kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
It will be interesting to see how Campaign Finance and 'equal time' issues play out during the midterms when the biggest platforms are silencing only one side.
The "Blog Burning" Has Begun In Earnest
- Thread starter prambo
- Start date
^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly!!!
All my "pseudo-philosophical" blathering condensed into two posts that are dead-on reality!!!
Waiting for a reply from @Darth This could actually get interesting.
Curmudgeon
.308 Win
Their house, their rules. Get your own domain. Problem solved.
But that begs the question of who hosts your domain. And can they be "muscled" into restricting it, or "ratting" it out?
Curmudgeon
.308 Win
Yup.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
I can fully understand if it was one site. But what we are seeing here is a coordinated effort across the spectrum to silence targeted people. This is not one site we are dealing with here. This is an oppression of ideas, political censorship. They the saw the damage done to Hillary Clinton on Facebook and twitter and pretended to not understand How she lost , when the news agency's had her winning by a land slide. Alt news sites.
That was key to the last election. This was no boating accident, its a shark!
That was key to the last election. This was no boating accident, its a shark!
Last edited:
It certainly is coordinated - I'm seeing websites I never heard of getting zapped by FAGS (Political Picture thread.) and Twatter. All conservative, liberty, 2A or firearms related.
I don't have a good reply because I have literally no idea what you are talking about.
Entity X owns item Y. If you wish to use Y, you will do so with the permission of entity X.
The worst possible thing I could imagine in such a case is "Entity X is forced to allow people ABCD... to use Y OR ELSE."
Where is the confusion?
The line is: If you own something, you control who uses it.
Still not seeing the confusion?
How does it get tricky?
Should a private entity not be allowed to change their rules as they please?
Curmudgeon
.308 Win
Well, they all have the same political affiliations, hang at the same swanky (yes I used that word) clubs, donate to the politicians sympathetic to their causes, and have a board of directors seeking to maximize profits while avoiding negative media attention ie lawsuits.
Sucks but it is what it is. You can't possibly think Republicans are somehow more open to political discourse; do you?
Curmudgeon
.308 Win
Same argument as the gay wedding cake. Freedom of association.
The thing that bums me out about that though is now, even when the courts DID rule that they did not have to bake to cake , people on the right STILL use this example.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Entity X Drives up to a kid in van Y and offers him free candy if he gets in for a ride. Kid gets in, van Y drives away, and the candy starts flowing. Van Y drives into Death Valley, the candy runs out, and the ride isn't free any more. Van Y is a private entity and can change the rules at will, and the kid can get out when ever he wants. No problem, right?
A lot of business have a significant portion of their marketing tied in to FAGS (an unwise decision, in my opinion) because they were promised free exchange of ideas, "Do No Evil", and a bunch of other idealistic stuff. A lot of individuals have begun getting their news from FAGS based on the same promises. Competing marketing opportunities and media (news) outlets have dried up and gone away because of the aggressive and misleading promises made by the FAGS. This is the same, if not worse, behavior that led to Teddy Roosevelt becoming the Trust Buster.
Correct.
Curmudgeon
.308 Win
Ridiculous and completely irrelevant attempt at an analogy. Murder and rape are already crimes and rightly so. Refusing to do business with people is completely different.
Not sure if that was ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
I might be both. Don't shortchange me!
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
This is true. It always has been true, Fox news vs CNN ,Briebart vs Mother jones.
What hasn't been true in the past is the fact that they have all taken such action at the same time , before the midterm elections. this is an attempt to influence elections . This is not about profit.
What if credit card and banks decide to do the same thing? Are you Ok with that? How about not serving blacks or Jews in restaurants?
Your seeing this as a simple matter of choice for a private company ,it is , but its a lot bigger than that .The democrats are desperate to regain control of the house or their fucked, Its a political movement , A dangerous one . One which goes against the principles of this country. If this was strictly a business move , I could agree with you , But its not. its a target specific, coordinated operation intended to influence the direction of this country . And possibly minimalize acts of treason by people in the government.
Im not rich enough to be a republican, They haven't impressed me much, but between the communists and them , I go with them.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Political repression is the persecution of an individual or group within society for political reasons, particularly for the purpose of restricting or preventing their ability to take part in the political life of a society thereby reducing their standing among their fellow citizens.[1][2]
Political repression is sometimes used synonymously with the term political discrimination (also known as politicism). It often is manifested through discriminatory policies, such as human rights violations, surveillance abuse, police brutality, imprisonment, involuntary settlement, stripping of citizen's rights, lustration and violent action or terror such as the murder, summary executions, torture, forced disappearance and other extrajudicial punishment of political activists, dissidents, or general population. [3] Political repression can also be reinforced by means outside of written policy, such as by public and private media ownership and by self-censorship within the public.
Where political repression is sanctioned and organised by the state, it may constitute state terrorism, genocide, politicide or crimes against humanity. Systemic and violent political repression is a typical feature of dictatorships, totalitarian states and similar regimes.[4] Acts of political repression may be carried out by secret police forces, army, paramilitary groups or death squads. Repressive activities have also been found within democratic contexts as well.[5][6] This can even include setting up situations where the death of the target of repression is the end result.[7]
If political repression is not carried out with the approval of the state, a section of government may still be responsible. An example is the FBI COINTELPRO operations in the United States between 1956 and 1971.[8][9]
In some states, "repression" can be an official term used in legislation or the names of government institutions. For example, the Soviet Union had a legal policy of repression of political opposition defined in the penal code and Cuba under Fulgencio Batista had a secret police agency officially named the "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities".
The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971.[12] COINTELPRO tactics are still used to this day, and have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination.[13][14][15][16] The FBI's stated motivation was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order.[sic.]"[17]
Beginning in 1969, leaders of the Black Panther Party were targeted by the COINTELPRO and "neutralized" by being murdered, assassinated, imprisoned, publicly humiliated or falsely charged with crimes. Some of the Black Panthers affected included Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Zayd Shakur, Geronimo Pratt, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Marshall Conway. The government was able to use their efforts by planting agents that were able to assist the government in facilitating such charges against them. Common tactics used by COINTELPRO were perjury, witness harassment, witness intimidation and withholding of evidence.[18][19][20]
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover issued directives governing COINTELPRO, ordering FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise Neutralize" the activities of these movements and especially their leaders.[21][22] Under Hoover, the agent in charge of COINTELPRO was William C. Sullivan.[23] Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy personally authorized some of the programs.[24] Although Kennedy only gave written approval for limited wiretapping of Martin Luther King's phones "on a trial basis, for a month or so",[25] Hoover extended the clearance so his men were "unshackled" to look for evidence in any areas of King's life they deemed worthy.[26]
Recently, documents show that the FBI still engages in COINTELPRO behavior by surveilling Black Lives Matter.[27][28]
Last edited:
The line is: If you own something, you control who uses it.
Still not seeing the confusion?
You have "no idea what [I'm] talking about"? Seriously???
It's not confusing, it's just not totally black and white in the case under discussion - it's not Bob's Gas Station refusing to give someone fuel for a bumper sticker; there are plenty more gas stations nearby. Not so with the internet - and you know it.
One last time, because arguing is a relatively a waste of time - the "core" of the internet is an "electronic public conveyance", whether it's for news, business, opinion or politics. or just bullshitting. It is not a "private enterprise" - nodes branching off may and can be private. Having control to the access of a public conveyance, and using that access control to block certain groups, is neither ethical nor justifiable.
It is about abuse of power by weaponized mega-corporation entities.
Fini.
Well, let's see:
You've discussed buses, death valley, vans, Microsoft, city streets, personal information...
Yeah, I'm lost.
No matter how you try and spin it, it's their service, their rules. No matter how big they are.
Curmudgeon
.308 Win
4 Responses inline in red above.
TLDR on the wikipedia stuff. Which btw is another shining example of a private enterprise censoring content to fit their arbitrary standards. Quoting them as a source for anything with validity confuses me.
We've had a few "discussions" over the years Darth.
You never give any evidence or analogous situations to illustrate your supposed points.
This is the last one. You do NOT discuss, nor offer evidence, nor pointed analogy, nor...frankly...fucking anything.
Or do you actually believe yourself so correct or so smart, all the time, that a simple incessant repeating of nothing but statements, with no evidence, ever, suffices to "prove" your position.
You're a hollow man, with an amorphous form, and no substance at all. Constant use of repetition and parroting back of another's points, without a scintilla of evidence for your own show: weakness, shallow thought if any at all, arrogance and, I will add, an attitude of a spoiled 3 year old.
Bye-bye.
If someone is dumb enough to fall for their crap, the liberals can have them.
Even a person of average intelligence can see through the bullshit.
If you get your news from Facebook, good luck in life and fuck off, we dont want you.
Screw the internet, I hope it breaks, I pray for a grid collapse.
Even a person of average intelligence can see through the bullshit.
If you get your news from Facebook, good luck in life and fuck off, we dont want you.
Screw the internet, I hope it breaks, I pray for a grid collapse.
Curmudgeon
.308 Win
@prambo
... "You're a hollow man, with an amorphous form, and no substance at all."
Woven like a beautiful tapestry. You win the webby for best ad-hominen 2018!
... "You're a hollow man, with an amorphous form, and no substance at all."
Woven like a beautiful tapestry. You win the webby for best ad-hominen 2018!
“you can read any book you want
as long as amazon carries it and allows you to buy it
and your bank allows you to use online transactions
and your ISP allows you to connect to the internet
and your postman doesn’t disappear the package in transit
and your electric company doesn’t turn off your lights in disapproval of it”
Nastaggio Gioia @Travis_Hawks via Gab
as long as amazon carries it and allows you to buy it
and your bank allows you to use online transactions
and your ISP allows you to connect to the internet
and your postman doesn’t disappear the package in transit
and your electric company doesn’t turn off your lights in disapproval of it”
Nastaggio Gioia @Travis_Hawks via Gab
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
No , your right, wiki's can be unreliable, It was the first definition I grabbed .It shouldn't be confusing though.
Simply outlying the definitions of the discussion so everyones on the same page. Ill let you grab a definition for : Political repression,and FBI COINTELPRO and see how much difference it makes in the discussion. Your trying to defeat the argument by discrediting the source. which is futile , they are pretty well defined and documented .
Maybe you have different definitions of political repression? But when you support this you are supporting political repression by default. This is third world politics.
Are you aware that operations like this are conducted by the US intelligence agencies against foreign powers? Are you aware that people in the US government have most likely committed treason against the US? In the state dept. the DOJ FBI and CIA? Do you think its a coincidence they are going after the people exposing them? Where will people hear about the crimes of Hillary Clinton? CNN? CNN is controlled news , that's why alternate sites have been peaking . why do you think the freedom of speech was the first amendment? Because its the most important virtue of freedom.
Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees, of the people; and if the cause, the interest, and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute other and better agents, attorneys and trustees.
- John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765)
The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.
the press serves and was designed to serve as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by governmental officials and as a constitutionally chosen means for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all the people whom they were selected to serve.
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.