The bill is being pushed by two main US Congress members. Republican Matt Gaetz and Democrat Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Rather surprising considering the current political climate both globally and in the United States. However, seeing both aisles of the political spectrum actually find common ground and collaborating should, ideally, send a message to those who do not believe that strides forward can be achieved. Unfortunately, considering that Congress has to pass this bill, it is unlikely that it will pass and become law. Reason is quite simple, those who do practice insider trading would be imposing a restriction on themselves. But this should not take away the credit that both Gaetz and AOC deserve. The division that has been seen politically in the west as of the last 7 years or so is deeply troubling. And seeing collaboration between stalwarts of both parties is a good sign.

Gaetz has been quoted saying he would “work with anyone and everyone to ensure that Congress is not so compromised” in a discussion with Fox News. The bill is proof that he is staying true to his word. I believe that this bill is a great move forward as it lessens the ability of politicians to perform what is called insider trading. And not only that, but politicians are supposed to be public servants. Their job is to serve the public and not to enrich themselves doing so. They get paid plenty just for their position, they do not need to invest in the stock market, nor is it fair, since they cheat the system. It is corrupt, dishonest, and often untransparent. Although some would argue that in a free market economy, everyone should be allowed to trade, I believe politicians should be the only exception. There must be some measures put in place that restrict politicians as they already have too much power and privilege.

It can also lead to conflicts of interest that those politicians do not disclose. An example of this type of trading is veteran Democrat politician Lois Frankel’s activities in the market of late. In her case, she sold stock of the First Republic bank 4 days before it collapsed and bought JPMorgan Chase stocks which are currently in the process of buying up all of First Republic’s assets.

In other words, it is great to see collaboration on such a scale and on such a litigious issue. Insider trading has been talked about for years but never has there been a bill like this proposed to oppose it, much less a bipartisan bill. I hope this bill helps the public wake up to the abuse of the system the politicians practice, even if it does not pass.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post The right and the left collaborate for once: the stock trading bill appeared first on The Third Eye.

Most of the greatest strides forward made in the 20th century in terms of human rights were made with the goal of achieving Equality of Opportunity. Equal rights, giving the people an equal shot at doing what they wish in life. In the western world, these movements largely succeeded in achieving such equality before the law. In fact, in the west there are no rights that are exclusive to a particular group and exempt from another. (And I am not talking about abortion in this case). However, this is the crux of the
argument. Giving everyone equal rights does not mean that life is suddenly fair to everyone.

Proponents of Equality of Outcome are correct in pointing out that at any level of hierarchical structures there are inequalities and unfairness. For example, a rich person will obviously have more opportunities than a homeless person does even if they have the same rights. However, this is exactly what holds this philosophy back. By definition, equality of outcome looks at the equality of different groups at the outcome. So for example, how many men and women are working a particular profession. If it is not an even 50/50 split, there is no equality of outcome. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, there is an infinite number of demographics that one can split people in to. Therefore, instantly rendering equality of outcome impossible to achieve. Secondly, to even try and achieve that one must eliminate the most fundamental variable. Choice.

Equality of opportunity implies that two people, no matter what demographic they are a part of, have the ability to choose what profession they go into. But it does not eliminate the reality which is that some people would have it more or less difficult than others to go into whatever domain they wish to. Essentially everyone has a chance, but the chance can either be minimal or significant.

Trying to push Equality of outcome often fails as to achieve it you have to allow a government or company to impose very controlling nay tyrannical restrictions. The easiest professions to look at are
nursing or construction. Nursing is overwhelmingly female while construction is overwhelmingly male. Both males and female have the ability to go into both professions, but given their choice (equality of
opportunity) it does not produce equality of outcome (a 50/50 split).

In other words, to achieve either, you would need to eliminate the other. Therefore, one must ask which is better? Well to me it is rather simple. Give everyone a chance to make something of themselves or force everyone to stay within their boundaries to force equality of outcome. I would much rather stick with the former.

There is a deeply rooted philosophical aspect to this conversation as well. It’s the same old argument of group identity vs individual identity. To view group identity as more important is to reduce the individual to being a part of a demographic that is either in the majority or the minority. This is extremely problematic. That observation implies that if there is an inequality in outcome, there must be injustice between those groups, whatever they may be. So, morally one must eliminate that inequality so to be fair to the groups, NOT the individuals. Equality of outcome does not exist if one does not observe hierarchies as the difference between groups rather than individuals. It is the literal opposite of what a meritocratic nation should aim to achieve.

The appalling US doctrine of Affirmative Action is a manifestation of everything that can go wrong with the philosophy of groupthink and therefore equality of outcome policies. Affirmative Action is a policy
in the US that basically sets lower/higher criteria to be able to enrol in colleges based on RACE. For example, an Asian-American has a lower chance of getting into a college than an African-American has even if they have the same SAT scores. This discriminates heavily in two ways. It assumes that African-Americans need more help to enrol than Asian-Americans do. And that Asian-Americans have some
advantage based on their race. Privilege is the word used to describe this advantage. The basis is Race. Not the scores or the performances of those individuals. But the perceived unfairness that those groups
suffer. In essence it is a racist doctrine. It is the antithesis of judging people by the content of their character.

Conclusively, it is evident that one of these doctrines is more moral. Unfortunately, it is impossible to have fairness all around. One must accept that life is not fair. That is precisely what gives people who are
successful despite bad odds merit. This is what a meritocracy is supposed to promote. The ability to move up social hierarchies based on individual strides forward and not restrictions on others. And more
importantly, restrictions based on race.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome, which is more desirable? appeared first on The Third Eye.

Katrina’s argument seems to be based on the idea of Punching up vs Punching down when it comes to comedy. Although this is for sure a real concept I believe Cassar to be mistaken when viewing comedy as only serving that particular function. This notion presupposes that every joke is predicated on the idea that the target has more power (punching up) or less power (punching down) than the comedian. Essentially it is viewing the relationship between a comedian and the target of a joke as one solely based on power.

This is wrong on a fundamental level as viewing that relationship as purely power based comes with certain implications that are not entirely true. Power, in its truest sense, is the ability to manipulate and/or control someone else’s behaviour. Therefore, to say that one person or group has more power than others is to say that it has more control over them. This is fundamentally wrong as human relationships are not based on power.

However for the sake of debate, let us say this is entirely the case and comedy either punches up or down and nothing else. Then are we going to cease to make jokes about the less powerful? And what precisely categorises the less powerful as such? Is it socio-economic status? Is it an oppressive history? Are those less powerful permanently so or can that change? There is a level of irony that comes with protecting groups from jokes. If you want to hold people accountable and do that through comedy, the moment you protect a group from comedy, you are elevating it above the rest. Therefore, actively discriminating against both groups.

I disagree further with Katrina’s idea that comedy has always been political. Even though at some moments it can be. Viewing it as a weapon of sorts to combat differing political ideologies takes away from its value as an artform. Comedy is much more of an artform than it is a political tool or weapon.

It is well and truly clear that political correctness in comedy has gone too far. You get comedians cancelled and censored on social media because of jokes they made up decades ago that we considered fine until some twitter warrior decided to get outraged. If it somehow is not clear that PC culture has gone too far for some, maybe they should posit the question that it has not gone far enough for their own liking.

I fully believe that aiming to protect “the less powerful” from comedy targeted at them sets a dangerous precedent. Firstly, one must define exactly what they mean by less powerful. On what would you base that? Is it race or sex or gender or sexual orientation? If you were to automatically assume that because of someone’s race or gender they have less power, then is that not precisely the discrimination you were advocating against? It is already faulty to view that relationship based on power. But assuming one has less power because of race or gender is nothing but the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Joking about harmful stereotypes does not reinforce them, it ridicules them. This is what I believe the author here has not grasped quite well. She argues that making jokes about a less powerful group reinforces those stereotypes. This however is completely wrong in my view. Being able to ironically point out the stupid and illogical nature of a stereotype and make it funny, discredits that stereotype. Think of it as making fun of yourself. It helps you cope with your own insecurities. Laughing at what plagues you is what makes you unbeatable. Because if what damages you can’t bring you down, then what will?

Attempting to protect a certain group from being made fun of is not compassionate, it is tyrannical. A king becomes a tyrant when he can no longer stand the fool. It is discriminatory to exempt a particular group from jokes and it is NOT discriminatory to let everyone be hit by them.. Comedians should be able to mock and satirize about whatever they please. If done well, they should get their credit. If not, they should be criticised. But cancelling them? What does that achieve?

In a passage Katrina writes “It can reinforce harmful gender norms and contribute to violence and abuse.” This was the part which I do not really understand. Is the author implying that jokes contribute to violence and abuse? Where is the evidence for this? How does it do so? What are these gender norms? In that paragraph the author mentions terms and buzz words but does not elaborate to really let the readers picture how jokes can have this effect.

Lastly, if one was to propose protection from jokes for a particular group than it is fair to say that one does not want equality between those groups. If one is advocating for special treatment than that goes against everything Liberals used to believe in. Equality means putting everyone in the same boat. Comedy is no different. So, if you want equality, you have to accept it in all forms.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Political Correctness in Comedy: A Rebuttal appeared first on The Third Eye.

Before making any uninformed judgements, let’s see how the University justifies the implementation of this unit at a compulsory level. In an informational article on their website, the University describes the unit as a way for students to learn how to think critically and develop communicative skills. The idea, from what I gather, is to bring forth certain traits and skills that are beneficial to all students. In and of itself, this is not a bad idea. Teaching students to think critically is fundamental. And there was an absence of this type of teaching in the courses that already exist.

However, the anger and annoyance felt by students was not aimed exactly at the unit itself but at the fact that it seemed to completely come out of nowhere. Students during exam period got emails regarding the unit, the venue and that it is compulsory. While they did not even know they would have this unit when they applied for their undergraduate course. To add to the ridiculous nature of the situation, the units -which will have 8 ECTs- will not affect the course’s grade and the student’s ability to graduate. Therefore essentially, this unit is mandatory yet carries no official weighting as of this moment.

In essence, the University has introduced a unit that does give importance to an aspect of research and learning that has been missing for some time. Nevertheless, the manner in which they just introduced this, out of the blue, has brought criticism. A petition signed by over 1,000 students to block the unit is currently amassing signatures.

Humbly, I must say that this unit should make an entrance into the curriculum. Regardless, making it mandatory for everyone and not giving it any weighting is not reasonable. At best students will attend but largely ignore this unit as it bears no meaning on their ability to graduate. It would be more effective to make it an optional unit with an ability to affect the student’s grades. That way those who choose it have an obligation to put effort in, rather than how it is now. The University has shown an embarrassing lack of foresight in this situation and has rendered the unit counterproductive.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post CASP: Right Idea, Wrong Timing? appeared first on The Third Eye.

Staying True To His Word?

Musk said that he got involved “To help humanity” improve Free Speech. Many commentators on the left and right reacted in a hostile manner to Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Musk however believes “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.” Therefore, one must ask why he believes he needed to “help humanity” as he puts it. Well, for a matter of years now the cancel culture that we, as users of the internet, experience has arguably run rampant. Often cancelling users that do not deserve to be silenced in the manner they have. Notorious examples would include Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and most notably, US President Donald Trump, who was cancelled while he was still in office. However, some may argue that the names mentioned above did indeed break Twitter’s community guidelines, and with Twitter being a private company then it is within their prerogative to cancel whoever they want. With that said, the argument is not about whether or not Twitter has the right to cancel them or not. The argument is about Twitter having too much power on controlling an influencer’s, well, influence.

For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, scientists were censored on Twitter and other social media platforms. Some of them are not only experts in their field but had influence which I would argue is why they were censored. Dr Peter McCullough and Dr Robert Malone were suspended from Twitter for expressing opinions against Covid-19 restrictions like Lockdowns and Masking. Even, advising caution with regards to the vaccines that treated Covid-19. I am not necessarily saying that everything they said was correct, nor am I saying that everything that was said against their arguments was wrong. However, censoring scientists who are experts in their field when a pandemic is going on does not sound democratic, moral, or liberal in any way. For further context, Dr McCullough is the most cited cardiologist in the world and Dr Malone is one of the inventors of the mRNA vaccine technology.

For the last few years, there has always been this notion on the right side of politics that conservative commentators get censored and cancelled disproportionately compared to the left wing. Many media outlets labelled this as conspiracy without evidence. Former Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey and former Head of Legal Counsel, Vijaya Gadde, frequently denied these accusations. Until now. With Elon Musk’s promise to restore free speech on the platform and challenge cancel culture, barrels of legal documents from within Twitter have been coming out. “The Twitter Files”, as they’ve been nicknamed, are showing evidence of how Twitter was indeed colluding with the Democratic National Convention during the 2020 US Presidential Election. It is now confirmed that Twitter censored, willingly, a story published by The New York Post regarding a scandal within the Biden family. This story was released and immediately censored late October 2020. This could mean that this censorship likely affected the result of the election. Musk, has been releasing this information by leaking it deliberately to two journalists, Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss. The fact that this news has not made it into an international scandal by now, makes one think that the media may not be telling the full truth. It brings into question the trustworthiness of the media as an institution.

In Conclusion

If we are to analyse a bit what is going on around us with the development of technology and social media and the metaverse. Musk’s opinion that Twitter is a digital town square is indeed factual. Nowadays Twitter is the place where people share their opinions, as opposed to in the street. Therefore, Musk is correct in advocating for free speech on Twitter just as we do in advocating free speech anywhere else.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Why Musk Buying Twitter Is A Good Thing appeared first on The Third Eye.

One such example of backlash against alternative approaches to science is the case of researcher Graham Hancock. Hancock is an author and ex-journalist who’s published 16 books regarding various topics however his main focus has been on recovering humanity’s lost past. He’s been heavily criticised by the Archaeological community and branded a pseudoscientist for going against certain conventionally held beliefs amongst that community. Hancock has risen to popularity through documentaries, his books and many appearances on The Joe Rogan Experience. Hancock has been attacked many times by archaeologists for going against the conventional view by promoting different ideas which are backed up by significant evidence.

The Younger Dryas

The Younger Dryas is an event which Hancock believes links a lot of separate cultures that lived thousands of years ago together. It is the period of geological history situated c. 12,900-11,700 years ago. It marks a period in which the earth was going through very drastic climactic changes and cataclysmic events that shaped the following thousands of years. There are multiple hypotheses as to what caused this Ice Age and what brought it to an end. Hancock believes that it was in fact a comet that struck the Earth via multiple fragments, while others believe it ended due to an enormous solar flare. However, the most important part of The Younger Dryas is the fact that it was a catastrophic and apocalyptic period within the human story.

Göbeklitepe

The mysterious and wonderful nature of Göbeklitepe is that it
comes out of nowhere and destroys the preconceived notion
that agriculture started around 6,000 years ago and that
civilisation before that did not exist. The idea that before 6,000 years ago humans were simple hunter-gatherers is shattered by the discovery of this site. Göbeklitepe is exactly 11,600 years old. This precedes the first known civilisation by about 5,500 years and puts a dent in what we think we know about our prehistory. Hancock makes clear that this structure should not exist. If we are the believe the conventional archaeological knowledge, Göbeklitepe should not show up when it does. This is why Hancock is correct to be sceptical of archaeological knowledge as we really don’t know as much as we think we do. It is the world’s first known structure that is aligned to north and south therefore it means that astronomy was used during the construction of it. Way before we know of any astronomical research being done. Now, imagine having the arrogance to rule out the idea that civilisation flourished before 6,000 years ago and then missing more than 5,000 years of history because the scientific community had
come up against an idea that challenged their paradigms. Hancock has faced many attacks because of his implications regarding this fascinating site.

The Sphinx Water Erosion Hypothesis

Researcher John Anthony West was an avid supporter of the SWEH, as is Hancock. The basic idea is that during a study conducted by Schwaller de Lubicz, it ismentioned that the Sphinx was weathered by rain. By time, West became interested in this and started researching it. Geologist Robert Schoch, who was contacted by West to join research efforts, went into it expecting to disprove West’s idea

and prove him wrong. However, Schoch said on the Joe Rogan experience that within 90 to 120 seconds of seeing the Sphinx for the first time, his perspective flipped. In short, the eroded stone and evidence of great precipitation on the stone of the sphinx’s embankment does not match any climactic records of the past 5,000 years. The only known great rainfall and flooding that happened in Egypt was at the end of the last Ice Age approximately 11,700 years ago. Does that sound familiar? For context, conventional archaeology would tell you that this sphinx is 4,500 years old. Therefore, this is another example of not only how wrong can conventional science be, but also of how much we still do not know about our collective past.

Conclusion

I want to be clear in saying that not every sceptical idea should be believed. Some are fanatical, some are not evidence based. And not everything spouted by the scientific community is false or misleading. However, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle and dismissing the sceptics is exactly what not to do when trying to get closer to the truth.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Listening To Hancock appeared first on The Third Eye.