Twitter swings the ban hammer at Project Veritas (1 Viewer)

[nolaspe]

Twitter suspends Project Veritas account

The move against the conservative activist organization comes amid a broader crackdown by the social media giant on those promoting misinformation.

www.politico.com

Project Veritas has been known to use deceptive practices and spread misinformation in attempts to expose what it views as “corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct” from liberal organizations or individuals. In September, Stanford University and University of Washington researchers wrote that a Project Veritas video alleging voter fraud with unidentified sources was what a “a domestic, coordinated elite disinformation campaign looks like in the United States.”

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, I'm sure you are whiter than I. If you're a conservative, then why the sarcasm regarding my observation about BLM? Did I misunderstand you?

It wasn't sarcasm. Based on your posting, you seem to have an irrational hatred for BLM and leftys, among other things. The comment about scratching a BLM was pretty terrible. Painting entire groups of people like you have been in this thread really isn't conducive to good faith discussions here. Just because I'm a white, fiscal conservative doesn't mean I need to hate all things social justice or wanting to give voice to those who have little to no voice.

My wife is Asian, children are mixed race, I'm deaf, and we've been poor a lot of our lives, so I get the desire for people to be recognized for the struggles they face. Some BLM people are personal friends of mine, and I get along with them just fine. They're not any more racist than I am that I've ever seen.

While I don't speak for all of them, I do think I can defend those who are genuinely trying to make a positive difference in the world. Whether white, black, Asian, whatever, every group has their share of every persuasion. No one person speaks for everyone in any given group.

I'm here to have a good healthy discussion of the issues. I don't expect all of us to agree, but I do expect decorum and respect for other people and other posters I'm talking with here. Having an open mind and being willing to listen goes a long way. At least it has for me.

 

[Rawlings]

i hope you take this as an example of unfettered free speech (it's not bc Andrus & the Mods set limits on speech herein, but let's play along) and appreciate it as such
you don't make a compelling case for unfettered free speech (assuming that you are the product of such)
you are not exactly a sterling example of 'letting people say whatever comes into their head without challenge'
when people on this board express their own speech, you react very emotionally and superficially
you have offered no reason to heed the speech of the deplatformed - in fact you were caught unawares of the content of some of their speech
you don't seem to know what marxism is
you clearly don't understand systemic racism - perhaps you would struggle with both of the 'systemic' and 'racism' parts of the phrase
i have not seen either a cogent or even coherent argument - your one rhetorical tool seems to be screaming "leftist"

in light of this, i hope you understand why we might not rush out and take all the fetters off of speech (and yes, i'm using it ironically)

I'm sorry you have a false impression of me regarding matters that are hardly the stuff of rocket science. But I'll play along.

I don't think I've challenged anyone all that much, but if I had, why would that be contrary to unfettered speech?

Emotionally and superficially, eh? It seems to me I've expressed a number of observations with which others disagree. Okay. It's no skin off my nose. In fact, I agreed to disagree with a couple of fellas.

Caught unawares or simply don't care? I still hold for unfettered speech as much as possible

I didn't know I had to offer any reason for others to heed anybody. It's a free country. One can always change the channel.

I agree with others that there's no easy solution. The only lasting solution would be to abolish the unconstitutionally collectivistic, public education system altogether or impose the constitutional imperative of universal academic freedom on the same—driven by parental consent and authority. In that case, lefty would have to compete in a free market of ideas and, within a generation or two, would lose his illegitimately acquired hegemony on American culture. But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I don't seem to know what Marxism is and I clearly don't know what systemic racism is, eh?

As I recall, I gave an example of a Marxist and virulently racist organization in America, an example of institutional racism in America, and an example of systemic racism in America, namely, BLM, affirmative action, and the Democratic plantation system of our inner-cities, respectively. I also rejected the idea that America herself was systemically racist.

I didn't get rave reviews. Tough crowd.

But, hey, if you're suggesting that I sit at your feet while you lace me up on Marxism and systemic racism, I'm all ears.

 

[Saintman2884]

You bring up one (albeit large) case of anti-drinking as bipartisan example. I can show you hundreds and hundreds of conservative counties that are/were dry counties. I can show you thousands of Blue Laws in conservative locations. You are verbose but you tend to obfuscate the point when you reply. I mean the whole second paragraph... I don’t even know what that was about.

Trying to pass off the Soviet Union’s or China’s government as “leftist” instead of “authoritarian” is baffling. The fact that they targeted intellectuals and free-thinkers should show that it had nothing to do with left/right and all to do with keeping power.

I think your overlooking or dont seem to understand that what we define in terms of political labels or ideologies changes and what doesn't seem "leftist" to you from a 21st century perspective probably was perceived and agreed by consensus a century ago. Dragon made a similar argument to yours earlier and your both still not seeing it from the "Old Left vs " New Left" paradigm. The "Old Left" of the mid-late 19th century to right before WWII had a wide array of different branches, approaches, but the most far left groups---Spanish Anarchist POUM group in Caledonia, Menshevicks, Bolsheviks in pre-Soviet Czarist Russia, or even Mao's China, they were more interested in armed insurrections, radicalizing labor and trade unions like the Wobblies, and they tended to be more militant, and possess the same authoritian/totalitarian features far-right, fascist counterparts did in Italy, Germany or Spain, just as brutal, vicious and inhumane in treating real or imagined enemies because they felt that sacrifices, even unimaginable ones, were worthy endeavors if they achieved their Machiavellian anarcho-communist stateless, classless society Marx argued for and kind of advocated for at the end of Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Marx was by no means, a democrat or someone who believed in parliamentary social democracy, his dream is of a future violent proletariat(workers) revolution aimed at overthrowing the bourgeoisie, Church, class society, or rich industrialists, and set up a workers-only run and dominated one-party dictatorship, and ruthlessly eliminate, suppress and destroy their real or perceived "class enemies". But if you told Marx himself he wasn't a progressive then or most history or political scientists/professors now, they would all laugh at you because he did qualify as someone who fit the " Old Left" mold back then.

"New Left", which influenced most economic and even more socially progressive policies in European and Scandivinavian countries and even here, was formed mostly by the Frankfurt School in Germany post-WWII. In most respects, they wanted a lesser, less rigid, less authoritarian top-down bureaucracy. They also changed their focus to addressing social or racial issues like fighting apartheid, ending segregation in the US, ending the Vietnam War, starting and promoting the process of European decolonialization in Africa, Asia, Caribbean, and South America during the Cold War, trying to promote universal set of human rights and principles. That's the legacy of the New Left and Scandivinavia, is a very prime excellent example of it in terms of its nations' social policies.

But its historically inaccurate and shortsighted that we view or try to redefine or reapply different interpretations of what leftist regimes look like now vs. 60-70 years ago. Leftist regimes can be just as authoritian and prone to violent, brutal excesses like demonizing their enemies, putting them under house arrest, imprisoning them, shutting down or censoring opposition newspapers, or TV stations. Look at Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Castro's Cuba, or Morales Bolivia, as most recent examples. Are we really going to argue that Chavez or Castro didnt see themselves as leftists or celebrated by liberals, left-wing intellectuals, writers, activists, or academics due to their stances against "American imperialism" even though Castro's Cuba was(and still is) a one-party dictatorship.

Trying to explain complex political terminologies, language, and how they fall under the spectrum and how even extreme branches of the opposite ends and how their shared similaries usually aren't always easy to explain and can be very difficult to break down for the layman because in some cases, you don't want to dumb it down because you might risk making your readers think you believe their stupid. Sometimes, if you make it sound too simplistic, some will label you ridiculous and idiotic.

 

[Rawlings]

It wasn't sarcasm. Based on your posting, you seem to have an irrational hatred for BLM and leftys, among other things. The comment about scratching a BLM was pretty terrible. Painting entire groups of people like you have been in this thread really isn't conducive to good faith discussions here. Just because I'm a white, fiscal conservative doesn't mean I need to hate all things social justice or wanting to give voice to those who have little to no voice.

My wife is Asian, children are mixed race, I'm deaf, and we've been poor a lot of our lives, so I get the desire for people to be recognized for the struggles they face. Some BLM people are personal friends of mine, and I get along with them just fine. They're not any more racist than I am that I've ever seen.

While I don't speak for all of them, I do think I can defend those who are genuinely trying to make a positive difference in the world. Whether white, black, Asian, whatever, every group has their share of every persuasion. No one person speaks for everyone in any given group.

I'm here to have a good healthy discussion of the issues. I don't expect all of us to agree, but I do expect decorum and respect for other people and other posters I'm talking with here. Having an open mind and being willing to listen goes a long way. At least it has for me.

So what you're saying is that I failed to qualify my generalized allegation of racism with a term akin to probably like GMRfellowtravell did? My bad. Let me fix that:

Scratch a member of BLM and you’ll routinely get a copious stream of racist blood.​

There. Now we can be friends again.

And, yes, I do indeed despise Marxism, all forms of racism and the so-called social justice movement. As for BLM, the national Black Lives Matter movement is unapologetically Marxist through and through. Moreover, the entire movement is predicated on a racially divisive lie.

 

[Saintman2884]

You bring up one (albeit large) case of anti-drinking as bipartisan example. I can show you hundreds and hundreds of conservative counties that are/were dry counties. I can show you thousands of Blue Laws in conservative locations. You are verbose but you tend to obfuscate the point when you reply. I mean the whole second paragraph... I don’t even know what that was about.

Trying to pass off the Soviet Union’s or China’s government as “leftist” instead of “authoritarian” is baffling. The fact that they targeted intellectuals and free-thinkers should show that it had nothing to do with left/right and all to do with keeping power.

USSR and Maoist China certainly were keenly and megalmaniacal in their paranoid consolidations of power but we shouldn't also assume that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin even or Mao or even millions of people who lived, died, worked and believed in those countries and still do, in the greater, supposed "utopian" ludicrous future anarcho-communist world.

Also, let's not overlook that the real possibility these same leaders or most of their enablers, mid-upper level bureaucrats, Politburo members, Red Army soldiers and officers, NKVD and then later KGB officials didn't genuinely believe at some level in their nation's ideological cause even if they hand the blood of millions on their hands and souls, or ruined, destroyed or discredited countless innocent, ordinary people's lives.

 

[Rawlings]

I believe most of those people/entities are relatively wealthy or, at least, make a fairly comfortable living in political commentating.

Yes.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

As I recall, I gave an example of a Marxist and virulently racist organization in America, an example of institutional racism in America, and an example of systemic racism in America, namely, BLM, affirmative action, and the Democratic plantation system of our inner-cities, respectively. I also rejected the idea that America herself was systemically racist.

I didn't get rave reviews. Tough crowd.

But, hey, if you're suggesting that I sit at your feet while you lace me up on Marxism and systemic racism, I'm all ears.

And when multiple people gave you examples, you ignored them. From where I'm sitting, that demonstrates a lack of desire to discuss in good faith.

 

[Rawlings]

In real English, “it” is the gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. “He” is always a masculine pronoun.

Singular “they” has been used colloquially for years, long before its use as a descriptor for non-binary persons, however. As in, “Everyone should do the best they can,” because “Everyone should do the best it can” doesn’t work, “he” in that context is gender-exclusive, and “he or she” is annoying to read after too many uses. The American Dialect Society has decided that singular “they” is, therefore, acceptable in these contexts.

The application of singular they to non-binary people is secondary.

Language evolves.

False. He is a masculine pronoun, but. . . .

Both it or he are properly used as the gender-neutral, third-person singular pronoun when the gender of the antecedent is unknown. When he is used, it denotes that the antecedent pertains to someone who may be male or female, in the very same sense that the nouns man and mankind include men and women. Usage also depends on the nature of the antecedent in the case of it. This is the historically traditional usage from Middle English on. Look it up. The use of he was the universal standard for centuries . . . until recently, and it's still common in formal writing.

I don't do the feminist monstrocity she, I don't do they when the antecedent is singular, and I don't do he/she. But, yes, they is fine when harking back to everyone or everybody.

 

[Rawlings]

And when multiple people gave you examples, you ignored them. From where I'm sitting, that demonstrates a lack of desire to discuss in good faith.

Folks have indicated that they believe America is systemically racist and have suggested this alleged fault is something obvious, so much so as to opine that I'm not to be taken seriously. Instances of racism or instances of systemic/institutional racism ≠ America is systemically racist.

 

[Xeno]

False. Folks have indicated that they believe America is systemically racist and have suggested this alleged fault is something obvious, so much so as to opine that I'm not to be taken seriously. Instances of racism or instances of systemic/institutional racism ≠ America is systemically racist.

The cognitive dissonance is just..

 

[Rawlings]

I just want to provide some clarity on this topic.

Section 230 exists to promote free speech on the internet. On that point, you are correct. One of the mechanisms in 230 for doing that is to protect website owners from liability for the content posted by their users.

This does not mean that websites cannot moderate their users’ content if they choose. It just protects them (to an extent) if they choose not to. However, private enterprise has always had the freedom to set its own policies. It’s why McDonald’s can still decide to throw you out of the lobby if you decide to start raving about Hitler. Private enterprise restricting your speech on their property is not a first amendment violation.

If Section 230 were revoked, website owners would then be responsible for all content posted by their users. In effect, this would greatly reduce free speech because website owners would be much more likely to be held responsible when their users run amok.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[MT15]

”she” is a feminist monstrosity? Seriously?

You may hate racism, but misogyny seems to be A-OK?

Let‘s assume that was some sort of typo.

BLM is a movement more than an organization. We’ve covered this ground last summer. As such it doesn’t really have any sort of ideological manifesto, not really, and no real national leadership. What I understand it’s purpose is to mitigate police violence against unarmed POC. It has lots of individual organizations. One of these had some people who made a statement last summer that they were “trained Marxists”. This was seized upon and amplified by the far right wing press, who are inherently racist IMO, and looking for anything they could use to delegitimize BLM. I have looked at some of the websites that BLM organizations maintain and found nothing that would indicate they support Marxism in any form. IMO, this was a smear started by the likes of Breitbart and Gateway Pundit and then amplified by the likes of Hannity and Carlson.

So if you could point out what exactly makes you think that BLM is inherently Marxist that would be great. Actual policy statements rather than media smears.

 

[samiam5211]

Section 230 affords website publishers the status of non-publishers in terms of general immunity regarding third-party content. The idea was to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and protect free speech. For a while there it was working just fine. But, of course, Democrats eschew its enforcement as the prevailing big tech oligopoly serves them; more at, the latter is in league with them, ideologically.

Trump's mistake was to rely on Congress to enforce the provision. The executive branch enforces the law. He should have invoked antitrust law when it became abundantly clear just a few years ago, especially, that this oligopoly had no intention of honoring the terms of the provision, particularly regarding the free speech of conservatives, whose reasoned opinions of common sense and decency had come to dominate interactive social media. Now those voices are being systematically deplatformed/demonetized. But, then, leftists have always employed various mechanisms to stifle the free exchange of ideas, as the madness of their ideas cannot withstand the cultural dynamics of competition.

Social media will cease to exist if 230 is repealed.

I’m fine with that, but I think many people don’t realize what they are asking for.

 

[Dragon]

USSR and Maoist China certainly were keenly and megalmaniacal in their paranoid consolidations of power but we shouldn't also assume that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin even or Mao or even millions of people who lived, died, worked and believed in those countries and still do, in the greater, supposed "utopian" ludicrous future anarcho-communist world.

Also, let's not overlook that the real possibility these same leaders or most of their enablers, mid-upper level bureaucrats, Politburo members, Red Army soldiers and officers, NKVD and then later KGB officials didn't genuinely believe at some level in their nation's ideological cause even if they hand the blood of millions on their hands and souls, or ruined, destroyed or discredited countless innocent, ordinary people's lives.

I think the issue is that some see left/right as opposites - they are not. They have far more in common with each other than they have with the more moderate version of both sides.

I don't see the political spectrum as a straight line but as a circle, where the extremes on both sides line up besides each other and the moderate line up with the centrists on the opposite side of the circle

 

[brandon]

False. He is a masculine pronoun, but. . . .

Both it or he are properly used as the gender-neutral, third-person singular pronoun when the gender of the antecedent is unknown. When he is used, it denotes that the antecedent pertains to someone who may be male or female, in the very same sense that the nouns man and mankind include men and women. Usage also depends on the nature of the antecedent in the case of it. This is the historically traditional usage from Middle English on. Look it up. The use of he was the universal standard for centuries . . . until recently, and it's still common in formal writing.

I don't do the feminist monstrocity she, I don't do they when the antecedent is singular, and I don't do he/she. But, yes, they is fine when harking back to everyone or everybody.

30 years ago, this was accurate. However, as I said, language evolves. Otherwise, we’d still be speaking Old English.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but if you use “they” as the pronoun for “everyone” and “everybody”, you’re already using “they” for a singular antecedent. Both “everyone” and “everybody” are singular nouns.

So you’ve already either shown some willingness to allow language to evolve or some ignorance or inconsistency in your application of your stagnant grammar rules.

 

[MT15]

Let your grammar nerd freak flag fly, brandon!

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

just checking back into see if HE had done the "i'm not racist i'm actually a PoC yet"
i was pretty sure he was gearing up for that and if he did it would almost certainly identify the retread

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

And, I would add that since these are private enterprises nobody has a right to their services. Being so badly behaved or spouting lies to the point where you are asked to leave a private company is no violation of anyone’s rights. I’m sure the social media giants would prefer to have more participation than less; it just stands to reason they will only get rid of contributors who prove to be more trouble than they are worth. There are zero First Amendment considerations here.