Joe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:20 am
Cunt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:01 am
Joe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:44 am
Cunt wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:16 am
Joe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:10 am
It's uncharitable of me, but I think there's a self promotion angle to this as well. After all, banned stuff often sells better.
I can't see that angle in the case of the political 'Lord Voldemort'. Nor can I see why all those corps would auto-ban it, in concert.
I wish smarter people would look in. Please and thanks, Joe
What's the political Lord Voldemort?
Whistleblower in the Ukraine case (suspected). First disclosed by Adam Schiff (accidentally?) then mentioned in a question on the floor, by a senator. CSPAN removed it, because he mentioned the name itself.
The trouble is, I don't know
how to check this stuff, so can't confirm much of it beyond what I saw as it went by. The further trouble is, I don't even want to type out the name here. I'm over-cautious about some subjects, you might say. If you could respect that, I would appreciate it. (silly as I may be about it)
Tim Pool mentions the story a few times, but won't say the name because of youtube's rules. Multiple reports suggest that the name is auto-deleted from facebook, including private messages.
Not as spooky as the navy patents they were on about (on the Timcast one) but spooky. Partly because it was so effective.
Meh, let's talk about my point instead.
Heyer and Weinstein are a good example of using the cache of being outsiders to boost their brand. Weinstein put together the Intellectual Dark Web website and Heyer bills herself as a Professor in Exile, even though they are clearly doing okay. They live well, and before COVID, could travel freely to other countries to do research.
I don't fault them. They're living the good life and doing what they love and so what if they market themselves as a little outlaw.
I think the smears against them are very informative, if you know a bit about what happened, and how it is mischaracterized. They don't just market themselves as 'a little outlaw', they were forced to leave by violent mobs, because they had no protection from the law.
The potential violence wasn't worth staying.
Anyway, it's always different if you listen to the source, rather than their detractors.
JimC wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:25 am
Your main contention seems to be that leftists (in which you would include, somewhat inaccurately, forum members apart from yourself) tend to want to limit free speech. More than that, you contend that they wish to limit it in a very biased way, wanting to shut down conservative viewpoints but allowing anything from the left free rein, and conversely, rightists are always on the side of free speech, and against censorship.
Well it sounds ridiculous when you put it that way.
I think I'm 'left', and I don't think anyone here is further to the right, than me. (according to that political compass thingy) and if it comes to the binary choice of the US last election, I think I would have got drunk instead, but if I had to, would have voted Trump. Again, I don't think anyone else here would have.
To take the latter first, conservatives (particularly the religious variety) have always attempted (and often achieved) the censorship of a wide variety of non-conservative views, whether anti-religious or in favour of the free expression of various forms of sexual identity. To the extent that such censorship does not occur today (at least in most of the western world), such freedoms have only been achieved by constant pressure from progressive activists. The zeitgeist has changed, but the changes have typically been opposed tooth and claw by conservative elements in society.
I would certainly agree that some elements of the academic left can too often stray into attempting to shut down viewpoints which do not accord with their view. This is broadly known as "cancel culture", but a nuanced view would show a wide range of speech or writing which some may take issue with. In that regard, there can be robust criticism from the broad left (certainly from me) when the bounds are clearly overstepped. For example, the vilification of J. K. Rowling for expressing a contrary viewpoint on trans people is quite absurd, as is the peevish demands from some for mandatory language protocols.
Well, I do think you could speak well (estimating from your career, age etc.) but I bet you would find it damn near impossible to get smoothly through subtle disagreements on a public stage about it.
The recent 'Munk Debates' started out that way, and the first thing they failed to find common ground on were simply what to call men who have transitioned, if the language itself is supposed to respect the fact that he is now a woman. (or she was a man?)
Anyway, my only point is that it's fucking difficult now, and it's no accident. You might say Rowling has firm chops as a writer. She shit the bed.
I certainly can't do it smoothly.
But it remains true that a broad cross-section of society (including large social media companies) recognises that there are some limits, and that absolute freedom of expression is simply not possible. Some examples of speech or writing which is beyond that line includes:
* the clear advocacy of violence, either towards individuals, or in the form of violent insurrection against a democratically elected government
99% there, except that I would say fairly elected. Some places use other systems. I would never suggest stopping someone from removing such content from their site though.
* anti-semitism in its clearcut, Nazi form, typically involving holocaust denial (or, possibly worse, its glorification), fervent admiration of Hitler and the Third Reich, and implied or explicit violence towards jews
I'm with you on it, but don't see why it needs energy. Looks like a pretty small, unbelievable bunch. I met one once. Either there are no more, or they don't feel comfortable sharing their ideas.
* white supremacist movements that openly regard non-whites as sub-human, whose rights should be abrogated
* similar movements (frequently religious), where gays are substituted for jews or blacks to receive the symphony of hate
Now, to forestall criticism that all these are right wing groups (if somewhat extreme for mainstream Republicans), and so it's just typical left prejudice, let me add these:
* groups such as the anti-globalist anarchists of past years advocating destruction of capitalist property and violent street battles with police
* people advocating the violent overthrow of capitalism and western governments to usher in a worker's paradise
* atheists organising in sinister on-line forums to bomb churches and assassinate religious leaders
How about Carl Benjamin, talking about the recent debates about grooming gangs?
I mostly agree with you, JimC. You might be surprised how far to the left I am, if you weren't so disgusted by my rightieness where you see it.
To me, the band known as 'The Banned' have always played my song. I grew up with weird freedom-loving heroes. From Larry Flint getting himself shot, to my boss paying his asshole banker in filthy, cumsoaked quarters, to George Carlin coming along and making the word 'cunt' classy again, the outcasts have always had a knack for illuminating the gross bits. For me, often in an informative, entertaining way.
pErvinalia wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:51 am
Well that's clear hate speech. And remember that freedom of speech is centred around a political context. Free speech doesn't really apply to private organisations like social media, despite what Cunt erroneously thinks.
Do you think it is possible that their contractual connections to people in various countries pulls them into obligations?
Do businesses get to be bound by human rights code, when it comes to discrimination?
As to the whistleblower issue, I found an article referring to the incident. If you do anything other than accept the official story firmly, it looks more than a little unusual.
