Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Identity Politics

Angry Feminist made worse by politically correct sympathy

Published

on

54 Views

In a New York Times piece dated 13 March 2018, a clearly distraught woman wrote this letter to a page called “The Sweet Spot”:

Dear Sugars,

How do I deal with my anger toward men? I go to therapy, I’m on anti-depressants and I’m trying to practice self-care. But I’m still angry. I don’t think it’s unwarranted. I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice. We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but our president is an alleged sexual predator. Men are socialized to be condescending toward women, and even the few who check themselves often fail.

The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late. I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain. In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Justifiably Angry Feminist

What follows are excerpts from the responses the lady got. See if you can catch the trap. I will help by bolding a few of the problem phrases.

Steve Almond: Your letter made me think of James Baldwin’s famous formulation that to be African-American in this country “and to be relatively conscious, is to be in a rage almost all the time.” You have every right to be angry with men who have harmed you, in word or deed. No man can understand how it feels to grow up female in this culture, especially not an affluent white man like myself. We are largely ignorant of what it’s like to be economically, socially, professionally and sexually bullied. Having said that, your essential beef here really isn’t with men, individually or as a population. It’s with patriarchal thought and behavior, those monstrous forms of privilege by which men control women. The deeper question we need to reckon with is why boys and men are socialized to derive their self-worth from the denigration and domination of women. The symptoms of this mindset — discrimination, abusive behavior, rape — are infuriating. But beneath this rage lurks a deep sorrow that belongs to all of us…

… Abusive men are beginning to be held to account, which is to say: Women are being believed. But there’s still a vast segment of our population that refuses to confront the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault. They’ve chosen, instead, to normalize and even lionize cruel and predatory behavior. In my view, this moral regression — like the resurgence of overt bigotry in our political discourse — marks the panicky response of a dominant culture feeling the tremors Cheryl alludes to… But this style of thought is also nourished by a consumer culture that profits from sowing doubt. Men are indoctrinated to associate power with predation, and women with seduction and submission. This paradigm, epitomized in the simulated pleasure of hetero-normative pornography, will only begin to diminish in force as we reject the dishonesty of a sexual discourse founded on misogynistic myths.

… Anger is a proper response to injustice. But so is empowerment, as Cheryl suggests. Place your faith in the feminist philosopher ‘bell hooks’ (pseudonym for Gloria Jean Watkins). “Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion,” she observes. “A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving.” Any man worth your time will recognize this, and will come to see that the forces seeking to control women seek to control him, too. This does not mean that men will cease to disappoint you. The patriarchy wasn’t built in a day; it won’t be dismantled in a day either. Nor do any of us move through life free of our darker impulses. They invariably emerge in our most intimate relationships. But there are men in this world capable of owning their self-doubt rather than turning it against women. You deserve such a man. We all do.

And from the other respondent:

Cheryl Strayed: Your rage is justified, Angry Feminist. I won’t list all the reasons why because you already did that quite well. We both know the list of injustices goes on. It stretches around the globe and dates back through all time. Strangely, it helps me to remember that. Perhaps remembering that will be solace for you too. Here’s why: there’s no way to make an accounting of that infuriating list without seeing also that progress has been made. I know your most immediate fury is rooted in the specific problem you have in your own life — the question of how you can love (or even find) a man when so many have wronged or disappointed you. But sometimes our most particular sorrows are eased ever so slightly when we take a broader view. The fact that your anger can even be expressed in the terms that you’ve expressed it is evidence, to me, that change is afoot. The reasons you cite for your anger — the high incidence of sexual assault, the misogyny of our president and the nation that elected him, the sexism that even enlightened men (and women) enact — aren’t topics being discussed on the margins anymore. They’re being addressed far and wide, loud and clear. And many of our most powerful institutions and assumptions about men and woman are being rocked, if not yet toppled, by that discussion. Take heart in that.

… I can’t predict if you’ll ever find a man who treats you like an equal, but I can say you’re more likely to find one if you seek love from a place of personal power rather than desolation. We change our lives (and sometimes the world) by deciding to do things differently than we’ve done them before. Perhaps for you, Angry Feminist, that means reframing your justified anger. Right now, your rage is a simmering pot of despair that can do nothing but sink you. If instead you can direct it down channels that empower you, it will serve a powerfully important purpose in your life. This could be as small as speaking up rather than remaining silent when you observe sexism or as big as getting involved with an organization or cause whose mission is gender equity (and you might even meet some good guys there). It’s incredibly difficult not to feel burned by the patriarchy. We have indeed been burned. But, as we know — around the globe and through all time — the best things rise from the ashes.

[Emphases mine]

So, what is wrong here?

The main thing is the mindset of the “Angry Feminist.” I did not highlight anything in her letter because I wanted to come back to this directly. But let’s make a list of problems, restating her sentiments in her letter:

First, she says only how she thinks she is right:

How do I deal with my anger toward men?

  • I go to therapy
  • I’m on anti-depressants 
  • I’m trying to practice self-care 

But I’m still angry.

  • I don’t think it’s unwarranted.

Then, she talks about how everyone else and everything else around her is wrong:

  • I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice.
  • We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but…
  • our president is an alleged sexual predator.
  • Men are socialized to be condescending toward women
  • even the few who check themselves often fail.

The third aspect is how “no one understands” her pain.

  • The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late.
  • I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain.
  • In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

And then, we have the dilemma:

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Angry Feminist has boxed herself in, and the man and woman, though well-meaning in their response, will not help her at all. At best, they will only help her deny her rage and hide it a little, all the while never truly changing.

Why is this so?

Feminism as we see in Angry’s example is a psychological problem of self-victimization that is extremely attractive and very difficult to undo except with direct confrontation. And because of the usual American social construct we have, we are simultaneously taught to be polite, to regard women as the (physically) weaker sex and therefore in need of protection. This is a traditional view and it still persists among men. We derive a large part of our sense of nobility from it.

But feminism takes this nobility and turns it against us, because the feminist is angry at men simply because they exist, and the men want to try to help the feminist stop being angry. We may try to do so by being more noble, and more kind, but this almost never works with a feminist woman. The feminist alternately loves the kindness of the man and despises it, and this is an unstable emotional framework, and it can induce fear in men.  That fear in men to aggravate the feminist is such that he will not confront her for being completely bonkers, to directly confront such a deranged person, any real direct message usually doesn’t happen. The usual result is that the man flees in some way, and the woman feels once again justified in her anger because “the man let her down” in her view.

The truth is she drove him away because he had to either flee her wrath or die from it, or go crazy and do something horrible. And the real tragedy of feminism is that getting the woman to recognize her own part in causing this is next to impossible.

Our intrepid New York Times people both gave into this pressure, and started giving Angry useless and emotionally placating statements, none of which have the power to heal the woman from her condition.

St Paul, from the New Testament, had a terrific understanding of the human condition. Many feminists are quick to arouse their anger because one set of instructions he gave regarding marriage said this:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24, NIV translation offered)

As one reads this, even non-feminists could easily imagine feminist heads exploding everywhere. What is even more significant is that we probably expect most American women’s heads to explode. This is because this sort of feminism has become quite strongly entrenched in society, so much so that we don’t easily see it.

But St Paul did not stop here. So the feminists ought to read a little farther to find out what the men have to do. And, admittedly, men also need to read this:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,  that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (Ephesians 5:25-29, NIV)

So, what does this mean, “Love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her…”

Well, Christian believers know that Christ died for his people. His giving himself was to give himself all the way to death. So, the image St Paul paints is, “Husbands, be prepared to die for your wives, in the image of Christ dying for his Church…”

But it is easy for men influenced by feminism to misunderstand this as a call to a type of servility to the will of women. This is wrong. Christ did not do whatever the Church wanted. He founded it and formed it in leadership, and died as its leader. It is a bit more like being a general in battle than a slave to a master.  St Paul continues:

For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife seethat she respects her husband.

We emphasized this last sentence because it is the summary. The command is for the ultimate in respect, each for the other.

Angry Feminist never got this instruction. Both her respondents cowtowed to her rage and didn’t bring it to this teaching. And that is pretty common, as even many Christian believers in our day have no idea what this section really means.

But now that you have read it, you may begin to develop the idea. This leads to the revelation of the great lie at the end of the lady’s letter. Her signature:

Justifiably Angry Feminist

She is not justified at all. In fact, she is completely in the wrong.

So, what might we say to Angry Feminist?

One thing must be understood. The first time she reads or hears this, she will explode with anger and refuse to read the rest. So, it would take everyone around her being on the same page until her ego cracks enough for her to begin to be teachable. Here is our attempt:

Dear Angry Feminist,

You may completely disagree with what you are about to read. But we have seen your problem, and we have seen its solution, and it works. So, we suggest you read and re-read our response over and over until something opens in you.

Your anger is because you have locked yourself in hell. However the key to get out is firmly in your own hands, and to change the hell, you will have to walk out. The locks are your resentments towards the men who tried to take advantage of you. Forgive them. Everyone on earth has the right to be wrong, and we unfortunately are. Forgive them because you do things wrong and expect to be forgiven as well, don’t you? Then you open the doors and simply walk out of hell.

Therapy is not therapy if the therapist merely affirms your anger. Your anger is the problem far more than the people around you are. Change your anger and the people around you will amazingly become better. Anti-depressants? These don’t help at all. They just aid and abet you in your sickness, and they give you the excuse to blame the world, which you cannot change, instead of looking at yourself and what you can change.

Some women think that they have the right to display their bodies any way they wish. We don’t know what your attitude is about this, but we can say that you probably would be highly disturbed if men went walking around virtually naked, wouldn’t you? They would be disrespectful to themselves and invite attention from depraved people who want only one thing. So, if you think you have the right to show your body as you wish, you are wrong. We all affect one another. And we attract people that are like how we act. Act respectful of yourself, and men who respond to you will be more likely to be respectful of you.

That being said, men are hard-wired to pursue women. So if a respectful man gives you flowers or holds the door open for you, or walks on the street-side of the sidewalk to protect you, that is his expression of dignity as a man who respects and values you as a woman. Feminism doesn’t allow for such actions, but that is the lie of feminism.

Finally, you are lying to yourself and those around you when you say that you want men to treat you as an equal. What you really want is for the men to somehow make restitution for the harms you have either really received or have perceived. They will never be able to make up for these offenses, because most of them are magnified in your own mind and heart to the point where you cannot even see men correctly.

The world is full of good God-fearing men. In the United States, they abound. But if you look at the world through feminist glasses, you will never see them. They also see you and your anger that you beat the world around you with, and they probably feel sad because they cannot make an approach to you.

Forgive others, and change yourself, and the world will become different. Continue to blame others and exalt yourself, and things will only get worse. 

This is the truth we have found. It is difficult, it is unpleasant at first, and it is no doubt a shock to you. But if you have actually succeeded in reading this response this far, it says you are capable of change. We wish you every blessing God can give as you work on yourself.

With love,

Red Pill Times

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Is Silicon Valley Morphing Into The Morality Police?

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Adrian Cohen via Creators.com:


Silicon Valley used to be technology companies. But it has become the “morality police,” controlling free speech on its platforms.

What could go wrong?

In a speech Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said:

“Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That’s why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms.”

Here’s the goliath problem:

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

Will Christians who don’t support abortion rights or having their tax dollars go toward Planned Parenthood be considered purveyors of hate for denying women the right to choose? Will millions of Americans who support legal immigration, as opposed to illegal immigration, be labeled xenophobes or racists and be banned from the digital world?

Yes and yes. How do we know? It’s already happening, as scores of conservatives nationwide are being shadow banned and/or censored on social media, YouTube, Google and beyond.

Their crime?

Running afoul of leftist Silicon Valley executives who demand conformity of thought and simply won’t tolerate any viewpoint that strays from their rigid political orthodoxy.

For context, consider that in oppressive Islamist regimes throughout the Middle East, the “morality police” take it upon themselves to judge women’s appearance, and if a woman doesn’t conform with their mandatory and highly restrictive dress code — e.g., wearing an identity-cloaking burqa — she could be publicly shamed, arrested or even stoned in the town square.

In modern-day America, powerful technology companies are actively taking the role of the de facto morality police — not when it comes to dress but when it comes to speech — affecting millions. Yes, to date, those affected are not getting stoned, but they are being blocked in the digital town square, where billions around the globe do their business, cultivate their livelihoods, connect with others and get news.

That is a powerful cudgel to levy against individuals and groups of people. Wouldn’t you say?

Right now, unelected tech billionaires living in a bubble in Palo Alto — when they’re not flying private to cushy climate summits in Davos — are deciding who gets to enjoy the freedom of speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and who does not based on whether they agree with people’s political views and opinions or not.

You see how dangerous this can get — real fast — as partisan liberal elites running Twitter, Facebook, Google (including YouTube), Apple and the like are now dictating to Americans what they can and cannot say online.

In communist regimes, these types of folks are known as central planners.

The election of Donald Trump was supposed to safeguard our freedoms, especially regarding speech — a foundational pillar of a democracy. It’s disappointing that hasn’t happened, as the censorship of conservative thought online has gotten so extreme and out of control many are simply logging off for good.

A failure to address this mammoth issue could cost Trump in 2020. If his supporters are blocked online — where most voters get their news — he’ll be a one-term president.

It’s time for Congress to act before the morality police use political correctness as a Trojan horse to decide our next election.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Paul Craig Roberts: The Disintegration of Western Society

Feminists brought this madness onto themselves.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:


Radical feminists are now being banned by Twitter not because they hate men, which is perfectly OK as far as Twitter is concerned, but because they object to “transwomen.”

What is a “transwoman?” As far as I can understand, a “transwoman” is a male with a penis who declares himself to be a women and demands his right to use women’s toilette facilities along with the women who are using them.

The feminist, Meghan Murphy, twittered a statement and a question:

“Men are not women.”

“How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between men and transwomen?”

Twitter described this as “hateful conduct” and banned Meghan Murphy. https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/

There you have it. Yesterday it was feminists who were exercising their special society-bestowed privileges to censor. Today it is the feminists who are being censored. As this insanity of “Western Civilization” continues, tomorrow it will be the transwomen who are censored and banned.

What precisely is afoot?

My readers, who have partially and some wholly escaped from The Matrix, understand that this is the further fragmentation of American society. Identity Politics has set men, women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and white people against one another. Identity Politics is the essence of the Democratic Party and the American liberal/progressive/left. Now, with the creation of “new” but otherwise nonexistent “genders,” although they are honored as real by the controlled whores who masquerade as a “Western media,” we witness radical feminists being silenced by men pretending to be women.

I sympathize with Meghan Murphy, but she brought this on herself and on the rest of us by accepting Identity Politics. Identity Politics gave Meghan a justification for hating men even, as she failed to realize, it provided the basis for moving her into the exploitative class that must be censored.

Where does this end?

It has already gone far enough that the American population is so divided and mutually hostile that there is no restraint by “the American people” on government and the elite oligarchs that rule. “The American people” are no longer a reality but a mythical creature like the unicorn.

The film, The Matrix, is the greatest film of out lifetime. Why? Because it shows that there are two realities. A real one of which only a few people are aware, and a virtual one in which eveyone else lives.

In the United States today, and throughout “Western Brainwashed Civilization,” only a handful of people exist who are capable of differentiating the real from the created reality in which all explanations are controlled and kept as far away from the truth as possible. Everything that every Western government and “news” organization says is a lie to control the explanations that we are fed in order to keep us locked in The Matrix.

The ability to control people’s understandings is so extraordinary that, despite massive evidence to the contrary, Americans believe that Oswald, acting alone, was the best shot in human history and using magic bullets killed President John F. Kenndy; that a handful of Saudi Arabians who demonstratively could not fly airplanes outwitted the American national security state and brought down 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon; that Saddam Hussein had and was going to use on the US “weapons of mass destruction;” that Assad “used chemical weapons” against “his own people;” that Libya’s Gaddifi gave his soldiers Viagra so they could better rape Libyan women; that Russia “invaded Ukraine;” that Trump and Putin stole the presidential election from Hillary.

The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex’s annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money even as Congress debates cutting Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security complex.

Readers ask me what they can do about it. Nothing, except revolt and cleanse the system, precisely as Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said.

Is Thomas Jefferson Alive and Well In Paris?

If this report is correct, pray the revolt spreads to the US.

https://www.infowars.com/video-french-police-remove-helmets-in-solidarity-with-yellow-vest-protesters/

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Google Employees debated burying conservative media in search

Google engineer Scott Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

The Daily Caller

Published

on

Via The Daily Caller


  • Google employees debated whether to bury The Daily Caller and other conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election
  • “Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years,” one engineer wrote in a thread that included a Google vice president
  • Google employees similarly sought to manipulate search results to combat Trump’s travel ban

Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.

Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.

Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.

“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.

Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.

“I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued.

“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.”

Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures

One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take.

“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer.

“I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added.

“Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples.

“That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added.

“What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested.

“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added.

“We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google.

“We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote.

Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017.

Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.

Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.

A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes.

“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.

“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

The discussion about whether to bury conservative media outlets isn’t the first evidence that some Google employees have sought to manipulate search results for political ends.

After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order.

A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”

WATCH:

Trump speculated to The Daily Caller in September that Google and Facebook are trying to affect election outcomes.

“I think they already have,” Trump said, responding to questions about potential election interference by Google and Facebook.

“I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton,” he added.

“Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued.

Google this month corrected a “knowledge panel” about a Republican women’s group that labeled them “enablers.”

Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though a similar change made to Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group was corrected almost immediately. Google left up the digital vandalism for three weeks.

Google apologized in May after search results for the California Republican Party falsely listed “Nazism” as one of the state party’s ideologies.

Then, too, Google blamed manipulation of the party’s Wikipedia page for the inaccurate and disparaging description.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending