Well I could requote him, but if you can’t see, you can’t see. So what am I supposed to do about it?
I rest my case.
I suspect rest could help you. - maybe - a little.
you got a problem with the word defense?
you know what that means, right?
particularly in the legal sense, since we are here talking about law
a defense is an argument supported by evidence, precedent, or statute
that’s what the OP is
in my words
a cut and dry defense of corporate censorship
i didn’t say that the OP is full of shit
the OP is correct in his defense
it still is what it is
OP writing several paragraphs
doing nothing else
other than to defend
corporate censorship
I hope what I just wrote above
helped you soothe your blinking eyes of disbelief
as to preference for or against anything
for those of us who weren’t born yesterday
I’m pretty sure that kropo is not talking about
a cake company’s right to refuse service to gays
or the toll truck driver who told the customer to call the city instead of him
when he saw the bernie sanders bumper sticker
(lol)
nor is kropo talking about (from my article)
Zoom’s decision to block a university online academic event
i mean does kropo have something against academia that I haven’t heard about?
does he have something against black and south african liberation movements?
against jewish voice for peace?
why would he be praising the constitutional right to corporate censorship?
why if I may ask
has the OP decided to describe this statute to us?
what may be the motive behind it
when as magnus pointed out
literally nobody disagrees with that fact?
a more recent event, perhaps?
also I want to get kropotkin and silhouette both on the record
saying that they’re cool with corporate censorship
after all it is a constitutional right according to the supreme court
unless the patron is black of course
oh yeah also
nice job ignoring the rest of my post
but don’t worry
i’m here to make sure you address it
well, either address it, or hear me talk about it forever
like kropo and that post in the marxism thread he never replied to
from months ago
(between you and me, I think he has no answer for it, shh)
in addition, silhouette
this is a clear case of my siding against hard line conservatives
aren’t you the one always asking me to demonstrate
the centerness of my position?
i am anti-monopoly
it is one of a very few scenarios in which it is my opinion regulation should exist
screenshot this shit and print it and hang it on your wall, bitches
natural monopolies
such as the road example i gave above
are one of the main reasons why in my opinion
anarchism as a political system would fail
you should be glad that i am taking this stance here
jeff bezos is evil for banning the entire country of iran!
down with amazon!!
let’s like
bang on some drums or something
and sleep at the park
that’ll show them
Why would I address this garbage?
“people who have no idea what is in the constitution, claim that
by twitter for example, banning IQ45 is unconstitutional…
they claim that the idea of free speech is protected by the first
amendment of the constitution… in other words, the first amendment
protects free speech on twitter… and it does not…”
Is this really a “debate”, that banning and censoring the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World, is in anyway remotely morally or legally acceptable?
There’s no point “debating” this with Communists, which is what you, pk, Silhouette, and this posse around here are. You are Communists, and you should accept this about yourselves.
The only reason this “debate” is being had, is because the China Communist Party literally bought the US Presidential seat for $1 billion dollars.
That’s the real reason and cause underneath this, that it is anyway remotely possible for a previously “liberal lefty” to justify the end of Free Speech, the 1st Amendment, in exchange for Fascism and Totalitarianism.
The fact that you and others already justified this in your heads, means the “Free World”, Western Civilization, is already undermined.
To violate the US Constitution this badly, is treasonous if you are a US Citizen, but I know that many of you promoting this are not US Citizens.
So you are foreign agents infiltrating and subverting the US Government. There is no US Government without the Bill of Rights.
Let me guess, Magnus Carlsen, you were born in Eastern Germany or that’s where your relatives are from?
Makes perfect sense.
If you pulled it out your ass, I’ll admit I’m actually mildly impressed 
…but for some minor details…:
A defense is indeed an argument supported by evidence, precedent or statute, but how is that any different from an allegation? Does it really capture its essence as specifically a defense, or could you have simply swapped the term for “allegation”, or indeed “description”? I somewhat suspect you could, no?
And given that a defense is against an allegation - what were those allegations? Were they allegations that corporate censorship was bad, or were they allegations that corporate censorship was illegal? The former would require that the defense take the form of a moral argument to defend that corporate censorship was good, which he did not do. If the latter then I would nearly let you off the hook… because he indeed “defended” truthfully that corporate censorship is perfectly legal, as we both agree. Except the latter is not the nature of your allegations - which are (to paraphrase) “both kropotkin and silhouette are cool with corporate censorship”. You reveal yourself here as actually using the term “defense” as against an allegation that corporate censorship is bad. Yet you just attempted to pass this off as the use of “defense” against an allegation that corporate censorship is illegal…
So whilst you’re pretty good, it takes a little more to best me I’m afraid.
But I’ll still give you “mildly impressed” over “disappointed that you’re trying to worm out of this one a little” on the grounds that the quality of your argument is a breath of fresh air across this otherwise stagnant pond of obsrvr trying to pass off the insistence that the proof of his case is “there” even if he is unable to quote it, and that it is simply “me” who cannot see it 
So sad - I even want to help him as I keep saying, but he just won’t accept.
And we agree in both not saying that the OP is not full of shit!
And likewise we are both against monopoly… - indeed if you read the 2nd post of this very thread you will discover that in my leftism I support “free speech applying to private business” - by which, to clarify, I refer to First Amendment constraints not just applying to government, but to private business as well. That is to say that the government itself does not qualify as a “person” to whom the first amendment applies - such that anything “reflected by them” may be moderated by them to fit their intended and preferred image (which is of course inevitably mass censorship upon the people). For some curious reason this is obvious for government… but not private businesses? They do qualify as “persons” to whom the first amendment applies… thus they are allowed to moderate that which is spoken through their medium to fit their intended and preferred image (in order to attempt to receive maximum revenue).
So due to the above, regretably you may not get your wish. As I was trying to say pretty much the exact opposite to what you want me on record for saying…
By all means, do make sure.
I think I remember he did fail to respond to something you said, though I also seem to remember he wasn’t the only one… all for good reason I’m sure. To that end, I am shtum along with you.
I admit it’s difficult to get straight what conservatives really want here - on one hand they want free speech constraints to apply to private business and on the other hand they want as much freedom for private business as possible. So which way is against hard line conservative? Right now I’m as confused by their hypocrisy as they are about their own position 
I’m actually in the midst of my own dilemma when it comes to Anarchism, which although I am saying this publically I say it only to you and very few others - due to the problem of the apparent social need for ideology (in the Hegelian sense of course - like a kind of psychological need at the group level to explain away human flaws in order to continue functioning as if all is good and just), I don’t see how leaderlessness can effectively develop a collective subconscious narrative so as to allow this, such as Capitalism currently enjoys. I know we need anarchy in the sense that we cannot surrender our individuality to the impending human-technological-integration that has already begun… I really wish it were as easy as banging on drums and sleeping in the park…
We all have this problem at our doorstep.
Is that an exact figure, or did you stare into a zooming-in camera with your little finger aside your lips as you said this?
Well… yeah. Pretty much. Not that you have any idea what that means, or about the different ways in which this both applies and doesn’t to each of us…
In the way that you “think” it means, no we’re not.
nope i did not pull anything out of my lovely bottom
i’ve been so far reasonably precise
an allegation is simply an affirmation without presence of proof
a defense is a support of an allegation (proof)
an accusation is a criticism of an allegation (proof of contrary)
yes
description, yes (description of proof)
allegation no
this is a good analysis
and it serves to demonstrate exactly
the purpose and nature of my involvement in this thread
that corporate censorship is legal is not debatable
(though the OP is fishing for someone to say that it is)
it’s a fact solidified by supreme court ruling
there is no conversation to be had in this direction
my involvement is
given the facts as they have been presented
people are being silenced
there is an open attack on free speech going on
so are we just going to defend the position
that this is an unalienable right of businesses?
i just felt like that OP was awfully dry about the subject
could have use a little sumpthin sumpthin at the bottom
saying like
“btw I think that this is bad”
evidently my concern is moral
particularly, given the tone of the OP
which reads like
there’s no whining about it
suck on it
you uneducated plebs
it’s right there on the constitution
kind of weird actually
given kropo’s anti corp historic
to be rubbing that in with such gusto, no?
that was my own moment blinking in disbelief
like…
you’re going to defend that, rather than accuse it?
cuz that’d be hypocritical as hell I would think
if you read just the OP
that is the impression you get
i’m not trying to best you
it’s obvious that you misunderstood me
dang obsrvr dude
you made some enemies yere
i see what he meant though
i will try to explain
using the same terminology i used
perhaps imagining this is a court
given the allegation exists that corporations can do whatever they want
one can argue for that or against that
with the goal of convincing a jury
if I was in defense of that allegation, obviously I would cite the constitution and the supreme court precedent
if I was accusing it, I’d list the ways in which i find that position to be immoral and problematic
kropo took a side in his OP, quite clearly
he may not believe it
but he did the work
much like a lawyer might not believe his client is innocent
and yet he must present only what will favor the point he is making to the jury
so i’m here just to get that clear
i’d like to hear a repudiation of censorship of any kind
on moral grounds
individual liberty must not be infringed
and a monopoly on any service
in which arbitrary decisions are made
to deny service based on what one SPEAKS
implies a grave danger to freedom of speech
and in the words of JBP, in the video I posted
corporate personhood is bullshit imo
good
can i get you on record saying
you’d like trump to be allowed back on twitter
because that would be amusing
the hypocrisy is coming from both sides
as I’ve mentioned several times already
everybody wants to eat the cake and have the cake
whatever the dumb phrase is
to me it is not so complicated
the same way citizenship implies the maximum freedom to each citizen
and the limit of one’s freedom is the start of another’s
likewise business should have as much freedom as possible
without limiting the freedoms of another
particularly when there is a natural monopoly
such as is the case with infrastructure
artificial monopolies ought to be downright banned
i don’t think that leaderlessness is at all possible
rather, decentralization of leadership is a more attainable goal
to have many many leaders with very little power
is preferable to having very few leaders with all the power
Who said you have to?
Whenever there is a disagreement, there’s an option to resolve it through debate. So yes, this is potentially a debate. And it is specifically a potential debate about whether or not censoring Trump is unconstitutional or not. (It has less to do with what is right versus what is wrong to do.)
Noone asked you to justify yourself. Stop being a drama llama.
magnus since u r being mean to urwrong i guess u r alright now im gonna take ur dumb quote outta my sig. us commies gotta stick together. also ive been told im a commie now because i dont like trump. it is what it is man i guess if u dont like trump then u r a commie now. crazy world.
Urwrong is using the word “commie” in a very specific sense, and in that specific sense, I am not really a commie (and I am certainly not pro-Biden, pro-China and pro-globalism.) But he thinks I am.
And the reason he responded the way he did, I believe, is because he misinterpreted my post. He thought I was accusing him of being unable to address the OP. In reality, I was merely stating that I would love to see someone address the OP. And him being one of the people who disagree with the OP, I thought I should ask him to do so.
I’d like to see that SCOTUS ruling people keep referencing. I doubt that any such case applies.
I think what phoneutria said (and what Silhouette disputed) is that PK thinks that it is a good thing for companies to censor speech. That’s different from saying that PK said that it is legal for companies to censor speech.
Peter NEVER said that corporate censorship is okay and he actually said the very opposite in his second post in this thread.
Here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 7#p2801049
And that’s why I asked one of you to address the OP (:
That’s really the subject of this thread – not whether or not corporate censorship is a good thing.
This is what I was responding to -
Sil is blatantly wrong there. He wasn’t talking about good or bad. He said the OP had “nothing at all” to do with defending corporations. In fact that is exactly and only what it was doing - “The Constitution permits them to do whatever they want”.
If that isn’t a defense, I certainly don’t know what is.
In cases of limiting free speech SCOTUS has to rule on the intent of the First Amendment.
There are many laws limiting free speech such as “hate speech”, defamation, death threats, and others. But in every case it is up to SCOTUS to decide whether that limit is within the US Constitution’s intent. Sometimes it will rule one way - sometimes another. It is NOT “clearly allowed” - it is perhaps allowed at best.
The intent of the US Constitution is clearly to allow as much freedom of speech as possible especially relating to political issues - to prevent exactly what has happened.
And I think this is a very clear case of “overreach” that SCOTUS would strike down - “too much freedom to control the speech of others” - the opposite of the intent of the Constitution. Businesses are not free to trample on the civil or political rights of others - and that means they are not allowed to seriously obstruct communication (there are even federal laws concerning that). That is why I asked to see that “ruling” they keep suggesting exists.
I don’t think Sen Ted Cruz would have any problem presenting a clear case of UN-constitutionality.
I do think Silhouette was talking about what is good and what is bad.
This is how it started:
She was talking about what is better versus what is worse. She wasn’t talking about what is legal versus what is illegal.
Silhouette simply took it from there.
Notice that he says “arguing in favor” rather than “arguing that it is illegal”.
phoneutria then responded by talking about how wrong (rather than how illegal) it is for companies to censor speech.
And then Silhouette responded by making it super-clear:
“Pure description of facts” and “no implication of preference for or against anything”.
And THAT is how you address the OP (:
I don’t see it that way.
I don’t separate big brother from the megacorporations, they’re largely two wings of the same beast.
Just as government engages in political propaganda, so too do the megacorps.
Their propaganda looks similar, because their interests are similar, they’re in bed together.
By and large they try to shape public opinion to better suit them, they don’t passively reflect it.
Most people hate political correctness, but the megacorps keep pushing it, often to their detriment financially, but they don’t care, they’re being subsidized by government, supported by the political and financial establishment.
They have an agenda, and part of that agenda is globalism and cultural progressivism.
If a megacorp refuses to serve you, or their service is poor, you can go to another megacorp, or a small business, but if government comes after you, where’re you going to go?
Government is ubiquitous.
You can try fleeing the country, but you may not be successful.
In a truly capitalist economy, there’d be far fewer megacorps and more small-medium businesses, there’d be more options, and the options would be more meaningful.
People should vote for real capitalists, like Maxime Bernier in Canada or Rand Paul in the states, not corporatists and monetarists.
That being said, I’m not against socialism, I think a mixed economy is best, when done right.
I just don’t want to see liberty get conflated with corporatism and monopoly, they’re not the same thing.
I’m against corporatism and monetarism.
I’d recommend asking libertarians and paleoconservatives stateside how prowar they are, they’re not prowar.
I’m not defending neoconservatives, I’m defending libertarians and paleoconservatives.
A lot of people who identify as left, and right, are prowar.
They may not be the true left for you, likewise for me neocons aren’t the true, or rather the good faction of the right.
I’m encouraging people to turn their backs on both the mainstream right and left for both tend to be prowar and oligopoly, among other things I don’t like.
Yea, the problem is corporatism, that government subsidizes politically correct tech over politically incorrect tech, government should ditch political correctness and subsidize tech evenly, based solely on how efficient the tech is, or on how much it upholds free speech, or it should stop subsidizing tech altogether.
People hate political correctness, so why’re mainstream and social media promoting it?
Because they’re an oligopoly, they don’t give a fuck what you think, they don’t have to give a fuck what you think, government serves them, and in turn they serve government.
It’s propaganda, you don’t control what the corporatocracy thinks, they control what you think, or at least they try.
And they’ve decided it’s in your, or rather their best interests for you to think this way.
Really fascinating stuff.
So most people, including most liberals, nonwhites and youth, think political correctness has gone way too far.
It’s the very richest, most educated and whitest among us who’re shoving PC culture down our throats.
Now why would they be doing that, is it because they care the most?
Ha!
It’s called diversify, divide and conquer.
We don’t have a capitalist socioeconomy, we have a woke, progressive fascist socioeconomy, and until most people get that through their thick skulls, and do something about it, nothing will ever change.