In all seriousness, it has been quite a ride, and I feel that Sunny’s initial impetus of creating a unique “ranting” platform has truly paved way for some invigorating content. Whether it be politics or getting hooked on grass, The Daily Rant has entertained quite a myriad of content that people believe they just need to get out and share.

Our first year as a full publication is nearing an end, and there is definitely not any momentum to stop. This platform will always be out there for individuals who want to share their stories, and I cannot wait to see what more will be written. As another reminder, feel free to submit, as we typically publish posts/articles on a rolling basis. I hope all of you, whether it be our followers, writers, or editors, have and will continue to have amazing summers!

Sincerely,

William from The Daily Rant

Thank You For 150! was originally published in The Daily Rant on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

February marks Black History Month for the 43rd year in a row. The month is structured to honor the lives of so many people who have prioritized national civil rights over just their own wellbeing and have truly opened the door for some many people of color, socioeconomic status, and all other forms of diversity.

An integral part of February being Black History Month stemmed from the supposed birthday of one of the most revered and popular abolitionists in American history — Frederick Douglass. Yet, as we just see day after day, Black History stems from not just the efforts of a few individuals, but the culmination of work from millions of people, of all races and religions, set to achieve one of the first steps towards equality.

And as controversial as he may be, Malcolm X is definitely at the top of this list.

Recently, numerous videos of Malcolm X’s take on politics have resurfaced on platforms like Youtube. The conversation stemming from the discussion of the “white liberal”, the “white conservative”, and of course the black populace.

One of his most famous quotes on the matter is as followed:

“ We, the Black masses, don’t want these leaders who seek our support coming to us representing a certain political party. They must come to us today as Black Leaders representing the welfare of Black people. We won’t follow any leader today who comes on the basis of political party. Both parties( Democrat and Republican) are controlled by the same people who have abused our rights, and who have deceived us with false promises every time an election rolls around.”

As the Virginian gubernatorial issues plague Black History Month with references to the dark history of America, I think it is crucial we look again at how much political change has influenced people of color, mostly of African descent.

As statistics from a 1998 Brookings Publication puts it,

“Fifty years ago most blacks were indeed trapped in poverty, although they did not reside in inner cities.” And, “from 1940 to 1970, black men cut the income gap by about a third, and by 1970 they were earning (on average) roughly 60 percent of what white men took in. The advancement of black women was even more impressive. Black life expectancy went up dramatically, as did black homeownership rates. Black college enrollment also rose — by 1970 to about 10 percent of the total, three times the prewar figure.”

This trend continued for the subsequent years that followed, and it still has been progressively improving until this day. We might not be able to attest Trump solely to historic black unemployment lows, but the trend developed from the civil rights movement set it up so that these statistics of unemployment can continue to decrease, and a lot of it seems, has nothing to do with the President.

From 1940 to 2020, there will be 7 Democrats. Guess how many Republicans? 7. Democrats have maintained the office for about 41 years. Republicans? 40. And of course, this statistic does not tell the entire truth. FDR was in his third and fourth terms from 1940 to 1945, Kennedy was assassinated, and Nixon resigned. But all signs hint towards a balance. These fluctuations in political affiliations are also evident in the legislative branch and even in the judicial branch too.

The common perception that Democrats are the ones who care about minorities and Republicans dislike them is not really true. Does Trump dislike minorities? From his rhetoric, a strong argument could be made for that he does. But the same has impacted almost every other federal leader in today’s world.

Change will of course happen. It has been ongoing for years. But I think it is important that when we look at Black History Month, we need to refresh our minds away from simply associating it with politics because I believe that belittles a lot of the actual progressive change that our nation has observed. Millions of people would not be able to step foot onto this nation without the effort of others, and a lot of this change has been achieved without political motivation or affiliation. Democrats have controlled inner cities for years, and there has not been too much change. Republicans have been given the opportunity to enact policies that directly impact minorities, and there has not been too much change. For me, the change has only stemmed from the activism of people, and that is something I hope we continue to acknowledge more and more in the future. The only change I see that can be beneficial in the world of politics is that change that is proven to be truly bipartisan and truly effective — we just have not been able to see too much recently.

Someday, we might even decide to remove Black History month, because every month will be set aside to honor minorities and those who have struggled to lay the stepping stones for what we are now.

Malcolm X and Modern Politics was originally published in The Daily Rant on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Interactions amongst people are no longer what they once were; massive mountain ranges and large, expansive deserts used to isolate humans, while lush, green valleys, and coastal zones used to unify humans. But now, in an era so developed and progressive, digital access and technology determine the connectivity of people, and concurrently, the world has become more linked. Technology has propelled the human race rapidly, from creating means of fast and safe travel to tools of distant communication, but all the advancement has cost us socially, at rates we are just recently measuring. Technological advances have paved a way for a man to invent a new conscious of thought, and this societal change is a direct cause for a morally and intellectually different future.

The first signs of societal change that led to modern-day technological dependencies can be attributed to the transformation of wartime propaganda to advertising in the mid-1900s. America, a pioneer in the advertising change, had an industrious economy, but a pragmatic population suffering from two international conflicts and a global depression. As World War II neared an end, corporations needed to sell the surplus produced during the war, and in order to attract consumers, the same corporations needed to change the perception Americans had on consumption. Edward Bernays was an expert in wartime propaganda, but after the end of the conflict, he conceived a consumer-based economy. An example of Bernays’ work included his method of using the media to attract females to consume cigarettes when it was seen as taboo. Bernays’ use subjective marketing strategies, by targeting specific people and groups for capitalist gains, later became the strategies of corporations in the “dotcom boom” and other new industries; these corporations marketed products that catered to the individual. People now believed in advertising as a method to determine what products to buy, and with the alluring nature of technology, advertising became even more crucial. From radios to cell phones and personal computers to television sets, people did not expect to see such rapid creation of products that not only aid in the human lifestyle but also add upon it. Corporations profited off the unknown by marketing these new tools as necessities for the betterment of life, such as with reliable, long distance communication, and the ability for a bigger variety of entertainment. People caved in, regardless of the long-term costs, and this shift in mindset represents the background of a core issue occurring today — the increasing reliance of the younger generations with technology.

Devices and platforms, such as smartphones and social media, have shown technology’s benefits, but unfortunately, they have also its costs. Daniel J. Levitan, the author of the article “Why the Modern World is Bad for Your Brain” promoted the idea that these new forms of communication tend to prompt people to be more blunt and mannerless. Research at McGill University has also shown that these forms of communication make the users believe that they are being rewarded physically and metabolically, similar to drug addiction. Both of these sources culminate into the realization that these popular forms of communication do not improve lives as they are often perceived and advertised. In fact, the quantity of multitasking these devices perform is just another detrimental effect. Russ Poldrack, a Stanford neuroscientist, and Glenn Wilson, a Gresham College psychology professor, both agree that multitasking hurts cognitive activity. The fact that multitasking has a negative impact represents the dire need of a perception change. People often believe they are more productive by using their devices, but since our brain does not function that way, people are unconsciously hurting themselves. The marketing and technological abilities of these devices cause people to continuously buy them. Dependency on digital devices during this age is easily attainable, but as the dependency, from the research of various institutions, slowly proceeds into addiction, and that is truly a core cause behind technology’s changing of conscious human perception.

Various technological platforms are also causing people to be critical and independent of their decisions and values. A Notre Dame sociologist, Christian Smith, and his team used an interviewing process to accentuate the differing moral interpretations amongst young adults, and the responses have shown an outwardly “atmosphere of extreme moral individualism”. Uniformity in most morals is a common ground seen amongst people and is a necessity in a diverse nation like the United States. Smith’s research, however, highlights that in this day and time, that uniformity is slowly fading away to a more or less non-judgemental lifestyle, but in practicality, these lifestyles cause disunity in the form of wrongdoings and transgressions. Smith, in the article, “If It Feels Right…”, tries to emphasize that the root of this issue does not come from the youth themselves, but from the resources that they utilize. Former so-called “moral institutions”, such as schools and families, do not cultivate morality at the same level as the past and that will cost society when these young adults become the heart of the workforce environment and are even teaching later generations. It is indeed not a coincidence that the rapidly increasing issue with moral individualism comes in the same period during the technology boom, and the association can mostly be related to the vast quantity of information and differing viewpoints the younger generations face from communication and entertainment means — there will always be people on both side of the spectrum, and in this case, the good and bad are equally relevant in lives, forcing people into complacent, widely called tolerant, viewpoints.

The rise in video culture with the modern technological advances has created a haven for not only disinterested masses but also groups of people who put opinions before facts. As journalist Charles Pierce said, “[The rise of ‘idiot America’] also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they are talking about.” American culture, as some argue, has a herding mentality quite evident in many industries where people are judged by their looks rather than intellect. Strides have been made against this direction, but the adamant nature of this mindset is not one that can be taken lightly because of its impact on the youth. Students given the idea that school is not as important as it looks, often choose to follow the easier pathway, resulting in students no longer being passionate about education. The sense of independence from education causes people to use rationale less and less, and use their emotions to convene their thoughts. With more venues to communicate, people’s emotions and crowd mentality are now shown through the media culminating as another factor in anti-intellectualism. Internet access and a platform to simply type are all that is needed to send one’s opinion internationally, and the cons of having that opportunity are shown when people began to spread news and opinions without proper evidence, and large online confrontations with differing opinions. The rising popularity of utilizing less factual backing in making one’s claims online ironically further supports the negative effects of technology, and the correlation between anti-intellectualism and popularity also raises awareness regarding the impact technology has on the more global atmosphere.

Change is always a necessity, and technology is a vehicle that has helped and continues to help regarding the change in our world. Without technology, human life standards would plummet, and the world would go back to its primitive stages. The creation of various forms of technology has helped support humanity in its darkest times and has helped nurture humanity in its brightest of time. But all these positives do not outweigh technology’s negatives, especially regarding the ability to change human perception, thought, and social conscious. Humans, from far and wide, must come to the realization of the almost omnipotent power we are handing to technology if we are to ever progress towards a brighter, unified, and successful future.

With 2018 over, the phrase “new year, new me” dominates the internet, in hopes of making 2019 a year filled with success, virtue, and happiness.

But 2018 was a year that also furthered to shine a light on the race issues that have plagued Americans for years, and has slowly weaved their way back into mainstream society. 2018 was a year that truly marked the notion that life as an African-American is not one that could simply be labeled as “lazy” or “stupid” as even our President has stated. Whether it was eating at Subway or even mowing lawns, 911 calls against African Americans, unfortunately, complimented the national rise in hate crimes this year. In fact, as contentious as it may be, 2018 was a year that went beyond the simple ups and downs when it came to race and other demographic issues.

Monday, January 21st marks the 18th year all fifty states have honored Reverend Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday. I have always felt that Martin Luther King Jr. was a man who was articulate and impactful in both his words and actions, and that same feeling resonates with huge pockets of people across the globe. One of his perhaps most famous paraphrased quotes is “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”, which was believed to stem from a sermon he held in Selma, Alabama a day after civil rights protesters were attacked and beaten by civil rights advocates.

That same mindset is what I believe many Americans are adopting, through movements like #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter, and other civilian activism instances in our country. When word first came of the voter suppression down South during the midterm elections, I was shocked. Our nation has come so far but still is burdened from its past.

These instances will continue far past our current administration, and these issues prevent our nation from being truly united. But if there is one positive takeaway, it is that now is the time to truly speak up. Shining light through media outlets such as the local news and social media has brought about change that has never been seen in some industries and communities for generations. 2018 marked a year of documenting this change when it came to racial profiling, the immigration debate, and other headline news.

So, as we join together to toast the end of another year and prepare for another one, it is important to always, and I repeat always, remember to improve upon the foundation built upon the last year. Change is never created in a matter of mere days or weeks, but rather a continuous effort for years and years, and I believe 2019 will be the year where we continue to see more strides being made, hopefully, in addressing the very issues that have defined our country for so long.

New Year, More Change was originally published in The Daily Rant on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

With the Iowa caucuses just over a year away, recent headlines have been filled with “______ has announced a run for candidacy”, “______ is live discussing a possible run for 2020”, or even “should ______ run for president?”

And I mean it makes sense. 2016 was a year filled with unconventional controversies and rises to power. On the left, you had Bernie Sanders. On the right, you had Donald Trump. Arguably, without any intervention from the Democratic National Convention, the 2016 presidential elections might have been the first in a while without a proper establishment politician.

The two years after Donald Trump became president-elect were and still are filled with controversies, but yet, they continue to be filled with an emblematic anti-establishment trend. If you look at the right, of course, more and more Republicans were tasked with either supporting DJT’s unconventional actions or being basically targeted by the Trump administration. The left, however, observed the rising movement with democratic socialism and more representation, from the original #FeelTheBern to the now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez movement.

But with 2020 just around the corner, why does it seem like the Democratic Party are about to pull a fast one with another Clinton-esque situation? And that is all due to Elizabeth Warren. You see, I believe if the Democrats want to truly win the presidential election in 2020, they need to support a candidate who has basically a similar fire as Donald Trump. Sure the old saying goes “you cannot fight fire with fire” but I would much rather see a candidate being able to hold their ground against DJT rather than just feeding wood into this overwhelmingly huge Republican bonfire.

Elizabeth Warren, with her recent controversies regarding her supposedly minute Native American genetic connections and her status as perhaps the weakest incumbent in the 2018 midterms, makes me hesitant in saying she might be the ideal candidate to secure a victory in 2020.

You see, I feel what the Democrats need is someone more than just simply an anti-Trump candidate. Democrats in 2020, I believe will be looking for a huge emphasis on representation, and Warren simply seems to have, in some way or form, abused those desires in the past. As the Boston Magazine said, she might be the “antidote to your despair”, but I truly believe that she has to have more than just being anti-Trump if she wants to succeed in the 2020 elections.

What many Americans observed in 2016 is that Trump rose to power off of, really, a bullying campaign. A campaign filled with name-calling, insults, and targeted attacks. Warren is someone I cannot see as strong enough to withstand all of that and still fight for a calm beacon. Warren also is not even one of the most experienced politicians in the game — she only became a senator in 2013. If these relations did not work for Hillary Clinton, who by far was perhaps the most presidential candidate America has ever seen, then I am not sure if it can be beneficial for Warren.

Due to Tulsi Gabbard, Julian Castro, and so many other underdogs and high-profile candidates who are expected to announce their candidacy or at least form exploratory committees, I truly am wishing this Democratic primary race is filled with honoring not just the diversity in regard to representation in America, but diversity in thought as well. Warren, for me, just has to go above and beyond to prove that she can fit those labels and truly be contentious in 2020.

Why a Warren-less Candidate Might Be The Best Bet for The Democrats was originally published in The Daily Rant on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

A closer look at recent issues and the lack of political compromise.

In the southern German state of Saxony, lies the beautiful city of Chemnitz. Nestled at the foothills of the Ore Mountains, Chemnitz is a bustling city quiet from global affairs… until last week.

Chemnitz made headlines recently for the stabbing of a thirty-five-year-old man by migrants, spurring protests from the right and counter-protests from the left. These immigration-based protests are certainly nothing new to the nation of Germany; Chancellor Angela Merkel’s controversial open-door policy has certainly neither wholly benefited the political state of her country, nor has it benefited the German citizens.

But as these immigrant debates continue to rage, and as migrant attacks continue to happen, the question that needs to be answered is: what direction do developed nations need to go in wake of these migrant crises.

And for that… I have no answer.

I mean, of course, an immigration utopia would be one with an open-ended “border” and no negative effects to the residents… but that will not happen. Migrants, or any influx of people in that manner, will have some effect on housing, resources, politics, jobs, and anything that is crucial for livelihood. And, this situation even deteriorates when it comes to the migrant attacks that are happening in first-world nations across the world.

Yet, the common perception regarding immigration is not that there is a solution, but that any solution will favor one extreme or the other. Think of it as a Trump travel ban compared to a Merkel open-door policy… which transitively, is the same as saying the right has one idea and the left has the other.

But what I believe we continue to fail to see is that this answer should not come from a political standpoint, but it should come from a humane standpoint, and there needs to be a less superficial discussion but discussion specific for some areas and their residents. By pushing the idea that one political viewpoint is open-ended and the other is close-minded ends up creating situations similar to the protests occurring in Chemnitz, and just result in more headaches for the average person.

At the crux of it… it’s hard to differentiate where an open-door immigration policy may be helpful and where it may be harmful. Tech giants in San Francisco, California might see immigration as crucial for the success of their corporations, but residents in East Palo Alto might see wide-spread immigration as one that leads to more gentrification. When it comes to migrants, especially the international crises happening right now, the worry of whether these migrants will eventually offer to the new country is a valid question.

Time and time again we see this issue being addressed as if there is no difference from place to place, and as I said before, that just leads to conflicts where people just reject the notion of immigration or just completely support it, and that is one of the very reasons why such established politicians like Angela Merkel now seem on their last few steps of power.

And I know, it is difficult to decide, but wouldn’t a moderate approach be the best approach to these immigration issues. Rather than seeing the political complications that are happening when a figure like Merkel or when a figure like Trump have or may continue to make regarding immigration.

I understand the need for politics, and I admire the need of countries utilizing proper political systems for economic and militaristic success. Yet, when the idea of immigration and borders changes consistently regardless of the people who are affected, topics like immigration would have an equal chance of negatively affecting citizens as there is a chance of positively affecting them. The same issue can be applied to almost all topics in political discourse, but in my opinion, immigration is one of the more or less general issues which leads to many other topics stemming from it.

What is the point of seeing an open-border nation all of a sudden turn protective with a change in leadership, and the vice versa? Immigrants and even the employers and industries dependent on these immigrants end up seeing an oscillating range regarding the issue.

I have always toyed with the idea of leaving immigration principles stable from presidential change or party change. I have even wondered what if immigration decisions were left to lower levels than federal entities — such as states, provinces, and even incorporated towns and cities. Wouldn’t this eliminate the notion of the ebb and flow of political stances on immigration and the response against it?

I know political compromise will almost never change. And I also know the ideas that I have brought up are not even concrete… and will most likely not work without some negative consequences. It benefits both parties — the immigrants and the citizens, but it also severely impacts their lives. But I have always wondered why? My stance on this topic is not one of surety but one of doubt… and to that, I ask, what changes can we make to ensure equal representation on topics so dear to all of us… like immigration?

So, You’re an Immigrant… was originally published in The Daily Rant on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The Unite the Right Rally made headlines across the world one year ago. Everyone from the self-proclaimed white supremacists to the neo-Nazis joined together for a quite substantial rally… and of course, just like any rally, there were counter-protests.

In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, an anniversary rally was held… not in Charlottesville, Virginia, but in our national capital — Washington D.C.

Measures were taken, coverage was high, and ironically, attendance was low. But as I hear more and more about recent tensions and the latest controversial Mueller indictment, I feel like it is time for me to rant about something positive: the unity of the Left.

Arguably, divisions within the Left are perhaps very pronounced nowadays, and as midterms and other local elections occur, divisions within the party will become even more solidified.

From the moderate to the far-left or the Establishment to the Progressives, the Democratic party is having its own major identity crisis, one that will most likely have a major influence in the future of American politics for the next few election cycles. But I believe, the differences that I first noticed in the Party in 2016, seems to still be evident… but not evident.

To clarify, I believe the recent success, or at least, manifestations of success, the Party is experiencing, stems mainly from one person: President Trump.

From my observations, there have been very few rallying cries in the recent years that surpass the rallying cry against Trump. The reason behind it, well, has less to do with politics and more to do with personality.

For many, President Trump has exhibited some characteristics that are very much against the American principles and ideologies that we all share and cherish.

Like everyone, he has had his positives and negatives, but I think it is safe to say that the power and respect that comes with an American passport and citizenship has slightly been diminished. Even more so, his derogatory actions mostly against minorities never seem to have been forgiven (I mean, how can they?). Even worse, these actions have become common not just by Trump, but many fellow Americans who believe what they are doing is perfectly acceptable.

No matter what your viewpoint is on Trump, I believe it is safe to say that almost every comment he makes or even every action he carries out, projects some type of controversial image to someone out there, and it becomes the topic of the day for the next few hours, days, and even weeks. And it will continue to be so.

Ironically, movements like Unite the Right did more in my mind than what they were originally conceived for.

This movement told me, and I believe many others, why being a liberal may be more beneficial, at least superficially. The Left, in its actions against movements like Unite the Right and its back-lashing against Trump, seems to be the party that supports a future of unity and diversification.

Of course, when it comes to the nuts and bolts of both political agendas, this may be too good to be true, or even worse, it may be counter-intuitive to the real political agenda the left has… but seeing how horrendous the rhetoric comes from movements that identify more or less to the right, urges people to go in the complete opposite direction, solely for specific reasons like racial tensions, minorities, or even negativity.

Of course, the most obvious counterargument to this claim would be discussing far-left movements like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, but, just from a little more moderate perspective, these aforementioned movements have that notion that they are more or less in response to far-right wing movements rather than taking the initiative themselves.

And, when movements like Unite the Right seem to be directly associating themselves with relatively unfavorable and unpopular personas like President Trump, it’s even more plausible to forget about the true political foundations and effects of movements on both sides, and just base decisions superficially.

Conflicts within the liberal end of the spectrum are “temporarily” forgotten when it comes to issues like what Trump sometimes promotes and what Unite the Right almost always promotes. And this, is what I believe, is one of the biggest positive outcomes that arise from controversial far-right movements.

Of course, my rant is probably less relevant now compared to last year in some aspects… but in others, I feel like now is the time to discuss. The transformation I have seen from the beginning of the Trump presidency to now is astronomical, and one that I feel will create a serious opposition to the “RED-WAVE”.

What America needs is not some political upheaval this election cycle… it is a personality upheaval. The political tone and mood recently in America make it seem that future leaders and politicians need to have the characteristics that identify with the demographics and diversity both physically and mentally our nation possesses. In some areas, it will be right-leaning… and in others the complete polar opposite. Movements like Unite the Right, however, are not only belittling the side they support indirectly and directly but also are promoting the other major political party.

As much as I would rather see healthy political discussions, I feel like this election cycle is set up to be one where the Left wins the people, or shall I say the personality, debate.

What Unite the Right Really Tells Us About the Left was originally published in The Daily Rant on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

|Note: These views, funnily enough are not completely the ones I share. I tried to step in the shoes of some people who I have interacted with over the past few days who have a somewhat of a slight left to slight right political beliefs for fun! Appreciate any feedback, and happy reading!|

“If you are receiving this transmission… You are the resistance… It’s Alex Jones.”

First of all, what kind of introduction is that? I can’t even imagine many movie scenes that are more ominous than the beginning of an InfoWars episode.

And second of all, I think I can safely say that during the last couple of days… the resistance, well, got crushed, by none other than the Empire.

The Empire of Technology that is. Or the Empire of Social Media. Or the Empire of Communication. Not sure, but it’s definitely a powerful force.

And well, if that’s not scary to you, then I don’t know what is.

Discourse is necessary for any healthy nation. Every major decision, no matter how intelligent or how absurd in the world, was decided and implemented via some form of discourse. Free speech has always been a hot topic, but suppressing it, (almost) never has been — until now.

This nation has always had its fair share of conspiracy theorists, dissenters, and all types of people who are in a way, unrepresentative of our overall nation. Americans were never identified by these conspiracy theorists, so why are we making it an issue now?

When just a few corporations have the ability to shut down entire viewpoints and personas, is that not reminiscent of the very own enemies our nation and its allies have been fighting against for years? These corporations are based in California, a very left-oriented state. These corporations also consist of majority left-leaning workers, employees, and executives. So why do they want to promote their agenda by limiting another?

That answer may be obvious, but for me it’s ludicrous.

Don’t get me wrong, I wish our entire nation would be blue one day, but I do not think it will happen anytime soon. Will I be sad? Will I be devastated?

No.

I have faith in my fellow citizens and politicians that no matter what happens, we will always be fighting for democracy, liberty, and opportunities for everyone to succeed. That perspective is a fundamental American ideal. And even some of the most outspoken left-leaning regions in the nation, like the Silicon Valley, share the same mentality. In fact, many of my family members, who are heavily invested in Silicon Valley, also share the same views. They vote blue, but if an election doesn’t go their way, they just go back to working as if nothing happened, a privilege that few can share.

One of the very compromises we make while living in this country is respecting the political impact of every other citizen, regardless of socioeconomic or geographic status. An urban lifestyle is equivalent to a rural one. A colored man’s vote is the same as a white man’s. An Indian women can vote for whoever she wants, and that vote matters as much as her father’s, or her husband’s, or her uncle’s.

This is why it is so crucial that we ensure people, no matter how idiotic, conservative, or unconventional can get the same platforms to project their beliefs as their respective counterparts.

I wish there would be no people who choose to state or be involved in conspiracies, but unfortunately, that will most likely not be the case. But before I get some angry responses, let me clarify; the major issue I face with this rash decision, well, has almost nothing to do with the fact that a couple of corporations in select industries have the complete power to restrict the outreach of any citizen. It, more or less, revolves around the concept that there are significant effects of usually suppressing those on the right and why these corporations should not believe that shutting down or banning accounts is indeed the correct approach.

This week might be known for Alex Jones, but conservative commentator Candace Owens also got shut out of her Twitter this week, for well, hate (all her tweets were direct replications of a new New York Times journalist Sarah Jeong). And who can forget other notable conservative social media presences like Diamond and Silk being attacked by the very own sites they commentate on.

Shutting down voices on one side, who have exact polar versions of themselves on the other doesn’t make any sense. As a so-called member of the Moderate Left, I believe we are creating an enemy for ourselves, and a talking point that will forever be there in the form of “Double Standards”. In fact, almost any political argument can nowadays be construed and effectively argued with

identity politics, anti-Trump, socialism, and, because of recent decisions, suppression of the freedom of speech.

As the saying goes, “you can’t fight fire with fire”. But what we are doing is not fighting fire with fire, but rather giving our political opposition the fire to burn us down. People can observe there is a huge private sector advantage for the Left, and that distends our difference between the electoral votes that cost us past elections, something no true politician should ever desire.

I also believe banning entire social media accounts is not the right method to even address these sensitive issues. Just think of the consequences if a popular figure is indeed shut down.

Won’t it just fuel up their audience? Won’t it just further the hate in those groups? Won’t it just justify their notion that they are disenfranchised by the “elitists”?

Yes.

It is quite possible for all of those to happen. These tech and social media giants need to delete the specific instances of posts and content that creates hate but still allow the content creator to have their platform. Sure, eventually, there will be some lines that must be made, but when Facebook and Twitter and Apple have so many staff members open for “content management” or “content maintenance”, the job can be done. It is up to the companies to accomplish it.

Conservatives like Owens and lunatics like Jones will always exist in the current version of America, and any nation which has the freedom of speech and opinion. I cannot fathom to understand how someone like Jones could spout the words he does. But what is more worrisome is that banning him will be like call for action to his viewers. Until we have Trump, or any other Republican heavyweight, denounce Jones, it will most likely be better to paint them as fellow debaters, resulting in further opportunities for reconciliation and unity with those people who treat the Left as their enemies.

Of course in some cases, there will be no success. And for those people who simply have the notion that the “Leftist world” and its followers are the enemies, compromise will not be made. But, if the Democratic and liberal figures really want long-term success, they should give their opponents the opportunity to speak… and politely defeat (annihilate) them.

Should We Really Crush The Resistance? was originally published in The Daily Rant on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory in Democratic primaries of the deeply-left 14th Congressional District of New York (Bronx and Queens), heads are spinning. Unlike many other campaigns, her political standpoint is very unique, dubbed “democratic socialism”. However, something many political commentators do not mention frequently is that her victory was most likely due to numerous factors, and I believe her running a grassroots campaign was key to her success in June.

Before I proceed to talk more about the why more politicians should approach elections with a “grassroots” mentality, I want to discuss, what are a grassroots campaign and the historical and current significance of grassroots campaigns. Running a grassroots campaign, is in a way, a political Kickstarter. The success of the campaign is not determined by your experience or political connections, but rather the perception you instill in the voters of your region, and in Ocasio-Cortez’s case, a congressional district. As Britannica describes it, a grassroots campaign is a

“type of movement or campaign that attempts to mobilize individuals to take some action to influence an outcome, often of a political nature. “

In any democratic or republican institutions, political victories are determined or heavily influenced by the masses, and grassroots campaigns are movements that ensure the political candidate is communicating with the masses in any way possible.

Historically, grassroots campaigns and movements have often been associated with left-wing politics. From my historical knowledge, these terms were used to describe the political strategy of the American Progressive Party back in 1912 and slowly has progressed in relevance throughout the century to other international movements such as the American Civil Rights Movement, Chinese rural democracy movement, and the German peace movement. In fact, recently, many people associate the Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as another grassroots movement.

If you analyze the short list of grassroots campaigns I have mentioned above, as well as comparing them to the other grassroots campaigns, you will find more than all of them is typically liberal. All of these movements are unconventional. They seek to create change in areas where there previously were established ideas and perspectives. Associating grassroots movements with left-wing ideals, in my opinion, takes away from the impact these campaigns have. In cases such as those of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the competitors are already left-wing, but are established; Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez build their grassroots movements around the ideology that change is necessary and they can offer solutions to break apart from “The Establishment”.

Whether the notion of having grassroots campaigns is good or bad, is in a way, trivial. In American politics, the bipartisan dominance for many years does not offer much space for “rookies”. But change is occurring, whether or not anyone supports it.

President Trump himself ran his 2016 presidential bid in an unconventional way, and if a majority of his political success was not related to his celebrity and affluent status, I believe his campaign could also be considered grassroots as well.

He is just another example of how this decade is a time where the norm is literally thrown out of the window, the future seems to be more accepting of grassroots campaigns. On both sides of American politics, and an observer will notice that there are strong divides in the political parties. On the right, you have Trump and his supporters as well as those who Trump recently called “Red-State Democrats”. On the left, you have the more or less socialist and far-left movement competing with the slightly more moderate and established group of politicians. With all things considered, grassroots political campaigns seem the best way to address the masses, and in turn, successfully win political positions.

In my opinion, grassroots campaigns are attractive to voters mostly due to three reasons. There are certainly more, but I believe these three show that the candidates who run grassroots campaigns are ideal.

1. Interaction

In order to successfully operate a grassroots campaign, candidates need to leave their comfort zone and politically canvass. Whether it is door-to-door, phone banks, or even social media messaging, communication is fundamental for campaigns that are not reliant on established individuals. Even on the national scale, there are opportunities to communicate locally, as shown by Bernie Sanders, and this means that it should be much easier for there to be grassroots communication on a congressional district or even lower level.

I have been on both sides of the communication aspect of grassroots campaigns, as a receiver and as a volunteer. I believe that seeing someone personally reach out to you is a strong point, and candidates locally having meetings or town halls, even more, captures and addresses the political environment during election time. Social media has definitely been an effective tool politically, but combining that with real-life conversations and smaller interactions with local citizens sets the tone that the candidate perfectly represents the values and virtues voters have.

2. Discussion

All political campaigns need to be questionable, but certainly, in America, some candidates are just shoo-ins. When established candidates run their elections, they simply can promote aspects of change they created in previous ventures, and they will have the support already necessary to allow them to run a campaign. Newcomers and people with unconventional ideas will obviously not have that opportunity, and in most cases, choose to become more interactive with their community. Interaction is already discussed previously, but a major subset of that is discussion. Voters need to be able to question the positions a candidate has, and it is optimal if they get a response from candidates. Grassroots campaigns seek to communicate frequently with their voters, and in doing so, citizens will understand who the candidate truly is, and will they fix the issues that burden them the most.

3. Inspiration

Grassroots campaigns typically convert nobodies into somebodies. They nurture unconventional thought and politics into formidable opponents for the already established perspective. This tone ends up allowing communities to feel a relatable sense with the candidate, which is a strong necessity in order to attract voters.

Why would anyone vote for some Congressman X when they have not passed a bill or addressed the issues of his district? Mrs. Y never had anything handed to her. She worked for everything she had. I think she deserves it.

That tone is ideal for grassroots campaigns, and its typically the reason why they are successful. Seeing Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump seems much more attractive to those who have lost their sense of relatability with Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. Eventually, however, it shows everyone that there are opportunities to politically succeed and be representative of your community, which will eventually create a healthy political atmosphere across the nation.

Interaction, discussion, and inspiration are, once again, just some of the reasons why I feel grassroots campaigns are successful. These methodologies have applied to numerous industries, and terms such as crowdfunding and kick-starting are basically “unpolitical” grassroots campaigns.

In short, aspiring politicians need to understand that grassroots campaigns are the present and future. Developing strong relations with your voter base is ideal in all kinds of locations, whether you are in the heart of Nebraska, or in the diverse environment of Bronx. Financially, there are numerous venues for candidates to utilize, and if an outsider such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a high chance to win the Bronx and Queens congressional seat by utilizing grassroots campaign tactics to defeat the ten-term incumbent Joe Crowley, there is a possibility you can too!

O n August 6th, 2018, Boris Johnson stated that Muslim women who wear burqas resemble “letterboxes” and bank robbers. Islamophobia is nothing new in Britain, and definitely nothing new for Boris Johnson.

Often times, immigrant populations, such as the British Muslims, are faced to choose between assimilating or integrating in a new country.

Integration involves acceptance, while assimilation is more of a one-way direction, where the immigrants absorb the majority culture at the cost of their own.

Religion and culture is not considered to dictate the lives of the majority culture, or in Britain, the Christians.

How can religion and culture be attributed to the British Muslims as a part of their identity?

Seeing disparities between the East and the West, in cases like homosexuality and terrorism, should not be blamed just on the Eastern cultures.

It is not easy for immigrants to completely forgo the values instilled within them from birth with the values in a country that only relatively accepts them.

The British Muslims have nowhere else to go other than staying in the U.K. Many young British Muslims identify themselves as, well, British.

They matter for the future of a nation, but in many cases they are not getting that sense of recognition.

And until then, saying “Islam is the problem” will not offer any solutions for the United Kingdom, and for the rest of the world.