Cito di Pense wrote:As I said before, when censorship is of ideas...

No, you didn't say before, "When censorship is of ideas". You said, "Censorship is of ideas". It's right there in post #50.
Just as you've got your own descriptor for "censorship", you've probably got your own descriptor for "ideas". So this part of the discussion is rather pointless.

Are there some leftish ideas you think are in the market for being defunded, deplatformed, canceled, etc?

No, there aren't.

Mike_L wrote:RT was never a subject in the thread until you made it one.

Sure Mike, it's him that's obsessed with RT.

Sub-Trumpian whataboutism Why even waste the time? Who buys this stuff?

Mike_L wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:As I said before, when censorship is of ideas...

No, you didn't say before, "When censorship is of ideas". You said, "Censorship is of ideas". It's right there in post #50.
Just as you've got your own descriptor for "censorship", you've probably got your own descriptor for "ideas". So this part of the discussion is rather pointless.

Are there some leftish ideas you think are in the market for being defunded, deplatformed, canceled, etc?

No, there aren't.

Fine, Mike. When 'censorship' is of voices that insist on shouting pants-wettingly stupid nonsense whenever and wherever they like, you're going to call it censorship, as if somebody else should be alarmed by what you want to call censorship. Is that what you want to call censorship? Have fun. If you want to cite some more pants-wettingly stupid voices that you claim are being suppressed, you can start any time. That's your cue to start shilling again. You're one of those folks who, having lost sight of his objectives, continually redoubles his efforts. Stop digging.

Mike_L wrote:Repeating what I said in post #49:

You didn't say anything, Mike. You cited wikipedia on censorship as if that settled it. When you cite wikipedia on stuff like that, you're trying to induce someone to believe your opinion is a fact that must be dealt with, but all you're doing is confirming that your opinion agrees with that of the writer of that sentence. An entire article on context for censorship follows, but you have no interest in anything but backfilling for your opinion. In the next round, try the dictionary. Whiners with no ideas to defend imagine their audience have the same attention span that writers at RT expect of their audience, that of brain-damaged gnats -- whiners cite dictionaries. Takes more than that to get me clutching my pearls.

In case you also have attention-span difficulties, Mike, here's where you entered this thread:

Mike_L wrote:as Project Veritas has repeatedly demonstrated, the censorship is mostly at the expense of conservatives.

You didn't cite Project Veritas. You cited another one of your junk sources, and linked to it, as if you're shilling for somebody. You can't really do much damage, here; maybe you get a few cents for every hundred links you publish. Figure out your hourly rate, if you have the attention span for it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mike_L wrote:as Project Veritas has repeatedly demonstrated, the censorship is mostly at the expense of conservatives.

You didn't cite Project Veritas. You cited another one of your junk sources, and linked to it, as if you're shilling for somebody. You can't really do much damage, here; maybe you get a few cents for every hundred links you publish. Figure out your hourly rate, if you have the attention span for it.

Having decided to follow the link Mike_L provided, I discovered that the article quoted therein was published by Breitbart. Its author, Allum Bokhari, has also written articles for sites of similar repute, such as InfoWars and RealClearPolitics. Hachette Australia reports that "Bokhari's work has received praise from Donald Trump Jr., Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and Canadian media entrepreneur Ezra Levant."

According to this article, which has a number of other bits of info about Bokhari, Milo Yiannopoulos paid him $100,000 to ghostwrite his book, titled Dangerous.

In short, Bokhari is not a source to rely on for information. His Breitbart article is one example illustrating why not. The only true fact presented there is that Twitter suspended James O’Keefe's account. It did not do so because Project Veritas published embarrassing footage of a madcap election campaign field officer working for Bernie Sanders, but it gave Bokhari an excuse to hold forth at great length and detail about said recording.

None of this post has any bearing on the topic of freedom of speech. It's just an aside.

The_Metatron wrote:It amuses me to see so-called conservatives completely miss the concept of value. You know, supply and demand, shit like that. What they're really whining about here is loss of access to more publicity than their bankrupt ideas are worth. They're calling that loss of access "censorship".

Leftist domination of academia and Leftist domination of news on social media have made Conservative views comparatively scarce, and therefore more valuable.


______________________________________

Thommo wrote:

Mike_L wrote:RT was never a subject in the thread until you made it one.

Sure Mike, it's him that's obsessed with RT.

He's just gelatinous jealous.

______________________________________

SafeAsMilk wrote:Sub-Trumpian whataboutism Why even waste the time? Who buys this stuff?

Someday I shall reach the heights of the Trumpian level.

______________________________________

Cito di Pense wrote:...whiners cite dictionaries.

You can't even spell "winners" correctly. This is what happens when you shun dictionaries.

______________________________________

Hermit wrote:..."Bokhari's work has received praise from Donald Trump Jr., Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and Canadian media entrepreneur Ezra Levant."

(Emphasis added)

That's a very fine endorsement!

Mike_L wrote:Someday I shall reach the heights of the Trumpian level.

ClowmMode™ Mike_L, Reloaded. Small bore, so to speak. The heights of the level. You mean, like the scum of a bathtub ring? To spell it out for you, the way a bathtub ring IS scum.

I guess no, there is no freedom of speech because all social networks, mass media resorces belong to someone who can ban your account or delete your post saying that it is allegedly breaking some rules.

Well, that's someone else we can add to the list of people who don't have a fucking clue what freedom of speech actually is.

Zappacosta wrote:I guess no, there is no freedom of speech because all social networks, mass media resorces belong to someone who can ban your account or delete your post saying that it is allegedly breaking some rules.

Yet I can still go out in public and call any government official anything I want to their face.

"yOu DoN't LeT mE yElL FIRE! iN a CrOwDeD tHeAtEr, YoU fReEdOm HaTiNg CoMmIe!"

felltoearth wrote:

Mike_L wrote:The Leftists are more than happy with Twitter censorship, Facebook censorship, YouTube censorship, Google censorship, etc -- because, as Project Veritas has repeatedly demonstrated, the censorship is mostly at the expense of conservatives.
One can be quite certain that if it were mostly the Left being defunded, deplatformed, canceled, shadow-banned and pushed down in search listings, that the tune would change very quickly. They'd be tearing out their green hair and slutwalking all the way to Washington in outrage.

“Investigative journalist“ lol

The vast majority of news isn't. It's a mix of propaganda and marketing towards it's targeted audience, be they left or right. As for Twitter, FB, etc, the fact is as Private Concerns they can make the TOS the rule of "law" in their own domains.

zeeble wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Mike_L wrote:The Leftists are more than happy with Twitter censorship, Facebook censorship, YouTube censorship, Google censorship, etc -- because, as Project Veritas has repeatedly demonstrated, the censorship is mostly at the expense of conservatives.
One can be quite certain that if it were mostly the Left being defunded, deplatformed, canceled, shadow-banned and pushed down in search listings, that the tune would change very quickly. They'd be tearing out their green hair and slutwalking all the way to Washington in outrage.

“Investigative journalist“ lol

The vast majority of news isn't. It's a mix of propaganda and marketing towards it's targeted audience, be they left or right.

Of course. But to pretend it's equivalent to the blatantly criminal activities of outlets like Project Veritas is one of the silliest varieties of enlightened centrism. It's today's iteration of "Teach the controversy".