Pages

Monday, January 11, 2021

The purge

So the purge is on:

1. Just as many conservatives predicted: if the Democrats win the White House and the Senate, then the left will seek to silence opposition or dissent. That's what's happening right now.

Specifically, as many know by now, Twitter banned Trump and locked the POTUS account too. They won't reinstate the POTUS account until Biden takes office. This is despite the fact that Trump is still the sitting president. And not only has Trump been banned, but many of his supporters too, even though many of his supporters haven't said anything that would incite riots or racism.

In addition, big tech companies removed alternatives to Twitter like Parler and Gab. I can no longer download either app via Google Play or the Apple Store. These apps can still be downloaded via a site like APKPure. However, if Parler and Gab have their businesses ended, thanks to big tech's concerted effort to destroy their businesses, then there's no point downloading either app.

In a way, it feels more like this is communist China, not the United States, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will "direct" all "loyal" Chinese including Chinese companies to do what the CCP deems best for "the people", then Chinese companies and other organizations immediately comply.

2. This could backfire against big tech companies. It could significantly hurt big tech business and it could encourage alternative tech businesses who are more fair to establish themselves in big tech's spaces.

Apart from Parler and Gab, there's also Telegram.org, Minds.com, MeWe.com. I'm sure there are others. Telegram may be the most viable choice right now, though we're in a dynamic situation that's changing day by day. In any case, I appreciate what Telegram wrote here.

3. Hindsight is 20/20, but perhaps conservatives should have revoked big tech's section 230 immunities when they had the chance. See my past posts here and here.

4. Sure, legally speaking, Twitter can do what it wants including banning Trump from Twitter. However, at the very least, isn't this setting a bad or even horrendous precedent regarding free speech? Suppose roles were reversed and Twitter banned Biden or Harris because they supposedly "incited" riots through Antifa and BLM. What would the left say?

By the way, it's ironic that the left has historically been known as defenders of individual liberties like free speech, but today the left is apparently fine to stand against free speech. To be more accurate, the left is fine with censoring the speech of conservatives, not their own speech.

5. One would think leftists of all people would be concerned that private corporations can undermine the government. Isn't this what leftists have always railed against? However, since big tech, mainstream media, Hollywood studios, and many other huge companies are on the side of leftists, leftists aren't all that concerned. What if this comes back to bite leftists someday? What if Frankenstein's monster devours Frankenstein?

6. This goes to the issue of double standards. I'd be more fine with Twitter banning Trump if Twitter also banned (say) communist Chinese and pro-communist Chinese agencies for their totalitarianism against Hong Kong, among others. But Twitter doesn't have a problem with China and allows them to tweet all sorts of contentious and arguably evil things.

7. No surprise, but the mainstream media is just fine with all this. In fact, Andy Ngo points out: "Feeling empowered after Twitter’s banning of President Trump, left-wing journalists are pressuring the platform to ban conservative and independent journalists."

It's obvious the mainstream media and big tech don't want conservatives and other dissenters to have platforms by which we can voice our thoughts and opinions.

8. Yet, as Peter Pike notes in his video "Bannings don't work" (well worth watching!), this may have the opposite effect intended by the left: it may harden conservatives and others in our position. It's far better to change minds by open public debate based on reason and argument, not by trying to censor or cancel people deemed toxic without letting them speak their minds.

9. For example, even if Biden won the White House fair and square, there are millions and millions of Americans (not only conservatives, but many liberals, moderates, independents, and others) who don't think that's the case, because it's been obvious the left has behaved in extremely suspicious ways, to put it mildly. So there may be a cloud of doubt about the legitimacy of Biden's victory hanging over his presidency.

Instead what the mainstream media could have done is given Trump a fair hearing on national television to attempt to make a legal case regarding the election results, just as Gore did in 2000, and not said things like Trump must concede, Trump is a tyrant who will refuse to relinquish power (even though Trump had the perfect opportunity to seize power in the pandemic, which is what the governors of California and New York did, but Trump didn't), those who support Trump are supporting white supremacy, and so on. If that had happened, and Trump's legal team couldn't make their case for why the election results should be overturned, then it would have legitimized Biden's presidency.

As an aside, some might be interested in the recent HBO documentary Kill Chain: The Cyber War on America's Elections. Likewise consider the work of the Danish computer scientist and electronic voting technology expert Carsten Schürmann. Neither Kill Chain nor Schürmann are conservative.

10. Worse, if enough Americans feel like they have no voice or venue to vent their frustrations, then history has shown us this is one of the ingredients in a recipe for violent revolution.

11. The mainstream media can say with a perfectly straight face that Antifa and BLM haven't committed any acts of violence but are peaceful protests (despite clear evidence to the contrary), while at the same time say Trump and his supporters are all militant white supremacists (despite clear evidence to the contrary). Not to mention the mainstream media can say that they have never incited or fomented acts of violence (e.g. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor), but then accuse Trump and his supporters of doing just that. How the mainstream media define "violence" strikes me as rather Orwellian!

12. Of course, the mainstream media can say all this because they largely control the news and thus the narrative that appears on the news. And the mainstream media overwhelmingly leans or is left. See Timothy Groseclose's book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind (2012). He points out that over 90% of the mainstream media votes Democrat each election (and consider that my home state of California voted 64% for Biden and 34% for Trump this election which would seem to make the mainstream media more liberal than even California), and Groseclose argues the mainstream media positively benefits the Democratic party anywhere between 6 to 10 points depending on the election.

13. Leftists are teaching many Americans an important lesson: might makes right. That is, when the left is in control, when the left has power, then the left decides what to do.

After all, the mainstream media, big tech, Hollywood, the ivory towers of academia, some professional sports organizations including many in the NFL and NBA, among others, are predominantly controlled by or kowtow to leftists.

At the same time, leftists are attempting to cram leftist values down people's throats without giving people much space to object. (And I fear if the left attempts to end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, make DC and Puerto Rico states, and/or bypass the electoral college which they are already doing via the NPVIC.)

As such, there's no civility, no reasonable debate, no hearing each side out, no compromise to make things work, etc. No, it's all about who's in control, who has power, and whoever has power is the one who decides what goes and what doesn't go. That's the lesson the left is teaching Americans today.

To be fair, it's not necessarily just leftists who treat Americans this way. Sad to say but many conservatives would likely do the same. See how the establishment conservatives treated the Tea Party conservatives for example. See how some Never Trumpers talk about many fellow conservatives.

In any case, if the lesson leftists are teaching us is that might makes right, then if the right ever comes back into power, then what's keeping the right from doing the same?

God forbid we are living in the final days of the American republic.

14. By the way, Triablogue is on Blogger and Blogger is owned by Google. There could come a point in the future when conservative Christian websites like Triablogue are forcibly taken down too. People should consider making a backup of Triablogue if they wish to preserve Steve Hays' writings and/or other Tbloggers' writings.

30 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1) And it's so stupid that Trumpers gave them a great excuse.
    2) I'm not sure how. The problem isn't that you just have to go make your own site, at this point you need to make your own everything. Everything disconnected from Parler. Google took it off their app store, Apple took it off their app store, messaging services, lawyers, and then Amazon stopped hosting them. They'd need everything to avoid being dismantled at the flip of a switch. And banks. We've seen banks publicly stop lending to gun manufacturers, and Project Veritas has video chatting to a guy at Chase Bank saying yep, no way are we going to let the Proud Boys leader have a bank account here (not saying he's a stellar guy, but...as a foreigner who is native to Cuba with ancestry going to Africa and, I believe, native Cubans...he's not a white supremacist).
    5) Yep, the scary "BIG" before industries tends to not make it's way to tech. Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banks...tech
    8) I believe it was Axios, which is owned by Bezos, saying that. "They'll just burrow deeper, those crazy lunatics, getting away from our perfectly reasonable rules that harass ex-Muslims criticizing Islam because Muslims, as 25% of the world population, are a minority, but give Muslims saying they'd be glad watching ex-Muslims be beheaded free reign".
    9) I sat around a table of mostly far left-leaning individuals in California before I left (unintended pun), and one was talking about how any day they'd show off the goods they had on Trump and he'd be gone. Project Veritas has a video with, I believe, a producer where he says there's no evidence and CNN (the guy's company) had wall to wall coverage on Russia/Trump because it sold well.
    10) The guy who shot up a mosque in New Zealand said that. Trying to say there was any issue with Muslims moving to New Zealand was instantly shot down as hate speech/xenophobic/bigotry.
    11) Heck, Biden can say Antifa is an idea and be defended.

    14) so what's the best way to go about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, TFC! I think I pretty much agree with most of what you said. I use something called Blogger Backup Utility to backup Triablogue, but there might be better options. If you know of others, please let me know.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Thanks, Lydia! :) I should say I'm not permanently back, but really just when I feel up for posting. I guess I'm still trying to take it slowly.

      Delete
    2. I'm starting to use my MeWe account a bit more these days. So if you're on there you can send me a contact request. https://mewe.com/i/lydiamcgrew

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Lydia! I don't have a MeWe account (yet). That's because I've been trying to go offline these days. But maybe I should get one since it may be all the more important now than ever to have a voice in the public sphere, while it still can be had. If I do, it'd be an honor to be able to be part of your network!

      Delete
  4. So, how do you backup the voluminous Triablogue without copying and pasting everything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I use something called Blogger Backup Utility. It's really basic, free to download, old, easy to use, saves posts and comments, arranged by date. Its main deficiency is it only saves in xml format, but that can be converted to other file formats. It gets the job done, though it's not anything fancy. There might be better ways to do it that I'm not aware of or not familiar enough with (e.g. HTTrack).

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. I literally had someone rather dismissively ask me "what people did 15 years ago." It was such a messed-up question that I scarcely knew where to start. Okay, first: He had just admitted up-thread that nobody now looks to the news media for anything like objective coverage. So to begin with, it wasn't *as* bad 15 years ago, and people might still hope to learn controversial stories by watching the news on TV or reading a paper. Second, the means of communication *change*. I have trouble just getting in touch with a friend by e-mail now, because so many people don't check their e-mail. So if I get kicked off social media, it's going to be much harder to communicate for daily life reasons or even to communicate with likeminded people who *want* to be in touch with me. These *are* now the forms that the public square takes. Moreover, the opinions of the people whom I would like to influence will be formed by what is on these social media platforms, so if I can't contact them this way, how am I going to contact them? (Golly, *such* a stupid thing to say.) And then--I was immediately ready with the fact that 15 years ago we used e-mail lists to stay in touch and share content with likeminded people and, guess what? Mailchimp recently deplatformed a Tea Party group from using its e-mail list software. There were blogs already 15 years ago for sharing content, etc., and, yes, blogs are sometimes now being deplatformed. (See: Wordpress and The Conservative Treehouse. Not that I'm a fan of the Conservative Treehouse. Too Trumpy. But Wordpress deplatformed them just for being conservative.) I pointed out to him that even going back to "what people did 15 years ago" is therefore increasingly not an option for conservatives. Crickets. Annoying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points, Lydia! I completely agree with everything you said. Although I'd say it's more than just "annoying". At least it would be for me. Like you said, the internet, social media, and life online in general are now the forms that the public square takes. I guess it'd be akin to something like ancient Greeks in an ancient city suddenly closing down the entire marketplace and telling the other ancient Greeks they disagree with or even dislike: "why don't you just go build your own marketplace if you want to do business!" which of course would also involve setting up all the personnel, infrastructure, and so forth required to have a marketplace in the first place. It may even mean building an entirely separate city. And conservatives are expected to build an entirely separate city or marketplace overnight, in the face of hostile opposition intent on keeping them from this this very project. And even assuming conservatives can do so (which I would think is in serious doubt at this point), I suppose it's possible or even plausible that we as a nation are headed toward two separate Americas within one nation - a liberal America and a conservative America, with liberal social media and conservative social media, liberal mainstream media and conservative mainstream media, etc.

      Delete
  6. Welcome back, Hawk! Hope you’re well. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Lucas! :) As I mentioned above, I'm not entirely back, but just as I have the inclination etc. It's still a gradual process for me.

      Delete
  7. I guess the irony of Twitter saying the following is lost on Twitter.

    -

    Ahead of the Ugandan election, we're hearing reports that Internet service providers are being ordered to block social media and messaging apps.

    We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of the #OpenInternet.

    Earlier this week, in close coordination with our peers, we suspended a number of accounts targeting the election in Uganda.

    If we can attribute any of this activity to state-backed actors, we will disclose to our archive of information operations:

    http://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/information-operations.html

    Access to information and freedom of expression, including the public conversation on Twitter, is never more important than during democratic processes, particularly elections.

    #UgandaDecides2021 #KeepItOn

    (Source)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see Tim Pool below responding to something related. Which reminds me, I was watching some ex-Democrats on Youtube for a while last year who soured of the left and actually switched and voted for Trump in 2016, and some joined the Republican Party. They have, how might you put it, technical issues with Facebook, Youtube, and the like. Videos about what they're up to are yanked, Tim Pool's stuff isn't shown normally on Youtube so it's hard to stumble across it like regular channels. It's only paranoia if they aren't out to get you.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, TFC. Interesting! I've only ever seen clips of Tim Pool's interviews and works here and there, but I think I need to watch more Tim Pool at least to better familiarize myself with him.

      Delete
  8. Alexey Navalny
    @navalny

    1. I think that the ban of Donald Trump on Twitter is an unacceptable act of censorship (THREAD)

    2. Of course, during his time in the office, Trump has been writing and saying very irresponsible things. And paid for it by not getting re-elected for a second term.

    3. The election is a straightforward and competitive process. You can participate in it, you can appeal against the results, they're being monitored by millions of people. The ban on Twitter is a decision of people we don't know in accordance with a procedure we don't know.

    4. In my opinion, the decision to ban Trump was based on emotions and personal political preferences.

    5. Don't tell me he was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn't ban anyone (not that I ask for it).

    6. Among the people who have Twitter accounts are cold-blooded murderers (Putin or Maduro) and liars and thieves (Medvedev). For many years, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have been used as a base for Putin's "troll factory" and similar groups from other authoritarian countries

    7. Those who denied COVID-19 exist freely and communicate on Twitter. Their words have cost thousands of lives. And yet, it was Trump who got banned publicly and ostentatiously. Such selectivity indicates that this was an act of censorship.

    8. Of course, Twitter is a private company, but we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state's best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.

    9. If you replace "Trump" with "Navalny" in today's discussion, you will get an 80% accurate Kremlin's answer as to why my name can't be mentioned on Russian TV and I shouldn't be allowed to participate in any elections.

    10. This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: 'this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter'.

    11. If @twitter and @jack want to do things right, they need to create some sort of a committee that can make such decisions. We need to know the names of the members of this committee, understand how it works, how its members vote and how we can appeal against their decisions.

    (Source)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I dunno. Real communication, at least in any meaningful sense, is virtually impossible regardless of the medium. My reasoning for this assertion is based on the objective fact that most people are operating from within completely different worldviews. Their fundamental operating assumptions, their presuppositions, are faulty from the ground up. So, garbage in, garbage out. This is one of the results of the fall. Fallen mankind's thinking is depraved. It's not as if there's this holy of holies behind the eyeballs where people are not corrupted, and they just need all the facts, or a few more details, or more persuasion. A cursory consideration of the "war on drugs", or smoking should be enough to make this clear. Do people who do drugs or smoke cigarettes just not understand that it's unhealthy and dangerous? Do they just lack information?

    I think this fact is often overlooked, or simply not understood by many - if not most - people. There's simply no common ground, no point of contact, it's all just pointless tribal cross talk.

    This is one of the thorniest issues in apologetics. From a Christian perspective Van Til suggested the *only* point of contact between believing and unbelieving thought was the reality that all people are made in God's image, and therefore inescapably they feel the force of God's law written on their hearts which they are ever trying to unsuccessfully suppress, such that the proclamation of the truth of an angry, just God above them, a guilty, accusing conscience within them, and a yawning hell beneath them must be pressed hard upon them.

    This is in the hope that by God's grace alone they might respond to the Gospel and be changed inwardly so that they're enabled to think aright, in accordance with Scripture.

    Otherwise all the talk of conservatism, liberalism, communism, socialism, atheism, humanism, and all the other "-isms" is so much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    I think our priorities are probably misplaced. Just my two cents worth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the whole, sure, but there are enough exceptions to be encouraging. David Quran-Munchin Wood gets plenty of death threats, hateful replies, etc, but he also gets a lot of people saying they left Islam, and in many instances became Christian.

      Delete
    2. When the church's own ability to function gets shut down and little kids are taken away from their Christian parents because the state wants to turn the boys into girls and says the parents are getting in the way of the child's true gender identity, and much more, it will become apparent, as it should be already, that all this "conservatism, liberalism" stuff actually matters. It matters just to the ability of Christians to witness for their faith, to preach the Word, to raise their own children. These people are hunting souls. There is a man in federal prison right now because way back over ten years ago he helped a woman literally *run away* from this country with her little child to get away from a lesbian who was going to get full custody of the child otherwise. The case arose from civil union law in Vermont. It's a long story, but it shows that all this so-called politics stuff really is important. And that's been the case for a long time. And it's only going to get worse. This is a point on which evidentialists and presuppositionalists ought to be able to agree, because even if it's a matter of raising your kids as presuppositionalists and preaching the Word in your own presuppositionalist church and teaching pastors and Christian young people in your own presuppositionalist Bible college and seminary, the days are getting very short. If you think basic Christian activities of proclamation and teaching have any importance, please do not downplay the importance of so-called politics. Because you may not be interested in the leftists and what they're up to, but they are definitely interested in you.

      Delete
    3. Meh. Nations rise, and nations fall. That's the way things work. If people want to use their limited time fruitlessly arguing about politics, who am I to judge? Go for it.

      Delete
    4. Hi CD.

      1. Basically I'd agree with TFC and Lydia on this one.

      2. It seems obvious to me that not all "arguing about politics" is necessarily "fruitless". In fact, some or much arguing about politics can even be fruitful or at least not fruitless. For example, if I successfully argue that it would not be moral to vote for pro-abortion policies, and thereby change a pro-abortionist's mind to being pro-life, then I don't see how that would be "fruitless".

      3. In addition, we can argue about fundamental worldviews. In a sense, presuppositional apologetics is intended to be worldview apologetics. See the work of James Anderson for a modern Van Tillian who takes this tack.

      4. Sure, nations rise and fall. God is sovereign over it all. However, this doesn't imply we should do nothing. That doesn't necessarily imply we have no duty or obligation to "argue" for what's true, right, and/or good in our communities.

      5. Consider a region like North Africa. When was the last time North Africa had a viable Christian presence and influence? Something like 1500 years ago, it seems. So nations rise and nations fall, but Islam's reign over North Africa (among other places) for 1500 years hasn't exactly been a net benefit for Christianity in North Africa as far as I can tell.

      Delete
    5. I vote. If my friends/relatives/acquaintances are interested in discussing various things, including politics, I'm glad to have those discussions.

      By "fruitless" I was thinking of things of eternal value along the lines of "Only one life, 'twill soon be past, only what's done for Christ will last."

      Arguing an abortionist into adopting a pro-life view is a good thing, but lots of conservative pro-lifers are burning in hell right now, and many more are walking the broad path that leads to destruction. Hence my priorities comment. It's good to keep perspective. Again I'm not advocating for some sort of monasticism or suggesting folks can *only* focus on politics *or* religion. In fact I'm not advocating anything. I'm just sharing my opinion in a combox thread that I found interesting.

      I don't mind disagreement. It's evidence of thinking, which is generally a good thing.

      Delete
    6. Thanks for the clarifications, CD. I think I better understand what you mean now. And I suspect we're really on the same page regarding most all this.

      Certainly I think everyone here would readily agree the gospel is primary and central to our Christian life and witness.

      That said, "arguing politics" doesn't necessarily preclude sharing the gospel with others. We can (often) do both. We can share the gospel as well as "argue politics" in many cases. For example, I could argue abortion is wrong with an atheist friend, which leads my atheist friend to ask why human embyros or even human beings are so special, which leads me to talking about the biblical view of human beings (e.g. imago Dei), which leads us to talking about Christ, his claims, and the gospel.

      Sure, there may be some cases where it's more prudent to abstain from "arguing politics" with a person because "arguing politics" might be an impediment or obstacle to the person in considering Christianity. So it depends on the person, the circumstances, other variables. Christians can exercise their own discretion in knowing when to "argue politics" and when not to "argue politics" with someone.

      Delete
  10. Trump can lie and cheat and steal even from his followers. He can lead them all to jail. Wasnt he going to march with the mob? Hahaha. WHat a bunch of fools, the triablogue crowd.
    Deleting posts of somebody you disagree with or one you couldnt silence with a good counter argument sure looks like what the mainstream social media companies have done to trump and all conservative liars who buy into his crap.
    Karma's a bitch, right Hawk?
    Why dont you move to Russia where white supremacists like you will enjoy the company of your fugitive ex-president?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I like another point of view, I don't like one from someone who has an IQ of their age. Use punctuation and proper prose. It might actually get you a job.

      Delete
    2. Trumps actions make any of us fools...how? Are we giant fans? Do we think he's the greatest? Or would some of say that he was the best choice in a bad situation?

      Seeing that most of the time I've seen someone's posts be deleted is when they for the 3rd or 4th time regurgitate the same thing that's been addresses already as if no one's mentioned it, or incoherent people like you. And Triablogue doesn't other internet services, so...where's the comparison? How many times has this site shut down a website it's disagreed with? Is it greater than 0?

      And for the cherry on top, a reference to a Hindu/Buddhist belief that leads to an infinite regress that also exists in worldviews that have no grounding for morality to round out your nonsense. A round of applause.

      Yeah, I'm getting pre-teen who's about to tell us he's intimately acquainted with all of our mothers over voice chat.

      Delete
    3. 1. This you, Gil Christ?

      2. Triablogue banned Gil Christ for past comments like these, where he would make offensive remarks, argue in bad faith, etc.

      3. I don't have a problem if someone is banned for good reason. Whether that's some random internet troll or the President of the United States. If there was a good reason for big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook to ban Trump, if Trump deserved to be banned, then I wouldn't have a problem.

      4. However, Twitter and other big tech companies clearly have a double standard. They ban Trump for supposedly "inciting violence", but they don't ban liberals for doing the same.

      They allow congresswoman Ilhan Omar to tweet anti-Semitic remarks and retweet anti-Semitic remarks.

      They allow various agents to tweet and retweet Chinese propaganda.

      Obama and Biden have said words that could be construed as "inciting violence" against conservatives and other Democrat opponents at least as much as Trump's words, but they're still allowed a platform by Twitter.

      Same with other Democrats like Nancy Pelosi.

      Twitter allowed Kathy Griffin to reshare her photo of a beheaded Trump without banning her just a day after the election.

      Not to mention all the Democrats supporting Antifa and BLM despite all the clear violence Antifa and BLM committed mere months ago.

      For more examples, watch this 2 minute clip. Only some of them were punished, though some still remain heroes or the like in the eyes of liberals despite their drubbing.

      5. What's more, the "purge" isn't solely or even primarily about Trump. It's big tech (along with the mainstream media and the Democratic Party) attempting to shut up conservatives and even non-partisan smaller businesses like Parler and Gab. Destroy their very livelihoods. Make them pariahs in their own country. For some or many, this is a fate worse than death. That should be a concern to all Americans regardless of political affiliation.

      As TFC points out, this isn't comparable to Triablogue. If we ban you, you can just start your own weblog on Blogger. If you're anti-Trump, or simply not conservative or sympathetic to conservatives, then Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and other big tech companies would welcome you with open arms. Triablogue doesn't have the ability to ban you across most of the entire internet, destroy your job or job prospects, or lift the smallest finger against your reputation in the real world.

      6. It's easy to use labels in lieu of logic, reason, evidence, sound and valid arguments. It's quite effective to smear people with labels. Just call someone a racist or sexist even without evidence and immediately everyone wants to distance themselves from them.

      Just today the Daily Beast said Matthew McConaughey is associating with "the alt-right" because he talked to Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro. Yet Ben Shapiro was attacked by the alt-right because he's Jewish and neither Joe Rogan nor Jordan Peterson are on the political right let alone alt-right.

      And now "Unknown" does the same thing - using labels in lieu of logic - by attempting to classify me as a white supremacist without any proof. What makes "Unknown" think I'm a white supremacist? In fact, what makes "Unknown" think I'm even white?

      In any case, the fact that "Unknown" does this kind of thing is good enough reason to ban them.

      Delete
  11. David Wood has several recent videos on big tech and their hypocritical double standards. Here's the latest one:

    https://youtu.be/_h3ItqVqsJM

    ReplyDelete