Jump to content

rmgill
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I'm not argueing agaisnt freedom of speech itself, and I don't want to criticize you too much since only a few people here have the vigor like you have to go at length about it so I don't mean to knock on that. But I really do think balance is important once in awhile.

The best way to form that balance is opposing views.

Well I think you do sometimes but sometimes it seems like some points aren't really that critical. Often taking an aggressive tone doesn't always help. I'm not sure if the often aggressive tone is point of emulating Trump's style or not.

Some of that comes from factual statements where tone doesn't convey at all online. Some is also probably a touch of de-indivduation.

For the US domestic scene, the aggressive sytle came as a response to the political correctness and general lack of trust in any politician.

In the US, I've rather lost patience for folks who push a narrative that the press is be-knighted and the first amendment is threatened while seemingly building up a mount of arguments that make the press the ONLY party that can speak or express it's collectivized corporate views.

That point has been observed and desbribed at length by some Japanese right wingers. So I think at least the Japanese right know how to approach it on the international scene with POTUS and thus by large have avoided having pro-US sentiment be damaged like in other countries, particularly other western countries. Canada, New Zealand, Germany, the UK are international and have little bearing on the US domestic scene. So to some degree, a live and let live approach might help avoid just neediless pissing people in other countries off.

Except it's not a live and let live result. It's a they get to silence you and you get to accept that fact. The reason it probably seems most vociferous with folks like myself in the Anglosphere is that we have, as part of our conceptual fabric of how government is supposed to work and the related rights of men, a very strong view that there are clear limits and rights. That line of philosophy is older than this nation and derives specifically from England and the Glorious Revolution.

What I meant by balance is a balance of emphasis over the whole spectrum of points. The UK is still a democracy. It still has generally free press and still has generally free internet. You made some points about the UK not allowing some people into the country and such the past which is fine. But it goes in the complete absence of making any kind of argument about China's traits yet the US buying in mass consumption of China stuff. The balance is totally out of whack here.

 

For tone, yeah, its difficult to convey total meaning of expression with on text. So sometimes it seems fine and it can help get attention and a response. People may not respond if it was just a soft sounding phrase. But then maybe later in the discouarse, a little positive reinforcement could help fix up any built up hard emotions that may have been triggered by the strong tone.

 

I fully agree with you on the media. It welds way to much power and influence and I do think it was good that Trump attacked it like he did. I hate to look as if trying to cheaply create good rapport, but the right wingers here heavily criticize the media here as well, often saying things like "just stop watching TV" "its anti-Japanese" and so on. Media does have a role buts become a political tool. So then becomes a matter as to how much are the political heads abusing media. Well there are probably other things like media having to compete for air time so would want to have a mixture of bad news and good news and all possible things to report on inside the window of a 30-60 minute window.

 

Well I meant just a degree of live and let live for international countries. But in the end of the day, people have to be left to their responsibilities and just pray they don't screw up. A little positive reinforcement can be just as helpful in keeping another country aligned in characteristics as some healthy dose of criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 917
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

Many are now using freedom of speech itself as a tool to attack freedom, a fact we seem to be completely blinkering ourselves against.

How does that work?

Happens all the time in Taiwan and Okinawa islands.

 

Pro-CCP make up lies about the current local system, spread pro-CCP messages via trolls, repeat the lies to achieve artificially creating new truths out of lies and make the lies so complex that it becomes too time consuming for regular countering and make the lies that trigger kneejerk reactions by seeming like common sense, get pro-CCP candidate dogs to make a platform and run for election, get them elected, they back their preferred CCP-backed media, local area as a whole slants pro-CCP, and then as a result, repeat the CCP counter arguments to things like Tianamein Square being CIA job, Uyghurs are actually happy with Xinjiang development, Tibetans never want to protest, that western democracy is all fake show which is why CCP way of rule is the better, etc etc.The end result is a culture and system that embraced basic features of freedom of speech is replaced by pro-CCP rhetoric and censorship.

 

It isn't difficult. What was that phrase again? "Vote your way into communism, shoot your way out".

 

 

You defeat that with other free speech, not censorship. Speech is either free or it isn't (minus truly illegal speech like fire in a crowded theater or exhorting violence). The way you stop Nazis is letting them speak, some will be attracted to the bile but most will see it for what it is. The ACLU used to understand this. Once you let one group silence another group, you're back to might makes right. Whoever can silence their opposition first wins. I hand it to Tanknet, it does bring out the core beliefs of people so we can see who really believes something and who just pays lip service to it. "Of course I believe in free speech, except for this, and this, and that, and that offends me so sorry...". Freedom isn't always pretty but it beats the alternative. Human nature isn't live and let live, it's a club upside the head of someone you disagree with or who has something you want. That's what we need to protect against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Many are now using freedom of speech itself as a tool to attack freedom, a fact we seem to be completely blinkering ourselves against.

How does that work?

Happens all the time in Taiwan and Okinawa islands.

 

Pro-CCP make up lies about the current local system, spread pro-CCP messages via trolls, repeat the lies to achieve artificially creating new truths out of lies and make the lies so complex that it becomes too time consuming for regular countering and make the lies that trigger kneejerk reactions by seeming like common sense, get pro-CCP candidate dogs to make a platform and run for election, get them elected, they back their preferred CCP-backed media, local area as a whole slants pro-CCP, and then as a result, repeat the CCP counter arguments to things like Tianamein Square being CIA job, Uyghurs are actually happy with Xinjiang development, Tibetans never want to protest, that western democracy is all fake show which is why CCP way of rule is the better, etc etc.The end result is a culture and system that embraced basic features of freedom of speech is replaced by pro-CCP rhetoric and censorship.

 

It isn't difficult. What was that phrase again? "Vote your way into communism, shoot your way out".

 

 

You defeat that with other free speech, not censorship. Speech is either free or it isn't (minus truly illegal speech like fire in a crowded theater or exhorting violence). The way you stop Nazis is letting them speak, some will be attracted to the bile but most will see it for what it is. The ACLU used to understand this. Once you let one group silence another group, you're back to might makes right. Whoever can silence their opposition first wins. I hand it to Tanknet, it does bring out the core beliefs of people so we can see who really believes something and who just pays lip service to it. "Of course I believe in free speech, except for this, and this, and that, and that offends me so sorry...". Freedom isn't always pretty but it beats the alternative. Human nature isn't live and let live, it's a club upside the head of someone you disagree with or who has something you want. That's what we need to protect against.

 

 

Yes and ideally, that is how it is supposed to work. Pragmatically, plan Bs, have to be ready, and at most possible as just a temporary measure. Obviously very prone to abuse so it is utmost critical for only when it is absolutely necessary. But here is the reason. Freedom of Speech takes a lot of work. And it takes a lot of discourse that has the room for a lot of time for ideas to be time tested. Such a rich environment for time, effort, and a community of practitioners is not automatically provided. It has to be exercised and continued to be exercised.

 

What critical situation would require such a plan B? That was what my post was answering. An environment that allows freedom of speech is vulnerable to abuse of that if the practitioners of a given free speech environment don't stay on top of the ball. The trolls and spammers over flow the area with false information and do so because they have the freedom to do so. That is how the tool of freedom of speech is used against it. And if they achieve their goal in the free spech environment, they won't plan on preserving it, down it goes, and its gone. I was explaining how that process happens and not necessarily challenging the whole concept of free speech.

 

Here is a different body and it is one where the pro-CCP posters have the numerical advantage and quite clearly get some toleration from the mods there. That's really quite the breaking point, when they get favors from the mods.

https://defence.pk/pdf/forums/china-far-east.161/

 

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/us-marine-kills-elderly-civilian-in-drunk-driving-accident-in-okinawa-japan.529310/page-2#post-10029778

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/family-of-okinawa-murder-victim-seeks-reparations-from-us-government.545340/#post-10272468

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/okinawa-anti-base-politician-and-usa-mongrel-won-governor-election.580291/#post-10839353

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/japanese-woman-on-chinese-people-after-living-in-china.595061/

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/japan-to-forgo-inviting-chinas-xi-as-state-guest-in-june.607409/page-2

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/japan-slams-china-for-unauthorized-research-around-okinotori-island.598563/

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/u-s-intelligence-china-is-building-up-its-capability-to-invade-taiwan.617986/

 

Many of those guys aren't looking for reason. They are driven on Pro-CCP mission and completely overflow the place. As shown in those links, I made posts to damage credibility of their spam posts. I noticed a 3-4 of who were major pro-CCP posters sort of disappeared, so the those discussions did have an impact. So yes, freedom of speech can work. But my god, it takes a lot of effort an time. And the place is still overrun by the spammers and posters by the absolute Pro-CCP people. The reason for the effort put into that forums is because of a real sense of possible danger. Other reason was to test my own reasoning and conclusions. It truly does feel like it is possible taht a place of free expression can be overrun by spammers and liars and become a foundation launch pad for spreading bad ideas further. Please take the time to look through all of that. That's all I can say. I would think that it does show what can happen if the spammers and pro-CCP posters hold majority of the poster population. I could just figure that those forums is just a small spot in the whole wide internet world and that I could just rely on US/Japan government policy to eventually reach a point of controlling CCP information in-flow. SO then I could just sit back and play computer game or work on my business Japanese skills, or whatever. But again, freedom of speech is one of those things, use or lose it. So I use it and made efforts to use it in that tiny corner of the whole internet world.

 

I would also say that I nearly gave up on TN on a few occasions and it was thanks to a few people like Stuart that my participation was able to hang on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Many are now using freedom of speech itself as a tool to attack freedom, a fact we seem to be completely blinkering ourselves against.

 

How does that work?

 

 

You watched RT? They arent even the first. For years we had Press TV (Iran state television) on freeview here in the UK, presenting a message of hate, distrust of our politicians, general rabble rousing. And we couldn't and wouldn't do anything about it till they infringed the OFCOM rules and were taken off the air. Then they accused us of infringing freedom of speech. :D

 

RT just stay withing the rules, and we allow them because 'Freedom of Speech'. Which is a direct invitation for the Russian government to put as much crap and misinformation on the airwaves as they can get away with. That they hire people like George Galloway as a presenter is a big red flag at the kind of dissent they want to stir up.

 

 

And at the other end of the spectrum you have the use of Bot or troll poster accounts, not least in your own country. The intelligence services have detected the Internet Research Agency in Russia posting on 'Black Lives Matter' and Alt Right groups in the US, in the hope of getting some good riots going. Sometimes even the same ISP's post on both. When this was brought up, the narrative was not how terrible it was, it was how terrible that US intelligence services spy on online blogs. :D Heck, we have seen both on this grate site. We know this is a problem, even here.

 

 

Here is the difference, a fundamental difference between you Americans and I. Understandably from your country's background, you are deeply wary of the state spying on you and taking your freedoms away. Fair enough, after King George and Ruby Ridge, I entirely understand that perspective. Personally, Im scared of our own freedoms which we cherish being turned on their head and used against us. And demonstrably they are, and we just are not taking that on board.

 

When your President Trump, or any other subsequent Republican President (and this will happen, I can assure you of that) are destroyed due to shitposting by fake media accounts, you will see what I mean. How can any Democracy, and any freedom, endure in an environment where we are encouraged to go for each others throat by media designed to destroy the very liberties we cherish?

 

 

 

We all care about the same thing. Im just seeing the threat coming from an entirely different direction from what many of you are concerned with. Im not even saying Ryan is wholly wrong. My approach is that he is worried about mice, when there is an elephant shitting in the garden.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Many are now using freedom of speech itself as a tool to attack freedom, a fact we seem to be completely blinkering ourselves against.

How does that work?

Happens all the time in Taiwan and Okinawa islands.

 

Pro-CCP make up lies about the current local system, spread pro-CCP messages via trolls, repeat the lies to achieve artificially creating new truths out of lies and make the lies so complex that it becomes too time consuming for regular countering and make the lies that trigger kneejerk reactions by seeming like common sense, get pro-CCP candidate dogs to make a platform and run for election, get them elected, they back their preferred CCP-backed media, local area as a whole slants pro-CCP, and then as a result, repeat the CCP counter arguments to things like Tianamein Square being CIA job, Uyghurs are actually happy with Xinjiang development, Tibetans never want to protest, that western democracy is all fake show which is why CCP way of rule is the better, etc etc.The end result is a culture and system that embraced basic features of freedom of speech is replaced by pro-CCP rhetoric and censorship.

 

It isn't difficult. What was that phrase again? "Vote your way into communism, shoot your way out".

 

 

You defeat that with other free speech, not censorship. Speech is either free or it isn't (minus truly illegal speech like fire in a crowded theater or exhorting violence). The way you stop Nazis is letting them speak, some will be attracted to the bile but most will see it for what it is. The ACLU used to understand this. Once you let one group silence another group, you're back to might makes right. Whoever can silence their opposition first wins. I hand it to Tanknet, it does bring out the core beliefs of people so we can see who really believes something and who just pays lip service to it. "Of course I believe in free speech, except for this, and this, and that, and that offends me so sorry...". Freedom isn't always pretty but it beats the alternative. Human nature isn't live and let live, it's a club upside the head of someone you disagree with or who has something you want. That's what we need to protect against.

 

 

That is what ive TRIED to do on this grate site! When individuals who remain nameless post a lie, a demonstrably provable lie, and I post a correction, i get berated for stirring things up and being as bad as they are! Ive stopped trying, largely because I think most people here are of the opinion that alternative facts, whatever they are, are all equal and should be respected They forget there are demonstrable truth and lies, and if we dont all act as guardians of it, we are all sunk.

 

On a wider level, we all have to confront lies with free speech. Absolutely. And let me tell you as a personal experience, it makes you very fucking unpopular very, very quickly. I dont think most people have the time, the interest or the concern to confront those lies they find online. Certainly not on Tanknet. Nobody wants to hear it. Look through the Salisbury thread and you might see my point. The lie spammers won.

 

As far as stopping it, if people wont confront it themselves, censorship of people or organizations posting lies has to be endured. And yes, its heavy handed and draconian. And yes, there is a terrible possibility of overdoing it. If people dont have the time or interest to do it themselves, the state simply has to. Unless we prefer to leave it to the likes of Facebook, and as far as im concerned they are part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

Incidentally they let the Nazis speak in 1933. They allowed them to buy up the newspapers, and intimidated the ones they didnt. Today, they would just start a Facebook or Twitter account. And without verification of facts or censorship, how far do you think they would get this time? Goebbels would be absolutely foaming at the mouth at the opportunities online media present. The world of media has changed, and we absolutely have not woken up to the dangers its presents.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally they let the Nazis speak in 1933. They allowed them to buy up the newspapers, and intimidated the ones they didnt. Today, they would just start a Facebook or Twitter account. And without verification of facts or censorship, how far do you think they would get this time? Goebbels would be absolutely foaming at the mouth at the opportunities online media present. The world of media has changed, and we absolutely have not woken up to the dangers its presents.

And you do your best by making sure you document what they say and you underscore it publicly. If you can't reproduce their words because posting such online is illegal, how do you expose them for what they are?

 

I don't want the crap that Ihan Omar and Rashida Tlaib banned because it's anti-semitic. I want it trumpeted across youtube and facebook and twitter so that everyone sees precisely what sort of awful people they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a club upside the head of someone you disagree with or who has something you want. That's what we need to protect against.

 

It's also on the rise, unfortunately, as it is easier, less time consuming, and just as effective in the current media age to challenge propaganda by silencing it. Particularly as the alternative counterfactual approach is evolving from journalism, to sound-bite journalism, to just sound bites.

 

It is also counterproductive, as it is troubling to me to see the multi-layered issues present in Okinawan politics reduced to the point where Japanese citizens with political views I may disagree with are being clubbed upside the head with various flavors of the "traitor" label designed to silence them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The KEY thing for me which really pisses me off is how Main Stream Media is explicitly working to silence those with voices that counter their own. It's competition they're silencing. After a certain point, I think it should qualify as conspiring to deprive people of their civil rights. After a point that become a felony at the federal level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The KEY thing for me which really pisses me off is how Main Stream Media is explicitly working to silence those with voices that counter their own. It's competition they're silencing. After a certain point, I think it should qualify as conspiring to deprive people of their civil rights. After a point that become a felony at the federal level.

You mean news organizations should be criminally prosecuted for abusing the right to free speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can't really do that of course.

The point still rings true, the level of group-speak in the MSM is very high. There is a much larger variation in the political opinions of the population than there are in the members of the media.

Often the BBC is held up as an example of unbiased news. That has not been my experience with it.

The bigger challenge is separating news from opinion pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean news organizations should be criminally prosecuted for abusing the right to free speech?

Yes. It's the same sort of stuff that was used in essence to say that if you didn't bake a cake for someone you were guilty of hate crime. Except in this case it would be used to deal with actions that ARE depriving someone of civil rights.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985

 

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

There's also law for dealing with conspiracy to deprive someone's rights under color of law which would apply to a city or state agent working to silence someone's legal exercise of rights.

 

We already have on case law that speech on the internet is legally protected.

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. It's the same sort of stuff that was used in essence to say that if you didn't bake a cake for someone you were guilty of hate crime. Except in this case it would be used to deal with actions that ARE depriving someone of civil rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985

 

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

There's also law for dealing with conspiracy to deprive someone's rights under color of law which would apply to a city or state agent working to silence someone's legal exercise of rights.

 

We already have on case law that speech on the internet is legally protected.

 

 

Well, a news organization is not a government entity. It cannot deprive anybody of his right to express a dissenting viewpoint since it is not obliged to present it - unless there is some kind of Fairness Doctrine, which itself has been criticized as an infringement upon free speech rights in the US. Even then it didn't apply to print media, which always had any right to partisanship.

 

The cake analogy would apply if a news organization refused to publish a paid-for ad, which of course happens and goes to the courts once in a while. Otherwise, they have the full right to cater to a target audience of a particular political persuasion, which is after all the Murdoch concept that brought us Fox News etc.

 

IOW, news organizations have the same right to editorial bias and hounding dissenters as any guy with a Youtube or Twitter account under the same extent of freedom of speech. That also means that if you embraced the cake analogy, going after internet personalities for expressing viewpoints against any particular group would be fully justified. You want one of the two persecuted for abuse of free speech, you can't be opposed to the same happening to the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It need not be a government entity. The civil rights laws have been applied to individuals. And I'm not talking at all about what they publish as a news org, no matter how correct or incorrect it may be. It's about deplatforming.

And this stuff is going beyond vocal critique by a news agency against a person. I'm talking about a cohesive attempt to silence someone across multiple internet platforms by news organizations or by their employees. If they're stripped of their social media accounts across the board, kicked off of Apple's platforms and stripped of any ability to get paid for their content by way of PayPal and Patreon in coordination with the payment processors?

We have a body of law that resulted from frontier towns that were built around a coal mine where, the coal mine owned all the company stores and pretty much ran the entire town, in effect being treated as a state actor by virtue of that control. Their attempts to silence troublemakers by denying them access to the company store is a non-starter. The same doctrine would appear to apply here if there's coordinated action across multiple companies to deny a dissonant voice a platform.

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Incidentally they let the Nazis speak in 1933. They allowed them to buy up the newspapers, and intimidated the ones they didnt. Today, they would just start a Facebook or Twitter account. And without verification of facts or censorship, how far do you think they would get this time? Goebbels would be absolutely foaming at the mouth at the opportunities online media present. The world of media has changed, and we absolutely have not woken up to the dangers its presents.

And you do your best by making sure you document what they say and you underscore it publicly. If you can't reproduce their words because posting such online is illegal, how do you expose them for what they are?

 

I don't want the crap that Ihan Omar and Rashida Tlaib banned because it's anti-semitic. I want it trumpeted across youtube and facebook and twitter so that everyone sees precisely what sort of awful people they are.

 

 

This.

 

I weep for freedom when I read intelligent people on this grate sight so blithely call for the silencing of voices they don't like. someone said that free speech is meant for the extreme voices, the sane ones don't need the protection. That is true, but now we've been brought to the point where any "other" speech is being silenced. I guess I never really realized just how special this country is, even compared to our closest cousins and friends. Just more reason the 2nd amendment is so critical to protecting the other rights. We get a veto over the totalitarians, well meaning and otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Incidentally they let the Nazis speak in 1933. They allowed them to buy up the newspapers, and intimidated the ones they didnt. Today, they would just start a Facebook or Twitter account. And without verification of facts or censorship, how far do you think they would get this time? Goebbels would be absolutely foaming at the mouth at the opportunities online media present. The world of media has changed, and we absolutely have not woken up to the dangers its presents.

 

And you do your best by making sure you document what they say and you underscore it publicly. If you can't reproduce their words because posting such online is illegal, how do you expose them for what they are?

I don't want the crap that Ihan Omar and Rashida Tlaib banned because it's anti-semitic. I want it trumpeted across youtube and facebook and twitter so that everyone sees precisely what sort of awful people they are.

This.

 

I weep for freedom when I read intelligent people on this grate sight so blithely call for the silencing of voices they don't like. someone said that free speech is meant for the extreme voices, the sane ones don't need the protection. That is true, but now we've been brought to the point where any "other" speech is being silenced. I guess I never really realized just how special this country is, even compared to our closest cousins and friends. Just more reason the 2nd amendment is so critical to protecting the other rights. We get a veto over the totalitarians, well meaning and otherwise.

A broad sweeping brush like this without going into the nitty gritty.

 

Fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Incidentally they let the Nazis speak in 1933. They allowed them to buy up the newspapers, and intimidated the ones they didnt. Today, they would just start a Facebook or Twitter account. And without verification of facts or censorship, how far do you think they would get this time? Goebbels would be absolutely foaming at the mouth at the opportunities online media present. The world of media has changed, and we absolutely have not woken up to the dangers its presents.

And you do your best by making sure you document what they say and you underscore it publicly. If you can't reproduce their words because posting such online is illegal, how do you expose them for what they are?

I don't want the crap that Ihan Omar and Rashida Tlaib banned because it's anti-semitic. I want it trumpeted across youtube and facebook and twitter so that everyone sees precisely what sort of awful people they are.

This.

 

I weep for freedom when I read intelligent people on this grate sight so blithely call for the silencing of voices they don't like. someone said that free speech is meant for the extreme voices, the sane ones don't need the protection. That is true, but now we've been brought to the point where any "other" speech is being silenced. I guess I never really realized just how special this country is, even compared to our closest cousins and friends. Just more reason the 2nd amendment is so critical to protecting the other rights. We get a veto over the totalitarians, well meaning and otherwise.

A broad sweeping brush like this without going into the nitty gritty.

 

Fake.

 

 

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Incidentally they let the Nazis speak in 1933. They allowed them to buy up the newspapers, and intimidated the ones they didnt. Today, they would just start a Facebook or Twitter account. And without verification of facts or censorship, how far do you think they would get this time? Goebbels would be absolutely foaming at the mouth at the opportunities online media present. The world of media has changed, and we absolutely have not woken up to the dangers its presents.

The Nazis weren't the only group of people in Germany that used intimidation tactics, that was their culture of the time. What the Nazis had was a message that resonated with the people of the time. History revisionists would do well to stop the trope of the Nazis suddenly springing from the earth of the Fatherland and immediately putting 65 million people in bondage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Incidentally they let the Nazis speak in 1933. They allowed them to buy up the newspapers, and intimidated the ones they didnt. Today, they would just start a Facebook or Twitter account. And without verification of facts or censorship, how far do you think they would get this time? Goebbels would be absolutely foaming at the mouth at the opportunities online media present. The world of media has changed, and we absolutely have not woken up to the dangers its presents.

 

And you do your best by making sure you document what they say and you underscore it publicly. If you can't reproduce their words because posting such online is illegal, how do you expose them for what they are?

I don't want the crap that Ihan Omar and Rashida Tlaib banned because it's anti-semitic. I want it trumpeted across youtube and facebook and twitter so that everyone sees precisely what sort of awful people they are.

This.

 

I weep for freedom when I read intelligent people on this grate sight so blithely call for the silencing of voices they don't like. someone said that free speech is meant for the extreme voices, the sane ones don't need the protection. That is true, but now we've been brought to the point where any "other" speech is being silenced. I guess I never really realized just how special this country is, even compared to our closest cousins and friends. Just more reason the 2nd amendment is so critical to protecting the other rights. We get a veto over the totalitarians, well meaning and otherwise.

A broad sweeping brush like this without going into the nitty gritty.

Fake.

:huh:

So then either you for the most part agree with my post but just not plainly saying it or... I'm not one of the "inteligent people" :) Edited by JasonJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Incidentally they let the Nazis speak in 1933. They allowed them to buy up the newspapers, and intimidated the ones they didnt. Today, they would just start a Facebook or Twitter account. And without verification of facts or censorship, how far do you think they would get this time? Goebbels would be absolutely foaming at the mouth at the opportunities online media present. The world of media has changed, and we absolutely have not woken up to the dangers its presents.

The Nazis weren't the only group of people in Germany that used intimidation tactics, that was their culture of the time. What the Nazis had was a message that resonated with the people of the time. History revisionists would do well to stop the trope of the Nazis suddenly springing from the earth of the Fatherland and immediately putting 65 million people in bondage.

 

 

I dont disagree, im just illustrating the basic problem, what would Goebbels do today if he had online media? Or more pertinently, what would he have achieved back in the 1940's if he had it?

 

1939. People believe Germany WAS attacked by Poland because they saw Youtube footage that 'proved it'. Britain and France go to war anyway, which is massively unpopular because the Germans were clearly the agrieved party. There are million man protests in paris against the war (its really 100000 but who cares because its a wide angle lens). France leaves the war early because of atrocities shown at the front by VB television news. The Battle of Britain is clearly a German victory because the news media and the online posts portray it as such. Even Britain thinks its wholly beaten in 1940. And America never enters WW2 because it sees clear evidence from the German media that its really the RN sinking American merchantmen to try and bring America into the war.

 

And nobody ever, ever asks what happens to the Jews, because they saw a nice online blog by a Jewish Girl in Theresianstadt that 'proves' the Jews are all comfortably rehoused 'In the east'.

 

This is the dangerous reality we are now approaching, from day to day. This is my personal nightmare, where we can no longer tell the difference between truth and lies, or even care. Its the part of 1984 I personally find the scariest, and everyone is ignoring the parallels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can't really do that of course.

The point still rings true, the level of group-speak in the MSM is very high. There is a much larger variation in the political opinions of the population than there are in the members of the media.

Often the BBC is held up as an example of unbiased news. That has not been my experience with it.

The bigger challenge is separating news from opinion pieces.

 

There is no such thing as an unbiased source. The BBC is no exception to this. What I will say is, it offers diverse opinion and tries (and fails, ill admit that) tries to offer opposing views.

 

Im listening to a BBC programme right now called 'Newswatch' where every week people write in and complain about coverage on an issue, and they call the BBC managers in to answer for what something was done. A few weeks ago, someone wrote in a letter saying theri Brexit coverage was one sided. They seemingly took it on board, because every time since they have a remain campaigner on, they bookend it with an interview with a leave campaigner.

 

How many other broadcasters can you name do that? Do Fox or CNN ever do it? Not that ive ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...