehumanization has become a catch-all phrase to describe behavior we don’t like made by people we don’t like.According to various writers on genocide, dehumanization is a necessary component of a genocide. As this article from the UN says:Genocide must and can be prevented if we have the will of applying the lessons learned from Rwanda, Srebrenica, and the Holocaust. It is important to identify risk factors that would lead to genocide rather than to wait to when people are being killed.The Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers and the Rwandan genocide did not start with the slayings. It started with the dehumanization of a specific group of persons.—Genocide begins with ‘dehumanization;’ no single country is immune from risk, warns UN officialIt may seem likely to draw this conclusion when looking at images of Jews in Germany in the 1930s, or the claim that Tutsis were called cockroaches in Rwanda.However, when digging deeper, genocides are often not the result of such terminology. The Tutsis were not hated because they were seen as cockroaches. Likewise, the genocide against Muslims in Bosnia were not done against people seen as animals or machines. The Muslims were described as a threat — not as machine.To counter that obvious discrepancy, dehumanization encompasses also (to quote Aslam):as barbarians who lack culture, self-restraint, moral sensibility, and cognitive capacity. Excesses often accompany these deficiencies: The savage has brutish appetites for violence and sex, is impulsive and prone to criminality, and can tolerate unusual amounts of pain.This might make sense, but then the question is, if we don’t always see our enemies, or indeed people we don’t like, as “barbarians who lack culture”.A few days ago I read several answers on Quora on whether it is morally defensible to punch a Nazi, referring to the video tapes incident where Richard Spencer was punched while talking about something.Several left-wingers answered that it is defensible, and often justifying their answer with pictures from Nazi Germany.That makes me wonder if they see Nazis as “less human” than other people, matching the definition in the quote above? Whether we agree with it or not, it seems to me to be a form of dehumanization.I think this is where my point comes into play: we consider behavior we don’t by people we don’t like to be dehumanizing and thus wrong because it could lead to genocide. We don’t object as much when it comes to people we support.Take this cartoon:(from heraldextra)His public critics have likened him to a weasel (actually, “the lesser of two weasels”), a chicken (for not releasing tax returns), a dinosaur (big T-Rex-like body and little hands), a pig (sexist), a llama, Donald Duck, and birds and cats of various sorts. He’s also been a whale (Moby Don). Naturally, the Republican nominee is often an elephant (but with yellow hair). He’s also been portrayed as elephant poop. In addition, editorial cartoons have shown Trump as a troll doll, a fat clown, Hitler, a lunatic in a straitjacket, a blow-dryer (big mouth, hot air), and, frequently, as Trumpenstein and Jabba the Trump.—Don't stoop to ape analogies on Trump: ColumnI guess it begs the question why the writer in USA Today thought it was fair to compare Trump to any other animal than an ape.A giant baby, is that dehumanizing?(image source)Comparing Trump to Hitler? Well, technically Hitler is human, right?Politicians have always been mocked and compared with various animals.What about groups we don’t like, such as Republics or Liberals? One could argue that political groups are not like ethnicities because we can’t change politics but not ethnicity.Yet, I think many people have a “dehuman” view of the opponents on the other side. Right-wingers may consider left-wingers to be crybabies unable to control their emotions, while left-wingers consider right-wingers to be without empathy. Both these stereotypes probably contain a grain of truth, and both are actually part of the dehumanization definition by Aslam. According to Aslam, taking away anything Unique Human (his term) is dehumanizing, and both rationality and empathy are part of what it means to be fully human.Aslam also describes how those with disabilities are dehumanized. This makes me wonder about those who are very overweight where the touchy subject is that everyone knows that most overweight is caused by the person’s own lifestyle choice.This makes me wonder what is so wrong about saying to someone “you are stuffing your face like a pig”, if that is what they are doing. They might even say it themselves: “I feel like such a pig”.In sports, don’t we see ourselves as being more justified than our opponents? For some reason, we think deserve to win more than our opponents. We often look at them as being more brutal than we are — nastier or weird. Not as civilized as we are. This does not lead to a genocide.Another example of the way the modern Left’s fascination with Nazi-Germany and anything that could lead up to it:Auschwitz begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals. (Adorno, 1995, as cited in Patterson, 2002, p. 53)This doesn’t make logical sense, but was quoted in the introduction of Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal—human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization, Costello & Hudson 2009, a paper with 140 citations.In social sciences, there seems to be a dichotomy between either loving everyone (treating everyone is “equally human”) on the one hand, or dehumanizing others on the other hand. The second option is, almost by definition, the bad one.I think this also shows where science today has taken us and on which paradigms it is sometimes based, with paradigms being the foundation we can’t question.I come to think of an actual case where a group was dehumanized. It was a group of younger criminals who were rioting, throwing Molotov cocktails and stones and jumping on cars. A police officer was video taped saying something about them being something animalish, which was considered racist and led to increased rioting. But I do wonder what we are allowed to call those rioters who are jumping around aggressively, throwing object and screaming?What I wonder is if the science is trying to silence the debate by claiming that any criticism against other cultures is considered a dehumanizing step?There are many right-wingers who have asked themselves why left-wingers these days are so relativistic towards other cultures that they consider all cultures equally good — even cultures that come from the least developed countries in the world. We aren’t even allowed to call them primitive countries because the word primitive is considered dehumanizing.Would we be allowed to call Sweden in the year 1200 a primitive country, or would that just be prejudice and racism? I think it is food for thought.Another point that could be mentioned is one I read from a black South African writer, who said that if we don’t think black people can be racist, we are essentially saying they are lacking a behavior that white people have, by which we are considering them “less human”.Is that a valid claim? Is racism part of what we consider Uniquely Human?I just think there are many issues we need to discuss about the dehumanizing theory. Right now it has become part of the anti-racist rhetoric when claiming that racism is irrational and, in itself , evil. They can make use of their own definition e.g. when they want to shut down the debate on ethnicity and crime, using the argument that it is dehumanizing to say that a certain ethnicity commits more crime (with the unstated assumption that dehumanization is the first step of genocide).There is also a strong West-based bias in what we regard as inappropriate dehumanization. This is why the ape-terminology is particularly sensitive, as is the cockroach comparison. We don’t take as much offense to the kuffar terminology (also spelled kafir) used in Islam against the disbelievers, despite kuffar arguable being the most dehumanizing way of looking at another. A kuffar is not greeted the way a Muslim is and does not have the legal rights of a Muslim, and the Quran continuously tells Muslims to not associate with kuffar.It’s not illegal to use the word, but a Muslim preacher who in a public speech referred to an ethnic group as “Apes and pigs”, is currently being prosecuted.Comedian John Cleese once said that humor is about exposing humans as machines and this does contain an element of dehumanization. All caricature is about dehumanization: to enhance someone’s “inhuman” sides and display them as stereotypes unable to think for themselves, or lacking some aspect we consider Uniquely Human.Maybe the Dehumanization model is one reason why there is so little satire in the Swedish mainstream media. I think all newspapers have removed their political cartoons, for one thing.That begs the question: what can we laugh about? I’ll quote John Cleese again:Because they have no sense of proportion, and a sense of humor is actually a sense of proportion. It’s the sense of knowing what’s important. In my stage show I tell jokes that make the audience roar with laughter, jokes about the Australians or the French or the Canadians or the Germans or the Italians. I make all these jokes and everybody laughs — and we don’t hate those groups of people, do we? Take this joke: “A guy walks into a bar and says to the barman, ‘You hear the latest [ethnicity] joke?’ The barman says, ‘I should warn you, I’m [ethnicity].’ So the guy says, ‘All right then, I’ll tell it slowly.’” That’s funny! But if you tell that joke and replace “[ethnicity]” with “barman who isn’t very intelligent” it isn’t funny at all. Why should we sacrifice laughter to the cause of politically correctness if that laughter isn’t rooted in nastiness? This actually reminds me of an idea I had: Every year at the U.N. they should vote one particular nation to be the butt of the joke.John Cleese on Political Correctness and the Funniest Joke He Ever ToldI had to censor out a word in the text. But the point is worth discussing: does making jokes about ethnicity dehumanize them in a way that could be the first step towards genocide?