Page 133 of 200 FirstFirst ... 3383123130131132133134135136143183 ... LastLast
Results 1,981 to 1,995 of 2998

Thread: Trump: Illusion, Mist and Bought?

  1. #1981
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    When Twitter chose to fact-check Donald Trump, they had every right to do so. And if Facebook were to do that, or YouTube, and it were legitimate, then yes, I'd have no problem with it. But don't get me wrong, I don't trust Silicon Valley any more than I trust any other corporation.
    I see. So if you think the "fact check" is "legitimate", then it's o.k.; but if not, then it's corporate censorship?
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th May 2020), Elen (30th May 2020)

  3. #1982
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,969 Times in 20,255 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    I see. So if you think the "fact check" is "legitimate", then it's o.k.; but if not, then it's corporate censorship?
    There was no censorship, because they let his tweet stand. Had they deleted it or otherwise modified the original content, then it would have been censorship, yes, unless deleting/modifying it would have been absolutely necessary, e.g. because it was inciting violence, racial hatred or some other potential social hazard ─ in which case it would have been moderation.

    But none of that is applicable here. Trump tweeted something stupid and Twitter responded by pointing out that his tweet was misleading. That's all there has been to it, and it's by far not worthy of the shit storm it has caused, on either side.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th May 2020), Dreamtimer (1st June 2020), Elen (30th May 2020), Wind (30th May 2020)

  5. #1983
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts
    Lol was all so so so so so Obvious, Tisa why red pills are given when asked now as it has become Obvious Or soon will depending upon ones love and ones feelings imo.

    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    The right wing in America has long wanted to censor the rest of the citizenry. Now they have their man. They've already been talking about shooting their fellow Americans. And they voted for a guy who said he could get away with doing it on 5th Ave.
    Once again I am sure your not joking and completely believe your perspective or what you been told, bless you.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Elen (30th May 2020), Emil El Zapato (30th May 2020)

  7. #1984
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    When Twitter chose to fact-check Donald Trump, they had every right to do so. And if Facebook were to do that, or YouTube, and it were legitimate, then yes, I'd have no problem with it. But don't get me wrong, I don't trust Silicon Valley any more than I trust any other corporation.

    Nevertheless, that said, I stand by what I said in what you quoted in the post I'm replying to right now. I've been on the receiving end of such censorship ─ or attempts at ─ over at Project Avalon, and I see the same thing happening here. Vern continues repeating that he's being censored when he's not ─ as if repeating the lie long enough will somehow turn it into the truth ─ but now that Donald Trump is signing a bill that would censor the media companies, now they're cheering for him.

    Oh man, I love these double standards. They crack me up every time.
    Tisa a tired old song, so will make it tuneless, Q is a massive impact in many facets, no one knows for sure who they are or who they be, has n is changing the landscape world wide and yes censored simply by being believed to be a hoax because it is proven in certain peoples minds, hecks bells even if only myself believes Qetc, hows it a hoax, I believe in god am in gods hands n god drives me n picks me up, What FN heck this cannot be or wrong god, put it in the hoax section, yip and if that happened I would do as I do now, keep low, periodically post in that love god thread, I know big comparisons but how one cannot see that censorship TOT Qwise upon arrival here ?.

    But alls good because the washings on the line n drying, boots are spit polished and smiles reflect n cheeky grins are sent my way.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Emil El Zapato (30th May 2020)

  9. #1985
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    I see. So if you think the "fact check" is "legitimate", then it's o.k.; but if not, then it's corporate censorship?
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    There was no censorship, because they let his tweet stand. Had they deleted it or otherwise modified the original content, then it would have been censorship, yes, unless deleting/modifying it would have been absolutely necessary, e.g. because it was inciting violence, racial hatred or some other potential social hazard ─ in which case it would have been moderation.
    I get the sentiment in this case because orange man bad, who cares right? What I'm trying to get at is the broader picture here, in that these formats "fact check" everything that comes across the wire so to speak. Shadow banning, demonetization, "corrections", all that yummy stuff. You good with that?
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th May 2020), Elen (30th May 2020)

  11. #1986
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    The right wing in America is very religious. Religious folks love to censor others in the name of their truth. This is no mystery. It's also not an opinion. It's a sad fact. The more we ignore the religious right wing, the more damage it will cause.

    When folks believe their 'freedom of religion' involves controlling others, it's real problem.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th May 2020), Aragorn (30th May 2020), Elen (30th May 2020), Emil El Zapato (30th May 2020), Wind (30th May 2020)

  13. #1987
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    I gotta be honest, I don't even understand any of this shit...dis, dat, and de udder ting. Can't we just look and see the difference between right and wrong? Is what is being said by mouthpieces positive or negative? Is it a fact or an opinion? Does it have 'good' intent? Does it contribute to the public good? Does it demean? Does it have 'conspiracy' at its root? Is it searching for true answers without agenda? Is it outright bullsh*t? If it doesn't have a higher goal, then just shut it the f*ck up!

    Trump's tweet does not meet the criteria that deserves a platform. In my opinion, he should be ignored en toto. He's a mycellium gone rogue.

    In my opinion, the discussion of 'freedom of speech' doesn't either. It's the classic 'red herring'. Just a cover for supporting right wing propaganda AND truly I find propaganda disgusting in any form, right, left, or in-between. I guess, my feeling is that we have Freedom of Speech but not Freedom To Lie, that is breaking a social contract that has a much longer history than freedom of speech.
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th May 2020), Aragorn (30th May 2020), Elen (30th May 2020), Wind (30th May 2020)

  15. #1988
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    The right wing in America is very religious. Religious folks love to censor others in the name of their truth. This is no mystery. It's also not an opinion. It's a sad fact. The more we ignore the religious right wing, the more damage it will cause.

    When folks believe their 'freedom of religion' involves controlling others, it's real problem.
    Since when has Silicon Valley become religious, and right wing? Why is this even a politicized thing for that matter? From what I see, a lot of the problem stems from polarized points of view, who simply can't see it for what it is when the censoring goes in their favor, in that case it just becomes good old common sense. But when it goes against, well now we have a problem.

    Again, this is not a Left/Right issue, it's an issue for either side when they stray too far from establishment norms.

    Now sure it's true that ultra right wing religious people tend toward wanting to shut down others in the name of their truth, but so do also the SJW wing of the left. Do you not see this?
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th May 2020)

  17. #1989
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,969 Times in 20,255 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    I see. So if you think the "fact check" is "legitimate", then it's o.k.; but if not, then it's corporate censorship?
    There was no censorship, because they let his tweet stand. Had they deleted it or otherwise modified the original content, then it would have been censorship, yes, unless deleting/modifying it would have been absolutely necessary, e.g. because it was inciting violence, racial hatred or some other potential social hazard ─ in which case it would have been moderation.

    But none of that is applicable here. Trump tweeted something stupid and Twitter responded by pointing out that his tweet was misleading. That's all there has been to it, and it's by far not worthy of the shit storm it has caused, on either side.
    I get the sentiment in this case because orange man bad, who cares right? What I'm trying to get at is the broader picture here, in that these formats "fact check" everything that comes across the wire so to speak. Shadow banning, demonetization, "corrections", all that yummy stuff. You good with that?
    One, the term "shadow banning" is one of those worn-out alt-right memes for something that isn't what it is made out to be. If you want me to take you seriously as someone who is truly politically impartial, then please stop using alt-right memes.

    Two, the monetization of YouTube videos is something I am by definition opposed to ─ I think it is lame and opportunistic, and it goes against my ideological convictions ─ and therefore demonetization in and of itself is of no concern to me. For that matter, I have an ad blocker in all of my browsers ─ well, minus one, but that's a browser I almost never use anyway, so I haven't bothered installing an ad blocker in it.

    I do however realize that you're alluding to Kerry Cassidy, and in her case, I think that the demonetization of her videos by YouTube is more a form of harassment than that it would be fact-checking. Fact-checking is done with words ─ as what Twitter did with El Donaldo™'s tweet ─ not with disciplinary action.

    YouTube ─ or if you will, Google, because they own YouTube ─ is throwing itself up here as a chastising parent who aspires to teach the naughty child a lesson by punishing her, and I don't feel that Google/YouTube or any other corporation has that right, and especially not with so many skeletons in their own closet that they're facing one anti-trust lawsuit after another. But then again, Google and its parent company Alphabet are just about the epitome of corporate fascism. They're trying to lay down the law on just about everything these days.

    Lastly, I would also appreciate it if you were to refrain from questioning my motives and my integrity every quarter mile ─ to use a US American measurement. If you still don't know me yet by now, then you never will, and I'm growing tired of having to justify myself all of the time, and especially so before people who believe and behave as if they hold a higher moral ground than me. I've had to endure that for 35 years and I'm kind of sick and tired of it, if you know what I mean. And that's an understatement.

    I am not the one with the double standards here. And for the record, I'm not saying you are either.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th May 2020), Elen (30th May 2020), Emil El Zapato (30th May 2020), Wind (30th May 2020)

  19. #1990
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    One, the term "shadow banning" is one of those worn-out alt-right memes for something that isn't what it is made out to be. If you want me to take you seriously as someone who is truly politically impartial, then please stop using alt-right memes.
    I don't care if you take me seriously as that or not. These terms, whatever their origin, have become ubiquitous. For example even big time progressive these days, will use terms like cuck (just ask Wind), so please stop with this alt right obsession.


    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    I do however realize that you're alluding to Kerry Cassidy,
    Nope, just people in general whoever they may be.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Lastly, I would also appreciate it if you were to refrain from questioning my motives and my integrity every quarter mile
    Questioning you, is not the same as questioning your motives and integrity, I'm sorry you see it that way. Very defensive, dang man...
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th May 2020), Wind (30th May 2020)

  21. #1991
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    One, the term "shadow banning" is one of those worn-out alt-right memes for something that isn't what it is made out to be. If you want me to take you seriously as someone who is truly politically impartial, then please stop using alt-right memes.
    Soooooo, back to that dreaded alt right meme "shadow banning". Or is it?


    Shadow bans started in the early days of online discussion groups and the tools used to police disruptive participants
    . Moderators could always just disable the accounts of spammers, harassers or those who were just too argumentative. But sometimes banned users came back with new accounts, prolonging the turmoil and creating a lengthy round of whack-a-mole.

    So forums came up with an alternative punishment: the shadow ban. Instead of disabling the target’s account entirely, shadow banning just seals the offending account in a hermetic bubble. The shadow-banned user can still post freely — but no one else sees their messages.

    At Reddit, shadow banning was long the only tool available to moderators. It shuts down spam and, in theory, lets internet trolls stew in their own juices until they get bored and drift away.
    https://apnews.com/8ee05a6abfe541318...hadow-banning?



    But let's not get lost in details. Instead, let's explore how judging someone from a single term used can lead to wildly inaccurate assessments. For the sake of argument, let's assume that "shadow banning" is right in there with "cuck" and "snowflake", as terms used solely by the alt right.

    Is that a good idea?

    Now personally I don't use the word "cuck", I feel like I may as well be calling someone a "cock sucker", so I don't use it. But others do. I don't use "snowflake" either, although I *do* think it can be a very appropriate term in certain circumstances.

    Now I'm going to draw these three terms right back into our censorship discussion, while also demonstrating how off the mark one can be in using these terms to judge someone. Let's start out with an example from someone near and dear to all of us, only problem is that he may be a closet alt right guy judging from this post:
    Quote Originally posted by Wind View Post
    That is true indeed, that's why even I sometimes watch Fox News (albeit very rarely), mostly Cuck-er Carlson
    Now here is Kyle Kulinski's take on the current internet censorship discussion. As usual I tend to agree with him on this, however, every now and then he will use the terms "cuck", "shadow ban", and "snowflake", just like other lefty commentators these days. Why, just the other day I heard him refer to Bernie a cuck. Perhaps he's not really who he portrays himself as? Judging by the alt right rhetoric, I suggest we keep an eye on him something's not quite right there.

    Or, could it be that language evolves, as in by now we have Kyle referring to Bernie as a cuck, and some trigger happy people on the right as snowflakes? Maybe some terms lose their pigeon holes as they spread throughout society, so maybe we should be careful in jumping to conclusions about those who use them.

    Jump ahead to about 5:40 if you want to see Kyle get straight to the point.
    Last edited by Fred Steeves, 31st May 2020 at 14:10.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st June 2020)

  23. #1992
    Super Moderator Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Just here
    Posts
    7,207
    Thanks
    33,713
    Thanked 27,305 Times in 7,220 Posts
    The one time I jokingly used that word it sure caught your attention and it is an alt right term originally, but lefties have started to use it against the alt-righters too. It's just smack talk and in a way it's childish, but I like it when people know how to use humour as a weapon too. Without it I'd go mad. There are better words though. I'd say Bernie has been a weakling, sadly he's lacking a backbone and now this situation is what it is.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st June 2020), Aragorn (31st May 2020), Emil El Zapato (31st May 2020), Fred Steeves (31st May 2020)

  25. #1993
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    I’m not really much for smack talk, but Bernie certainly would be the current poster child of a cuck, he has let both his movement and supporters down in breathtaking fashion. His name and brand will forever be tarnished in U.S. lefty circles.

    By the way the term cuck did not originate from the alt right either (look it up). And as there is not just one left here, but many versions, there is not just an alt right here either. It’s not simply the left vs. the alt right, there’s many versions of the right as well that were here long before Steve Bannon.

    And one last thing, thanks for confirming that the left also uses these terms now, that’s all I was getting at with bringing up your post.
    Last edited by Fred Steeves, 31st May 2020 at 21:20.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st June 2020), Aragorn (31st May 2020), Wind (1st June 2020)

  27. #1994
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,969 Times in 20,255 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    I’m not really much for smack talk, but Bernie certainly would be the current poster child of a cuck, he has let both his movement and supporters down in breathtaking fashion. His name and brand will forever be tarnished in U.S. lefty circles.
    Look, I'm probably retarded or something ─ well, I'm politically progressive, so I guess that puts me in the 'tard club, hey? ─ but I don't even know what the word "cuck" means, because I had never heard that word before until you brought it up here on the thread. And I still don't know what it means ─ and maybe I don't even want to know.

    As for Bernie Sanders, I've already long ago stated that he has no spine, considering how he rolled over for Hillary during the run-up to the 2016 US presidential elections. The DNC wanted Hillary Clinton as their candidate ─ for the same reasons as why they want Joe Biden as their candidate now ─ and Bernie immediately showed that his bark was much worse than his bite. He rolled over and played dead. And now he has done that very same thing again.

    Considering his age, I don't think it's likely that he'll be thinking of running for presidential candidate again in 2024, but even if he were younger, then he'd have to be more senile than Joe Biden to still believe that he'd have yet another chance, after betraying his supporters twice now.

    But then again, did anyone really think that a candidate from within the bipartisan hegemony would ever be what America needs? Okay, that's a stupid question, but perhaps I should say, did anyone within the alternative community believe that such a mainstream candidate would be the answer? We all know that if someone is to impart real change to the US's policy ─ both internal and external ─ then it will have to be someone from the outside. (And Donald Trump was not from the outside. He was from within the shadows of the inside, but sufficiently removed from the existing political establishment to make him appear an outsider.)

    As for the term "shadow banning", if I have to go by your definition as you posted it above, then there has been no "shadow banning" here at The One Truth, because Vern's threads aren't even in the members-only section. They are publicly visible. But by putting them in the Proven Hoaxes & Misinformation category, we've (1) put them where they belong, and (2) we are distancing ourselves as a forum from said material.

    So can we then now please drop the allegations of supposed censorship and "shadow banning", pretty please? You've posted the definitions, and by the letter of the word, they do not apply, no matter how many more times people are going to keep on repeating the false allegations.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st June 2020), Emil El Zapato (31st May 2020), Fred Steeves (31st May 2020), Wind (1st June 2020)

  29. #1995
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    So can we then now please drop the allegations of supposed censorship and "shadow banning", pretty please? You've posted the definitions, and by the letter of the word, they do not apply, no matter how many more times people are going to keep on repeating the false allegations.
    Aragorn, once again your great talent in this life is not in being able to read people. Literally... Where in the world did you ever get that I was talking about Vern or this forum concerning censorship? The same place you were so sure I was talking about Kerry Cassidy?

    Come on man, show us an example or please stand down from this latest line of accusation.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st June 2020)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •