Authoritarian and Totalitarian Democracies

[lucklucky]

A topic for the increasingly authoritarian and totalitarian behaviour in Democracies.  It starts with United Kingdom.

 

Rumble rejects MPs’ demand to cave into Russell Brand ‘cancel culture mob’

Video platform denounces ‘deeply inappropriate and dangerous’ letter asking it to demonetise comedian's channel

(...)

But the move has backfired, as Rumble has issued a stinging public rebuke in response, insisting that it stands for “an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard”.

Rumble wrote in a public statement: “We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so.

“Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble.”

The company added pointedly: “Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company’s values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament’s demands.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/21/rumble-rejects-dame-caroline-dinenage-demand-russell-brand/

[lucklucky]

 

[Ivanhoe]

After the whole Jimmy Savile thing, HMG should sit down and shut up when entertainer improprieties come up. They had no problem overlooking his behavior when he worked for the Beeb.

 

[lucklucky]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/28/caroline-nokes-gb-news-laurence-fox-ava-evans-dan-wootton/

Quote

A Conservative MP has said GB News should be taken off air after presenters Laurence Fox and Dan Wootton were suspended over a misogyny scandal.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

This Is the Lawrence fox who regularly makes racist statements on Twitter, whenever a black man with money pops up. Just in case you are wondering like. He pretty much tries to channel his dad in 'Performance' these days.

Tell me, have you actually watched GB TV? It's like Blue Peter meets Videodrome.

As for Brand given carte blance to be a sexual predator, its kind of  saying Obama should be allowed to drown any woman he likes, because Teddy Kennedy once did.

 

[lucklucky]

Are you on propose missing the point?

[Stuart Galbraith]

I propose Nuffin

 

[lucklucky]

Yes you are and it is too be expected of a progressive. Always want censorship when they get power and only use the word freedom when they don't.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/28/the-establishment-cant-stand-that-gb-news-exists/

Quote

. Shutting down news outlets because a contributor said something extremely distasteful sounds a bit Soviet for my liking, but we appear to have an establishment which supports free speech as long as they agree with the thoughts being expressed. 

 

 

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, I don't want censorship, but if people want free licence to print propaganda and easily dismissable lies, they can go fuck themselves in a ditch. Freedom of expression is not freedom to invoke violence or hatred to others. The 1930s proved that to us very conclusively. Brand, fox etc all, do it all the time, so I shall waste no tears on them.

The west has problems, it always has problems. But invoking yet another thread about wokism, or Transism or black livesism, or even massively misattributed perception of censorship,  doesn't change the fact you have a vote and can exercise it. Don't like it? So vote for someone else. Preferably someone that doesn't own the media, and tells you they have easy solutions to complex problems.

As for the media, nobody here cried when Murdoch ruined fleet street, or became the undisputed voice of the political far right. Don't like the political/media interaction? It's fairly clear to me who ruined it.

Lastly, I don't put people on this grate site in boxes, even when they seem determined  to label themselves.But  I've never understood the term 'progressive', except when it's used about Rock music. But I'm very sure it doesn't come close to describing all  the things I believe in. Freedom, yes, but always with responsibility, to society and others.

 

[Rick]

Put the World Economic Forum in this category. From Moody radio yesterday, the leader of this horror states that elections will no longer be needed since it can be predicted by entities such as Google who will win. Also, the usual the earth has to many people and we need to be civil in lowering population and if that doesn't work...

https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-great-reset-and-its-critics-part-1/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CjwKCAjw69moBhBgEiwAUFCx2Nc64RVg-e8vovCcdwoAXXKj0Ogw2twnN61WvGNj3y7yjPj4dGuJZRoC8loQAvD_BwE

[sunday]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

Put the World Economic Forum in this category. From Moody radio yesterday, the leader of this horror states that elections will no longer be needed since it can be predicted by entities such as Google who will win. Also, the usual the earth has to many people and we need to be civil in lowering population and if that doesn't work...

https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-great-reset-and-its-critics-part-1/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CjwKCAjw69moBhBgEiwAUFCx2Nc64RVg-e8vovCcdwoAXXKj0Ogw2twnN61WvGNj3y7yjPj4dGuJZRoC8loQAvD_BwE

Neomalthusians, impervious to real world experience.

[Ivanhoe]

The Eloi think there are too many Morlocks. 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

More accurately the Morlocks would appear to question the need for the Eloi.

[sunday]

23 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

The Eloi think there are too many Morlocks. 

 

Are you sure about who is who?

[rmgill]

On 9/28/2023 at 11:44 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

This Is the Lawrence fox who regularly makes racist statements on Twitter, whenever a black man with money pops up. Just in case you are wondering like. He pretty much tries to channel his dad in 'Performance' these days.

Tell me, have you actually watched GB TV? It's like Blue Peter meets Videodrome.

As for Brand given carte blance to be a sexual predator, its kind of  saying Obama should be allowed to drown any woman he likes, because Teddy Kennedy once did.

 

Brand WAS given carte blanche by the producers. Weren't they sending people out into the crowd to find potential girls for him to hook up with for the weekly cad score card? 

[rmgill]

20 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, I don't want censorship, but if people want free licence to print propaganda and easily dismissable lies, they can go fuck themselves in a ditch. Freedom of expression is not freedom to invoke violence or hatred to others. The 1930s proved that to us very conclusively. Brand, fox etc all, do it all the time, so I shall waste no tears on them.

Lets review the BBC coverage of Covid before you go off on who's printing wrong information why don't you. 

 

20 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The west has problems, it always has problems. But invoking yet another thread about wokism, or Transism or black livesism, or even massively misattributed perception of censorship,  doesn't change the fact you have a vote and can exercise it. Don't like it? So vote for someone else. Preferably someone that doesn't own the media, and tells you they have easy solutions to complex problems.

NOONE Should have the authority to dictate speech. Noone has the ability to be trusted with it.

And yes. You have a vote. you can vote for Hitler if you want. If you've all voted for hitler, that's ok though right? 

20 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As for the media, nobody here cried when Murdoch ruined fleet street, or became the undisputed voice of the political far right. Don't like the political/media interaction? It's fairly clear to me who ruined it.

Who's cried when the BBC became the voice of the Labour party? 

 

[Ivanhoe]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Brand WAS given carte blanche by the producers. Weren't they sending people out into the crowd to find potential girls for him to hook up with for the weekly cad score card? 

I read something where the claim was made that the Beeb was sending a car to a state school (equivalent to American/Canadian high schools, if I'm not mistaken) to pick up a girl to bring to Brand, back when he worked for the Beeb. Given the Beeb's track record, and Hollywood's for that matter, seems all too believable.

[lucklucky]

On 9/28/2023 at 9:25 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, I don't want censorship, but if people want free licence to print propaganda and easily dismissable lies, they can go fuck themselves in a ditch. Freedom of expression is not freedom to invoke violence or hatred to others.

You just said it above. You want censorship as long as who rules what is propaganda and what are lies to censor is you.

You will be a good Pravda director.

 

[R011]

1 hour ago, lucklucky said:

You just said it above. You want censorship as long as who rules what is propaganda and what are lies to censor is you.

You will be a good Pravda director.

 

Actually, I think Sturt would be very good at being a censor, at least at first.  While we disagree on some issues, I think he's generally fair minded and hoinest.  

Of course, people like him never get those kinds of jobs.  They go to narow-minded buraeucrats and totlaitarian-minded ideologues.  And if the censor isn't like that to start, having such a job will likely corrupt them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, lucklucky said:

You just said it above. You want censorship as long as who rules what is propaganda and what are lies to censor is you.

You will be a good Pravda director.

 

Lord Haw Haw. Would you allow him a platform today? What about Julius Streicher? Goebbels, Tojo? What about Osama Bin Laden, would you platform him too, say his hatred of the west is entirely justified, and we should listen to his views? What about Paedophiles, should we listen to their case?

Its always the argument 'well free speech must include everyone'. Thats great. I can happily agree to that, right up to the point where 'expressing honest views' ends up with people either dead, raped, or threatened with some other harm.

I fully agree with all your principles. Right up to the point where you are happy to have someone else suffer for you to indulge them.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, R011 said:

Actually, I think Sturt would be very good at being a censor, at least at first.  While we disagree on some issues, I think he's generally fair minded and hoinest.  

Of course, people like him never get those kinds of jobs.  They go to narow-minded buraeucrats and totlaitarian-minded ideologues.  And if the censor isn't like that to start, having such a job will likely corrupt them.

I thank you for your kindness, but I certainly wouldnt want it. I wouldnt even want to be a moderator here.

TBH, Id prefer people would self censor. I rarely ever post 'I would like this person to be dead' or 'This person should get cancer' or even 'This entire class of people deserve machine gunning'. Not by and large does anyone else on this site do that either. But I do think we come very, very close to that precipice, far more than we ever used to, back in the days when people were still using Blackberries.

Ok, one exception, Vladimir Putin. I certainly did point out Id be happy to see him executed. But by and large, no, we shouldnt do it. We just keep chasing the bottom of a barrel and the dialogue gets more and more aggressive. We probably should all reflect before we go there. But we dont. On social media its even worse.

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 hours ago, rmgill said:

Brand WAS given carte blanche by the producers. Weren't they sending people out into the crowd to find potential girls for him to hook up with for the weekly cad score card? 

No, not that ive heard.

14 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

I read something where the claim was made that the Beeb was sending a car to a state school (equivalent to American/Canadian high schools, if I'm not mistaken) to pick up a girl to bring to Brand, back when he worked for the Beeb. Given the Beeb's track record, and Hollywood's for that matter, seems all too believable.

That was a claim made by the alleged victim. The police are investigating, im sure we will find out if there is any truth in it or not. It certainly wouldnt surprise me, lets put it that way.

[lucklucky]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Lord Haw Haw. Would you allow him a platform today? What about Julius Streicher? Goebbels, Tojo? What about Osama Bin Laden, would you platform him too, say his hatred of the west is entirely justified, and we should listen to his views? What about Paedophiles, should we listen to their case?

Its always the argument 'well free speech must include everyone'. Thats great. I can happily agree to that, right up to the point where 'expressing honest views' ends up with people either dead, raped, or threatened with some other harm.

I fully agree with all your principles. Right up to the point where you are happy to have someone else suffer for you to indulge them.

I see that you included some socialists in your list but only those of flavour you don't like in your Ministry of Truth.  The whole Communist manifesto with class hatred was out.

 

11 hours ago, R011 said:

Actually, I think Sturt would be very good at being a censor, at least at first.  While we disagree on some issues, I think he's generally fair minded and hoinest.  

He is not, he uses Julius Streicher to censure Brand channel in Rumble, Youtube etc.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, lucklucky said:

I see that you included some socialists in your list but only those of flavour you don't like in your Ministry of Truth.  The whole Communist manifesto with class hatred was out.

 

He is not, he uses Julius Streicher to censure Brand channel in Rumble, Youtube etc.

Sure, go and throw a few Socialists in. Stalin? Molotov? Mikoyan? Beria? Castro, jesus christ, can you imagine what Castro would do if he had a facebook account? He couldnt use twitter, he would fly right past the character limit. Ultimately though, I struggle to think of a Socialist today that has the bandwidth or mindset to be more than nauseating. Who you have in mind, Jeremy Corbin? Maduro? Can you think of them successfully invoking violence in a Western capital? I cant.

Im unfair and dishonest because Im happy to see a mysogynist, sexual predator, misinformation peddler deplatformed. Yeah, see, its always the same with you guys on here. You go and elevate worthless causes as if they were spectacular martyrs to some kind of principle. Brand doesnt have principles, I think we already established that.

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[futon]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Lord Haw Haw. Would you allow him a platform today? What about Julius Streicher? Goebbels, Tojo? What about Osama Bin Laden, would you platform him too, say his hatred of the west is entirely justified, and we should listen to his views? What about Paedophiles, should we listen to their case?

 

Tojo most certainly had valid views for a discussion about the global order at that time so that would not be justified in censoring out. That's not to mean to qualify him as a desireable leader. He wasn't. But his reasoning was one part of the whole story of global geopolitical competition. After the war,  those lines of reasoning had pretty much been censored out for decades, despite having been a part of the whole story. The consequnece to that censorship was one, the break down of integrity in espoused values, and second, the development of naive foreign policy thinking such as an ease of spreading democracy by war because incorrect conclusions emerge from an incomplete story of past events, with the missing bits replaced with exaggerations and lies. Additionally, unlike the three names coming before him in your list, he did save a lot of Jews. I don't see anything near that level of racism coming from him towards any group. Geopolitics is different. So calls on him as a sort of hate speech user thus unfit for a voice to be heard is unfounded.