This bullshit was peddled and popularized by the only person you come in here to run your fucking mouth in support of, so you can fuck right off, you piss-drinking hypocrite.

The term pre-dates Trump’s misuse of it. No amount of couch-fainting can change that.

These private services have been pressured by governments to regulate speech. The Network Enforcement Act out of Germany is one such example. The EU puts much pressure on these companies, as the following article shows.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/technology/facebook-europe.html

In other words, state-enforced truth.

This war against such canards as “fake news”, “misinformation”, or in China’s case, “rumors”, has not only affected right-wingers, but also the left as well.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/26/intv-n26.html

Educate. How is my question stupid?

These are tech companies, not publishers.

Free speech has never encompassed the right to say whatever you wish at my dinner table, nor does it include the right to speak with impunity.

But only because you do not believe in free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want at my dinner table, however, and to do so with impunity. Free speech, the principle and the desire for it, does not disappear with the fact of censorship.

The decentralization of information is undoubtedly a recent affair unlike anything we have seen before. I am of the mind that this is a good thing because it leads to more freedom to express oneself, and as a corollary, to seek and receive information.

I think it was Jaspers who made the point that free speech leads to the distortion of truth, but it also allows for its correction. Censorship leads to both the distortion of truth and its suppression.

Tough shit.

"Specious reasons" means exactly nothing coming from someone who believes the election was stolen.

I never said I believe the election was stolen. But you should be embarrassed that you need Silicon Valley soy-boys to curate information for you.

I think you're right in regards to Weimar. There is an eerie similarity between the treatment of those involved in the protest and those involved in the Reichstag fire. It makes me wonder if Democrats and their GOP enablers are using the "insurrection" conspiracy theory as a pretext to remove civil liberties, particularly against their political opponents.

Now Trump has been censored on all social media platforms for arbitrary and dubious reasons such as "incitement to violence", even though he has for years condemned violence and vandalism, including those who rioted in his name. He's probably going to be impeached for the same dubious reasons.

Anti-Trump lackey’s would not be limited to the left-wing. There are plenty on the right as well. Odd bedfellows. But thanks for the video.

I know you would. You’re a censor. And yes, you can censor me in a variety of ways.

These are tech companies, not publishers, Tim. Your question is a stupid one.

How under right do you make someone else publish your words? A free press includes the freedom to publish and the freedom not to publish. And no one is censoring these people; they can say and publish themselves what they like.

People are being censored by giant monopolies for specious reasons, and oddly enough, some of these monopolies have former executives and lobbyists within the opposing party. Of course people can go elsewhere, but “elsewhere” is becoming increasingly narrow. Parler, a competitor, was denied services for the same specious reasons.

Of course it’s their right. That doesn’t mean it is right. In fact it’s wrong. Yes, I have massive complaints about this and most censorship.

All the anti-Trump lackeys are cheering it on.

It only took a year and a half for Big Tech to move from banning Alex Jones to banning the president of the United States. This development should be concerning for those who are adult enough to curate their own information. At any rate, I'll never doubt the slippery slope again.

During that time Biden threatened Facebook with repealing section 230 on the basis that they are "propagating falsehoods they know to be false", much of which turned out to reflect badly him. So it's no wonder that, after all their censorship, Facebook insiders, lobbyists, and former executives began appearing in the Biden transition team. The rest of Big Tech, including some of Washington's biggest lobbyists, immediately cued in. I guess we now know that any bipartisan efforts to break up Big Tech are DOA, anyway. Who would evoke the Sherman act against their own monopoly?

That's just the digital coup, but it will dovetail into the real one, which is the Democrat's new pressing efforts to erase Trump's presidency and to bar outright his political resurgence. I assume we'll observe all feats of rhetorical magic as they elevate an arbitrary violation of a Twitter policy to the level of high crime and misdemeanor.

No, I do not think racism went away, or else I would not be against identity politics. Believe it or not, I think the descendants of slaves are deserving of some form of reparations. But you cannot do that with identity politics, when you believe all people who have dark skin are deserving of the same. Not only is it racist to think that way, it’s unjust.

They certainly were being discriminated against, and this discrimination was compelled by racist superstition. So I see no benefit in carrying this same racist superstition into the future, especially after the hard-fought battles against it.

No, I limit injustice to individual cases of injustice, which doesn’t involve any reference to a racist hierarchy within Maw’s mental apartheid.

I’m not racist enough to limit justice to this or that racial group.

President/executive branch dog-whistling to known fanatic followers to march on the legislative branch..

If you can't tell the difference between that an other type of protest/riots, then you are indeed the trolliest of trollers.

You’re shown so-called dog-whistles while his talk of peaceful protest is omitted, then you carry on in faith.

Besides the identity politics I had no problem with the anti-police protests, many of which were justified, many of which were not. My problem was with the riots, especially wherever they were directed towards the innocent. The arson, looting, and violence towards fellow citizens and their property is obscene to me. 25 Americans lost their lives and there was over a $1 billion in damage, all of which the tax-payer must pay for. It is possible that many cities will not be able to recover. So much for justice.

The simplest explanation for the disparity between the police response to BLM protests and the Trump protest is that the anti-police protests have long proven to get violent and lead to riot, whereas Trump protests have not. There is nothing wrong with being prepared. The attempt by the DNC and the gutter press to mix race into it is specious at best. After the Trump protest in Washington the disparity will completely reverse.

But the most obvious disparity is in the cultural response. Trump has already been banned from social media for “incitement to violence” whereas BLM, its leaders, its countless enablers have not. In fact, they received corporate donations in the countless of millions, and support from virtue signallers world wide. (We cannot know whether companies like Apple donate because they believe in the cause or because they didn’t want their apple stores looted). The one Trumpist riot is panned as violent rebellion while a wide variety of euphemism is used to explain away the hundreds of BLM riots.

I just don’t get it.

It’s a nice mix, I think. Besides, everyone is conservative about what they think they know.

I spent the evening glued to the news and was disappointed with the reactionary response to the protest, which not only condemned the violence, but also the spirit. All that hogwash about an assault on “the citadel of liberty” and "democracy" was laughable, especially given that for the last 4 years we’ve been taught that violent protest was the surest expression of the voiceless. Perhaps if the Trumpers burned down innocent people’s businesses and looted Target the politico-media class would paint a different picture.

For once it was aimed at the guilty. Seeing the picture of lawmakers cowering behind their benches and their armed guards reminded me that these are the people that send young men and women to war. (“Lawmaker” is a specious term. They do not write our laws—hell they don’t even read them—they just sign whatever lands at their desk, more evidence that this “citadel of liberty” is a citadel of incompetence and corruption). And until now, our lawmakers have been mostly insulated from the pestilence they’ve let loose upon the country.

I don't believe you to be someone who posts in good faith, I wouldn't believe your answer. But I will leave you to it from here.

Likewise. But thanks for sparing me the hostility.

I'm not sure what your motives or intentions are.

I suppose you could always ask. But thanks for the advice.

Like you said, lowest hanging fruit.

Literally the lowest possible hanging fruit. Not even hanging just sitting there rotting on the ground.

Fair enough. But remember, you fell for a Borat stunt.

I was wrong for posting that article. I heard of it from the congressional floor. The search for information is a perilous one. I apologize.

Thereby ends the greatest presidency ever. I hope he gets some well deserved repose. History will do the rest of the work.

And now on to total Democrat rule. Let's keep this energy going—shall we move to the Joe Xiden thread?

Well, if there is a gang of violent people descending on you, you may well have a different perception of the situation. Legally, that is a key question. Could this officer reasonably feel under direct imminent and lawful attack? I do not know but it cannot be ruled out. She herself was no direct threat but the whole mob was. She was an unfortunate victim.

They were not attacking anyone, as far as I’m aware. They were certainly breaching the barricade. They were certainly pushing past police and destroying windows and a door. The victim certainly tried to crawl through the broken window. But she was shot before she could get through, as evidenced by her falling back into the room. The shooter, a man in a suit (secret service) was at the other window hiding behind a wall pointing his gun at people. It was like an ambush. He suddenly swung to shoot her as she tried to enter, seemingly without warning or care. I cannot say whether he thought his life was in imminent danger.

Here is a link to the video. It’s graphic.

https://twitter.com/thejaydenxander/status/1347056697899163648?s=21

Had she been attacking him, perhaps. But she wasn’t. The shooter was under no threat.

Yeah, it seemed too suspicious. Fake news.

Everything could be considered being armed if the force wielded is strong enough. The agent running scared and the reporter behind him certainly feared the crowd. Moreover the police present was overwhelmed, what more evidence of an asymmetric ratio of 'fire power' do you need?

If they have no weapons it means they are unarmed, not armed, which is my only point. I'm not going to say the mob wasn't menacing and loud, but even metaphorically it makes no sense to say they were armed. Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone had a weapon.

Well, as Hume famously pointed out the fact that you see a billiard ball move after it has been struck by another billiard ball is no logical evidence of one billiard ball moving the other. Here you see a president telling his followers to march to the capitol because nothing has ever been achieved by weakness and the crowd cheering "stop the steal" while they were interfering in the exact meeting in which Biden would be certified. Of course maybe they just wanted to buy tickets to the next Yankees game but it is not likely. They wanted four more years of Trump. They were there to insist on it happening. I do not know how much more evidence you want or how much would convince you. People are not lying. They might see or interpret things differently from you, but of course they are not lying. That is the exact oddness of your position and that of those so angry at you. You take issue with that, this black and white distinction. However, you buy into it too, they must be lying when they see things differently.

It's true they want four more years of Trump, just as the anti-Trump protesters wanted Trump removed. And sure they would insist, as all protesters do, for this or that action. This to me isn't evidence of insurrection, however. So why, exactly, are we pretending this is insurrection? And to hear this after months and months of violent riots throughout America, to the point that entire city blocks were literally seized and occupied by armed groups, boggles my mind.

I don't believe people are lying. My theory is they are gripped in a moral panic.

Who is 'they'? I think those arguments are heard, actually quite loudly. These arguments got this horde on the steps of the Capitol in the first place no? If no one wanted those arguments to be heard they would not have been. I think they are actually heard way too loud.

Only those on this forum who project and fantasize that I am operating in bad faith.

This reminds me of the Hong Kong protesters waving American flags and photos of “swole Trump”. Trump’s spirit resonates worldwide.

How did they occupy the senate building, using potentially lethal force or armed in a way that might enable them to do so or not?

I am not aware if the protesters were armed. DC has very strict gun laws, and in the livestreams I saw, no one was brandishing weapons, save for perhaps some American flags.

I do not think the protests under discussion were similar in intensity. The #removeTrump protests and the disruption of the Kavanaugh hearing were heavily funded by political action committees, but I don’t think they resorted to breaking windows, just making noise, the old heckler’s veto. They berated one Senator, but I do not think he was in any danger.

The trump protesters were not organized at all, but certainly more instance. CNN is comparing this 1812. But I cannot see it. As I watched it live, the protesters were mostly meandering about the building, putting MAGA hats on statues and taking pictures. Level-headed people were yelling not to destroy anything. No statues torn down, no spray paint, no weapons, just people yelling. Then 3 or 4 protesters tried to get past the barricade, breaking windows. The woman then tried to jump through the window, unarmed, and she was executed before she could make it through. I suggest watching the raw footage and come to your own conclusions.

As to the point that this was insurrection, a coup, not protest, there is no evidence of this. There never was. I’d love to see some evidence for this, because I much rather find myself misinformed than having to believe countless people are lying. Who knows? Perhaps some Q nutter thought this was his moment, but have not seen any evidence of this.

And thanks for hearing me out despite the ad hom. They don’t want anyone to hear these arguments, let alone discuss them.

You can be an anti-fascist without advocate for banning all fascist expression. Banning everything just results in fascism going underground and creates a society where there's less transparency and honesty because people know they can't say certain things.

Chomsky made this point quite brilliantly in regards to Holocaust denial and anti-fascism. You shouldn’t try to suppress the fascist’s speech, you should try to win the argument.

Huh? They intended to stop the proceedings which would have proclaimed Biden the president elect... or was it just coincidental and does it happen every odd Monday morning?

That doesn’t seem much worse than people literally calling for the removal of the president while occupying the senate building. The thing is there is no evidence of any “intent to seize power” outside of the fantasies of the gutter-press, who for months now have convinced themselves of an impending coup. It’s been a rally and a protest all along.

I’m not aware of anyone intent on seizing power, and find no rhetoric to that effect. Perhaps you can enlighten me. I was under the impression it was a protest.

President Donald Trump is now banned from Facebook.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/trump-twitter-ban/

Big Tech is censoring the president of the United States. Fuckerberg donated around $400 000 0000 to elections, some of which was spent on equipment that processed mail-in ballots, so it’s no wonder he suppresses dissent. Each day we become more and more like China.

Gender is a category of noun. That’s the only definition that matters nowadays given the heated debate over the topic of gender identity. I don’t even think Butler is wrong. But I refuse to use such a contentious term, and stick to “sex” to describe flesh-and-blood individuals.

↪Brett I don't actually know the specifics, but from all the news I've been seeing there seems to be a clear consensus that some crime was committed today, by the people storming the capitol. I would guess that at the very least bringing weapons into a government building like that is probably illegal, and even if not that, that there are restrictions on entry into at least some parts of that building if not the building as a whole, since I sincerely doubt it's lawful for just anyone to rummage through e.g. Pelosi's office

It certainly is a crime. When protesters “stormed” the senate building a couple years ago, 600 protesters and a Dem Congress-woman were arrested occupying the senate building. When people protested back in January about impeachment, 41 protesters were arrested doing the same shit. During the Kavanaugh hearing, even celebrities were arrested occupying the senate building. Just in June of last year, George Floyd riots ripped through Washington.

The only difference is how these people are being portrayed in the gutter press: one group as terrorists, a violent mob, and the rest as concerned protesters and activists. I do not remember congress or the senate saying it was an attack on democracy when protesters occupied, disrupted and sometimes accosted its members.

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and Congressmen and women”

So violent. The doublespeak has begun.

Facial recognition firm claims antifa infiltrated Trump protesters who stormed Capitol

Trump supporters say that antifa members disguised as one of them infiltrated the protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday.

A retired military officer told The Washington Times that the firm XRVision used its software to do facial recognition of protesters and matched two Philadelphia antifa members to two men inside the Senate.

The source provided the photo match to The Times.

One has a tattoo that indicates he is a Stalinist sympathizer. antifa promotes anarchy through violence and wants the end of America in favor of a Stalinist-state. “No more USA at all” is a protest chant.
XRVision also has identified another man who, while not known to have antifa links, is someone who shows up at climate and Black Lives Matter protests in the West.

I wouldn’t doubt it.

The police let them in, they got their photo-op of “democracy under attack”, killed a veteran, and dipped.

Observe the “Twitter-verse”. The same people who abused the euphemism “mostly-peaceful protest” as mobs burned down and seized entire blocks of cities are screaming terrorism because of a few broken windows and strewn about papers in the capitol building. Clown world.