the free speech big lie...

phoneutria · January 19, 2021, 3:48am

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

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…

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

I do believe that it’s incumbent on us to understand the absolutely fundamental role that these processes take. I know we are all here today because we all at least have an intimation of that, right? We know that there is something about free speech that is so central that we cannot allow attacks on it to go unchallenged no matter where they occur, but it’s very useful to have it articulated and to know that this is bedrock, that this is not something arbitrary, and this is not only a mere game that we’re playing in the West. It’s none of that, it’s the most fundamental truth that the human race has ever discovered, and we loose it at our absolute peril. It’s not death, it’s worse than that, because there are worse things than that, and the worse thing than death is hell, and we saw plenty of that in the 20th century. When we let freedom of speech go, that’s what we’re headed. And unless we want to go there, then we should stop aiming for it.

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).

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’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.

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

Magnus_Anderson · January 19, 2021, 4:05am

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.

Mr_Reasonable · January 19, 2021, 4:23am

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.

Magnus_Anderson · January 19, 2021, 5:07am

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.

obsrvr524 · January 19, 2021, 5:27am

I’d like to see that SCOTUS ruling people keep referencing. I doubt that any such case applies.

Magnus_Anderson · January 19, 2021, 5:36am

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.

obsrvr524 · January 19, 2021, 7:45am

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.

Magnus_Anderson · January 19, 2021, 8:17am

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”.

obsrvr524:

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.

And THAT is how you address the OP (:

Gloominary · January 19, 2021, 10:21am

Silhouette:

Just going to barge in on some points here:

Gloominary:

Don’t you find it odd big brother, big tech and MSM aren’t concerned about the far left, only the far right?
Why would big tech, and so many corporations, care about politics at all?
Why would they tend to side with the left against the right?

Politically the left currently has the “moral highground”, and authoritarians who call themselves leftists are trying to manipulate both business and government into bowing to their version of progression e.g. affirmative action etc.
Private business is simply responding to consumer demand, because they already have the support of the right. They want the business of both left and right.
MSM knows it can whip up the highest emotional response from these authoritarians and sell the most as a result. They want the business of both left and right.

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.

Silhouette:

Gloominary:

On its own, the corporation can’t legally restrict, detain and execute you, government can, all the corporation can do is refuse to serve you.

Yeah, all private business can do is refuse to serve you even your basic physiological needs, indirectly sentencing you to death if you can’t afford to pay enough to make them profit.
That way they’re in the clear because “obviously” it’s the fault of the individual who died, even if a company has more than enough means to have helped the casualty.
Government relies on taxation from private companies to afford to prob up such a person, and if they are starved of funds it’s their fault and rich private companies are completely off the hook.
People can die as a result of poorly funded workplace conditions, maybe a prison is privately run and detained people die there, maybe a private security company kills somebody, but then it’s all “oops, let’s try not to do that again”, it’s just one private company out of many, people will probably keep buying maybe even unawares, and the owners will just start anew under a different name if any brand name reputation is compromised. But if the government does it? Oh boy. Everyone knows exactly who to point their finger at, everything is political and out in the open, accountability is much higher, politician’s careers are ended, but it’s fine - they’ll just find another job in the private sector. There isn’t really much difference between the capacity to oppress here, except it’s indirect and hidden and the private level, and direct and out in the open at the public level. It’s good that government is so regulated, and it’s a good sign that we can see its malpractice. It’s bad that private companies are not nearly so regulated and it’s a bad sign that its malpractice is much less conspicuous.

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.

Silhouette:

Gloominary:

The populist right tends to be anti-war, libertarian and nationalist, the corporate state is pro-war, globalist and authoritarian.
The corporate state is opposed to some factions of the right, just as they’re opposed to some factions of the left, they opportunistically co-opt and exploit both left and right, they use what works for them, and discard what doesn’t.

I’d recommend asking the left just how anti-war they are. The fact that the alliance between private business and state is pro-war has nothing to do with the left. Supporters of war and soldiers are FAR more rightist than leftist. As far as they’re concerned they’re fighting the just fight against people who deserve it. You almost never get that same attitude amongst the left. So who is supporting the pro-war agenda here?

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.

Silhouette:

Gloominary:

Do you fear social media censoring the, whatever you want to call it, the alt, far or populist left at all?

Government shouldn’t be censoring anyone. If private companies are going to be public platforms, then free speech could apply only to the users without any “corporate personality” rights that make the company a legal person with free speech rights to override the free speech of their users. But the first amendment ends up protecting the company, enabling them to pick and choose its users to portray the image they want to portray, at the expense of the “undesirable” user speech that they don’t want shared. And then the government is blamed for failing to uphold the first amendment? What a joke. How about users use public forums however they choose, and gravitate to whichever ones they like the best? But that would restrict private business rights to the same degree as government… - how awful for the right.

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.

Gloominary · January 19, 2021, 1:07pm

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.

Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness, and race isn’t either.

On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful. Team Resentment is manned—pun very much intended—by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white “allies” do their dutiful part). These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.

Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” most Americans don’t fit into either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest—including a general aversion to PC culture.

The study was written by More in Common, an organization founded in memory of Jo Cox, the British MP who was murdered in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. It is based on a nationally representative poll with 8,000 respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups conducted from December 2017 to September 2018.

If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.

According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”

Most members of the “exhausted majority,” and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn’t, either.

Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. As one 40-year-old American Indian in Oklahoma said in his focus group, according to the report:

It seems like everyday you wake up something has changed … Do you say Jew? Or Jewish? Is it a black guy? African-American? … You are on your toes because you never know what to say. So political correctness in that sense is scary.

The one part of the standard narrative that the data partially affirm is that African Americans are most likely to support political correctness. But the difference between them and other groups is much smaller than generally supposed: Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. This means that they are only four percentage points less likely than whites, and only five percentage points less likely than the average, to believe that political correctness is a problem.

If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and education.

While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.

Political tribe—as defined by the authors—is an even better predictor of views on political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.

So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

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.

obsrvr524 · January 19, 2021, 1:30pm

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!”

Magnus Anderson:

obsrvr524:

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.

And THAT is how you address the OP (:

I was just waiting to see if anyone was interested.

Gloominary · January 19, 2021, 1:41pm

10 Corporations Receiving Massive Public Subsidies From Taxpayers

Google: $632,044,922

Besides Intel, Google is the top tech company that receives government subsidies, picking up more than $630 million from states like Oregon, North Carolina and a few others. What does a multi-billion dollar company that controls the majority of the world’s Internet need with more than $630 million in government subsidies, you ask? Well, you know, for things like property taxes and training reimbursements. What, do you all think that money just grows on trees?! Also, don’t even think about googling “Google government subsidies” because THEY WILL KNOW ABOUT IT.

Walt Disney: $381,525,727

In case anyone was wondering which media conglomerate receives the most government subsidies, look no further than the Magic Kingdom and Space Mountain. The Walt Disney Company is doing pretty well for itself, garnering more than $380 million in government subsidies since 1991 from states all across the country — from Disney Land in California to Disney World in Florida. Perhaps Mickey Mouse just makes one adorable lobbyist.

https://www.mic.com/articles/85101/10-corporations-receiving-massive-public-subsidies-from-taxpayers

And Google owns Youtube.

Again, government is not separate from your media and vice versa.

Your media doesn’t reflect you, it serves them, mainstream (social) media is mindcontrol.

obsrvr524 · January 19, 2021, 1:48pm

- And they say that the USA had no Ministry of Truth - Ha.

Just call anything by a different name and it is instantly innocent (or guilty) from being what it is.

“the free speech lie”.

Gloominary · January 19, 2021, 2:29pm

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.

MagsJ · January 19, 2021, 2:55pm

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.

obsrvr524 · January 19, 2021, 2:56pm

I don’t think you have to worry about that. Most if not all of those people will soon be disposed of.

Gloominary · January 19, 2021, 3:00pm

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:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-AKUNpcLRg[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhcgmwj3NAc[/youtube]

Which’s not to say their mainline conservative counterparts are any better, they’re the same shit.

Gloominary · January 19, 2021, 4:46pm

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

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.

obsrvr524 · January 19, 2021, 5:56pm

Gloominary:

Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

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.

I love observing those few with some perspective.
But I guess soon I will have to find another hobby.

iambiguous · January 19, 2021, 6:25pm

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:

1] Noting the distinction between a frame of mind that revolves around a “real me” in sync and a set of moral and political values that are said to encompass objectively “the right thing to do”, and “I” embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices…in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529 .

2] Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind, they are acknowledging that they were wrong about something in the is/ought world around them. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.

3] As a consequence, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular moral and political truth of theirs and given a set of circumstances we examine our respective moral and political philosophies.

4] Here, however, I’m less interested in simply articulating what we believe is true in the way of moral and political truths and more focused in how we would go about demonstrating to others that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.

Or, sure, your own approach.