Sorry, but that sounds like the sort of argument that one of those pointy-headed "intellectual" Communists would use as a ruse to be able to win power. Supposedly, Marx and Lenin -- in private -- bragged of "explanations" like this... and Ayn Rand warned of them.
Crazy or communist? It is a choice we can make.
If the correct answer isn't clear to you, let me reframe it in terms you might understand more easily: Did you see Kaitlan Collins on Bill Maher last night? Well let's suppose that, after that show, she takes the private CNN jet up to the Bay Area, whisks me away and wines and dines me at 35,000 feet. At that point, do I ask her...
"Ready to get a little crazy?" or "Ready to get a little communist?"
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Pavel Durov, Telegram CEO, arrested at the airport in France for failing to abide by their censorship laws - David Sacks is unfortunately proven right again pic.twitter.com/7yB02e3Wlt
Founder/owner of social media platform Telegram arrested and jailed while transiting in France, risks 20 years sentence.
Pavel Durov, Telegram CEO, arrested at the airport in France for failing to abide by their censorship laws - David Sacks is unfortunately proven right again pic.twitter.com/7yB02e3Wlt
Good riddance. Out of all the scammers that try to ensnare me, 99% want me to contact them on Telegram. No other app is remotely close to that scammers paradise.
๐ฌ๐ง UK mass arrests citizens for memes ๐ซ๐ท France arrests founder of Telegram ๐ฎ๐ช Ireland tries to ban "mean memes" ๐ง๐ท Brazil forces ๐ to flee the country ๐ฆ๐บ Australia tries to censor ๐ posts ๐ช๐บ EU tries to blackmail Elon Musk ๐บ๐ธ DOJ jails someone for a meme ๐ป๐ช Maduro blocks allโฆ
Founder/owner of social media platform Telegram arrested and jailed while transiting in France, risks 20 years sentence.
Pavel Durov, Telegram CEO, arrested at the airport in France for failing to abide by their censorship laws - David Sacks is unfortunately proven right again pic.twitter.com/7yB02e3Wlt
Good riddance. Out of all the scammers that try to ensnare me, 99% want me to contact them on Telegram. No other app is remotely close to that scammers paradise.
How is it that you've been requested by someone to contact them on telegram? I'd never even heard of it until reading this here?
Rumble was founded in October 2013 by Chris Pavlovski as an alternative to YouTube for independent vloggers and smaller content creators. Pavlovski (of Toronto) founded the platform after seeing that Google was prioritizing influencers on YouTube and not independent content creators.
Rumble's cloud services business hosts Truth Social, and the video platform is popular among American conservative and far-right users. Rumble has been described as "alt-tech".
Trades on nasdaq under ticker RUM. Didn't go IPO the traditional way, instead via SPAC, which limits a ton of red herring disclosures.
Interesting thread. Elon Musk chimes in saying this is concerning. There's a post which adds a photo of Nazi book burning. Others talking about censorship, free speechโฆ
We the People and Free Speech Tech need a unified campaign against these censors and their censorship.
Rumble + X + Truth and others in solidarity!
— Based MAGA Patriot ๐บ๐ธ๐ฆ (@geoffsakala) August 25, 2024
Founder/owner of social media platform Telegram arrested and jailed while transiting in France, risks 20 years sentence.
Pavel Durov, Telegram CEO, arrested at the airport in France for failing to abide by their censorship laws - David Sacks is unfortunately proven right again pic.twitter.com/7yB02e3Wlt
Good riddance. Out of all the scammers that try to ensnare me, 99% want me to contact them on Telegram. No other app is remotely close to that scammers paradise.
How is it that you've been requested by someone to contact them on telegram? I'd never even heard of it until reading this here?
I'm with you. "Contact me on Telegram". "I don't even know how to send a Telegram. Why don't I just call you?"
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
Yeah, but will you acknowledge the dangerous problems associated with misinformation, propaganda ?
Did you ever see the movie Hotel Rwanda?
What do you think about giving pushers of war a radio to broadcast their hate and division?
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
He appeared to engage w thought, and then failed via Godwins Law.
BBC: "But Godwin originally coined the phrase to point out how ridiculous the comparison always is.
" 'I wanted to hint that most people who brought Nazis into a debate... weren't being thoughtful and independent. Instead, they were acting just as predictably, and unconsciously, as a log rolling down a hill," he wrote in an opinion column for the Washington Post."
Elon Musk on the woke mind virus: โAnything that is anti-meritocratic and anything that results in the suppression of free speech, those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerousโฆ you canโt question things, even questioning is bad.โ pic.twitter.com/YJtwvcl9Cg
Elon Musk on the woke mind virus: โAnything that is anti-meritocratic and anything that results in the suppression of free speech, those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerousโฆ you canโt question things, even questioning is bad.โ pic.twitter.com/YJtwvcl9Cg
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
I asked politely, above, now I'll try a different tactic.
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
Yeah, but will you acknowledge the dangerous problems associated with misinformation, propaganda ?
Did you ever see the movie Hotel Rwanda?
What do you think about giving pushers of war a radio to broadcast their hate and division?
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
I asked politely, above, now I'll try a different tactic.
Here are Biden and Harris censoring people because they prefer their disinformation over any disinformation voiced by the American people. ****ing nazi jerks.
"Zuckerberg regrets bowing to Biden 'pressure' over Covid"
By the way, we knew this censorship was happening everywhere so that the government could push big pharma's messaging. This isn't new. It just sucks, especially for those with kids or younger men.
ELECTION INTEGRITY: Democrats are suing to stop Georgia polling locations from conducting hand counts of ballots on election night to ensure the number of actual votes cast match the number Dominion reports to the Secretary of State. Interestingly, Governor Kemp and his Secretaryโฆ pic.twitter.com/VQvSUaihY6
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
Yeah, but will you acknowledge the dangerous problems associated with misinformation, propaganda ?
Did you ever see the movie Hotel Rwanda?
What do you think about giving pushers of war a radio to broadcast their hate and division?
You call it Freedom of Speech. I call it illegal.
Address this issue seriously please.
Assange was hounded and jailed for publishing, among other items, footage of indiscriminate droning of Iraqi civilians earlier this century, this is a far more apt framework than the Rwanda case, where it was about a different platform (state/militia-owned or affiliated radio station, rather than an open platform like Telegram)..
Neoliberal centrists (mainstream Dems) lining up with censorship and the suppression of the First Amendment is one of the most disappointing developments in the recent political landscape.
An overweight, SBW who started with nothing, now worth $3 Billion. Her friend had a frilly VP fundraising hospital patronage 'job' that paid her six figures and now hubby has made tens of millions. Her half Black husband became POTUS!!
^ You need to think these things through: If somebody is going to tell you not to trust rich people, don/t they have a helluva lot more credibility if they themselves are a rich person?
๐จBREAKING: Never before seen footage of Pelosi on January 6 filmed by her daughter shows her admitting that its her fault that the Capitol wasn't secure.
โWe're calling the National Guard now? They should have been here to start out."
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
There you go again Tom, drinkin' the KoolAid. You never really watched Fox News, did you? I admit I watched it. They had drop dead gorgeous broads doing the news. I hardly ever watch it now, because the talent level is down. I can tell you this: Remember when the white guy with the sex addiction murdered the Asian girls at a massage parlor? And then your favorite MSM news outlets found some footage of whites assaulting Asians on the streets of some of our cities? They blamed whites for assaulting all these Asians. Well, if you went over to Fox News, and even better, went to Newsmax, they found footage of many more assaults on the streets where Black and Browns were the culprits, assaulting Asians. Who was honest, who was right? Well, go look at the FBI statistics on hate crimes against Asians. They show that both Blacks and Browns commit more assaults against Asians than do whites as a percentage. The point is they put out bad information by excluding other races.
When Biden threw the southern US border wide open, and millions of unwashed weary travelers came and invaded our country, did mainstream news show it? They came very late to the party. Fox was there early, along with Newsmax. Newsmax had ex-border patrol people as commentators, and they had drones up with cameras. They covered the worst of it, of even the migrants who drowned in the Rio Grande River. (All under the watchful eyes of the so-called Border Czar). You never saw much of that on MSM.
When you gonna realize it is the Democratic Party is anything but democratic? They are the censors of free speech. They are the ones who put people in prison for their views, their opinions, their speech. I think it was Obama who put journalists Judith Miller and James Rosen in jail. And it was Biden who added a little torture to the jail time for the Jan 6 "criminals". Go back and look at the "crimes" for those Jan 6 protesters who only trespassed, the ones who did no damage, just went in the building (some escorted in by government employees.) The court called it "entering a restricted space and remaining there". Bingo. Jail time. Next.......
So many Trump associates went into Democrat jails, and many are still there. All this for having thoughts and expressing them publicly. How many Democrats are in jail for speaking, just speaking their own thoughts, which might be offensive to a Republican run government? Huh? Cat got your tongue?
You need to do more than bask in the sunshine on a beach in Spain. Watch the news from all sources, even if you have to hold your nose, and listen to both sides, and decide which one is more likely telling the truth, not your preconceived idea of truth, but the actual truth. It won't be the same party on every issue. But you have to cast a vote, and you owe it to yourself and to the rest of us, to take some care with it and don't fall for the KoolAid. If it is Democrat KoolAid, it might be absinthe, or some of that punch that Democrat Jim Jones served at the party in Jonestown. Take good care, my friend.
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
I asked politely, above, now I'll try a different tactic.
Here are Biden and Harris censoring people because they prefer their disinformation over any disinformation voiced by the American people. ****ing nazi jerks.
"Zuckerberg regrets bowing to Biden 'pressure' over Covid"
By the way, we knew this censorship was happening everywhere so that the government could push big pharma's messaging. This isn't new. It just sucks, especially for those with kids or younger men.
I'm really not interested in rants about (imagined or real) censorship. I'm interested in hearing if you guys can find problems with Freedom of Speech gone too far, and I present Nazi Germany propaganda and Rwanda radio provoked civil war as examples.
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
Yeah, but will you acknowledge the dangerous problems associated with misinformation, propaganda ?
Did you ever see the movie Hotel Rwanda?
What do you think about giving pushers of war a radio to broadcast their hate and division?
You call it Freedom of Speech. I call it illegal.
Address this issue seriously please.
Assange was hounded and jailed for publishing, among other items, footage of indiscriminate droning of Iraqi civilians earlier this century, this is a far more apt framework than the Rwanda case, where it was about a different platform (state/militia-owned or affiliated radio station, rather than an open platform like Telegram)..
Neoliberal centrists (mainstream Dems) lining up with censorship and the suppression of the First Amendment is one of the most disappointing developments in the recent political landscape.
I don't think I got a reply to my question. If Freedom of Speech is used to push civil war or a Holocaust mindset amongst a population, is that a bad thing, such that should be curtailed?
She use any extreme scenario you like. Is it a bad thing??
Or do you believe, because you fly a banner of "Freedom of Speech" that you should get to say whatever you like to whom ever you like?
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
There you go again Tom, drinkin' the KoolAid. You never really watched Fox News, did you? I admit I watched it. They had drop dead gorgeous broads doing the news. I hardly ever watch it now, because the talent level is down. I can tell you this: Remember when the white guy with the sex addiction murdered the Asian girls at a massage parlor? And then your favorite MSM news outlets found some footage of whites assaulting Asians on the streets of some of our cities? They blamed whites for assaulting all these Asians. Well, if you went over to Fox News, and even better, went to Newsmax, they found footage of many more assaults on the streets where Black and Browns were the culprits, assaulting Asians. Who was honest, who was right? Well, go look at the FBI statistics on hate crimes against Asians. They show that both Blacks and Browns commit more assaults against Asians than do whites as a percentage. The point is they put out bad information by excluding other races.
When Biden threw the southern US border wide open, and millions of unwashed weary travelers came and invaded our country, did mainstream news show it? They came very late to the party. Fox was there early, along with Newsmax. Newsmax had ex-border patrol people as commentators, and they had drones up with cameras. They covered the worst of it, of even the migrants who drowned in the Rio Grande River. (All under the watchful eyes of the so-called Border Czar). You never saw much of that on MSM.
When you gonna realize it is the Democratic Party is anything but democratic? They are the censors of free speech. They are the ones who put people in prison for their views, their opinions, their speech. I think it was Obama who put journalists Judith Miller and James Rosen in jail. And it was Biden who added a little torture to the jail time for the Jan 6 "criminals". Go back and look at the "crimes" for those Jan 6 protesters who only trespassed, the ones who did no damage, just went in the building (some escorted in by government employees.) The court called it "entering a restricted space and remaining there". Bingo. Jail time. Next.......
So many Trump associates went into Democrat jails, and many are still there. All this for having thoughts and expressing them publicly. How many Democrats are in jail for speaking, just speaking their own thoughts, which might be offensive to a Republican run government? Huh? Cat got your tongue?
You need to do more than bask in the sunshine on a beach in Spain. Watch the news from all sources, even if you have to hold your nose, and listen to both sides, and decide which one is more likely telling the truth, not your preconceived idea of truth, but the actual truth. It won't be the same party on every issue. But you have to cast a vote, and you owe it to yourself and to the rest of us, to take some care with it and don't fall for the KoolAid. If it is Democrat KoolAid, it might be absinthe, or some of that punch that Democrat Jim Jones served at the party in Jonestown. Take good care, my friend.
I remember quite a number of years ago when you posted repeatedly on the hoops board about how you were going to quit bear insider. It was a waste of your time and you saw better things to do with your time than sit and argue with people about basketball, recruiting, etc.
I talked you into returning by telling you how much we appreciated your posts. I think I did that on more than one occasion and you eventually made it back, and I was glad.
You have long been one of the most enduring posters on Bearinsider.
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
Yeah, but will you acknowledge the dangerous problems associated with misinformation, propaganda ?
Did you ever see the movie Hotel Rwanda?
What do you think about giving pushers of war a radio to broadcast their hate and division?
You call it Freedom of Speech. I call it illegal.
Address this issue seriously please.
Assange was hounded and jailed for publishing, among other items, footage of indiscriminate droning of Iraqi civilians earlier this century, this is a far more apt framework than the Rwanda case, where it was about a different platform (state/militia-owned or affiliated radio station, rather than an open platform like Telegram)..
Neoliberal centrists (mainstream Dems) lining up with censorship and the suppression of the First Amendment is one of the most disappointing developments in the recent political landscape.
I don't think I got a reply to my question. If Freedom of Speech is used to push civil war or a Holocaust mindset amongst a population, is that a bad thing, such that should be curtailed?
She use any extreme scenario you like. Is it a bad thing??
Or do you believe, because you fly a banner of "Freedom of Speech" that you should get to say whatever you like to whom ever you like?
Speech that is both "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is unprotected by the First Amendment.
Judith Miller was put in jail by George Bush. James Rosen was not put in jail. Jan 6 people deserve to be in jail. Trump associates who broke the law, like Steve Bannon and his fraudulent enterprise, deserve to be in jail. The MAGAts got their day in court with a jury.
"They're eating the pets"
3 time Republican nominee for President
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
Yeah, but will you acknowledge the dangerous problems associated with misinformation, propaganda ?
Did you ever see the movie Hotel Rwanda?
What do you think about giving pushers of war a radio to broadcast their hate and division?
You call it Freedom of Speech. I call it illegal.
Address this issue seriously please.
Assange was hounded and jailed for publishing, among other items, footage of indiscriminate droning of Iraqi civilians earlier this century, this is a far more apt framework than the Rwanda case, where it was about a different platform (state/militia-owned or affiliated radio station, rather than an open platform like Telegram)..
Neoliberal centrists (mainstream Dems) lining up with censorship and the suppression of the First Amendment is one of the most disappointing developments in the recent political landscape.
I don't think I got a reply to my question. If Freedom of Speech is used to push civil war or a Holocaust mindset amongst a population, is that a bad thing, such that should be curtailed?
She use any extreme scenario you like. Is it a bad thing??
Or do you believe, because you fly a banner of "Freedom of Speech" that you should get to say whatever you like to whom ever you like?
Speech that is both "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is unprotected by the First Amendment.
That's a good definition. Now, can you recognize it when you see it in real life?
"Let's have trial by combat," said Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, warming up the crowd for Trump.
"We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women," Trump told his supporters shortly before the Capitol assault. "We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
What Trump said before the riot
Trump's final direction to supporters came during his "Save America" rally around noon Jan. 6, when he repeated his Pants on Fire claim that he won.
"Our country has had enough," Trump told his supporters. "We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal."
The crowd later chanted: "Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!" Trump thanked them.
Trump praised the crowd for traveling from across the nation and for "the extraordinary love."
"We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: to save our democracy," Trump said.
Trump repeatedly said there was a need to "fight." After he bashed "weak" Republicans and Biden, he said: "Unbelievable, what we have to go through, what we have to go through and you have to get your people to fight. If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are, I can already tell you, frankly."
He continued with the fighting metaphors: "Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We're going to have to fight much harder, and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy."
Trump then invited the crowd to go to the Capitol.
"And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
Trump used the word "peacefully" once at his rally:
"We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
But I am curious to engage in a serious dialogue about freedom of speech and countervailing misinformation, propaganda, etc.
I imagine it would be hard to agree upon much, since the basic concept of facts seems to be in dispute, much less the actual facts themselves. Butโฆ
Do you believe that lies should get equal airplay in society? Like, are lies dangerous? Or are they just innocuous little things that should be free to live out their own lives if their own accord?
I don't even know how to have this discussion, to prosecute the case against absolute freedom of speech, which I suppose I'm saying "in the wrong hands can be incredibly dangerous". Like, can you envision this danger at all? Or you think truth and righteousness always wins out without any harm along the way?
Better to stamp out the fire before it burns the village down. Hitler could have been stopped early on - the tricky thing is determining who is Hitler and who is just a boob, and who gets to decide?
I don't believe misinformation should be granted a bullhorn - we already see the damage that Foxnews has done by promoting Trump's lies and normalizing his racism and hate. If we have a bunch of online content that pushes a bunch of dangerous thinking, how is society served. It's like, anarchist-talk.
Y'all are gonna get yourselves in a frothing fervor, and you'll be armed, too.
This isn't going to end well. Crazy times we are headed for. A prediction.
What you're saying here is that the 1st Amendment should be curtailed by the Ministry of Truth.
Yeah, but will you acknowledge the dangerous problems associated with misinformation, propaganda ?
Did you ever see the movie Hotel Rwanda?
What do you think about giving pushers of war a radio to broadcast their hate and division?
You call it Freedom of Speech. I call it illegal.
Address this issue seriously please.
Assange was hounded and jailed for publishing, among other items, footage of indiscriminate droning of Iraqi civilians earlier this century, this is a far more apt framework than the Rwanda case, where it was about a different platform (state/militia-owned or affiliated radio station, rather than an open platform like Telegram)..
Neoliberal centrists (mainstream Dems) lining up with censorship and the suppression of the First Amendment is one of the most disappointing developments in the recent political landscape.
I don't think I got a reply to my question. If Freedom of Speech is used to push civil war or a Holocaust mindset amongst a population, is that a bad thing, such that should be curtailed?
She use any extreme scenario you like. Is it a bad thing??
Or do you believe, because you fly a banner of "Freedom of Speech" that you should get to say whatever you like to whom ever you like?
Speech that is both "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is unprotected by the First Amendment.
That's a good definition. Now, can you recognize it when you see it in real life?
"Let's have trial by combat," said Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, warming up the crowd for Trump.
"We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women," Trump told his supporters shortly before the Capitol assault. "We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
What Trump said before the riot
Trump's final direction to supporters came during his "Save America" rally around noon Jan. 6, when he repeated his Pants on Fire claim that he won.
"Our country has had enough," Trump told his supporters. "We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal."
The crowd later chanted: "Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!" Trump thanked them.
Trump praised the crowd for traveling from across the nation and for "the extraordinary love."
"We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: to save our democracy," Trump said.
Trump repeatedly said there was a need to "fight." After he bashed "weak" Republicans and Biden, he said: "Unbelievable, what we have to go through, what we have to go through and you have to get your people to fight. If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are, I can already tell you, frankly."
He continued with the fighting metaphors: "Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We're going to have to fight much harder, and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy."
Trump then invited the crowd to go to the Capitol.
"And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
Trump used the word "peacefully" once at his rally:
"We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
Wait, this is a first amendment issue? When did they become the crux defense of Jan 6?
How do you feel about the Biden-Harris regime's decision to embed U.S. troops with President Trump until Inauguration Day? Are they really being deployed to protect Trump, or is there another agenda at play?
