In my last blog post, On Constructive Debate and Loserthink, I made the case for rational argument. In this post, I will make the case for free speech and against censorship of any type. If you are here for the F/M spanking content, my latest blog on that was Roleplay a few days ago; and if for M/F, I posted another just before that, Trad Wife Spanked and Sexed. Apologies if you come for the spanking and get the social commentary!
This idea of soft censorship is top of mind as I am in the midst of being "soft censored". Several bloggers have removed links to my site after years and years, some of whom (we do not know which) do so under the prodding of an anonymous malcontent (we are all somewhat anonymous in our spanker world, but this is someone who added an extra layer via an anonymous mailer account so as not to be tied to their online presence even). Lion reports on it in his blog: We Were Asked To No Longer Link To A Blog. For those of you taking down my links, I urge you to reconsider and not be party to this, even if coincidental.
One of the great contributions of Western Civilization was a gradual progression towards principles of free speech and the vigorous debating that comes along with it. It's earliest and finest practical expression is the First Amendment to the US Constitution contained in the 1791 Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Some will argue "that only applies
to Governments, Julie. Didn't you know that? It doesn't apply to
businesses. How dumb are you not to know that?"
Well, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted Dec 8, 1948, provides, in Article 19, that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
In the preamble it states,
The General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms.
A corporation is an "organ of society". Amazing the Chinese have not gotten around to striking Article 19, heck, the whole Declaration, because they sure don't adhere to it!
And if you now want to go and pick apart the Declaration (you can find it here) and see every place where you believe my thoughts are at odds with it, good luck, as I agree with all of it and argue accordingly. It does not get the credit it deserves. It was heavily sponsored by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, and the drafting effort was lead by a Canadian, John Peters Humphrey. It's a beautiful and life-affirming document. (And yes, I know Roosevelt and his "New Deal" is a big bugaboo of the right, and for this purpose I don't care).
What the UN was getting at is that the principle of free speech needs to be alive inside all of us, and inside all of our institutions, government, educational, and private.
Free speech is uninteresting and moot if it only includes speech you like, or that you agree with, or that you find no offense from. It only has value as a universal human right when it consists of ideas you dislike, disagree with, are offended by, or even find dangerous. In 1978, The American Civil Liberties Union, whose membership was heavily Jewish at the time, took a stand to protect the right of neo-nazis to march in a suburb of Chicago. Haw far that organization has fallen!
What is the correct response to speech you do not like, you do not agree with, and even speech you consider hateful or even generally dangerous? More speech!
But not the so-called Heckler's Veto. Some argue that heckling speakers to the point where they cannot be heard at all is just more free speech. This is the opposite of free speech. It is individuals or a collective group denying another's right to speak. It is in exact contradiction to the principle of free speech. A responsible organization sponsoring an event should allow time for others with opposing points of view to speak.
A notable case in recent times is Ben Shapiro. He is a Jewish, Harvard-educated lawyer on the mainstream right with a big Internet presence. He dislikes Trump. His most famous line is "facts don't care about your feelings". He used to go around to college campuses and deliver talks. At one point the left decided he needed to be shut down, because they thought their feelings were indeed the only important thing. They would go into the talks and start screaming "fascist!" at the tops of their lungs (not realizing the irony, apparently, of harassing a Jew while doing so). They would pull the fire alarm. They began staging rowdy demonstrations that lead to riots with their friends from Antifa. The local police in these liberal college towns stood back and let it happen. The college administrations let it happen. The left-leaning media was silent as it was happening.
This came to a head after about a year of this, when, to their credit, UC Berkeley finally stepped up and put in the necessary security to allow an event to happen (at a reported cost of $600K because by then the left was so emboldened and allowed to run roughshod for so long). This only happened, though, after more than a year of multiple right wing events being harassed and effectively shut down by the Heckler's Veto. In case you're interested, here is Ben's full speech at UC Berkeley where he comments on the thuggery, and where you can judge for yourself if his views are in fact "fascist".
As you can see in this video (and for all of his talks) he leaves plenty of time for challenges and questions, and explicitly gives precedence in the questioning to those who disagree with him. This is free speech done right by all concerned.
In March of 2019 Trump signed an executive order that would deny federal funding for institutions that did not actively uphold freedom of speech on their campuses, which was an effective and excellent move (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/03/21/trump-expected-sign-executive-order-free-speech/). I quote from the executive order.
It is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage institutions to foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate, including through compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions;
Are there limits to free speech? Yes, and I think there should be, and the US courts agree. You can't libel people, attempting to destroy their reputations by means of lies. There is an exception for public figures. You can't directly incite people to violence. You can't cause direct physical harm to people through your speech (the famous yelling "fire" in a crowded theater example).
How about "hate speech"? That has proven to be highly problematic in today's environment, where anybody who supports Trump, according to the left, is guilty of hate speech. The issue is where do you draw the line? Who decides? For example, if you state the fact that certain ethnic groups have different outcomes on IQ tests as compared to others, are you guilty of hate speech? Many believe so.
True adherents to free speech, such as the ACLU in 1978, have no truck with "hate speech" as a means of suppressing speech. Their answer, as should be ours, is more speech. The instinct to silence is the worst instinct.
How about "fake news?" Should that be suppressed? Again, who makes that judgment call? Those calling for it need to be given a lollipop. At any moment that weapon can be turned around and used on them.
One very recent example was the complete suppression of the news of the scandal involving Joe and Hunter Biden prior to the election. Mainstream media refused to cover it (a form of soft censorship when it is evident they would have eagerly covered a similar allegation against Trump, and did so in 2016 with the Russian collusion conspiracy that turned out to have no basis according to the Mueller report). Social media also actively suppressed content that shared links to the story. Now, after the election, it has come out directly from the Biden campaign that in fact Hunter has been under investigation well prior to the election regarding money transfers from Ukraine, China, and Russia. I believe everybody should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but the obvious double-standard from the media (where even the allegation is soft censored depending upon political affiliation) is galling to conservatives.
On the subject of election fraud, YouTube is now removing from its site any videos posted that suggest the 2020 election was compromised.
...we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election...
How Orwellian is that? The concept that there is not even an argument to be made is absurd on its face. While denied to be heard for lack of standing (with 2 judges dissenting), the very well-written Texas-lead Supreme Court motion lays out a reasonable case (you may agree or disagree, that is the point). People should be allowed to decide for themselves on its merit, assisted by commentary, not have the discussion entirely censored by YouTube, owned by Google!
 |
| LINK |
I inherently mistrust any information source that believes that the people cannot be shown a point-of-view "for their own good".
The softest of all forms of censorship is "the bubble". I wrote last time in On Constructive Debate and Loserthink that people form their views in various ways, and not mainly through a rational process. Sometimes it's just what's in the air they breathe and what everybody around them thinks, and what all their news sources say, and at a point in time where they are not really interested in the issue. I was like this about Climate Change, for example. I just assumed the mainstream view was correct because I did not care that much about the issue and it was all around me.
Once you have made up your mind about something, it is hard to get people off that. Every new piece of evidence that comes in is twisted in your mind to support your point of view in a process called confirmation bias. For example, every hot day becomes evidence of climate change. Every forest fire becomes evidence of climate change. Every receding shore line the same. Particularly cold days, on the other hand, or sea level dips, are dismissed as anomalies. Graphs that show the temperature going up are embraced as evidence. Other graphs that show it being flat are dismissed as phony. Confirmation bias is at play.
Even when a particularly strong piece of evidence comes in, the human brain can't process it, and cognitive dissonance kicks in. The mind literally cannot see it, and the person reacts by even more violently supporting their own preconceptions on an issue.
We all need to be on guard against these natural human proclivities.
Unchecked, it can even proceed to the extent where people with opposing points of view become evil in their minds, nazis, racists, science deniers, anti-vaxxers, and so on and on. At this point, these "evil" people need to be de-platformed. Remove any links to them. Go on a campaign to get others to do so as well. Do not engage with their content (it's too hard, psychologically, and besides, they are evil). Get them banned outright if you can. The means justify the ends. Expose them. Get them fired from their jobs. They are evil! We need to teach these evil people a lesson.
Here is where that kind of hate and rhetoric can lead. Recently a Democrat Michigan State Representative, Cynthia Johnson, posted a Facebook video.
 |
| So this is a warning to you Trumpers. Be careful. Walk lightly. We ain't
playing with you. Enough of the shenanigans. Enough is enough. And for
those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it. Do it right. Be in
order. Make them pay. LINK |
She is obviously an example of the worst 5%, and has been disciplined by her Republican house leadership, and rightly so. But people, please. Dial it down. Embrace free speech. Embrace opposing points of view. Don't be so morally certain of your position, or you may turn into a Cynthia!
Suppression of ideas that one cannot logically refute is the worst kind of hatred.
ReplyDeleteFairer to add that even if you have convinced yourself that you have logically refuted them, you should maintain a bit of humility and not suppress.
DeleteJoe2 here,
ReplyDeleteI took a philosophy course many moons ago where the professor said you either believe in "objective truth" or you believe in "might makes right." Because if you believe in objective truth you will always be trying to refine the best ideas and be open to new concepts. In the alternative, if there is no objective truth then there is nothing holding back the boss from doing anything he wants, because the truth is whatever she wants it to be.
Sounds attractive as a femdom!
DeleteUniversities used to encourage debate and discussion ,not any more. They create a narrative and if you disagree you are fired. Simple minded people running Universities these days!
ReplyDeleteSad but true.
DeleteMiss SJ:
ReplyDeleteI lean left but (and?) it really drives me crazy when folks on the left censor - softly or otherwise. It is Unamerican (Uncanadian), unethical and really stupid (since it lose supporters in the middle).
I recently engaged in some campus politics, was initially shouted down, then strategically bit the bastards in the but with a message and strategy they could not refute.
My new fantasy is to be spanked and scolded by Republican wome.
- Rosco
A great fantasy. We are very sure of ourselves!
DeleteI wholeheartedly support your right to say anything you want.I think you should be a little more aware of what Twitter and Facebook, and others are doing about fake news (Trump invented that term)
ReplyDeleteThe online services are flagging statements made by the president of the United States that are provably inaccurate. To my knowledge they haven's labeled any opinion expressed as false.
The president of the United States holds a very special position in the world. It's true that Trump isn't the first president to lie. Richard Nixon, another Republican (not claiming a trend, just saying) was impeached and resigned when he waa caught lying. It's a felony to lie to a Federal officer. Shouldn't it be one if the highest federal officer lies to his people?
We will never agree about politics. What you and any readers who agree with you need to know is that it isn't Trump's fake news that hurts us the most.It's his continuous efforts to turn us against one another.
The flagging is a form of censorship, as it is unevenly applied. But the eliminating of certain views off YouTube is pure unadulterated book burning censorship.
DeleteI would characterize flagging not as a form of censorship, but rather, as you put it, responding to speech with more speech. The company believes a statement that has been made is factually untrue, and it expresses that belief.
DeleteI think the unwashed public gives greater sway to Facebook or Twitter messages, so when political bias enters into it (as has clearly ocurred - their content moderation staff and partners leaning heavily left) it becomes anti-democratic.
Delete"Free speech is uninteresting and moot if it only includes speech you like, or that you agree with, or that you find no offense from. It only has value as a universal human right when it consists of ideas you dislike, disagree with, are offended by, or even find dangerous."
ReplyDelete"But not the so-called Heckler's Veto. Some argue that heckling speakers to the point where they cannot be heard at all is just more free speech. This is the opposite of free speech. It is individuals or a collective group denying another's right to speak. It is in exact contradiction to the principle of free speech. A responsible organization sponsoring an event should allow time for others with opposing points of view to speak."
These two statements of yours are contradictory. Heckling maybe more of a nuisance than actual debate, but if that is the way someone chooses to express their disagreement, then that should be considered free speech as well - per your first comment. Just because you dont like it, doesn’t mean it isn’t free speech. No one gets to define what is free speech and what isn’t. Quality of speech doesn't matter here.
"For example, if you state the fact that certain ethnic groups have different outcomes on IQ tests as compared to others, are you guilty of hate speech? Many believe so."
The simple rule is any kind of speech that is abusive or associates or attributes something derogatory to a certain demographic groups on the basis of gender, race, religion, culture, nationality, sexual preference, gender identity etc is hate speech. It is because you have to treat people as individuals. Not as members of groups.
For example, if you tell a black guy - “You are one dumb motherfucker”, that isn’t racist or hate speech. But if you say “Black people usually score less on IQ tests”, then yes, that is hate speech. Notice how the first example was uncouth and indecent and the second example was perfectly decent. But hate speech isn’t about decency but about the underlying meaning attributed to groups of people. Hate speech fundamentally devalues people and attributes their “lower value” to things that are not in their control - like their race, in both of our examples.
PS: The bell curve, Rushton, Jenson and Lee and their studies etc on race and intelligence have been thoroughly debunked. THey are not even peer reviewed studies. Anyway that is a separate can of worms and I have an inkling you do believe those studies. But won’t go into that right now.
- Rubber Doll
If the statement is false, then refute it, as you are doing. All good. No need to censor the thought.
DeleteAnd don't confuse group IQ differences with individuals. A certain black man my be more intelligent than all the whites you meet. That's the nature of Bell curves.
And I don't see a contradiction in my 2 statements. Rational arguments have precedence over howling hyenas who attempt to suppress other's speech.
Classifying something as hate speech etc isn't censorship though. It is what it is.
DeleteA private individual, organization or a business however, has a right to say that they will expel anyone who says stuff they deem offensive per their rules. Just like for example you reserve the right to not publish comments that you deem are abusive. What you and these businesses (in this case social media companies) are doing isn't stifling free speech.
If however a government makes a rule on what can be expressed, like in North Korea for example, then that would be an attack on free speech.
So when Twitter labels trump's comments as "Election fraud is disputed", they are not censoring anything, they are fact checking. Absolutely nothing wrong about that.
PS: Regardless of the fact that IQ tests are fundamentally flawed these studies that try to establish a relationship between race and intelligence are flawed in several aspects
- data mining, statistical analysis and assumptions. In my opinion these are just works of scientific racism. After all, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics!" - Mark Twain.
-Rubber Doll
P.S. I bow to my Asian IQ overlords.
DeleteYou block content you find offensive to you. You dont cater to that many people though. They block content they deem offensive as they cater to billions. I have a right to read your blog, or move on. You have a right to not have an account on twitter, facebook or youtube if they dont work for you. None of these things curtail any of your freedoms.
Delete-Rubber Doll
I blog comments that contain rude and derogatory language whose sole intent is to harass me. I do not block ideas that offend me. There is a massive difference between those two things.
DeleteThey dont block ideas that offend them - there are tons of conservative and even white nationlists/racists on youtube - like Ramzpaul for example. None of them are blocked. They block videos or content that they deem are dangerous, violent, incites hatred, promotes obscenity etc., Not seeing how they are unreasonable for doing that.
Delete- Rubber Doll
"The simple rule is any kind of speech that is abusive or associates or attributes something derogatory to a certain demographic groups on the basis of gender, race, religion, culture, nationality, sexual preference, gender identity etc is hate speech. It is because you have to treat people as individuals. Not as members of groups." I could not disagree more if the suggestion is that data, in and of itself, can be hate speech if it distinguishes between groups in some way that could be viewed as hierarchical. Hate speech is an inherently intent-based designation, so before even reaching the validity of the IQ studies, you would need to understand for what purpose they were being cited or what was being argued using them for support. And, labeling the data itself as offensive or "hate" speech could be counter-productive if your goal is progressive public-policy. Anyone who knows anything about IQ scores knows that they are correlated with both genetics AND environmental/personal historical factors. Chronic stress (from perhaps being marginally employed with lack of social support), early childhood education and enrichment, pre-natal healthcare, alcohol and drug abuse -- all can impact IQ. So, if a study showed that one group had, on average, lower IQ scores than another group, the first thing you would want to do after establishing whether the statistic was in fact reliable and valid would be to ask "why?" Could it be that living with the chronic stress and poor access to good nutrition and health care could result in some statistically significant difference in IQ? Quite possibly. And, of course, fundamentally you DO need to ensure that the data itself is accurate and the methodology sound and reliable. Until you know ALL of that context, there is no way in hell to label any piece of data "hate speech."
DeleteWow, Dan, we totally agree on something! :-)
DeleteI had a feeling you would like that one. ;-)
DeleteRD, the problem is who gets to define what constitutes "hate speech". For example, any questioning of any detail of the established Holocaust constitutes "hate speech" in Germany and is potentially punishable by a prison term. There was a comedian in Scotland who taught his dog to raise a paw when he said "zig heil" to annoy his girlfriend and he put it on YouTube. He was tried and convicted of a hate crime despite evidence he had no hate in him. In Canada a biological man / trans woman went to a waxing salon staffed by immigrant females and brought them in front of the hate crime tribunal for refusing to wax her balls. Jordan Peterson objected to the government compelling people to use preferred pronouns (he is not against using them, just against being compelled to by law). The way the Canadian Bill is written, you can now be found guilty of a crime even if you accidentally slip up because your intent does not count, only the perception. These are some of the inanities you sign up for when you start going down that road, because, unfortunately, the SJW's who tend to want to belong to these tribunals or want to prosecute "violators" are not reasonable people.
DeleteThe blocking on YouTube I find unreasonable is their current stance of censoring any video that calls into question the result of the 2020 election.
They have also outright removed various channels such as Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, Milo, Sargon of Akkad, and others, on very very flimsy grounds with no chance of appeal. Censorship = a violation of the UN Declaration.
Dan, I agree. I should have mentioned intent. My argument was based on my experience that frequently, online, I have seen people cherry pick anything related to IQ scores for example, to make the case that white people are superior to black people. Hence my statement that it is hate speech. To this day I have never seen anyone use average IQ scores to argue about the need to look into socio-economic or environmental issues that could potentially be fixed through progressive policy change or whatever. I have always seen people use it to make a self serving argument to air their own biases. That is where I was coming from.
DeleteJulie for your examples, I think intent matters, like Dan said. For example, why would anyone question the Holocaust today? I mean it is proven with lots of evidence that 6 million people died. But who resorts to Holocaust revisionism or denial and why? Depending on the answer to that, you could call it hate speech or not. Again my experience on this, is that most Holocaust deniers or revisionists, do so for no other purpose than to minimize the event and support Nazi ideals. So the moment someone goes down that path, to me they are sus. I do agree with the general idea though that SJW are annoying af. There are times when you could give the benefit of the doubt to someone, but they are crucified if they dont fit in.
On the subject of YouTube, they probably block what they consider misinformation. And the channels that were blocked, again, they were blocked for violating their Tos. They were all at one point allowed on the platform right? They were there, and thriving? For years? Then they did something that got them blocked, so am still failing to see why you think YouTube is being unfair on this. For every channel blocked there are several others that air the same beliefs and views and they are all able to thrive just like any other.
- Rubber Doll
You only imagine you can divine people's intent if they don't tell you outright. Best to ask. It was one of the rules from the last post.
DeleteAs an example, after world war 1 there was a movement in history called "revisionism". There was a tremendous amount of propaganda against the Germans (like they bayoneted babies for fun). That was propaganda. It took years for the more accurate version of history to come out. At the time it was called Revisionist, and it is now accepted to be the most accurate. The intent of the revisionists was simply truth, though they were accused of all sorts of other agendas at the time.
YouTube was being unfair because they are not transparent, their TOS is vague and constantly shifting, and there is no viable objective appeal process. The ostensible reason those channels were taken down was pretty lame. Their censoring any opposing POV on election is pure outright censorship. Their suppression of the Hunter Biden scandal pre-election was bogus. Their lack of suppression or labelling of the Russian collusion hoax, or the fine people hoax, demonstrates hypocrisy and political bias.
I've followed you for years. Enough. Your points of view are abhorrent and offensive, up with which I will not put.
ReplyDeleteThis normally the kind of comment I block, but I was laughing too hard.
DeleteThanks for not censoring.
DeleteAlso I could not be sure it was not sarcastic, as this blog is on the principle of free speech which I doubt any thinking man finds abhorrent and offensive!
Delete'Up with which I will not put....was this comment from Yoda?
DeleteI think it was perhaps apocryphally ascribed to Churchill after an editor of his corrected his use of prepositions, quoting him the rule, to which Churchill responded "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
DeleteI think you are giving him way too much credit Julie !
DeleteI understand you must feel threatened by someone trying to stop people from getting to your blog and hearing from you. I don’t think it’s right and if I had a blog worth linking to you with, I’d do it. With that said, I’m sorry Jules, love you, but freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee a platform. and unlike the originalist judges appointed recently, I understand that the world has changed mightily since the founding fathers were born. Airplanes, power plants, monopolies, trains, bicycles, mass production, antibiotics, space travel, and the list goes on. Originalism is not a realistic way to govern and is really just an excuse for conservatives to argue for smaller government in all cases except abortion and stopping the gays from living there lives freely. You admit that you don’t let all posts through depending on their content so aren’t you in fact censoring people??? Someone disagreeing with you and asking the people you follow to stop passing on your posts is simply exercising their freedom of speech or do you want to censor that too??? True censorship is preventing informed voices from telling the masses what is going on, like making sure the COVID data from meat packing plants is not announced or turning average federal employees (also known as the deep state) into whistle blowers who have to report the administrations wrong doings with protection so they don’t get “Vindmaned”. Meaning they lost their career and are personally attacked by the president for exercising their free speech. Oh it gets tricky real fast and explains Trumps threat to veto funding the troops (or what he would call “suckers and losers”, I know fake news though never proven wrong, in fact proven right by Trumps lame bone Spurs diagnosis) to save his Twitter feed from being fact checked. I do believe in facts and I do not believe in alternative facts. Call this a word salad if you want, it doesn’t make it less true. You claim to not believe in vast conspiracies and yet pass along their talking points and respond to people who propagate them as “things you believe in your dark moments”. All that’s means is in your heart of hearts you want to believe these things but there is a rational part of you that won’t let you. I know, I read your last post and I’m breaking some cardinal rule about thinking I know what’s in your head. What the book doesn’t say is that sometimes people actually tell you what’s in their head without even knowing it. Like admiring what they think. Our enemies have preyed against the fallacy that leaning towards allowing all speech is better than deciding what speech is ok. But just like everything else, information has changed since the 1770’s. Not just what it is, but how it is disseminated and weaponized. Just because it was weaponized for your side deosn’t make it ok. Please don’t censor this post...
ReplyDeleteI only censor comments that contain personal harassing insults. I do not censor comments based on the ideas. Anybody who maintains a civil tongue in their heads may speak and say whatever they like on my platform. In so doing, I believe I am adhering to the principle of free speech.
DeleteNo, nobody has a legal obligation to link to me, or even not censor. I believe we all have a moral obligation, in line with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to encourage free and open exchanges of ideas. As individuals we do this through our everyday actions.
Nobody has an obligation to link to me, but a person who specifically performs an act to take down a link that has been in place for years, with the stated reason only that they find your ideas offensive to them, is not personally practicing free speech. It is not the actions of a free speech advocate encouraging the free exchange of ideas. So yes, I am critical of them and calling them out for their hypocrisy.
And yes, as you correctly point out a lot of your post is a word salad rant with nary a fact or cogent argument in sight. How do you like 'dem free speech?
I would also add that I might censor a comment that is not at all cogent, and that seems to be making no discernable point at all. It is a judgment call, but in this, again, I feel I am being consistent with free speech principles in that I am not suppressing the expression of thoughts I disagree with.
DeleteYou tell them Miss Ms Julie you go girl you smart awesome lady i am on your side like always
ReplyDeleteThanks mike!
DeleteJulie there is no such thing as soft censorship. It is just cencorship and if some had their way this blog and my blog would be shut down. Your blog and my blog already come with trigger warnings. Some may find this content offensive....So damn it if its offensive click off and keep going until you get to Disney land and if your offended so what..who cares. be offended. what is hateful on my blog? in my view nothing...I write about my wife having sex with other men. Yeah I get is some are offended by that. So what be offended. I am not asking the government for special compensation because we have a different view of sex than some. I am not advocating for your wife or husband to screw anyone other that you. If you want to read about how we live read about it and if you dont I will not twist your arm and force it. If you want to argue with me about how immoral we are go right ahead. The only content I censor is content that advertises some porn site or some blog for profit. You see I offend for free!!! You rock girl I love you and this blog.
ReplyDeleteexactly. People in our community calling for censorship based on "hate" may regret it when M/F spanking blogs are deemed "hatred against women" and shut down. Sex workers are literally being deprived of their living because do-gooders feel that all of them are oppressed.
DeleteSee, there are all sorts of issues you and I agree on!
DeleteWell I am upset with you for choosing to delink my blog. My feelings are hurt.
DeletePut up a post saying "Alex Jones is a fat, ugly, bald, stupid loser who is running a Satanic pedophile ring out of his studio, and Patrick Kennedy should shoot vaccines instead of smack" and I'll put you right back up. :-)
DeleteOops. Meant "Robert Kennedy." Hard to keep them all straight.
DeleteI agree with some of your characterization of Alex. I can definitely agree he's fat and bald?
DeleteCome on, why not go for "running a Satanic pedophile ring in his studio?" He did it to that poor pizza parlor in D.C with just as much evidence. You're discriminating against me by not granting that it is at least possible that Jones too is harboring a Satanic pedophile cult. Since I've alleged in here, in writing, surely you must agree that it should at least be investigated. Shouldn't someone at least depose Alex before anyone decides that he's not harboring Satanic pedophiles? I mean, doesn't he just *look* like the kind of guy who would be into Satanic pedophelia?
DeleteI think the allegation was that child molesters were using "pizza" as a code word for children they wished trafficked. Not sure how the pizza parlour fits into that.
DeleteAt any rate, Alex often rants untrue things for entertainment value, as in saying the water was turning the frogs gay. In fact, hormones in the water supply were impacting amphibians. He drew his audience's attention to it in a colourful way.
And no, you need some evidence to predicate an investigation. E.g., unlike the Russian Collusion Conspiracy that turned out to be fraudulently predicated. Voter fraud has lots and lots of indications and eyewitness reports that warrant investigation. Alex hosting a pedophile ring? None.
Now, there you go again, misrepresenting what the Mueller report actually said. There was more evidence there of conspiracy and attempt crimes, not to mention obstruction, than you have of a massive conspiracy to steal an election. And, again, doesn't Alex just kind of look like a pedophile? "Lots of people are saying" he does, and I've heard unknown others they think he might be, so shouldn't Fox and OAN and the biased right-wing media at least make him answer questions about whether he's a pedophile or a Satanist? And, if people raid his office or house looking for evidence of the pedophile ring, they're just exercising their Second Amendment rights, plus their right to free speech by showing how much they hate pedophiles and love their country. Didn't Trump say that's what he knows about Qanon? They just really love America and hate Satanic pedophiles. Come on Julie, with our children's safety at stake and you not offering any proof that he's not a Satanic pedophile, and given that we have at least some proof in that he kind of looks like the kind of guy who would harbor a Satanic pedophile ring in his house, don't you think the FBI should at least investigate it? What's the harm in just looking into it? What are they trying to hide? I mean, if you really hate pedophiles and love America like Trump, shouldn't someone at least look into it for the sake of the children?
DeleteA direct quote from the Mueller Report (I keep a copy on my iPad for moments such as these, to pounce!) "...the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 election". And anticipating your response, it was not in their charter to prove innocence, only to find evidence of guilt, which they were unable to do despite the massive investment.
DeleteAs to the predicates of the investigation, there is now testimony that says without the Steele Dossier they would not have opened the investigation, and the Steele Dossier has been proven to be misinformation paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, through their law firm, to Fusion GPS (an oppo research company), and then to Christopher Steele, and then to Russians.
There has been a scathing IG report on the 17 significant FISA abuses that predicated the investigation (https://www.npr.org/2019/12/22/790281142/scathing-report-puts-secret-fisa-court-into-the-spotlight-will-congress-act), and one FBI lawyer was convicted:
"Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement on Wednesday, admitting he doctored an email that was submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as part of a FISA application used to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page during the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. [...] Clinesmith was helping to prepare the application, and in doing so, he altered an email which originally stated that Page was a government "source," as he had publicly claimed. However Clinesmith added words to make it appear that the government agency, which was later revealed to be the CIA, said that Page was "not a source," according to the Justice Department's information in the case."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-pleads-guilty-first-criminal-charge-durham-probe/
Now who's misrepresenting what again?
Under the US Constitution, you have a right to speak. You don't have right to be heard. You have right to stand on a soapbox and talk, but you don't have a right to make others build the soapbox for you, buy it at a store for you, place it in the public square for you, or print out flyers inviting others to hear you speak. In the end, what your post title calls "tyranny" is nothing more than private businesses making private decisions about what content they want on their platforms and under what conditions. Just like you can set your own limits and your own rules on which comments to post, which to censor, which to praise and which to resort to name calling and ridicule, those private platforms are entitled allow some posts, disallow others, allow posts under certain conditions and not others, or to comment on whether, in that platform's opinion, the post is true or false. If you really believe in free speech as you claim, then all that I just wrote naturally follows from that. But, what you've shown over the last few days is you are not *really* into free speech. You are into compelled speech and forced audiences. You are quite comfortable with government regulation of speech and speech-distributing platforms, as long as it meets your criteria that the regulation results in "more speech" and "free speech" in terms of the poster being allowed to comment but the platform being prohibited from commenting on that post, including on whether the post is factually questionable. So, you are very, very comfortable with government interference in speech and in moderating the speech writes of those who provide the platforms that you or people you support post on, to the point of suggesting that their right to comment on your post is itself a form of sanctionable censorship.
ReplyDeleteThere also is no obligation for a speaker to give the other side equal time or to apply conditions even-handedly. But, I'm also not sure the enforcement is as one-sided as you suggest. First, your favorite President lies *a lot*. So, yes, statistically he is probably more likely to have more matters flagged as untrue because more of his statements are, in fact, untrue. Second, I think there is a fair amount of "censoring" as you describe it going on, even with respect to benign content. A few days ago, I shared some meme on Facebook that was supposedly a quote by Martin Luther King. Facebook flagged it as wrong or misleading. The quote itself was legit, but it apparently was actually by some other civil rights leader and not Dr. King. Pretty nit-picky for sure and kind of annoying, but then I never had a "right" for them to post my meme without commenting on it.
I think you missed the whole point of this blog. I'm not talking about legal rights. I'm talking about individuals behaving in a manner that is consistent with the UN Declaration on Human Rights that encourage all individuals and organs of society of all stripes to engage heartily in and do everything they can to promote free speech. Yes, some sort of content moderation is fine, but we must always ask if we are in the habit of promoting free speech, especially of ideas we oppose, and if our actions are in keeping with that, or in keeping with the active suppression of ideas we oppose, which in my opinion is what you did when you actively removed a long-standing link to me for the sole reason that you oppose some of my ideas. I do not question your right to do it, I question your action itself.
DeleteI think you are splitting hairs and also really mis-applying the UN Declaration on Human Rights. The Declaration is (non-binding) statement of the signatories regarding various rights that governments should ensure to their people. That doesn't have anything more to do with what one citizen does vis-a-vis each other than does the First Amendment in the US Constitution. Yes, the Declaration favors free speech. So does the First Amendment. Neither of them has the slightest legal or moral application to how private citizens and businesses speak to each other. It is totally irrelevant to whether Facebook can label something you posted as false or whether Twitter has an obligation to post your tweet no matter how factually incorrect or objectionable to Twitter's owners.
DeleteYou also avoided the issue about what Facebook is doing when it fact checks a post. You label it "censorship," but it is not one bit different than you or I commenting on the veracity of a reader comment on our blogs. That fact-check flag is basically an editor at Facebook commenting that your post is potentially full of shit, which as a private business they are 100% entitled to do just as you and I are entitled to when someone posts a comment on our respective blogs.
No hairs are being split. I believe we do have a moral obligation to promote free speech wherever we can, because it is a value worth upholding. I find when the big tech platforms censor, they are being immoral, not necessarily illegal.
DeleteAnd actually no re adding the editorial fact check. They are, in your own words, acting as an editor, and lose their right to Section 230 protection by acting as such.
And the obvious problem with the "fact check" is it is subject to the same problem, who determines what is false? There is clear political bias going into the fact checks. Even 100% factually true statements questioning the election are being labelled, but statements such as "these have been the freest and fairest election ever" are not so-labelled. They are clearly, clearly editorializing by choosing which statements to label and which not to.
Section 230 only ensures that social media companies are not held liable for content posted as they are not publishers. It further provides good samaritan protections for moderation and removal of content if they deem such content offensive in some way. Even if it is constitutionally protected speech. So why would they lose protections against section 230, if all they are doing is labeling content - not actually editing them?
DeleteOn the issue of fact checking and your question on who determines what is false - well, it depends on what you are talking about. On voter fraud - well things aren't as questionable as you think they are. It is a proven fact that there is not enough voter fraud to significantly alter election results. So when trump tweets something like (and I just copied this from his twitter, just now) - "Tremendous evidence pouring in on voter fraud. There has never been anything like this in our Country!” and Twitter labels it “This claim about election fraud is disputed” - what are they doing wrong? Is it not actually disputed? It is! And they are labeling it as such. So I still fail to see why you think what they are doing is immoral.
The only explanation could be that you believe that there is voter fraud and twitter labeling it as “disputed", may make people believe (in your opinion), that there was no voter fraud, which is outrageous especially when YOU are so convinced that there IS voter fraud! So this seems more like projection. haha.
- Rubber Doll
Julie, again, just really do not understand Section 230. It is exactly the opposite. It protects traditional "editorial" functions, specifically including decisions around what to post, what not to post, policies on posting, editors commenting on letters to the editor, etc. It protects those functions regardless of the degree or consistency with which "publishers" exercise them. So, Twitter can decide to use a heavy-hand in fact checking, while Parler can decide not to do it all all, and BOTH those decisions are protected under Section 230. The law is crystal clear on that issue.
DeleteIt is certainly possible political bias IS going on, but my question is, so what?? These are private entities, not government regulators. They can be as biased as they want. It is not different from a programmer at Fox deciding to book one token liberal to be on a panel with five conservatives, or vice versa on CNBC. Also, you are right that the editing is not even-handed. People have griped for four years that Trump's tweets constantly violate Twitter's ToS and many other find their accounts disabled for the same things he does, yet when confronted with those complaints instead of enforcing its policies against Trump as they do against other users, they decided that they would not delete any of his tweets, let alone close his account. Honestly, I think Jack Dorsey is a pussy, and had he enforced his policies against politicians who plainly violated the Twitter TOS, we wouldn't have the explosion of threats, conspiracy theories and lies that all politicians now feel totally free to spread on that platform.
I quote from S230: "The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."
DeleteIt is implicit that actions contrary to that purpose are disqualifying. I believe the law needs to be changed to make that explicit.
Your blind certainty around election fraud is exactly why you need to be exposed to information freely and not have it censored. News flash: YOU MAY BE WRONG.
Dan - I would agree with your take were it not for the fact that the big platforms are effectively monopolies, competitors being barred because of the network effect.
So from what you say it looks like you just disagree with these platforms philosophically. But even so, I do think that social media platforms do provide diversity of political discourse. Where is that lacking? A few accounts have been blocked/suspended for violating terms, but they are not the ONLY ones out there promoting a certain idea? These social media platforms also shut down far left pages btw. In any case there are plenty of accounts out there that are open and promote all kinds of thought. I feel you are pointing to a few prominent ones who were booted for violating terms, and extrapolating that as the persistent culture out there, which in my opinion is not the case.
DeleteRegarding election fraud, I think you know by now that I dont think there was any voter fraud. But then again, a lot of claims on voter fraud are without any evidence, amounting to misinformation. So that again falls to these business to decide what they want to do with content like that.
I think "the bubble" is very, very unhealthy for society, and that is the biggest evil the platforms are pushing. It is a natural tendency, but they (and the news) are amplifying it for revenue. They keep people from hearing other points of view, which I am inherently against. And I believe that relatively mainstream conservative views are being censored, and any opposing thoughts (eg, on climate change, or Covid, or elections).
DeleteAnd you need to realize that conservatives have a different POV on the election and say there is lots of evidence. Who is right? I, for one, want to hear both sides of the argument and think censoring one side is evil, even if you personally are 199% convinced of it. I am not. Sorry.
I agree there is a bubble, but I think the bubble is largely self imposed. People consume news from sources they trust, and they trust sources they politically align with. But I dont agree that mainstream conservative points of view are censored. Even a lot of fringe right wing views aren't. Certain users who violate terms have been booted, but, some of the for very valid reasons, some of them for flimsy reasons but these platforms host content that promote all kinds of thought. I gave a few examples in an earlier post.
DeleteI also know that conservatives have a different pov on the election. But they are claiming fraud, but rarely producing any evidence. Whenever they come forward with what they say is proof, it eventually amounts to nothing more than theatrics. I think that is the problem - they are just not presenting evidence. Why not do that if it is that straightforward and that widespread?
The platforms deliberately amplify the bubble.
DeleteThere are plenty of indications of fraud, but to prove fraud in court takes search warrants, arrests, interrogations and years of prep. I think you pay attention to cherry-picked instances that are the most weak. I do not believe your news sources are directing you to the higher quality stuff. Check out the written brief in the Texas case. Check out the report of the forensic auditor in MI.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf
https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772-antrim-county-forensics-report
Yeah, but again, that "monopoly" concern is not compelling given the very poor record of people predicting permanent monopolies. Also, keep in mind that it's an argument that the left constantly uses for why socialism and the green party never take off -- those big, bad corporate media companies are monopolies that won't promote hard left or hard right content, so they must be regulated to force them to provide equal time. The same arguments were made on the right. Then, along came Fox. The right had whined incessantly that no right-oriented network could break the traditional ABC-NBC-CBS monopoly. Just a few years later, Fox currently leads in prime time ratings. For some segment, Fox is now not extreme or biased enough, so along comes OAN. The National Review used to be *the* go-to publication for conservative thinkers, but that too is no longer conservative enough for some, so along comes Brietbart and the Daily Stormer. AOL was once so dominant as an ISP that wise people thought no one could ever win against them because of those network effects you keep worrying about. Know anyone with an AOL email account these days? Twitter had a lock on both conservative and liberal ranting volume, until conservative got pissed and started departing for Parler. Sorry, but concerns over monopolies being locked in don't hold up well over time, and certainly not enough to be a justification for forced speech.
DeleteI don't entirely disagree, but am concerned that this time it is something different.
DeleteJulie, I cannot speak for specific people (e.g., Dan), but there is a very plain reason for people to be de-linking your blog these days, which has nothing to do with censorship: your content has completely shifted. The actual TYPE of your content (and not the left/right direction) is simply not something to which it makes sense to link other spanking blogs.
ReplyDeleteAs an example: I followed your blog for years as a great source of FemDom material. Then your content started going progressively into M/f territory, which is not my thing, so I mostly lost interest. I would still check in occasionally, and I actually find the political posts more entertaining in a train-wreck sort of way (judging by the distribution of comments across your recent posts, I may not be alone in this). Point is: I read what I find interesting, and if I had a blog, I would link to content that thematically aligned with mine.
The reason bloggers like Dan linked to you in the first place was that they wanted to link to good spanking content. Most of them had ZERO interest linking to political commentary, else they would have found plenty of actual politics blogs. Look at your recent posts: more than half are on politics! So what's wrong with spanking bloggers not linking to politics blogs??
That would be fine, but that is neither Dan's nor Kdpierre's stated reason. They specifically said they were removing the link because they disagreed with my position on things. If that is their reason, it is perfectly within their rights of course, but they cannot say they are pro free speech. They do not live up to the UN Declaration as individuals.
DeleteYeah, my delinking decision had nothing to do with changing content, and some of my links are to blogs and websites that have nothing to do with spanking. In fact, my all time favorite site that I link to is a content aggregator: extragoodshit.phlap.net. It does include some pretty tame nudity (all females -- sorry ladies) and has recently started doing more links to erotic writing, but 90% of the content has nothing to do with sex, spanking, kink, eroticism, etc. I removed Julie's link because I don't want to promote, however marginally, content that may discourage people from taking vaccines. I was also pretty fed up with the conspiracy theories about the election being stolen, but that was not the immediate cause.
DeleteThe inclination to "protect people" from what you believe is a wrong idea is what I am so much against. By speaking what I believe is true (that we don't know what we don't know about this new vaccine, and I would discourage those at low risk from COVID, eg kids, from taking it) I believe I am helping people and you are harming them, but I don't share the same inclination of unendirsing your content because of it.
Delete*unendorsing
DeleteBtw, it's an odd form of unendorsment when you seem to enjoy engaging with my content to the extent that you do.
Do the thing in the face of a campaign to silence me - relink. Pretty please with a cherry on top.
Oh, I probably will as long as you don't go any more Alex Jones on me. As a Canadian, aspire to be a Jordan Peterson. In the U.S., I would use George Will as an aspirational thinking person's conservative. The Alex Jones, Steve Bannon angle is beneath you (or should be).
DeleteAnd, for the record, I still haven't gotten any email from the anti-Julie campaigner you referenced. Like the people who defrauded Trump but let all the down ballot Republicans win, he must have been very selective in his malign campaign to disenfranchise you.
DeleteI did not know you were a Jordan Peterson fan. As am I!
DeleteAnd no, Alex Jones will never be a goto source for me. Him I don't even find entertaining. Bannon I think is out for Bannon.
And thank you for the relink, I would truly appreciate it!
Yeah, I think it is fair to describe me as a Peterson fan. Like you, I think he has left himself open to some fair criticism in light of some of the company he has kept. He has said some things and hung out in some venues that left him open to the case that he's aligned with the White Nationalist crowd. Probably not a good thing to let yourself get photographed in front of a Pepe banner with guys flashing white power signs if you want to maintain credibility. If you lay down with dogs . . . And, I do think some of his stuff, including in his recent book, has an off-putting 1950s vibe where the role of women is concerned. But, overall, I think he is a very smart dude with well-thought out positions, such that even when I don't agree with him (though I do agree with him on a lot), it's always worth giving it a listen. And, I agree with him completely on the compelled speech issue that originally earned him fame and fortune.
DeleteRegarding unendorsement, I almost always like engaging with others, though in the context of you posting on my blog and mine on yours, people actually see the debate. The problem with the "promote all content" when applied to links is if I linked to a site like say, Infowars, people could follow that link to that site and then NOT see anyone with a brain there taking on the stupid shit that gets passed off as fact. Despite some of the whining on both our blogs about posting political content, people did at least see a vigorous exploration of issues.
And, to be fair to me, you can't rightly accuse me of un-endorsing then engaging! I was just laying around, minding my own business all week, posting Christmas-themed smut and enjoying my recuperation hiatus, when Alan posted something about you on my blog and you followed him over to pick up the fight. Then, 140 comments later . . .
:-)
Jordan Petersen is out for Jordan Petersen too. He has used the recent alt-right leaning audience as well as incels on both sides, to sell his stuff and make money off of them.
Delete- Rubber Doll
I hadn't seen the incel comments and subsequent discussion of them. You got me curious about it. Here is a pretty interesting Joe Rogan program in which he allows Peterson to explain his comments, but also puts him pretty far back on his heels on the ramifications of them, including that his views on enforced monogamy seem to conflict with his opposition to notions of equality of outcomes. He literally makes him pause and think on camera. Pretty interesting, and it helped me make up my mind about starting to follow Joe Rogan.
DeleteJulie, don't you think Alex Jones is probably an incel? Maybe that explains the whole thing of who he is. It's all a big conspiracy to make sure he doesn't get laid.
Julie, you really should view this whole Joe Rogan episode from start to finish. He plainly is not on board with your idea that maximizing speech is always good. He says expressly that historically we see ideas tested and see the effects of extreme doctrines, and that is it just fine to put those doctrines on the shelf and say they are now outside the dialog. His example is Nazism and the fascist doctrines that led to WWII. I know you will distinguish some of these guys you seem to like as "economic" nationalists as opposed to ethnic nationalists, but I think you are plainly wrong if you think Peterson supports the idea that denying certain ideas is always wrong.
DeleteAlex has at least one child I know of, so I think that rules out the incel conspiracy theory :-)
DeleteYes, I find Joe to be thoughtful and even-handed and often listen when the guests interest me. Love the "long form" interview.
Jordan Peterson charges money for his books and his appearances, and also has some kind of a company that helps people realize their potential. More power to him. I do not find that to be taking advantage, especially when he is helping people in the process (by their own numerous admissions).
Re. his photo with Pepe, he has said that it was during a photo-op where 100's lined up to take a photo with him and these were one of many. He did not know them in advance, it was a 20s thing, and he did not know that Pepe the frog was seen by some as a white nationalist figure (I think it is not, personally, it is a total troll). JP is often compared to Kermit the Frog for his high-pitched voice.
And regarding "hate speech" - I do think that certain speech should not be allowed - specifically speech that (legitimately, with intent) calls for violence to be done to individuals or groups outside of a physical self-defence context.
DeleteAn example is speech that calls for murdering all Jews. All for banning sppech like that as I think this is a rule that we can all agree upon and that can be clearly stated and enforced.
However, adding to "hate speech" someone who argues that a different number of Jews other than 6 million was murdered in the Holocaust, is not anywhere in the same ballpark and should be allowed and argued against as part of free speech.
Joe Rogan is good at times, but there are other times when his podcast is a forum for pseudo bro science and bad ideas. But then again, I think its par for the course, considering he is a comedian running a podcast. I really enjoy his podcasts with Bill Burr, Uncle Joey (Joey Diaz), Ari Shaffir, Tom Segura, Tom Papa etc. Anything light hearted. I however have stopped watching the intellectual dark web podcasts - with Ben Shapiro, Petersen, Eric/Brett Weinstein, Tim Poole etc., Its the same old rehashed bitchfest about the left and cancel culture. The first few were okay, but now its just stale content imo.
DeleteRegarding hate speech, I think intent matters, like Dan said. Most people who question the 6 million number, do so for a reason and that reason being support for nazi ideals, racism, divisive politics etc. I have never seen any conversation on that topic be genuinely after facts for that reason alone.
-Rubber Doll
But you divine intent by the topic. You state the only reason people could possibly have that discussion is if they are Nazis. Ask yourself, if I were to start that conversation, and then you ask me why, and I would say I like searching for the truth, you would say, no, you're actually a Nazi. You would be mind reading. Come on, tell me I'm wrong.
DeleteI am saying this is what I have experienced. Whenever I have seen someone question the 6 million number, they have done so for support of white nationalism, neo-nazism, anti-semitism etc. I have never found someone be able to give a valid reason - especially, when there is such overwhelming proof for the 6 million number.
DeleteI also come to conclusions based on patterns of behavior or thought expressed. In your case, I wouldn't consider you a Nazi, but your views clearly fall in the alt-right political spectrum - which isn't very far off from white nationalism, where holocaust denials or revisionism is quite common.
- Rubber Doll.
So because he is Jewish, whatever he says about the holocaust somehow has more validity? You are saying that I am bringing race/ethnicity into everything but you are bringing ethnicity into this discussion lol. There is also always that one guy in the ingroup who reflects some fringe POV. Cant be considered credible. I mean there are Jews in Israel who are neo nazis - check patrol 36 - albeit fringe, such things exist. Its just noise/BS.
DeleteBTW nationalism is just as bad as white nationalism - nationalism is just this idea that your country is somehow better or greater than every body else's. The problem is everybody thinks that, and no one is actually right.
-Rubber Doll
You said my views were "very close to white nationalism". So, I think that qualifies as you bringing it in.
DeleteDavid Stein is utterly unobjectionable but was put through hell because he had a different, well-researched, take on the Holocaust (which he says did happen, just some of the details are different). I think you are saying anybody who questions any part of the "official narrative" is a Nazi? That is a pretty untenable position. And don't couch it in "it's just my experience... my observation is..." because you clearly have a very limited scope of observation.
I disagree on nationalism. Some countries are clearly better than others, which is why so many people, such as yourself, want to come to them.
A country is the sum of its laws and governmental system, how well and justly that is enforced.
The US constitution is the finest founding document ever seen. It entrenches certain freedoms as the basis of law, and it promoted the development of amazing freedom of thought and innovations via the principles of capitalism. Canada is pretty good as well. A lot of the US attitudes rubbed off on us, plus a decent boost from the UK to begin with.
Some other countries are very clearly less good. They entrench in their laws the throwing of gay people off buildings, and stifling women's rights, and enforced practice of a religion under penalty of death. Other countries have rampant blatant corruption in every aspect of the system. Some countries are run by war lords. Some countries are based on communist central planning and stifle the rights of their citizens.
So, no, objectively US/Canada, while by no means perfect, are way better than most, which is why people want to come here.
I am not saying that anyone who questions it, is a Nazi outright. I am saying that a) There is really no “narrative”. There are facts - proven facts with overwhelming evidence, that have debunked holocaust denial/revisionist arguments. b) The motive of people who question these facts is suspect, given the overwhelming evidence.
DeleteRegarding nationalism - the question is what qualifies as “better"?. A country is NOT just its sum total of its laws and governmental systems, but also its history, culture, its struggles and most importantly, its spirit/identity. Yes, western nations are better economically. People here have more awareness, so its much more livable than many others that are developing - including mine. Even socially, western nations have made much progress and all these are good reasons to move here, as I have done. No denying that. They even have a great culture and history, albeit very recent.
But that doesn't make Canada or the US (for example) an inherently "better" country than mine - for all intents and purposes, my country has a much longer and richer history, culture etc., Greatness therefore is a much more profound statement than just laws and the economy. And this applies to even countries that are plagued by war and strife today.
Nationalism in any case is just a cover for saying - “We as a people are somehow better people than you because of our better culture etc etc”. While the truth is much more complicated than a simplistic statement like that.
I mean as an example, a threat of a pandemic and people here (which are supposedly better) start fighting in the aisles for toilet paper and clean out stores - so is it really surprising that there is strife in much poorer countries who were made poor through aggressive western foreign policy, proxy wars, colonization etc in the first place?
So in sum, every country in the world is great in its own right. Livability, differs based on the economic development of each nation - but that is no reason to be a nationalist. That sentiment doesn’t come from a place of love, but it comes from a place of hatred, superiority complex and undue entitlement.
- Rubber Doll
You are obviously not a historian. Even serious Holocaust historians have questions about the details of what actually went on and how many Jews were killed, under whose orders, and how. "facts - proven facts!" - no. History does not work that way and you are unqualified to be a good source on this.
DeleteYou are splitting hairs on "better" and engaging in semantics of the meaning of the word. I'm using the operational definition of "most desirable to immigrate to" right now when I make my case for nationalism.
If you'd like to have a discussion on countries that have the best architecture, or something like that, I'm open to it, but for my argument about being a nationalist, I am using that stated definition of "better".
No I am not the source, and I am not even attempting to be one. Its not like I decided what are facts and what aren't. It is those historians you refer to who have done that. It turns out that the overwhelming majority of them support the fact that 6 million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis.
DeleteAnd yes, better country to live in/immigrate to, is no reason to be a nationalist. It's that kind of nationalism that resulted in colonialism, invasions etc., My benefit over someone else's well being, while excluding them - you can never sell that as a morally sound position.
I refer you to point 7 from my constructive debating post:
Delete"If you believe you learned an accurate version of history in school, you are probably wrong."
Say you are in a lifeboat designed to hold 10, already holding 15 and in danger of taking on water. What do you tell the 20 people floating around you who want to get on, but even if one does, you know the lifeboat will capsize? Is it a morally sound position to deny them access to the lifeboat?
Point 7 doesn't apply to facts though. It especially doesn't mean - promote a disproven narrative of history, over proven historical fact.
DeleteAlso, how does your analogy apply to nationalism? If you were alluding to immigration, that is still a false analogy.
- Rubber Doll
You think they are facts because you have been told that. History is history, and rarely can the moniker "facts" be applied to history, only judgments as to what likely went on based on what evidence there is, taking into account the reliability of the original sources. Yours is naive take on history.
DeleteIf you throw open borders, and allow anybody who wants in at all in, and still want a welfare state, you will literally bring that country to its knees and destroy whatever was good for everybody. My lifeboat analogy was to try to shake you out of your faith in moral absolutes.
The holocaust is a historical event that happened. Hence my use of the word facts. And I believe that it happened not because I have been told that, but because I have taken the time to actually research and read about it. You are promoting holocaust revisionism, that has actually been debunked and disproven - again something I have read about. And it is a narrative usually pushed by neo-nazis, white nationalists etc that you have somehow bought into it. Who is being naive here?
DeleteOpen borders means people dont just have a way to come in, but leave and come back in at a later time. The largest source of illegal immigration is precisely because once you go out, you cant come back in, which results in visa overstays. Secondly your answer assumes that immigrants are going to burden a welfare state - exactly how? Thats a talking point. Immigrants actually increase the GDP, start businesses, invest etc, which actually promotes and strengthens the state.
Moral absolutes do exist in certain cases - especially if you are talking about things like discrimination based on tribalistic attitudes, colonialism, aggressive foreign policy, proxy wars, exploitation of nations etc.,
- Rubber Doll
Now you are splitting hairs on the number. I use 6M as it is the standard number used when discussing the holocaust. And certainly you haven't told me what you think the death toll really was. If holocaust revisionists said it was 5.5M instead of 6M, no one would really have an issue with it. They however claim a number much less than that.
DeleteOn immigration the real number is what the market decides it to be. It will self-regulate. Politicians shouldn't be defining it. Free market, open borders, globalization equals prosperity and unity. This whole concept of nation states and exclusivity is ridiculous when every step that human beings have taken throughout their development is to globalize. But again that is too idealistic at this point in time. A practical solution would be - a merit based immigration system (merit here doesn’t mean everyone who comes here has an MBA and a PHD, but the come here on the basis of their job qualifications - be it as a blue collar worker or a professional), with options for family reunification that is effective and most of all not time consuming (like the US where it takes 30 years to get a permanent residency - I got my Canadian PR in 38 days, as a comparison).
So you believe thou shalt not murder or steal, but you dont believe in thou shall not colonize, thou shall not subject others to racism/discrimination - which actually results in not just murder but in many ways - MASS MURDER, because they are complex issues relating to….nationalism????. Huh. Yeah, I have no doubts about my moral standing here. And it is sad, that isn't persuasive enough for you.
- Rubber Doll
Good, so you are open to a discussion on history and find value in it. That was my only point.
DeleteGood, and we seem to agree on a merit based system as opposed to free immigration.
Colonization is a thing of the past, but it was arguably a good thing in many ways, as well as having downsides, like most complex issues.
If there was anything positive about colonialism it was mostly cynical and focused on the needs of the colonizer. Not the colonized. The entire venture was mostly looting, exploitation and outright theft of natural resources, not to mention very serious racism, violence and other untold human rights violations.
Delete- Rubber Doll
Colonialism has been going on since the dawn of man in every culture that ever existed. Native peoples have been colonizing and killing other native peoples since time immemorial. I see not much difference. Thank goodness it is largely a thing of the past.
DeleteAgreed, thank god it is a thing of the past. I am not that much aware of native people and their history though.
DeleteThank you Julie as always you are right. Trust no one and do your own research. The media cannot be trusted. Conservatives are a victim of media narratives and smears perpetrated by the socialist and extreme left. The only way to save our country from this is Donald Trump, otherwise China wins, North Korea wins, Russia wins and our troops, small businesses and freedom loses. Keep up the great work Julie. We love you!!!
ReplyDeleteI am a big believer in reading the original source materials, listening to diverse expert commentary, thinking about it, and then coming to my own conclusions even if they are against the mainstream narrative.
DeleteI’m reminded of the famous quote from Voltaire’s biographer Evelyn Hall - “I disapprove of everything you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
ReplyDeleteThis applies here. It’s your blog and you may of course publish your views (stopping short of breaking the law on defamation and inciting violence). To date you have done this quite properly it seems to me. There is no process objection here.
Equally readers and your fellow bloggers (such as Dan) are at liberty to disagree with your views and choose to express opposition to them. Alternatively, if they find your political views unpleasant or simply uninteresting they may cease reading or linking to your blog and withdraw from you. Withdrawal is their own individual decision and not censorship. There is a right to free speech under Voltaire’s principle but I agree with Dan that there is not a right to a crowd and he is not obliged to promote your views. What you say on your blog should rise or fall on its own merits.
But to approach others as Ronald has done and actively lobby others to cut off your voice is a bridge too far. I agree that does smack of censorship. I suspect that Voltaire would not approve.
I just reflect on my own values and my own take on free speech. If a blogger I've linked to for years has some opinions I don't approve of, it would not enter my mind to remove them exactly because I find free speech to be the noblest of values and would consider myself hypocritical if I did. I am disappointed in these unlinkers on moral grounds and for being hypocritical in their purported support of free speech. Weak sauce indeed.
DeleteMore accurately you listen to the evidence submitted by Rudy and Don in their made for tv witnesses, straight from central casting (literally), comically Ill prepared “witnesses”. By the way, the public officials in Georgia in charge of counting the votes also signed affidavits to their conduct and the accuracy of the election. This means your argument that we should believe Rudy’s actress, because she signed an affidavit is hereby debunked and foolish. I understand how difficult it is for a strong woman like you to admit the truth. The majority of Americans disagree with you. They weren’t duped or frauds, they were votes. Voting fraud on the level required to change this election would be impossible to get away with, especially when desperately being investigated by a weak and pathetic man who has the same problem as you. You simply can’t admit the truth because it means you’re in the minority. Get over it! You lost! It’s over! Even Mitch knows it! Trumpism is modern McCarthyism and will meet the same fate. Americans lead astray by fear and conspiracies will come to their senses and look back on this episode of our history with shame. If you want facts try zero court rulings giving Trump any victory changing outcome. Over 7 million more votes for Biden, SCOTUS laughing Trump out of court because he had no standing unlike Bush who could actually prove he had a case. It’s not some legal technicality, it’s because Trump literally can’t make an argument that he was cheated. I mean let’s get real, if Trump can’t get a lowly election official in Georgia brought up on charges for election fraud with all of his “evidence” using his politicized justice department what kind of a leader is he anyway. if Biden can engineer an amazing conspiracy of election fraud across multiple states to become the president, maybe he would be a better leader. But that is tongue and cheek. Biden is already a better leader because he has empathy, compassion, and wants to unite not divide. If you disagree with that than you are much further down the rabbit hole than hoped.
ReplyDeleteWord salad. Sorry, I don't make the rules. I find you have an incurious, easily swayed mind. Your certainty is nauseating.
DeleteAttack ideas not people.
DeleteGuilty as charged. Sorry.
DeleteIf you are a believer in free speech the only equitable response is free speech. Not boycotts, you my certainly choose to disagree (isn't freedom wonderful)but any action or incite to action outside counters the principle.
ReplyDeleteI am a libertarian which somehow now in Canada seems to mean racist and misogynist, I disagree...wow that was easy. Ain't free speech grand. Keep fighting the good fight, stay vigilant in the fight for freedom
Chris
Yes. That is some concise, clear thinking.
DeleteThank you. Sounds like a valuable resource. I will check it ou, and hope those that read your words and dismiss them out of hand will as well.
ReplyDeleteSo, since you said "pretty please," I will put up the link to your blog again. Though, it saddens me to say I suspect it may be temporary. I don't know whether the recent posts were just a diversion resulting from the recent hyper-politicized environment. Maybe. I've been biting my own tongue and trying to resist the temptation to go back to full-blow political posts on my blog. Alternatively, in one of your comments to KD you referred to having "a big audience" in the US, and I've always gotten the sense that having lots of readers is important to you. Maybe you've decided that the Qanon and Infowars audience is a lot bigger target opportunity than D/s spankos. It undoubtedly is, but I have no idea whether you are intentionally trying to attract more of those volks to your blog. Or, whether you simply identify with them and are starting to express that. Your use of first names when talking about "Alex" and "Milo" seems to suggest some personal identification and affection, and you didn't bite at my tongue-in-cheek attempts to give you an opening to disclaim a repulsive wingnut like Jones or to say outright that you aren't one of the Qanon loonies. I really hope not, and I hope that's not where your blog is heading. If it is, you're welcome to continue to drop by my blog and comment on topics of interest, but I'll be dropping the link again. KD is right that ultimately our blogrolls are curated lists and some degree of personal endorsement or recommendation is involved. I think the Qanon and Infowars shit is cancerous, and I won't do anything at all to promote it any way. Of course, you can reciprocate by removing the link to my blog, and I am sure that your blog refers way more to mine than mine does to yours. But, that's fine. I've always seen mine as a club, not a newspaper.
ReplyDeleteThank you! My main motivation is asking is I don't what that loser "Ronald" who is calling for delinking to have any success at all, or even the perception that he is having any success at all(I know your decision was independent). After "Ronald" is behind us I would be much less fussed. It's my fighter's streak!
DeleteI do strive to be relevant, and that's a good thing. To borrow from Scott, "who wakes up every morning and asks themselves what they can do to be less relevant today?" I remember making the comment re my audience, but I think it was in the context of responding to a challenge that my opinion has no relevance and I should stay out of the discussion.
My goal is not to attract viewers. My goal is only to speak my mind and write about things that interest and inspire me (most of the time that's kink, but not always). I don't make any money at this. It is factually accurate to say my metrics are quite a bit down as a result of speaking my mind in politics!
I like referring to people by their first names as a shortcut and to humanize. It does not mean I am friendly with them or endorse their views (Chuck, Nancy, Joe, Kamala and Mayor Pete come to mind).
I don't wholesale agree with or disagree with anybody or anything. I take each issue as it comes. If Jones were to say something I find true and important, I would boost that message. Likewise for Qanon (whoever that is?!). Can't say it's happened much yet (other than the "gay frogs").
And I like your blog, why would I want to ever remove the link, even if your ideas are ridiculously wrong-headed, I still find them challenging and stimulating. Honestly, my blogroll is more there for my own convenience as links to other blogs I like to drop by. They are blogs that interest me.
Trump is so dumb and illiterate, I almost believe him when he says he hasn't heard of Qanon, other than they really love America and hate pedophiles. You, on the other hand, are not only well read, but you clearly read from the same sources as the Qanon conspiracy spreaders like, for example, Alex Jones. So, sorry, not buying it.
DeleteYou misunderstand me. I know that Qanon is a "thing". I don't know what individual or individuals are behind it, and whether it's a Reddit troll, or what. If you can tell me, I'd love to hear!
DeleteMy previous comments in this thread were directed at Dan. Weird thing about blogger is that comments are listed out of the order in which I publish them (they seem to be time-stamped on arrival and slotted in there).
DeleteFor Clarence - are you sure you're not just an alias account for me, pretending to be a supporter of myself, and saying the things I wish I could say but want to be more polite than that. It sure looks suspicious! :-)
But seriously, I totally agree with you (minus some of your enthusiastic vitriol!). I have never posted anything in support of Qanon or Alex Jones, so I do indeed find it odd to be "accused" of doing so!
From Clarence: "I can go on and on and on." Clearly.
DeleteBe nice.
DeleteClarence, I actually find your thinking and presentation to be great, but it's fatiguing on the eye without paragraph breaks.
You can hit return in a comment and not have it submit automatically (I always screw that up on some other platforms - put in a return and then it sends it - doh!). But not the case here.
Folks like julie aren't so much for trump, as they are for the ideology. They are ideologues. And they are populists. Populist ideas always rely on cult personalities and arguments that "seem" like they are common sense.
DeleteAnyway, as I said in an earlier post, there is aways a self-imposed bubble when it comes to what we consume as news. Like Steve Bannon says "Flood the zone with shit". Shit that people would be outraged by.
Your lack of self-awareness is epic.
DeleteWell it is the truth. You are clearly an ideologue. If you weren't you'd see through trump's con job.
DeleteTry some independent thinking for a change of pace.
DeleteRead my response - I am not trying to lump you into shit. Its based on your political positions that you have expressed on here. They are right wing populist political positions/ideology.
DeleteYou literally say you are not trying to lump me in and then you lump me in, in the same 3 line comment!
DeleteI do my own research and thinking and come to my own conclusions, taking issues one at a time. My positions are common sense and driven by rationality, not emotion.
If you think I am fooling myself, prove it not by asserting it (which is no proof at all), but rather by debating one of my issues where you feel your position is stronger than mine?
Oh, and please sign a name of some sort on the bottom of your comments so I can identify the comments from you and link them. Else some other Anonymous slips into the thread and I will assume it is you.
I am not trying to lump you in. You are doing it by virtue of your positions, beliefs and conclusions that you have expressed on here. I am just putting a name to it, is all, because it falls in that category.
DeleteMark
Come on Mark, it's meant to be insulting without advancing an argument, and you achieved your goal in that.
DeleteIf you can't see that, then why I don't I, based on your comments, lump you into "media-brainwashed lefty" category. But really, no offense intended, just making an observation based on your comment "trump's con job".
It is not just lefties that call Trump a con man, plus you dont know my political leanings as I haven't spoken about them. I am not tryna be insulting but you are really airing the same views as populists such as Lou Dobbs, Steve Bannon et all.
DeleteYou're right it's dumb people of all persuasions who call him that.
DeleteI do like most of what I've heard Lou Dobbs say (though I am not a regular viewer). Bannon I don't trust at all.
Why are you so keen to categorize, and so desperate to avid debating any substantive points?
Fair warning - I'm tired of debating categories. Publish something substantive or I'll consider you fully heard on the topic.
Eh, that is what people call Trump supporters - dumb. I am not desperate to categorize, I am just reluctant to debate, as there is no point in doing it. I have read the other comments, it is clear, that despite cogent points being made, you don't even attempt to change your mind. But then again, why would anyone change their minds on the internet? Publish this or don't. Your call. Goodbye.
DeleteGo back a read my Dec 13 post "On Constructive Debate and Loserthink" - it explains that changing the person's mind is not the only, or even the most important, goal of debate. I know I can't change your mind, but I engage nonetheless, because we are doing this in front of a big silent audience. You are not convincing to that audience because you refuse to debate. My purpose is to show that people like you, with your mindset, have no substance to your claims. I think I'm doing an amazing job on that, although I can understand why you might not want to stick around to be my object lesson. No worries, there will be more just like you I can use as object lessons.
DeleteOh, I agree. Few people understand how the constitutional system works for presidential elections in the US. I am no expert, but I know enough to know that I don't know. Too many in America are a step behind. They know so little that they think they know.
ReplyDeleteI admire your willingness to publish views counter to your own.
ReplyDeleteYou say that you think the readers should read your views and evaluate the arguments, and adjust their points of view according to evidence.
I would like to see some evidence that you have done this. I haven't seen it so far.
Here's what many people don't like about Trump: he told us in advance that he wouldn't accept an election result if he didn't win. That tells us right up front that he isn't going to abide by the rules, even if he loses.
That's patently absurd. Of course I don't trust him. And there is lots and lots of evidence that he lies constantly.
You seem to disagree. Fine, that's your right.
But this is a SPANKING blog. If you want to write this divisive stuff (even if you are sure it's right), I have the right to write you off as a crazy right-winger. I don't come here to read this stuff. You haven't vetted your sources: you pick and choose evidence that selectively supports your positions.
I choose to turn you off: if I want this kind of discussion, I go somewhere where people might actually listen and change their minds. I haven't seen it with you yet.
I haven't blocked you or dropped you from anything, but I certainly would if I had something to drop you from. I don't need the anonymous noise.
I like your spanking stuff. The political stuff is well written but not well vetted. You will say that I am just saying that, without evidence. You are right. But I don't need to provide you any evidence: I am busy, and you are wasting my time with your nonsense, in my opinion.
There you go.
No, you misunderstand. Likely anybody who wishes to engage in the debate has mostly made up their mind. We are both doing this to slightly sway the audience.
DeleteI can point out that the only substantive claim you make is that President Trump said the equivalent of "I won't accept the election result even if I lose fair and square". Where is your reference for that?
In fact, when asked if he would accept the result of the election he consistently said "we'll see". The reasonable (not TDS) interpretation is that he will assess if he believes the election was conducted fairly and if not he leaves open the possibility of not accepting it.
Julie, any reaction to your boy's response to the Russia hacking? Until this morning, it was merely suspicious that he was silent about it. Then, this morning he started tweeting that it might really be China that did it, contrary to comments by his own Secretary of State. So, here once again, we have Trump taking Russia's side for no apparent reason. Yet, everyone who wonders why is guilty of promoting the "Russia Hoax."
DeleteWell, I don't know that much about it, but if a hacker does a hack, and you can totally tell it's from Russia, then either they are really stupid hackers, or they are misdirecting? Now, who would want to misdirect and make it look like a hack came from Russia. Perhaps an enemy of Russia? Like I said, I don't know much about it, but I sure don't trust what US security agencies or politicians (Trump included) say about anything in a situation like this.
DeleteThe counter allegation is that a lot of politicians are in bed with China. There was this very recent release of a huge list of Chinese agents abroad, the Stallwell disclosures, and Chinas general misbehaviour, sure would make sense for them to do a big hack and blame it on Russia while China gets a pass.
FireEye, the premier organization that says where hacks come from, currently classifies it as Unknown.
Rule 6: "If you can't imagine any other explanation for a set of facts, it might be because you are bad at imagining things."
You must have provided a copy of those Rules to the soon-to-be-recently-evicted administration. Imagining other explanations for actual facts has been their stock in trade.
DeleteKeep diving down that rabbit hole. You guys are making Q proud. Also love the latest “statistical analysis” argument tweeted today to explain why the election was stolen. Let’s put this into a single sentence. Due the COVID and record turn out this election will be like no other, I mean look at this statistical analysis, this election is like no other.
DeleteThere's risk on both sides. Utterly naively accepting whatever the authorities tell you as true. And flying off into fully unjustified conspiracy theory land. There's room in the middle for questions. Election results and Russian hacking included.
DeleteClarence, you clearly need a break and a breather. Maybe go out for a nice walk in your Baltimore neighborhood. By all means, wear your widdle MAGA hat. But, be sure and line it with lots of tinfoil.
DeleteCorrect. And part of inquiry is coming up with alternative explanations and exploring them. If I give an alternative plausible explanation for China doing it, I am not saying China did it for sure, just lower the confidence level that you are sure Russia did it.
ReplyDeleteSo, you and Clarence really, truly believe that we shouldn't accept anything the intelligence community says unless they "show their work"? Do you know how totally divorced that is from how intelligence gathering and analysis works? And, Clarence, exactly what are your qualifications for evaluating "their work" if they were to show it to you?
ReplyDeleteJulie, you suggest lowering the confidence level, but based on what? Because Trump sends out a tweet trying to deflect attention from Russia (shocker). Other than the intelligence community whose work Clarence thinks he is qualified to evaluate, what would Trump's source of information be other than that exact same intelligence community that is attributing this hack to Russia? The most consciously uninformed president in history sending a tweet arguing with the intelligence officials that he himself appointed does not create a "plausible" alternative explanation. This is pretty typical of the debate here over the last several days, where you engage in all sorts of speculation about things you think *could* happen but without any basis for *plausibly* believing they actually did.
Trump's tweet didn't sway me. I share his thinking that we would be naive to think we know who did it. You are WAY too willing to accept whatever pablum you are fed.
ReplyDeleteSo, you are now saying that there is no way to determine who did it? A very convenient position if you want to do nothing to the country that the people with the actual evidence say did it. Several posts back, I thought maybe we were making some progress in getting back to grounds for rational disagreement. Now, you're just back down the rabbit hole. I'm done.
ReplyDeleteI'm going with FireEye. If they have not yet attributed it it's because they have not yet seen conclusive evidence, which means any certainty you have is misplaced. Bet you were pretty sure Saddam had WMD because the govt told you so, and that the NSA was not routinely collecting electronic surveillance on American citizens because that's what you were told to believe.
ReplyDeleteThere is a Stalin like purge going on in the United States right now against free speech. I wouldn’t be surprised if blogspot silenced your account some time soon. We are living in Orwellian times and sadly the Canadian media goes along with it
ReplyDeleteSo true. I'm expecting it. It's been a fun run!
Delete