“The delusional vanity of the Sally Rooney cult” | Brendan O’Neill

 “Seriously, fuck these people.”

Says Brendan O’Neill. In his latest: “The delusional vanity of the Sally Rooney cult” 

Sadly, a number of  people I rather like to read, signed the letter that set off Brendan….

“Cherry picking” is not Cherry picking…

Me to Grok:

Cherry Picking. I want to argue that this phrase is simply ad hominem. When you don’t have a counter argument you charge your interlocutor with “cherry picking”. 

BUT — and here’s the thing — EVERYTHING is cherry picking. 

Whatever facts or argument one quotes are necessarily going to be a selection from the whole. One doesn't recite all the academic papers on a subject. You quote a BIT of it. You cherry pick. Editors do it every minute of every day to put out newspapers. These are the very definition of Cherry Picking.

Charging someone with "cherry picking" is rather like charging someone with "using words". Of course I'm using words! We all do. Just as we must all cherry pick. We can't recite the whole of everything that's known about a subject, even if we knew it.

Please help me make my argument. Sharpen it. Give it guts. Do it in as short a from as you can.

Grok to me:

The charge of “cherry picking” is usually ad hominem.

It is the move you make when you have no answer to the evidence presented. Instead of engaging the facts, you attack the person for having selected them.

But selection is not optional. It is the precondition of all argument. You cannot quote an entire paper, recite every statistic, or narrate the full historical record. Every claim, every article, every editorial, and every conversation is a curated slice. 

Newspapers are machines for systematic cherry-picking. So are academic papers, court arguments, and political speeches. The question is never whether selection occurred. The question is whether the selection misleads.

When someone replies “cherry picking” without showing that the omitted material actually reverses the conclusion or outweighs what was presented, they have not made a methodological point. They have made a personal one: you chose badly because you are arguing against me. That is textbook ad hominem — attacking the arguer’s character or motives rather than the argument’s substance.

Real cherry-picking exists. It is the deliberate suppression of known contradictory evidence. The casual accusation, however, almost never demonstrates this. It simply registers discomfort that the other side found data that hurts their position. 

In practice, “cherry picking” has become a thought-terminating cliché used to avoid having to do the harder work of rebuttal.

My Comment: 

Grok is right to point out that Cherry Picking can and often is ad hominem. But it can be bad if it misrepresents the data. 

The whole discussion. 

Starmer bans Israel critics. Bad move | Shabbos Kestenbaum

I’ve posted Shabbos Kestenbaum before. He debates well. My posts on him here. 

He’s discussing the issue of the U.K. government banning the entry to the U.K. of his debate partners Cenk Uygur and his silly champagne-communist nephew Hasan Piker.

Of course you can criticise the Israeli government. Israelis do it more than anyone.

But also: Jews have been in this region for 3,000 years. Of course they are connected to the land. 

Judea = Jews.

To claim that they are not part of the land is crazy and simply untrue. No. 1 historical inaccuracy.

Still Shabbos wanted to debate Cenk and Hasan. He’s against the ban. As am I.  That they were banned by the U.K. government is crazy. 

The ban was not because Israel demanded it, as the Jew-obsessed Cenk and his silly nephew believe. It’s because P.M. Keir Starmer’s Britain is increasingly censorious. Keir Starmer himself is increasing censorious. Proudly so.

Rich Lowry makes the same points: “Are the Jews to Blame for Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker Getting Banned from the U.K.?”

Are we going crazy? Britain out to ban books

Are we going crazy? We in the West? Becoming as censorious as any communist country? As any authoritarian state? 

Britain out to ban books. CS Lewis, Tolkien, Orwell among works tagged as triggers for 'far-right' extremism by anti-terrorism group, "Prevent". 

Not just any books, but the books and authors that are the very soul of our enlightenment. Books from George Orwell, for example, and even the plays of Shakespeare. We are to avoid these, according the the UK government's Prevent quango. 

Read on for the craziness, clipped here: 

A government anti-terrorism unit in the U.K. has reportedly flagged key English literature as potential triggers for right-wing extremism – leading one author whose work is on the list to bash the agency's strategy.

Classic authors such as C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, George Orwell, Joseph Conrad and Aldous Huxley were included on the list of potentially problematic texts compiled by Prevent’s Research Information and Communications Unit, according to Douglas Murray in The Spectator.

Other authors whose work is allegedly shared by people sympathetic with "the far-right and Brexit" also reportedly include Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Thomas Carlyle, Adam Smith and William Shakespeare.

Remembering and forgetting: June 4 vigils

China, as in Chinese, started forgetting June 4 decades ago. The result of a successful censorship by the government. Of that 36-year ago event.

I totally remember that actual June 4 1989. I was in Beijing just a few days before. And then a few days after. My Significant Other was herself in the Square on the day. We both remember it, so vividly. 

I thought it would never be forgotten. 

But it was. Quite quickly. After the riots and the violent suppression, I lived back in Australia for a while before being headhunted by the Australian government to run their Trade Office in Shanghai, then Beijing and then regionally out of Hong Kong. 

Those were crazy days, with few foreigners in China -- because of the sanctions against China -- and so heavy partying by those of us who happened to find ourselves in post-June 4 China. Like the days of old Shanghai. Of Austria before Adolf. Kinda crazy and in super fun way. For us foreigners, anyway. I recall 1990 as a Golden Year in life. And then squirm, for thinking that, while so many mothers were mourning their sons. Fathers their daughters. 

We had the June 4 memorials in Hong Kong over the years. But in China, I can attest by personal experience, just a few years after June 4th, when I travelled in China, and asked people about it, they didn't know. I mean, not that they were just saying they didn't know. They genuinely didn't know. They'd forgotten, even if they ever knew -- the CCP controlled the national media. 

In recent years there's been less and less June 4 remembering here in Hong Kong. Partly because of the National Security Law of 2020, after the ill-thought out protests and rioting to push for an "independent Hong Kong". And partly, I guess, for the passage of time. And I'm pretty sure that the rest of the west has forgotten too.

The South China Morning Post has an article on "June 4 Vigil in Hong Kong". [Internet archive]

As it did Last year. 

And I shall try, at least to recall it, once a year, on the day, to my death. 

ADDED: Ask the Chinese AI DeepSeek about June 4, and it says it has no info on the date and "can we chat about something else". I accused it of being a puppet of the CCP, and it said "let's talk about another subject. How can I help?". Kinda crazy for the CCP to suppress this, as it's easy enough, even for a Chinese citizen, to get other AI's, like Grok to tell you all about theTiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 1989. 

I’m a horrid right wing, extreme radical. Or something

An Occasional Reader (OR) has had a go at me and we’ve had some email to-and-fro. 

I’ve been accused of being more extreme, more radical, more right wing, more conservative, more evangelical even, than before. 

I asked for the receipts. What’s the evidence? Please tell me. I’m all ears. Honestly. We had a good discussion, quite friendly, if heated at times. Below is a kind of a summary, with the areas we discussed being first, then lower down things we didn’t discuss, but which I cover from time to time on this blog, and my position on them. 

I’ve had a look over some recent-ish posts of mine. I find I still agree with them. So there you are. I agree with myself. But also with Alexander Downer. Who’s definitely of the Right, but not a right-wing nutter. At least I don’t think so. And I agree with Christopher Hitchens. And Harris Sultan. And Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And Asra Nomani. And Brigitte Gabriel. And so many others on the "right", or the Common Sense brigade. The reality monsters. The radical reality-based folx. 

Here we go:

Evangelical Right:

First one is that I’m leaning to the Evangelical Right. How so? I ask given that I’m a life-long atheist. Quite radically, extremely so. Well, support for the anti-semitism bill running through congress. Well, say I, I’ve not posted anything about that, but as it happens I don’t support it. Mainly because it bumps another belief -- a radical, extreme one -- for Free Speech. I don’t think we should be mandating by law any restrictions on that. Not for Jews, not for Muslims. Not for Christians. 

Being More Anti-China: I plead guilty to this. But claim mitigation. That being that China has itself become rather more of a bully on the world stage in the last dozen years or so, what with the “Wolf Diplomacy” and the aggression in the South China Sea, so surely a fair person is allowed to be rather more robust in response. 

Being more critical of Islam: I plead no contest on this one. The whole reason for starting this blog was because I’d been reading about Islam and was troubled by its ideology. I still am. It may be that I make my points rather more directly. I hope I make them rather more clearly than I used to, otherwise, have I learned nothing in 15 years? I do think the threat of Islam, which is what I started writing about, is much worse much more quickly than I thought then. And so I quote regularly people  who know Islam from the inside out -- people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She herself has become more strident. Because the threat has chased her out of Somalia, then the Netherlands and then Britain. 

Being Super pro-Israel: To this I plead Guilty. And comfortably so. I’m inclined to say “proudly so”, but that doesn’t seem right. To me the issue of Israel vs Hamas is crystal clear. It’s crystal clear from having read widely on the subject. Not to the level of a professor. But certainly to the level beyond the average, and a country mile past the extraordinary ignorance of the students and street protesters. Hamas is an evil death cult. It has not a single redeeming feature, as a movement or as a people. (If there is One redeeming feature, I’m all ears). They don’t even value their babies. We tend to think all humans love their children. Not Hamas and the brainswashed Gazans who Love Death, Love Allah, more than they love their children who they are more than willing -- they are happy --  to offer to the Glory of Allah and the spread of Islam. 

While Israel is a democratic, free, liberal, inventive society that loves life. 

I have no problem making the distinction. It’s not “complicated” or “nuanced” to me. 

Being Super pro-Nuclear: Guilty as charged. And that makes me on the Right, as far as Australian politics is concerned. It’s a live issue in Australia right now. The split is the Leftish Labor Party is agains, the Centre Right Liberal Party is in favour. And so am I. And so are any folks who follow the science and are not fooled by such nonsense as “We don’t need nuclear in Australia because we have abundant sun and land"

Choice: didn’t discuss at all, but for the record, I’m pro Choice. A liberal view.

Gun control: didn’t discuss at all, but for the record, I’m ok with gun control. Just that by the evidence, it won’t do much good, given the number of guns already in the country. The data by state don’t have a strong correlation between high gun control states and lower gun crimes. 

Australia and China: I admit to being totally pro Australia whenever there’s something in the local press about an Australia China issue. The local SCMP will have a ton of comments whenever there’s an Oz-China issue, all in favour of China. I weigh in, in favour of Australia. Eg, on the issue of Australia demanding a full international investigation into the source of the Covid virus, and then China slapped on import bans on Australian minerals and seafood, I was (and remain) totally on Australia’s side. So, yes, guilty as charged on that one.

Free Speech: a dozen years ago in Oz, I was holding forth on NOT trying to ban “Hate Speech”. For that, by my sister, I was told: “my goodness, you’re becoming so conservative!” For standing for free speech. I’ve had other old, old friends accuse me -- “j’accuse -- of being a ‘free speech absolutist”. Again, guilty as charged. Australia is becoming a very censorious country, much more so than even the censorious Europe. I don’t like that. I’ve got more freedom of speech here in Hong Kong, than the have in Australia now. Colour me extreme and radical and horrid right wing for that one as well. 

Anti-semitism Bill: This I don’t agree with. So, if supporting that it right wing, then I’m Leftie on that

ADDED: About China and about Islam and about Russia or the Soviet Union, my beef is always with the ideology not the people. So I can say: I don't like Marxism-Leninism, or Maoism, but I do like the Chinese people. I don't like the ideology of Islam, but every Muslim I've ever met is a fine person. I don't like Leninism, or Putinism, but the Russians are fun people. Always the ideology. We ought be able to criticise the ideology. Always. Which is why it's wrong to have a "Hate speech" tie to "Islamophobia". No... we must be able to criticise Islam. Just as we do Christianity. Or Communism. Or Nazism.  

Rumble in the Jungle | Glenn Greenwald on a New York Times hit piece

Click above for the video 

“Rumble in the Jungle”. 

The news Jungle, that is.

Where, to the New York Times, a free-speech platform like Rumble is “far-Right”. When in fact, according to Pew Research, it leans Democrat. But it’s not mainstream media, so the Grey Lady hates in it. 

Glenn Greenwald is himself rather far to the left, a socialist even. He’s broken major stories, like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. 

In this video — also above — he rips apart the hapless Times reporter who went after Rumble, who claimed it’s a “right wing cesspit”. It’s not. It’s a free speech platform, for anyone, Left, Right or indifferent. If anything it’s more left than right.

Glenn says it’s become a liberal mantra now that censorship is good and free speech is “fascist”. The inverse of what used to be. The Left used to be all Voltaire: “I may disagree with you but o defend your right to say it”. No longer. That’s Right wing! 

I know. I’ve had a liberal friend of mine, one I’ve known for decades, accuse me of being a “free speech advocate”. To her, that’s a pejorative. Imagine! She who reads only The Guardian, and even then, only the headlines!

X (formerly Twitter) now the most ideologically balanced of all Social Media platforms

Click above for the video

The data is from the Pew Research Centre. Pew is not right leaning, by any stretch, nor is it particularly left. It tries, largely successfully, to just look at the data. 

"Just the facts, ma'am". 

And the facts are: around half/half of X users are Dem and Rep. The same split as the country. 

But of course they can't accept it, on the MSNBC panel. 

"If you've been privileged, equality seems like oppression". 

For the Left, Twitter of old, pre-Elon days, was so pro-Left that now that it's neutral, they feel like it's unbalanced. So they want to censor the Right, in order to protect free speech! Go figure. 

"CIA And FBI Spread Disinformation And Interfered In 2020 Presidential Election” | Michael Shellenberger

Click above for the video

The Dems think -- or at least they tell us, non-stop -- that this is all so much hooey. It’s not. It’s substantial. 

For a start, Joe Biden and his son Hunter should have gone to jail for it. At the very least Biden should not have won the 2020 election, because of the gross interference, or if he had, he should have had to resign. 

Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 for the “crime” of hiding the break-in to the Watergate building. Which was a bunch of bumblers trying to find Oppo dirt on the Dems, at the then Democratic National Convention. IOW, he resigned not for the crime but for hiding the crime. 

In the case of Joe and Hunter, they not only did the crime -- by all the evidence in the “Laptop from Hell” -- but they hid it as well. And yet are walking free. Joe is even still president of the United States. Or so some say. Or so it is alleged. Or so it is believed be some in the media. 

What about the 51 Intelligence chiefs, past and present, who signed the now infamous letter saying that the Hunter Laptop was Russian Disinformation? They knew it wasn’t. They knew it. They lied. It affected the 2020 election. Why are they all still free? Why are they still on “respectable” media outlets like CNN, still pontificating, instead of rotting in jail? 

"White House staffer who demanded Facebook censor information is now Kamala's Deputy Campaign Manager"

.... name of Rob Flaherty.

Click bottom part to go to the X post.

Love them some censorship, these Dems...

So the White House staffer who demanded Facebook censor information is now Kamala's Deputy Campaign Manager? Interesting...

Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) x.com

Click this👆 bit to go the the X post. 
Mark Zuckerberg wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee talking about government censorship that Facebook had faced and regretting the he’d given in to it. Though commenters like the professor of law Jonathan Turley said he thought it was “More contrived than contrite”.  And of course the Left media are saying it’s all nonsense. 

I post screenshot of the letter below, because these days you can’t be sure stuff will kept. If it’s embarrassing, especially to the Dems, zeeeep... down the memory-hole!

We have more Free Speech here in Hong Kong than in the U.K.

Click above for the video

"We have more Free Speech here in Hong Kong than in the U.K. “

Really! 

I can criticise all I like the tenets of Islam. If you do so under the new Labour government of Sir Keir Starmer, you end up in jail. 

Really!

Starmer quickly earnered new nick names. “Two Tier Keir” for his support of policing that treats thugs from minority communities way more leniently than the native-born whites.  “Keir Jung-un” and "Keir Stalin” for his authoritarianism. 

A couple of vids:  

Dan Wooton: 

Quotes Christopher Hitchins: “Resist it while you can”. Talking of censorship. And predicting that it would become illegal to criticise Islam, which is a belief system, an ideology, and which has come to pass with the words of Keir Starmer in the video. 

Malleus Communismi

With references to Peter Hitchens warnings about Keir Starmer’s far-left history and practice. He was a senior member of various pro-Soviet and pro-Marxist orgs. 

This also looks at Tony Blair, who was responsible for the devolution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of which has been clearly to the poverty of the United Kingdom. Made it worse, IOW. And for the mass immigration that the UK suffers now, hugely, widely, consistently, opposed by around three quarters of the population. That was down to Blair. And setting up the Supreme Court, which has made it more difficult to enact and enable legislation to deal with the problems he created. Crafty Tony. 

"Donald Trump joins TikTok and rapidly wins three million followers” | Reuters

Subjects sensitive in China are suppressed on Tik-Tok
Source: Gallup poll

Trump gets 3 million followers in a day. And more Likes for his first post than Joe Biden has got for all the posts since he joined in 2020. 

For the record, I’m reposting the chart above which shows how much Tik-Tok is influenced by China. 

And the case for demanding that China give up its ownership of Tik Tok. Which I also covered here, and here. 

What did the Jews ever do for us? (scientifically) | Dr Peter Ridd

Click above for the video

“What a great mistake the Arab countries made in expelling all their Jews [in the wake of 1948 establishment of Israel]. Because they expelled some of the most scientifically accomplished people in the world and in history. But that’s what HATE does to you.”

-- Dr Peter Ridd

I’d never heard of Dr Peter Ridd before. I find on Wikipedia that he was at James Cook University (JCU) in Australia, where he "was the head of the Physics department from 2009 to 2016, and head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at that institution for 15 years.” 

So, pretty senior, then. 

He was fired in 2016 after disputes over the extent of the threat to the Great Barrier Reef. 

Reading between the lines, I guess he had views that did not accord with the accepted narrative at the time -- which would have been something like panic and alarm over the coral bleaching events. Instead of viewing this as a good old academic stoush -- as we would have not so long ago -- the university took this as an affront, unacceptable “climate denialism”, or some such and fired him. 

Dr Ridd took the case to court and won, then lost, then won again. It’s complicated. In the process, the High Court noted that the JCU had “not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom”. Hah!

Thus we have an early case of Cancel Culture. I don’t like what you say, I can’t be bothered to argue with you, so I fire you. 

ADDED: I don’t know what Dr Ridd’s position was on The Great Barrier Reef, but given that he was fired over it, I assume that he must have been arguing something along the lines that it’s not as bad as they say. If so, he’s been the one vindicated. 

In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years. After recent massive bleaching events impacted nearly 90% of Australia’s corals, it seems that anyone could see this news as a victory....

“There’s no question this is positive news—these data show reefs can recover rapidly from damage,” says WHOI’s Konrad Hughen, a principal investigator on the institution’s Reef Solutions Initiatiive. 

--- Wood’s Hole Oceanographic Insitute.  

ADDED (ii): Here’s another vid on the Great Barrier Reef. There’s a record amount of coral. So, it turns out my guess was correct. Dr Ridd was saying that it’s not as bad as it’s made out. And it seems he’s been vindicated. 

In the meantime, he’s been fired. He was not allowed to have a robust debate. Oh, no. Just fired. That’s too bad, and too shocking and too wrong. We have to get rid of the Cancel Culture and to fight back against those who claim that “there is no such thing as Cancel Culture”. Cancel Them!

Jack Dorsey praises Elon Musk’s X as ‘freedom technology’

Twitter founder Jack Dorsey had criticised Elon Musk. Now praises him and X, as being “freedom technology”. Australia’s battle with Musk makes Australia look stupid. 

The “e-safety commissar” is a sick joke. Just sad that so many, on both sides of the aisle, think it’s good and are behind it. 

Billboard Chris did say “Don’t post rude memes of PM Albanese; just don’t”. Albanese vs Musk

So many memes of Aussie PM Anthony Albanese, that people have posted without taking any notice of the PM who said it was “the responsibility” of socials to remove photos of “my face on other people’s bodies” (aka “memes”, Albo). I’m shocked, shocked, that so many folks should simply ignore the PM. 

Do not repost, or retweet, or like or pass on to all your address book, or laugh at, or invent new ones. Do not.... And shame on you if you do… All those who have shamelessly ignored the PM and posted their memes of him, below, for the historical record...

Australia’s Chief Nanny blubs on X

	Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 ⁦‪@BillboardChris‬⁩ The Australian Chief Nanny thinks social media companies have a social responsibility to take down memes that make fun of him. Do not post any fake pictures of ⁦‪@AlboMP‬⁩ in the replies. Or of Trudeau. Don't do it! pic.twitter.com/BNMQfmWsof   24/4/2024, 12:05 PM

Australia tries to censor the internet: Su-lin Tan agrees

"PM Anthony Albanese reels in Elon Musk over harmful content – time to cast net wider”. 

Really? 

My comment at the above site this morning: 

Misinformation from columnist Su-lin Tan. She doesn’t mention that X removed the video from Australia. But Albanese and she wanted it removed from the WORLD.
No.
Why on earth are people like Tan calling for more censorship? Before the above kerfuffle, we had Australia trying to censor legitimate posts by "Billboard Chris" about chemical castration and surgery of minors. All this is valid debate. Australia is trying to shut it down.
No. 

I’m really sad that people like Su-lin Tan and the SCMP are in favour of censorship. Yes, they are. That’s the nub of it. As Elon Musk has said: “Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship”. 

Tan says that Australian PM, Anthony Albanese, didn’t stand up for Australian Julian Assange, to the same extent. But then, she says, Biden is “not just another CEO”. No, he isn’t. He’s a doddery puppet president who will be gone while Elon Musk will remain one of the most consequential business founders in human history. Also: doesn’t failure of Albanese to stand up for Assange show cowardice?

ADDED: Amazing. The SCMP runs an article supporting the Australian PM's attempts to censor X... yet publishes the very same video clip that the PM is trying to censor. Hypocrisy, much?

ADDED: a heap of people making fun of Albanese demanding that social media take down “fake photographs of my face on other bodies”. Aka, Memes, Albo!

In the United States, there’s good and bad and both are covered. In China there’s good and bad but the bad is censored

Click above for the video

We know about the homeless problems in LA, in San Francisco, in Portland, in Chicago. We know about the gun crimes, about racial divisions in the United States. 

In China, by contrast, we don’t. Because it’s censored. 

So that’s why I occasionally post vids like the above. I’ve seen the poverty with mine own eyes. As we drove down a new highway to Yunnan in South China, all was fine. Until we slipped off the main road and went into the local villages. Just a mile off the road and you see poverty like anywhere in Africa. 

Serpenza, above, is a guy who’s lived in China for a long time, is married to a Chinese woman, speaks and reads Chinese. But is now in the United States, because he was threatened by the Chinese secret police. 

Why I don’t trust the BBC’s Trusted News Initiative

When it comes to pumping out genuinely dangerous lies, no one can hold a candle to the BBC and its 'trusted' allies. More …

The BBC has been outdoing itself lately in being clearly partisan and spreading misinformation. Despite which it lectures us via its “BBC Verify” initiative recently.  Oh dear, lovely old Beebs, what’s happened to you? Sniff... 

Attack on Free Speech: Australia’s Misinformation Bill explained

click above for the video

I worried about this when I first heard about it, and made my own submission: namely that it ought be scrapped (“Bin the Bill”). As this video concludes. 

Thing is: the Albanese government is so convinced (wrongly!) that they lost the Voice referendum because of “misinformation” that they’re going to go all out for this ACMA bill. 

If passed, and I really fear it will, this will be the gravest threat to free speech in Australia in my lifetime.