I understand how it started and I didn’t comment on anything concerning the good v bad issue. But when phoneutria said that she saw “nothing but defense of the corporations”, she saw correctly. And I imagine she meant that because the OP did not add the caveat - “…but I don’t think it was a good thing to do”, the OP was accepting it as a good enough thing to do. Ambiguity reigns supreme around here so people never really know what other people mean by what they say (I certainly don’t know why that would cause any confusion).
I stepped in when Sil made the blatantly false statement that there was "absolutely nothing - nothing at all " said in defense of corporations against phon’s blatantly true statement that she saw nothing else. He didn’t say there was nothing in defense of them being good. He stated and emphasized - “nothing at all” in their defense.
But we are talking about Silhouette here who quite often argues apples in a discussion about oranges so you might be right in his intent. We will never know from here forward because - - - because it is Silhouette.
It reminds me of the defense - “just because I told a lie doesn’t mean that I lied.” Or “just because I spread lies as far and wide as I can doesn’t mean that I am lying.” - the MSM defense - “plausible deniability” - “you can’t prove that I knew it was a lie so I didn’t lie - not my fault. But don’t YOU ever do it or else!”
It is the same as the “I don’t see the evidence and until I hear what I like, I’m not going to open my eyes.” - the Atheist defense.
With Sil it seems more like “I know what I said but read my mind Stupid! What is wrong with you! I can’t believe how dumb you are! We highly intelligent people know better! Stop being so childishly ignorant!”
I was just waiting to see if anyone was interested.
It’s time for the people to abandon the libcon/republicrat establishment en masse, in droves.
Most people are antiwar.
Most people are fiscally libertarian or moderately socialist, not corporatist.
Most people are culturally libertarian or moderately conservative, not progressive.
The establishment is prowar, corporatist and progressive.
The establishment does not reflect our values, they do not serve our interests, they serve their own.
Since leaving the EU, the UK has become a less-divisive Nation, so also a case of watching which socio-political bed-fellows you lay with. We can’t now be deemed racist, because talk of immigration numbers and border control are off the proverbial debating-table and back in our hands.
_ Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST
Post by MagsJ » Tue 19 Jan, 2021 5:21
The global data-wars have begun… who can own/have access to what data… who’s moving their entire data stores where… which platforms are looking to be banned in which countries.
Fucking disgusting.
Ultra rich, educated whites, and Jews think they know nonwhites better than they know themselves.
Most nonwhites want to hear about the latest PC shit even less than we do.
These’re the same ultra rich, educated whites who pay Jorje a dollar an hour to mow their lawn.
The same liberal elite who practice slave labor in the 3rd world.
Who let China buy up much of our housing and land.
Who engage in drug and human trafficking.
Ultra rich, educated whites like this:
So, in light of that, who are these Antifa/BLM fucks who went around, terrorizing poor, racially diverse neighborhoods over the summer and fall, really?
Why they’re upperclass white and Jewish fucks from gated, all white and Jewish communities.
No wonder they were so eager to burn down poor neighborhoods, eh?
And no wonder government and mainstream (social) media gave them so much support, along with the banksters and megacorps who donated millions to BLM.
That wasn’t what it appeared to be, a spontaneous uprising of the people, it was 100% staged by the overclass and some of their useful idiots against the people.
We are at war with the 1%, not each and every one of them, but as a whole, especially the banksters, globalists and multinationals within that 1%.
They pose as our allies, they have to, in modernity, elitism has to wear a façade, ideologically, a blue or red face, racially and sexually, a brown or female face, of course it’s not going to tell you what it is.
Divide and conquer, that’s the name of the game, controlled opposition, deflection, duopoly, oligopoly, good cop/bad cop.
On the other hand, let’s not forget this reminder from him:
Which is why in regard to either the truths or the lies about free speech, I invite others [objectivists or not] to explore their own conclusions, given the following approach:
This is happening right now, and in America too… will the Anglo Nations all follow suit and ban data-harvesting foreign social platforms en masse, or will it be on an individual-country case-by-case basis… will the Western masses migrate to the newer mobile and web/messaging and SM platforms.
The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, is not up for debate.
Americans have the Freedom of Speech for very specific reasons. And yes it is based on Morality along with Lawfare. These minor suggestions and attempts to premise private Corporations as above the law, are invalid and amateur. A private corporation does not have a “right” to ban or censor political speech when they host a public platform. If your platform is intended to be private, and explicitly host one particular group, then so be it. But that is not Twitter. And it is not other Social Media.
What everybody is seeing contemporarily is the intentional undoing of Free Speech. You have your reasons to push forward Totalitarian ideology and politics. The Communist crew on this forum, PK, lamb, silhouette, smears, Promethean, Sculptor, etc. believe that it ultimately will benefit you to silence, censor, and ban political opposition. But that’s not how USA works, or will work. And if you Communists have your way, destroy the US Constitution, then all bets are off. And you will be silenced when your turn comes.
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are the largest hubs of social communication on the internet so that’s why censorship has been enforced to greater magnitude so that political dissent can’t spread towards the places of the internet that has the highest number of people private companies or not. Political dissenters have tried creating their own independent internet platforms or social media of course as alternatives but big tech companies in conjunction with governments everywhere have been seizing them and shutting them down as well. [Because they don’t want them to have internet refuge or sanctuary anywhere.]
It’s quite simple, free speech for me not for thee. Free speech for Marxists and liberals, not for conservatives, political outcasts, or anybody that has a perspective outside the mainstream.
Peter Kropotkin here is too inept to see all of that obviously and it shows.
Ah yes, accusation was the word I was looking for, but at least that didn’t matter for my point, which you got. Thanks.
A couple of interesting things here - one: that you acknowledge “that corporate censorship is legal is not debatable” and that the “OP was awfully dry about the subject”. Two: that you think it "could have use a little sumpthin sumpthin at the bottom saying like ‘btw I think that this is bad’ ". To this end, would it be fair to say you read into the dry non-debtable words to inject what you wanted to hear from the thread - which is objection to “the position that an open attack on free speech is an unalienable right of businesses”? You already have knowledge of “kropo’s anti corp histor(y)”, and you already know you have disagreements with what you understand to be his position, so you have everything you need to perform this “reading-into his words”.
I’m being unmercifully literal and pedantic here, and I agree that it’s a pressing and interesting topic to have an opinion about and that peoples’ opinions on this topic are very important, but I make the point I do because I think productive discussion on such important matters can only really occur if we don’t read into the words of others and make assumptions. It cannot be determined from the OP alone what his stance is on this issue, but fortunately in his very next post he said “should we hold big business to free speech? yes, I believe so…” So you actually not only read opinion into the facts of the OP, but you also incorrectly assumed his opinion, and also missed him clarifying his opinion. I expected obsrvr to do this, because that’s all he does, like a kind of more-measured version of urwrongx1000, but my “blinking eyes of disbelief” were towards you doing it. That’s why I couldn’t be too impressed by your attempted soothing thereof with your clarifications around the term “defense” They were good but muddied the distinction in your favour, so that’s why I felt like you were trying to “best me” - I guess you could say I was put on the defensive :-"
PK quite clearly has a side, and in light of what I said above, he did not take one in the OP. From my own speculation on his intentions, if you’ll allow me to do the same as you, he was responding to urwrongx1000 wasting 14 pages protesting that the First Amendment was violated when a private company used its free speech to censor the kind of user speech it didn’t want to spoken through it as a company. For some reason PK seemed to decide to make his own thread clarifying the frustrating stupidity of another thread, and I support any factual clarification to dissuade frustrating stupidity. I agree with any possible agenda to highlight that while frustrating stupidity has a right to be spoken, it has no right to be listened to, responded to, or respected, and there is every right to speak to correct it. But there was nothing “within” the OP about this - it may only be inferred “around” it. I believe PK presented only what in this case favours the truth, hence the dry, non-opinionated content of his literal wording.
As to your now explicit intentions, I agree with you that censorship must not infringe on individual liberty. However, I do qualify this agreement within the bounds of libel laws. Defamation destroys lives based on lies, often even if the defendent is found not guilty. That’s what all the oppressive tactics of authoritarians attempt to achieve, whether through doxing, canceling or whatever - to lead to the harm or silencing of somebody through indirect means. I figure that’s why the First Amendment specifies “peacably” albeit only in reference to assembling. Banding together to use any means to violate free speech = not okay in my book.
Banding together can also be achieved in the business world to create effective monopolies. I absolutely oppose this. I oppose the fact that this is what capitalist success looks like: a domination of the market. It is towards my agreement with you against monopoly that I condone interference in the business world. Note that this hardly applies to small businesses that are not set up to violate what the First Amendment refers to as the “common good”. But the more that businesses succeed, the more they enjoy the tendency towards monopoly such that their alignment in decision-making is more effective in shutting down others. It CANNOT be simply be generalised that “business should have as much freedom as possible” in practice. You claim the following:
If you really meant this, you would not support “business should have as much freedom as possible”.
I agree with you that maximum leaders with very little power is the goal. That’s why I support Communism to the degree that it is intended to be the maximum devolution of power to the people. In practice, it’s more efficient to delegate leadership to capable leaders and likewise their orders to those capable at carrying them out, and Marx’s Historical Materialism describes this very process of power devolution to more and more agents. That is to say that after monarchs devolve their power to feudal lords, and they in turn devolve their power to capitalists, capitalists too must devolve their power to workers - all towards the cause that you support. And not incidentally, this is the only way we escape the authoritarian dystopia of being directly integrated into our advancing technological developments and thus made into either direct slaves of either private or public power (probably both). At this point it doesn’t matter who is more in power, it matters only that the hierarchy is too tall and too immobile. The ideal is to have as fluid leadership as possible, with power differential minimal, and transparency and participation maximised. Welcome to the left wing.
“Like” is a strong word, phon
But yes, he ought to be as free to speak his clear stupidity as much as he wants, with no private or governmental body silencing him.
How you wish to marry this with “business should have as much freedom as possible” is beyond me. “Businesses having as much freedom as possible” just means they’ll act on the “corporate personhood” that you say you think is bullshit, though their conjunction amounts to consistency with Social Media platforms etc. censoring their users if that’s not the private business image they want to speak via their platform. You say “there’s hypocrisy on both sides”, and this is yours.
as I have only been able to see this thread in bits and pieces as I have worked
over the last few days…
my initial op was to point out what is and what is, is that the first amendment is
engaged in preventing the GOVERNMENT from passing laws preventing free speech…
that is point 1. point 2. at this point, it is not relevant if I agree or disagree,
the entire point of the 1st amendment is to prevent the GOVERNMENT from
stopping free speech… the 1st amendment doesn’t engage with the private acts
of individual or of business/corporations… which is a second discussion…
does the 1st amendment have any business in the free speech of private
individual in regards to corporations…at my shitty job, I cannot make
any discussion of anything political, religions or socially…I could potentially fired
from my job if I engage in any such talk…my right to free speech is extremely
limited in my job… anyone here care to defend the corporation which denies me
my freed speech?
I know of people who have been fired from their jobs for trashing work on social
media… that is a free speech issue… was the company right to fire anyone who
engages in such talk on social media? hence my reluctance to name where I work
on this site… it is a shitty job, but it is a job I need to have health care and other
benefits…
as for my own personal views, I believe that corporations, and I have worked
in plenty of them, hold all the cards in regards to their conduct to the workers…
I belong to a union and I have limited rights to engage with the corporation…
I can fired for stealing and insubordination and I can be fired for “work” issues…
in other words, the company tries turn everything into a job performance issue
and I can get fired… which they do…right now the company is trying to make us scan
all produce and we get rated on how much produce we scan via bar codes…
whereas I have been there long enough to know all the codes for produce, so I
don’t scan it, I simply input the code… Bananas are 4011 and organic bananas are
94011… it is easier to input them then try to scan it…so my “ratings” are very low
and I am “talked” too every single day, multiple times a day about scanning produce…
it has become a “job performance issue” and thus they are laying the groundwork
to fire me… as if I give shit… I won’t do anything until they write me up and
then maybe I’ll pay attention…anyway back at the ranch…
I have very few rights in regards to the company… very few…
and the company has made it clear for over the length of time I have worked there,
over 13 years, that they don’t give a shit about me…
but I cannot make my feelings known because that becomes insubordination and
a fireable offence…I am silenced… what about my rights to free speech against
the corporation? none… I have no rights…where is the hue and cry about my lack of
free speech?
should companies have this sort of power? I don’t think so… but any discussion of
free speech much include all aspects of being silenced at the workplace, not just
face book or twitter… can the corporation silence people, on social media or at work?
the problem I see with this thread is the mixing and maxing of questions
and answers… we have one question, should social media practice censorship?
we have a second question, should the the 1st amemdment
be tweaked to include business/corporations? should I be allowed under
the 1st amendment to say what I actually want to say about my place of hell/work?
how far are we going to carry out the 1st amendment?
I am of the school of being pretty far… outside of yelling fire in a crowded
theater, I am pretty good with free speech… being free…
so how far should we go with free speech or going the other way, limiting it
in practically every way…what are the limits of free speech? How far do we let
free speech go both, privately and publicly?
these last few months have certainly been an education in the dangers of
the dangers of free speech as practiced by the EX-PRESIDENT… IQ45…
one of many, many questions facing us as Americans…
Magnus, bro, ur a saint. This obsrvr character really needs all the help he can get to learn to think clearly. At the moment it’s far too erratic, presumptuous and subject to confirmation bias. He could be helped if only he accepted our suggestions - and we can all plainly see that you’re more patient with his type than I am these days. It’s entirely regretable that he’d rather resign from “observing those few with some perspective” than question himself to the degree that could make him into a legitimate thinker. As he loves to say, he’s only willing to see challenge as coming from “colourblind dogs to whom he is trying to explain colour” who are “trapped in their bubble of belief” when the first step towards becoming a thinker is to consider that such things apply to the self - and only then to truly press this hypothesis mercilessly upon oneself to absolutely break down any biases and insufficiently grounded reasoning - and neutrally see what comes out at the other end. Obviously running away is emotionally easier, but as usual the harder road is more rewarding. I like to think he has potential, if only his need to assert himself as an authority didn’t get in the way.
You are absolutely allowed to be dumb, unsure, ignorant etc. just do not try to pass yourself off as certain and that clear evidence to the contrary is “blatantly false” all the goddamn time. It’s fucking exhausting. I don’t care if you’re not the most intelligent person in the world, just stop with the attitude, the persona, the arrogance. That’s literally the only objection and you’re not fooling anyone, and the worst victim in this scenario is yourself, even if you are subconsciously scared about what would happen if you assumed some humility. I won’t berate you for it, in fact I will support you and even respect you for dropping the front. If you were paying attention, you’d see I treat the humble with the utmost patience, joy and gratitude. Latest case in point: Fanman. You too could have an enjoyable and constructive debate with me (and others), if that was actually what you wanted.
If you mistake them as apples then ask neutrally without assuming or implication. Step 2 is to make a genuine and non-prejudicial attempt to understand my explanation of exactly why I bring them up in reference to oranges. It’d be nice if that succeeded, but if it doesn’t, do NOT assume they’re obviously wrong and proclaim unequivocally that they’re irrelevant just because you don’t get them. I can assure you they are always relevant in particularly important ways. If you disagree, let’s chat like normal people about it without brazenly going off according to what you mistake as supporting some political agenda. You do it a disservice whenever you do, whether your intentions are otherwise or not.
For example:
This is not representative of many atheists, and it is equally representative of non-atheists of any kind. No essence of specifically atheism is captured here.
It is a claim of fact, presenting as authority, clearly biased and clearly inflammatory. You will get nowhere if you continue like this. If your only solution is bow out, then you fail only yourself. You could do better, and yet again I reach out my hand to you with nothing but clarity as to my objections to not you, but to your assumed approach only. Change it and change your life (and not just in this stupid forum, but as a whole).
