Conspiracy Theories

[Brian Peacock]

I think you're just realising that the people who own the means of production run the world, and do so according to their values and their needs alone, comrade Cunt.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, I wouldn't determine free speech by what's said or not on facebook. But more by what's allowed, out there, and holy shit is this a different world!

Seriously, ever this free, in terms of speech and whose voice can have an impact? Even ideas believed dead have made use of it to stage comebacks.

Oh, it's pretty great here. The reason I mention that name, and that company, is because it demonstrates a terrifyingly coordinated effort, by definition political,

Terms of use aren't political.

[Joe]

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.

[Cunt]

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

[Seabass]

Sometime, while I wasn't looking, freedom of expression became 'far-right' or something.

Yeah that never happened. Censorship has always been primarily a specialty of puritanical, moral policing conservatives. The right only started hyperventilating about "cancel culture" when the likes of Tucker Carlson started losing advertisers for spewing bigoted shit on a "news" channel.

[Cunt]

Sometime, while I wasn't looking, freedom of expression became 'far-right' or something.

Yeah that never happened. Censorship has always been primarily a specialty of puritanical, moral policing conservatives. The right only started hyperventilating about "cancel culture" when the likes of Tucker Carlson started losing advertisers for spewing bigoted shit on a "news" channel.

No argument that in puritanical moral policing. Tucker never sounded bigoted to me, but advertisers fearlessly fly the rainbow flag, or support BLM or black lives.

Censorshit looks more like a tactic/hobby/interest of the left now.

Political correctness used to be mocked. Now it is celebrated as 'moral decency'. Obviously any truth lay in the middle, but to deny that change is going to need a bit more support than you claiming there was bigoted shit on a 'news' channel once.

You would have to show

[Joe]

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?

[Cunt]

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.

[pErvinalia]

Sometime, while I wasn't looking, freedom of expression became 'far-right' or something.

Yeah that never happened. Censorship has always been primarily a specialty of puritanical, moral policing conservatives. The right only started hyperventilating about "cancel culture" when the likes of Tucker Carlson started losing advertisers for spewing bigoted shit on a "news" channel.

No argument that in puritanical moral policing. Tucker never sounded bigoted to me, but advertisers fearlessly fly the rainbow flag, or support BLM or black lives.

Censorshit looks more like a tactic/hobby/interest of the left now.

Political correctness used to be mocked. Now it is celebrated as 'moral decency'. Obviously any truth lay in the middle, but to deny that change is going to need a bit more support than you claiming there was bigoted shit on a 'news' channel once.

You would have to show

Why should he? You don't back up any of your rhetoric.

[pErvinalia]

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.
.

I'd bet my left testicle that it isn't auto deleted. Man you believe some stupid shit.

[Cunt]

I didn't say I believed it. But you probably don't value the left much anyway.

[pErvinalia]

I didn't say I believed it.

Oh, of course. Just asking questions..

[Joe]

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.

[JimC]

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.

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.

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

* 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

* 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

[pErvinalia]

I think advocating violence is OK. It's when it becomes organisation of violence that it becomes a problem.