This is utterly self-refuting, and calling activists “info warfare terrorists” should disqualify you from any serious discussion. But, because you flatter the left’s prejudices, it’ll be accepted by those partisans. https://twitter.com/MollyMcKew/status/1047442851334934529 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
This is CVE2.0, and a lot of the familiar faces—err, grifters—are back. Countering Violent Extremism was a way to pretend study of terrorism had nothing at all to do with Islamic terrorism, the major problem facing nearly every country, very much including Muslim ones.
1 reply 54 retweets 113 likesShow this thread -
It became a racket, and an entire cottage industry. Hundreds of “experts”—people who had absolutely no real knowledge about Islamic terrorism, but could brand themselves in CVE-world using flimsy pseudo academic credentials—flocked to the Obama era gravy train.
3 replies 78 retweets 155 likesShow this thread -
CVE sought to establish that there were all kinds of “terrorisms” that were just as awful and worthy of serious study as the Islamic variety. (Nevermind that bodycounts—in Muslim countries alone!—dwarfed all other types of terrorism.)
1 reply 11 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
Perhaps it was unavoidable that, given the state of academia today—and Sokal II is just the tiniest and most recent of examples—CVE would become an engine to scream about Right Wing Terrorism.
2 replies 9 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
Criticism coming from many CVE folks amounted to, “how dare you conflate non-violent Islamism (or even what they considered more nuanced groups like Hamas) with violent terrorists?” That’s one reason why these grifters *hated* people like
@SebGorka, who didn’t toe the line.2 replies 16 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
But, considering who was involved—and the truly off the charts radical place academia is in right now—I always knew the goal was to begin pushing out the definition of Right Wing terrorism to include just about any voices to the left of socialist.
1 reply 12 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
If this sounds familiar, it should. SPLC pioneered this years ago. They set up an official-looking institution that would draw the line of acceptable discourse on the Right, and then keep moving it leftward. “Science!”
2 replies 18 retweets 52 likesShow this thread -
In the last month, we’ve seen 2 major pseudo academic studies—this one and one from Data&Society—that does essentially the same thing. Be *very* careful when “analysts” try to define legit, homegrown dissent as foreign provocation. It’s a dirty game—and totally unAmerican.
3 replies 56 retweets 143 likesShow this thread -
CODA: So she blocked me. I’m sure that’s enough to get myself included in her next conspiracy theory dressed up as pseudo academic nonsense. Thanks, RINO donors, for enabling and funding this nonsense!
4 replies 10 retweets 76 likesShow this thread
Please note the donors to the 'Data and Society.' It's ALL the mainstream respectable organizations. That should scare you a lot more than some 'democratic agitprop.' IMO, they are building a set of fake 'scientific support' for the next PATRIOT/SESTA/FOSTA.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.