The Hypocrisies of the Ideological Left
Recent revelations from the Twitter Files and the Loudon County grand jury report highlight why many people are abandoning the left over gender and woke ideology.
Edit: Coffee and COVID included the grand jury report in their post from today. I have included the grand jury report via a hyperlink for the phrase “Included in the grand jury report”, so look for that below if you are interesting in perusing it, but understand it is full of frustrating details.
I’ve been debating writing this post, but given continuous information that is being released I considered it important to cover this topic.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m one of those people who so-called “left the left” after seeing much of the ideological rot take over the party who always touted themselves to be the morally superior party.
Over the years this never sit right with me, and eventually I found that much of the protestations of the left were full of vacuous words, hijacking various groups and movements in order to use them as a political club to beat those who disagreed with their ideas.
They never cared for the groups they manipulated. As long as it won them votes and financial support then it didn’t matter. Many of these people would be abandoned for the next marginalized group for the left to latch onto.
In recent years much of this debate fell into the camp of gender ideology and the challenge of what exactly is going on in schools.
Given everything going on, I’ve chosen to highlight a few issues that have occurred in recent weeks which highlight why the left has become so hated, and why those who once considered themselves progressives/Democrats have moved away from the party.
Rot in the Sciences
Bret and Heather have discussed several issues with wokeness entering into the sciences on their Darkhorse podcast, in which they highlight how many of these once reputable journals have fallen to these ideologues.
There’s a few to choose from, and I can’t recall every one of them, but this is one of the more recent ones from August in which they discuss how Scientific America apparently can’t comprehend the notion that science changes as more information is gathered. In this case, the idea that humans were once referred to as one sex, and the idea of two sexes as used in modern times is only done to reinforce gender and racial (???) stereotypes:
There’s also this podcast from October 1st in which they discuss an absurd Nature article touting many of these similar ideological talking points.
The fact that such pernicious and unscientific notions can make their way into the sciences is cause for alarm. Science is founded on empirical evidence and the idea that claims should be substantiated irrespective of the political leanings of the researchers.
Scientific facts should not care about feelings, and yet this idea does not appear to be holding up with even the hard sciences which see this creeping invasion of woke ideology.
Pernicious Ideology in Schools
This ideological rot doesn’t just exist among the academics of universities, but have trickled down into even the public schools where children take field trips to drag queen shows, and even have drag queen story time at libraries.
The idea that these performances encourage self-esteem and more understanding is, ironically, tone deaf to what children should experience and learn. I highly doubt that such shows are pivotal to enriching a child, especially given how far behind children have fallen due to lockdowns and online learning that has occurred.
Rather, they are part of a growing trend of introducing sexual practices to children under the guise of “inclusivity”, especially of LGBTQ+ individuals. But again, this idea is absolutely tone deaf and adds to this notion that these attempts are intended to influence children and entrench them into the ideology, while also becoming a harmful, stereotypical reflection of the groups they supposedly support.
It’s one thing to teach sex education, it’s another thing to teach kids sexual acts. Apparently many of these ideologues can’t tell the difference.
And if you think private schools are safe from such ideas, don’t be too sure. A recent video from Project Veritas shows a dean of a Chicago private school discussing how employees at an LGBTQ+ Health Center passed around sex toys to kids to educate them. This education included teaching these minors about spitting and using lube:
It’s reported that the students in attendance were between the ages of 14-18, although that doesn’t make matters any better.
Apparently the private school has defended the dean, and if the article from the local news station is to be believed it suggests that they were supportive of this program, which alludes to the fact that this has likely happened.
Now, such mechanisms are concerning, as it alludes to a systemic attempt to influence and direct the ideas of younger generations. As a millennial I can’t even remember such ideas being taught to myself, and when tutoring a few years ago such ideas were never brought up by any of my students. Then again, I think students bringing up such topics would be very uncomfortable for the same reasons teaching it to children is highly uncomfortable.
But again, this is all done under the guise of inclusivity, and quite frankly this idea only works to further stigmatize the people who they are “intending to help”. To boil down people into the sex acts they perform, or the lifestyles they choose rather than the character of the individual was something we were all told to fight against.
There’s a reason why the film Bros was seen as being so controversial, for being a film about lewd sex acts and open debauchery, rather than just a film about some guy wanting to meet another guy.
Ironically, one point of contention brought up by critics is one plot point in which the main character wants to allow elementary school kids to visit a gay museum for a field trip, and some have argued that this is a response to the improperly described “Don’t Say Gay Bill”.
Under the ideas of social justice it is now acceptable to stereotype to such an egregious degree, even if such ideas may become detrimental to public perception of these groups.
However, it’s one thing to teach lewd acts to minors, it’s another when assaults are covered up due to ideology.
Systemic Failures in Loudon County
Last week a grand jury returned a report on two sexual assault cases that occurred in Loudon County, Virginia in 2021.
Included in the grand jury report is a rather detailed and enraging account of the situations, including how the assailant was allowed to stay at school the entire day and was only reprimanded when trying to leave the school premises at the end of the school day.
It also shows how many educators just passed the baton to one another in order to figure out what to do, rather than taking a proactive approach to sexual assault claims. When the alleged assailant was moved to another school (yes, shocking for one who is being accused of a felony to be allowed to return to school), many of the female students reported feeling uncomfortable around the assailant. Eventually, another assault of a female student took place a few months later.
The grand jury implicated some of the named educators for looking out for themselves. Right now a grand jury has indicted the superintendent on 3 misdemeanor charges related to the assault.
The assault grew a ton of controversy not just because it occurred on school grounds, or because the school attempted to hide that the incident occurred, but that the then 14 year old was a male student who dressed in a skirt, leading to discussions on transgender students and Loudon County School policies, both of which seemed to obfuscate the fact that a sexual assault was reported.
The fallout of this assault led to protests and a national debate over the attempted cover up of such an incident, serving as one of the sparks for parents to show up at PTA and school board meetings to raise concerns about what students were learning, and what teachers were hiding. It was also one of the conduits that led to the FBI possibly labeling parents as terrorists for showing up to these meetings and taking a proactive stance against the educational system that seems more intent on instilling ideology rather than education.
When the father of the first victim appeared at a board meeting, his wife was accosted by a supposed activist, and he [the father] was told by said activist that the incident did not happen and was soon arrested.
The idea that a father, whose daughter was the victim of a sexual assault, was told by activists that the incident did not occur due to the possible gender of the assailant would have been considered outright ludicrous.
I have no knowledge on the gender of the alleged assailant (gender being different than sex), and if the assailant identified as trans, nonbinary, or maybe had autogynephilic (sexual arousal in men caused by wearing women’s clothes).
But all of that shouldn’t matter.
The fact that this incident sparked discussions on transgender policy in public schools and not the discussion on how schools handle sexual assaults to make sure they don’t occur is another ideological stint that derails the discourse.
The fact that parents were targeted for wanting to take a proactive approach in understanding what their children are learning is, again, ludicrous. The same teachers and school board officials would have encouraged parents to be engaged in their children’s education, but only now does all of this become a huge issue. Being exposed for possible malfeasance such as covering up a sexual assault may make some reticent of allowing parents to understand the actual goings on in schools.
This point makes the situation all the more aggravating. Under such circumstances one wonders what the parents of the assailant knew about their child. In this case, it appears that both the mother AND the grandmother reached out to the school district for several years to help them with their child, who had shown concerning and deviant behavior already.
Here’s the relevant portion of the report as read and discussed by Nick Rekieta on YouTube. He was also the reason I found out about this grand jury report (language may be crass for work, just as a warning):
So not only did the system fail the victims of the sexual assaults, the system failed the family of the assailant for years by disregarding pleads over their child’s behavior. But only now, when the child’s gender is under question has the discourse changed to be about gender ideology and policy while obfuscating the sexual assaults and repeated pleads over the deviant behavior of the assailant.
And all of this is made rather ironic, as the people who purport to be against the system rally in favor of the system if the system chooses to align itself along ideological talking points.
Isn’t this system of covering up sexual assaults something that the left rallies against a la #MeToo, and yet if the assailant may present as queer then it somehow makes the situation different and wanting of nuanced discussion? This lack of consistency is so apparent, and yet the cognitive dissonance on display is one of the reasons I found such circumstances to be frustrating.
Such hypocrisy is never properly addressed, but instead allowed to manifest and maintain relevancy, even at the detriment of those who the ideology touts it is meant to defend.
Selective Moderation Disorder
The recent revelations from the Twitter Files have outlined a broader, more systemic rot of censorship that has attempted to alter the online discourse, including evidence of the removal of then sitting president Donald Trump by Twitter employees, as well as the shadowbannig of many individuals such as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya who was outspoken on the lockdowns.
Twitter’s censorious nature has been one of the driving discussions on Section 230 repeals, as there never appears to be any consistency in policy at Twitter’s headquarters as to who can use their platform, and who can say what without being banned.
Last I checked my Twitter account, which I used to promote this Substack, was put into the “banned until you delete the tweet” category for a tweet which included my article criticizing Dr. Ardis’ snake venom theory. I suppose the word on the street and spreading popularity of the documentary Watch the Water led to some of the words in my tweet to be targeted over the weekend the documentary was released.
And this secret targeting of specific words is one point of contention many have levied against Twitter, and it raises serious questions as to the moderation that Twitter is conducting.
Of note, a few months ago Twitter banned the use of the word groomer as being hateful speech against the LGBTQ community. Some apparent targets were the famous Libs of Tik Tok Twitter profile, as well as some other outspoken individuals such as James Lindsay who have spoken against the current woke culture. One ironic casualty was the Twitter account Gays Against Groomers, which was comprised of LGBT members who were critical of the current gender ideology pervading society. The account was later reinstated, but the fact that it occurred raised several suspicions.
Why groomer was targeted was rather interesting. Several social media websites such as Reddit began cracking down on the use of the word, and so there was likely to have been a global social media wipeout of the word.
However, the optics for such a word don’t quite work in Twitter’s favor. More explicitly, many have criticized Twitter for its lackadaisical approach to images and videos of children committing sexual acts, which have been allowed to circulated for many years without so much as widespread removal of such content.
Even more alarming is the incident in which a video of male minors minors bullied into performing sexual acts circulated on Twitter. When the individuals alerted Twitter to this incident, Twitter returned a comment that the video did not violate their terms of services, leading to a now growing lawsuit alleging that the company did not take proper steps to remove content showing child sex from their platform.
An article from San Francisco Chronicles notes the following in regards to the lawsuit (emphasis mine):
The lawsuit alleges that two users discovered that sexual abuse videos taken of them a few years earlier were circulating on Twitter. The plaintiffs, who were 13 years old in the videos, say they were blackmailed into making the videos and that the posting of them led to bullying at school and extreme anxiety.
The lawsuit says the plaintiffs asked for the material to be removed, and at Twitter’s request proved the videos were of them and that they were underage when the videos were taken. One of the plaintiff’s mothers asked Twitter to remove the videos, as well. But Twitter’s safety team deemed the videos acceptable under their terms of service and declined to remove them, the lawsuit alleges.
“We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time,” Twitter told the plaintiff in 2020, the lawsuit alleges.
The video was eventually removed, allegedly due to pressure from the Department of Homeland Security, although the lawsuit appears to be ongoing.
Nonetheless, this lack of moderation has been well-known, and even with constant criticisms Twitter did not appear to take much action to ensure such content was removed from its platform.
So on one hand Twitter chosen to remove select individuals over misinformation and supposedly inciting violence, and yet when content with children are asked to be removed by the victims, with clear evidence that they are the victims nonetheless, the content doesn’t violate any policies and is allowed to remain.
Now, this point wasn’t going to be included in this post originally. However, some evidence has come out that provides some context, especially in regards to the targeting of some of these select accounts.
One person who seems to have played a big role in the censorship on Twitter is the former Twitter Executive Yoel Roth. His name has appeared quite frequently in the Twitter Files, and aside from Vijaya Gadde he was one of the main people involved with the actions that led to much of this fallout.
On its own this would be one thing, however evidence from Yoel Roth’s alternative Twitter account, as well as many of his past tweets have resurfaced leading Elon Musk to make comments about Roth possibly attempting to sexualize children and sparking more controversies over the intents of the previous Twitter employees.
Some of the tweets are compiled in the below video from The Quartering (with some clickbait and sheath underwear promotions; timestamped to skip promos):
I do want to raise some hesitation with the dissertation being passed around, as many people have brought it up with understandable concerns. It is a 300 page document and I was hoping 280 pages would be filler. Unfortunately, much of the document is actual text.
However, in reading a few points it doesn’t appear that the document actually encourages intermingling of children with adults on gay hookup apps, but rather the current culture may make such apps one place for young gay men to socialize with one another, and therefore steps should be taken to address the fact that teenagers who are using the app may do so even with the app not being intended for their age. The section on Real Death starting on page 257 seems to go into detail on this topic, although the paragraph on page 261 appears to have the comment that people have latched onto. It doesn’t mean that some suspicious comments will not be found in the dissertation, but that what I’ve seen doesn’t seem to point towards anything egregious (again, from what I’ve briefly seen).
NOW, with that being said Roth’s tweets don’t do much to assuage any of the claims made against him. Although the remarks of consent between a teacher and a student link to a case in which the student was 18 years old, the optics and the circumstances surrounding Roth’s other tweets don’t do much to make the context of that tweet any better.
Why someone who held such a high position at Twitter found it appropriate to be so open about his lewdness, especially given the circumstances of Twitter not spending enough time moderating child content, suggests selective, partisan attention to things that would be considered trivial while targeting voices important to the overall discourse.
All of this raises further questions as to why Twitter’s moderation practices, and the targeting of the word groomer in particular occurred.
Given the prior controversies it raises questions as to whether these policies were driven predominately by ideology, with this mirage of virtue signaling obfuscating the behind-the-scenes censorial nature of Twitter, while also letting things that should be removed free to spread.
Note that the Twitter Files has been underreported by the media, and it has only been covered recently in discussions of Roth supposedly having to flee his home over death threats.
Several reports seem to reiterate the point that Roth is gay as some apparent defense against the criticisms and threats levied against him, which I find wholly unnecessary given that the tweets themselves and the Twitter File revelations would raise concerns irrespective of the sexual orientation of the account holder.
I should reiterate that people shouldn’t commit threats, especially death threats, but at the same time the remarks by Roth, given the current circumstances, have rightfully raised concerns.
But instead, the media has taken to defending Roth against the “far-right” tactics of Musk and his QAnon-like conspiracies on child sex trafficking.
In short, the current revelations raise serious questions as to what was exactly being moderated on Twitter, or how such policies were being enacted. Why did Twitter executives find it necessary to censor individuals espousing their own opinions while not taking a serious, proactive approach against child sex images and videos? Wouldn’t such energy be better served fighting actual crimes rather than mean words online?
The idea that “hate speech” may be deemed more worthy of action than documented illegal actions that were told did not violate Twitter’s policies are indicative of this need to put ideology before actual, serious issues. It’s another example of the hypocrisy in which attempts to undermine free speech and the free exchange of ideas came before the necessary moderation of illegal material.
Woke Ideology Continues to be Damaging
If the above article was too long, note the intent was to capture a few of the things that have come to the surface in the past few weeks.
The stories highlighted above just capture a few of the ever-continuous hypocrisies put forth by the left, which tend to obfuscate real-world issues on ideological grounds.
There’s been growing contention against the ideological left and its continuous embrace of woke ideology, and it’s for this fact that many people continue to move away from the left.
The group who continues to insist that it fights for the marginalized continue to prop them up as shields for nefarious purposes.
Those who insist on following the science can’t figure out what science is, and instead attempts to change science to fit their wants rather than have it fit reality.
When presented with systemic injustice, the left would rather defend the system if it means being on the apparent right side of the cultural fight.
It’s rather coincidental that all of these issues have come to the surface in recent weeks, but it highlights some of the reasons why many of us have grown to disdain the party we originally aligned with.
Now, this doesn’t mean that the right is perfect. I’ve noted my criticisms of the right and their issues of relying on “not being the left” as a platform. But that also doesn’t mean that many people will continue to put up with the ideas put forth by the left.
The fact that a group called Gays Against Groomers exists indicates that plenty of people from all facets of life do not like the direction that the country is headed when done under through woke ideology.
I’ll leave this post with similar remarks made by Stephanie Brail in her criticisms of the left, as well as Tulsi Gabbard’s reasons for leaving the Democratic Party as a reminder that this ideology is not sustainable, and will inherently lead to more harm than good.
If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists outside the mainstream.
I live in Fairfax County, next door to Loudoun, and we are no better if not worse. Fairfax has already proclaimed they will not follow the governor’s mandate that “transitions” of children start with the initiative and approval of the parents rather than the school. So if a kid wants to transition, the teachers and administrators will not only help him but also help him hide it from his parents. It’s unbelievable. We moved here from Los Angeles thinking the culture would be better but it’s not.
Apparently all gays also have to be pro-abortion...I saw a lesbian group lament they had been ghosted and cancelled because they were Lesbians who just believe in the sanctity of life...