Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But don't forget that Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple, whip in hand.
Jesus was no pushover.
He called out the hypocrites.
Pray for her, if you want.
But sticking your head in the sand and looking the other way and pretending a person isn't what she has proven herself to be, does nothing but allows evil to flourish. And that certainly isn't "good".
just my opinion.
I think it's a virtue signaling moment. Same thing I guess. Someone always swoops in as "defender" of anyone getting flak, even if the criticism is justified. Makes the virtuers feel good about themselves, while attempting to guilt those mean people who are critical. I always try to ignore, there isn't really a way to argue with this because it isn't based on logic or truth, but emotions.
She's naïve and misguided and doesn't understand that what she's doing can and will at some point be used against her when the power shifts and if the power shifts are more right than left, she won't be so keen on all of this.
The people supporting this misinformation governance board are so utterly ignorant as to what can happen and how dystopian it truly is.
They make it sound innocuous, use baby steps to implement things and then the circle of what is considered misinformation gets wider and wider and wider.
The WaPo, which is dictionary definition propaganda, wants people to feel upset that this government agency and lady came under scrutiny. Nowhere does the WaPo propaganda let you know that she pushed BS, promoted disinformation, and labeled the truth as misinformation and all with the same political slant.
Attack people for critiquing a government agency (democracy dies in darkness?) to silence them with no mention of legit gripes.
Of course The Washington Post failed to disclose her several false statements. Then again, WaPo is shamelessly biased, so to expect fair and just discourse from them is as unrealistic and futile as to expect Black Lives Matter to actually care about everyday black Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound
She's naïve and misguided and doesn't understand that what she's doing can and will at some point be used against her when the power shifts and if the power shifts are more right than left, she won't be so keen on all of this.
The people supporting this misinformation governance board are so utterly ignorant as to what can happen and how dystopian it truly is.
They make it sound innocuous, use baby steps to implement things and then the circle of what is considered misinformation gets wider and wider and wider.
She's extremelly misguided, but she is not naive. She like the rest of the liars who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop couldn't be verified or was Russian propaganda knew from the start what the truth was. She just abided by a mendacious narrative. The rest of your post, however, I completely agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker
Should Biden have tried to make a "Disinformation Governance Board?" No.
However, Nina Jankowicz doesn't deserve the aggressive attacks that she has gotten.
Making fun of her for singing and calling her crazy for it? She was just having fun and trying to brighten people's day and she is a nice singer. I like to sing too, especially to my 1 year old boy, and I find her singing lovely. Is this really what we want to attack people for? Singing to make others smile?
Was she wrong about some topics in the past? Yes. But we all are wrong at times. Is there a frequent poster on City Data that isn't wrong on a post or in life from time to time? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
You might be saying, but she is wrong in a partisan fashion....as all people are, which is why we shouldn't have a Disinformation Governance Board to begin with....but that is not a Nina Jankowicz problem...but rather a Biden Administration problem.
It seems like we could oppose the "ministry of truth" as some call it on the grounds of giving the government too much control over thought, without making it so personal about Nina Jankowicz.
She is the embodiment of the very lies and misinformation she was hired ostensibly to fight.
Her track record is one of lies and of the utmost absurdity.
On October 22, 2020, she tweeted a Time article which said cast "yet more doubt on the provenance of the NY Post's Hunter Biden story," which she also said should be viewed as a "Trump campaign product."
It has since come to light it was a true story after all, and she has never issued a mea culpa (ditto for the miscreants who bragged about it - about having lied about it in 2020 because refusing to admit it was true helped derail President Trump's re-election efforts).
She also said that "voters deserve .... context, not a tale about a laptop repair shop," when the tale was the truth.
She further listens to former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele as an authority on how to deal with disinformation while failing to acknowledge that the Steele Dossier, which was the weapon with which the Hillary Clinton campaign attacked Trump with the false accusation of collusion with Russia, was untrue and has been debunked.
She was picked because not only she spent years promulgating and propagating leftist lies, but because she's fine with censoring those with the wrong views (conservatives). She stated, "I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities."
She does NOT support free speech.
As well, she testified before the British House of Parliament in 2021 and said "gender misinformation" constitutes a "national security concern" and a menace to democratic systems, which requires state censorship. She has also demanded that the state and tech companies join efforts to use "creativity and technological prowess to make a pariah of online misogyny."
Does she care about online misandry, which is quite common with the radical feminists who hate men all over the Internet?
Oh, and she's dead wrong on critical race theory. She stated that Republicans (and "other disinformers") had "seized on" the issue and were "weaponizing people's emotion." This without considering how toxic and dangerous and destructive and divisive critical race theory is. Furthermore, given her connections, status, and income, she's likely to send her future children to private school, where her offspring won't have to face leftist lies of the kind she defends.
As for "having fun," watch the February video of her Mary Poppins imitation again and look at her eyes. It's a tragedy that two otherwise beautiful blue eyes could also convey what I would label as nothing short of a deranged mind and spirit.
Of course The Washington Post failed to disclose her several false statements. Then again, WaPo is shamelessly biased, so to expect fair and just discourse from them is as unrealistic and futile as to expect Black Lives Matter to actually care about everyday black Americans.
She's extremelly misguided, but she is not naive. She like the rest of the liars who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop couldn't be verified or was Russian propaganda knew from the start what the truth was. She just abided by a mendacious narrative. The rest of your post, however, I completely agree with.
She is the embodiment of the very lies and misinformation she was hired ostensibly to fight.
Her track record is one of lies and of the utmost absurdity.
On October 22, 2020, she tweeted a Time article which said cast "yet more doubt on the provenance of the NY Post's Hunter Biden story," which she also said should be viewed as a "Trump campaign product."
It has since come to light it was a true story after all, and she has never issued a mea culpa (ditto for the miscreants who bragged about it - about having lied about it in 2020 because refusing to admit it was true helped derail President Trump's re-election efforts).
She also said that "voters deserve .... context, not a tale about a laptop repair shop," when the tale was the truth.
She further listens to former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele as an authority on how to deal with disinformation while failing to acknowledge that the Steele Dossier, which was the weapon with which the Hillary Clinton campaign attacked Trump with the false accusation of collusion with Russia, was untrue and has been debunked.
She was picked because not only she spent years promulgating and propagating leftist lies, but because she's fine with censoring those with the wrong views (conservatives). She stated, "I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities."
She does NOT support free speech.
As well, she testified before the British House of Parliament in 2021 and said "gender misinformation" constitutes a "national security concern" and a menace to democratic systems, which requires state censorship. She has also demanded that the state and tech companies join efforts to use "creativity and technological prowess to make a pariah of online misogyny."
Does she care about online misandry, which is quite common with the radical feminists who hate men all over the Internet?
Oh, and she's dead wrong on critical race theory. She stated that Republicans (and "other disinformers") had "seized on" the issue and were "weaponizing people's emotion." This without considering how toxic and dangerous and destructive and divisive critical race theory is. Furthermore, given her connections, status, and income, she's likely to send her future children to private school, where her offspring won't have to face leftist lies of the kind she defends.
As for "having fun," watch the February video of her Mary Poppins imitation again and look at her eyes. It's a tragedy that two otherwise beautiful blue eyes could also convey what I would label as nothing short of a deranged mind and spirit.
Good post.
Libs are really shocked when their totalitarian, fascist policies are exposed. one would have to be insane or just a partisan hack to call her a "good person".
She was (is) a far left wing, hateful totalitarian who was joyful to restrict free speech in the US and stifle any dissent against liberal dogma.
Let's call her for what she was (is)- crazy and evil. No good can come from someone so hateful and bent on inflicting so much misery on others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
