More propagandistic trash from The Cut: Reality Deniers try to pretend journalism didn't collapse.

Boy, do journalists love to be in denial.

Take a look at this piece of propaganda from The Cut:

While the companies’ reasonings behind mass layoffs aren’t identical, there is a common thread: The cuts have less to do with the talent of the workers, and more to do with financial imperatives and the whims of investors.

This is pure, pathological and egotistical bullshit.

Memo to the dumbass motherfuckers at The Cut: you do not have talent.

People stopped watching and reading you.

And you were redundant and let go.

They are going to the New York Times, but that is not a good sign, as I have pointed out before.

This is the lie you are telling to save ugly face.

2100+ reporters lost their job because they aren’t bringing in the dough.

This is the new lie journalists are telling to keep reality away because the Time Person of the Year propaganda of valiant heroes didn’t take.

Or last August’s lockstep propaganda campaign that was a dud.

If your kind were profitable, there would be more journalists hired, not fired. You are not useful. Don’t be a nerd.

Newspapers are closing because they are not profitable.

You cannot make up your deceitful little minds: you beg like paupers for donations and then pretend your companies are super-profitable. You can’t even keep your lies straight.

You do not know basic business.

You don’t actually know very much at all.

This is just another tactic to keep leeching on to the public, and it is not working either, assholes…

The Cut gets ageist, sexist and racist, then scrubs the evidence.

The Cut did something very, very bad: they made a decree, without a single fact to back it up that a successful actress who is not American married a successful US celebrity for her fame, and defamed her, calling her a “global scam artist.”

Not surprisingly, people got very angry, and the Cut deleted the article, but the updated one before the deletion can be found here.

But their excuse for maligning both Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas is very clinical and terse:

Upon further editorial review, we found this story did not meet our standards. We’ve removed it and apologize.

There were no facts. Just an assumption that American men are stupid and gullible, and Indian women are conniving and wicked.

Was the article racist? To an extreme. Was it sexist? To an extreme. If you are going to make those kinds of accusations, you do have to have lots of facts backing it up.

Les Moonves, for example, has been accused of extremist actions that would have been offensive to utter without proof — but with evidence, it is a completely different matter. That people who know Chopra well are infuriated speaks volumes to the chances that the piece had fuck all to it.

The article was vile. Had Jonas been the older one in the dynamic, no one would have said it; so it was also ageist. It picked on every one of Chopra’s personal attributes, and that is truly shocking.

And then they scrubbed the evidence, which, I don’t agree with at all: you are not undoing any of the damage, but hiding your own sins, hoping people will forget, and that is tantamount to a lie.

Chopra and Jonas can stand up for themselves, but that something like this hate piece can be published in a mainstream publication is mystifying…

Jordan Peterson's Big Boo Hoo: Free speech is for women, too, Mr. Peterson.

Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychology professor whose diva antics over free speech propelled him into a pop culture career as an author, is not extending the same courtesy to another professor and writer named Kate Manne, as he is threatening to sue her for calling him a misogynist.

If you want freedom of speech to be a thing, then you have to accept everyone’s freedom of speech, even when they call you a misogynist.

As someone who writes books for a living, not everyone is enthralled with me, and have said very nasty things about me in a public forum over the years. (Mind you, they also send me lots of nasty email messages, too).

I don’t sue them because I am a defender of free speech, and in a world of 7.4 billion people, lots of people are not going to think you are special.

As in, pretty much all 7.4 billion people who all think they are way better than you, minus your mom and the person who has a crush on you.

Fame is a roulette wheel, and the chances of you always winning are nil.

You are one of the rare lucky ones if half the people in a public who know who you are actually like you. When TVQs were all the rage in the 1980s, only three people had somewhat more than 50%: The Pope, Bill Cosby, and Michael J. Fox. Let that one land in your brain.

Peterson does not seem to get this whole public career thing. He was used to the lecture halls where students were a captive audience who had to behave themselves if they wanted to pass any course, not just his. That is a controlled environment and an unnatural one that is rigged to favour authority and its decrees. It forms unnatural habits and reinforces unrealistic expectations of life outside of academia, and if you spend decades under that kind of environment, your expectations once you reach a different realm where the rules are vastly different and the outcomes less predictable as they are not rigged by tradition, habit, rote, or routine will not be met. You must adjust your expectations accordingly.

If you are intelligent and teachable.

I have taught in controlled environments, and I know how easy it is to think your are in control, but I also worked as a journalist, and I know that control is an illusion. You cannot control your own narrative in a world of social media.

The article in the Cut fails to mention that Peterson’s lawyer Howard Levitt just so happens to be a columnist in the National Post, a newspaper that has repeatedly bristled at #MeToo, women’s rights, and has been openly partisan in its defending of Steven Galloway…and had written at length about many of things that led to the lawsuit against Winfred Laurier University in the first place.

The Post needs further scrutiny because it certainly does not behave in ways one would expect of an objective disseminator of information.

If you are going to make a case of free speech, be advised it applies to people who are not impressed with you. You cannot rig the public forum the way you can rig a university or a court.

But Peterson is doing Manne a huge favour. He has just given her free publicity and a legitimate news peg to breakout as a serious public voice for feminism, the same way his detractors gave it to him under the same set of circumstances.

Manne is no Cathy Newman, a television host who was used to a rigged battleground and could not handle Peterson. Manne is an academic and knows the same intellectual tricks as Peterson. Nor is she a clueless New York Times reporter whose predictable sophistry is easy to dismantle.

Had he ignored the article, the impact would have been minimal as it was actually nothing that his detractors hadn’t already said before, but by drawing attention to it, people are primed and triggered to wonder about Peterson’s own limitations and weaknesses…