patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,891 comments by 13,872 users - askmeaboutthesaltporkcure, RWSGFY online now
Protest against corporate censorship of public dialogue
invite response
2017 Oct 1, 6:23pm 16,768 views 69 comments
« First « Previous Comments 8 - 47 of 69 Next » Last » Search these comments
8
Dan8267
2017 Oct 9, 8:57pm
Dan8267
2017 Oct 9, 8:57pm
Patrick says
Without the abuse of employer's resources to express baseless identity politics, PatNet would have no traffic!
Everyone should have the right to their own political opinions, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the right to abuse their employer's resources to express them.
Without the abuse of employer's resources to express baseless identity politics, PatNet would have no traffic!
9
Patrick
2017 Oct 9, 9:10pm
Patrick
2017 Oct 9, 9:10pm
anonymous says
I may pick and choose because I don't have any significant market share, sadly.
Now if I had a near monopoly over forums, or was an organized group of megacorporations synchronizing their blocking of DNS records (godaddy), search (google), and hosting (cloudflare) then it would be de-facto censorship if I were to pick and choose who gets heard, based on politics.
The question thus is must YOU tolerate all info - no matter how despicable and repugnant you may find it - or may you exercise discretion and pick and choose what info you allow on your site?
I may pick and choose because I don't have any significant market share, sadly.
Now if I had a near monopoly over forums, or was an organized group of megacorporations synchronizing their blocking of DNS records (godaddy), search (google), and hosting (cloudflare) then it would be de-facto censorship if I were to pick and choose who gets heard, based on politics.
10
anonymous
2017 Oct 9, 10:45pm
even if you had a dominant share the question stands - why must you be forced host information you wish never existed?
If you don't like the example of your wife, what about websites dedicated to stalking sandy hook victims so like minded truthers can plan to meet up and share info on where victims live/work to confront them and do some "fact finding" about no tears or cockeyed arms?
Not extreme enough? Let's imagine there was a feasible way to create a device which will sterilize people. Or poison areas to make them uninhabitable to humans. Well meaning People concerned about overpopulation would gladly act upon this if they could.
Either way, Is there ANY point at which the owners of a fast & efficient means of communication are allowed to say gee we have a social responsibility here? Do they need to allow information no matter how much potential harm it can cause?
Remember all these groups have a constitutional protected right to assemble, share ideas etc and no one will ever stop them from meeting, creating their own newsletters or other forms of communication. However why must the have access to communication means that the owners of that communication find antithetical to everything they believe?
If you don't like the example of your wife, what about websites dedicated to stalking sandy hook victims so like minded truthers can plan to meet up and share info on where victims live/work to confront them and do some "fact finding" about no tears or cockeyed arms?
Not extreme enough? Let's imagine there was a feasible way to create a device which will sterilize people. Or poison areas to make them uninhabitable to humans. Well meaning People concerned about overpopulation would gladly act upon this if they could.
Either way, Is there ANY point at which the owners of a fast & efficient means of communication are allowed to say gee we have a social responsibility here? Do they need to allow information no matter how much potential harm it can cause?
Remember all these groups have a constitutional protected right to assemble, share ideas etc and no one will ever stop them from meeting, creating their own newsletters or other forms of communication. However why must the have access to communication means that the owners of that communication find antithetical to everything they believe?
12
bob2356
2017 Oct 10, 5:54am
rando says
Godaddy is the only domain register, google is the only search engine, cloudfire is the only host. I always thought there were more. It's great how you learn new things every day at patnet.
Companies can choose to keep or lose whoever they want as customers. It's really a simple concept.
Now if I had a near monopoly over forums, or was an organized group of megacorporations synchronizing their blocking of DNS records (godaddy), search (google), and hosting (cloudflare) then it would be de-facto censorship if I were to pick and choose who gets heard, based on politics.
Godaddy is the only domain register, google is the only search engine, cloudfire is the only host. I always thought there were more. It's great how you learn new things every day at patnet.
Companies can choose to keep or lose whoever they want as customers. It's really a simple concept.
13
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 6:56am
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 6:56am
Google is a near-monopoly, and the others are not too far behind.
When in actual fact they become monopolies and are telling you what you may not read, will you be concerned? Or not, because after all, they can choose to lose you as a customer ... to nobody?
When in actual fact they become monopolies and are telling you what you may not read, will you be concerned? Or not, because after all, they can choose to lose you as a customer ... to nobody?
14
anonymous
2017 Oct 10, 7:06am
@patrick I again ask you to answer the question. At what point are you permitted to say "thanks but no thanks" to someone whose ideas you find repugnant?
15
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 7:13am
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 7:13am
I answered the question: when you are nowhere near a monopoly.
To have powerful corporations colluding to suppress content is also wrong.
To have powerful corporations colluding to suppress content is also wrong.
16
joeyjojojunior
2017 Oct 10, 7:47am
Patrick says
The NFL is also a clear monopoly.
Google is a near-monopoly, and the others are not too far behind.
The NFL is also a clear monopoly.
17
Dan8267
2017 Oct 10, 7:49am
Dan8267
2017 Oct 10, 7:49am
Patrick says
It's also an inescapable consequence of capitalism. The entire economic system is based on a simple cycle: money --> control of production --> control of revenue streams --> more money --> repeat. This is what's called a positive feedback system. It causes all wealth and power to be concentrated into the hands of a few, purely lucky few. It's a winner take all lottery system.
It does nothing to promote competition, free markets, choice, or productivity. In fact, it works against all of these things.
We need two fundamental reforms in our economy.
1. Georgist taxation of consumption of public and scarce resources.
2. An economic system that ties income to productivity rather than power or capital.
Until those two reforms happen, all these symptoms people complain about will persist.
To have powerful corporations colluding to suppress content is also wrong.
It's also an inescapable consequence of capitalism. The entire economic system is based on a simple cycle: money --> control of production --> control of revenue streams --> more money --> repeat. This is what's called a positive feedback system. It causes all wealth and power to be concentrated into the hands of a few, purely lucky few. It's a winner take all lottery system.
It does nothing to promote competition, free markets, choice, or productivity. In fact, it works against all of these things.
We need two fundamental reforms in our economy.
1. Georgist taxation of consumption of public and scarce resources.
2. An economic system that ties income to productivity rather than power or capital.
Until those two reforms happen, all these symptoms people complain about will persist.
18
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Oct 10, 8:39am
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Oct 10, 8:39am
anonymous says
I find it hard to believe you couldn't avoid one video of a chick banging 6 dudes, or Nazis, or anything else on the internet. In addition, there is blocking software for just about everything, such as anything related to Arachnids.
Patrick says
Censors are always trying to justify their censorship, be it Harry Potter (2000s), or Atheism (1800s), or Unions (1700-1920s), etc.
Also,censoring something often creates a "Forbidden Fruit" backfire effect where people who would have never looked, go looking for it because it's forbidden. The "Anarchist Cookbook" or even "Necronomicon" effect. And it becomes an "Edgy" thing to be into.
Censorship is mostly about people expressing their Identity : "This is what I and the good groups I'm a member of, are against!" Hence companies like Google and Facebook, which cooperate with Chinese, Pakistani, and other authoritarian regimes with shit human rights records, want to use "No-Platforming" on Nazis to distract from their actual assistance to brutal regimes that result in actual Free Speech or Liberty or Democracy Advocates being imprisoned, tortured, and executed. The virtue signalling on Nazis is a disgusting distraction from their real-life compromises with Tyranny in the name of greed
@patrick I again ask you to answer the question. At what point are you permitted to say "thanks but no thanks" to someone whose ideas you find repugnant?
I find it hard to believe you couldn't avoid one video of a chick banging 6 dudes, or Nazis, or anything else on the internet. In addition, there is blocking software for just about everything, such as anything related to Arachnids.
Patrick says
To have powerful corporations colluding to suppress content is also wrong.
Censors are always trying to justify their censorship, be it Harry Potter (2000s), or Atheism (1800s), or Unions (1700-1920s), etc.
Also,censoring something often creates a "Forbidden Fruit" backfire effect where people who would have never looked, go looking for it because it's forbidden. The "Anarchist Cookbook" or even "Necronomicon" effect. And it becomes an "Edgy" thing to be into.
Censorship is mostly about people expressing their Identity : "This is what I and the good groups I'm a member of, are against!" Hence companies like Google and Facebook, which cooperate with Chinese, Pakistani, and other authoritarian regimes with shit human rights records, want to use "No-Platforming" on Nazis to distract from their actual assistance to brutal regimes that result in actual Free Speech or Liberty or Democracy Advocates being imprisoned, tortured, and executed. The virtue signalling on Nazis is a disgusting distraction from their real-life compromises with Tyranny in the name of greed
19
anonymous
2017 Oct 10, 8:47am
Also,censoring something often creates a "Forbidden Fruit" backfire effect where people who would have never looked, go looking for it because it's forbidden.
Censorship is mostly about people expressing their Identity : "This is what I and the good groups I'm a member of, are against!"
———————
Yup just like Cannabis/Hemp Prohibition. The most UnAmerican of all the injustices that the Christian Church has used the USFEDGOV to terrorize the populace, and for what?
Censorship is mostly about people expressing their Identity : "This is what I and the good groups I'm a member of, are against!"
———————
Yup just like Cannabis/Hemp Prohibition. The most UnAmerican of all the injustices that the Christian Church has used the USFEDGOV to terrorize the populace, and for what?
20
Goran_K
2017 Oct 10, 9:10am
Goran_K
2017 Oct 10, 9:10am
anonymous says
The reason this analogy fails is because YouTube/Google/etc have a virtual monopoly on how content is distributed digitally and how many eyes see the content.
You would have to be extremely naive to believe that YouTube/Google do not have the power to push a political agenda with overwhelming reach.
At the same time, they cannot force you to host & help them disseminate info which causes you so much pain and embarrassment.
The reason this analogy fails is because YouTube/Google/etc have a virtual monopoly on how content is distributed digitally and how many eyes see the content.
You would have to be extremely naive to believe that YouTube/Google do not have the power to push a political agenda with overwhelming reach.
21
anonymous
2017 Oct 10, 9:20am
Kind of like how Christianity has a monopoly on Religion in this country. Where they occupy so much potentially productive and valuable land, and used forced Socialism to make the rest of us pay their fair share, while they destroy all of its value. All the whole, subverting the most important aspect of American Society by mixing Church with State. Using their politicians to destroy this country while harming its citizens.
Yea, that’s something any true American should be actively fighting back
Yea, that’s something any true American should be actively fighting back
22
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Oct 10, 9:32am
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Oct 10, 9:32am
errc says
How about Free Speech, Democracy, etc.? Are those Monopoly Opinions? You're confusing overmighty organizations with ideas/abstract concepts. The POINT of regulating/trustbusting Internet Companies is to ensure Ideas aren't protected from criticism and competition via censorship.
It wasn't long ago that the Mainstream Media "de-platformed" (the new misleading way of saying "Censored") any serious discussion of Drug Legalization. Rarely mentioning the case and when it did, usually giving a boogeyman, strawman version using the nuttiest stoner types. The internet has been amazing.
The bothersome thing with Silicon Valley is that it used to have a Libertarian, Let a 1000 Flowers Bloom mentality. Then the money started rolling in. The Industry's story is basically that of Silk Road and Dread Pirate Roberts. The reason I call myself a Liberal and not a Hardcore Libertarian Ideologue is because Power Corrupts.
There's a big difference between:
"Everybody believes in Taxation in America. Let's break that "monopoly" by allowing some people not to pay tax so Taxation doesn't have a stranglehold."
and
"Standard oil controls 90% of the oil supply, raising and lowering prices at a whim for maximum profit. We need competition to get better quality and quantity."
Kind of like how Christianity has a monopoly on Religion in this country.
How about Free Speech, Democracy, etc.? Are those Monopoly Opinions? You're confusing overmighty organizations with ideas/abstract concepts. The POINT of regulating/trustbusting Internet Companies is to ensure Ideas aren't protected from criticism and competition via censorship.
It wasn't long ago that the Mainstream Media "de-platformed" (the new misleading way of saying "Censored") any serious discussion of Drug Legalization. Rarely mentioning the case and when it did, usually giving a boogeyman, strawman version using the nuttiest stoner types. The internet has been amazing.
The bothersome thing with Silicon Valley is that it used to have a Libertarian, Let a 1000 Flowers Bloom mentality. Then the money started rolling in. The Industry's story is basically that of Silk Road and Dread Pirate Roberts. The reason I call myself a Liberal and not a Hardcore Libertarian Ideologue is because Power Corrupts.
There's a big difference between:
"Everybody believes in Taxation in America. Let's break that "monopoly" by allowing some people not to pay tax so Taxation doesn't have a stranglehold."
and
"Standard oil controls 90% of the oil supply, raising and lowering prices at a whim for maximum profit. We need competition to get better quality and quantity."
23
anonymous
2017 Oct 10, 10:08am
Patrick- I thought I posted this but maybe not.
Anyway - to carry your answer to the logical extreme of my sterilization hypothetical, is it fair to state your position as:
When an entity is at or near monopoly power it MUST accommodate all ideas, even if those ideas/info are potentially destructive to civilization itself. Is this correct?
Anyway - to carry your answer to the logical extreme of my sterilization hypothetical, is it fair to state your position as:
When an entity is at or near monopoly power it MUST accommodate all ideas, even if those ideas/info are potentially destructive to civilization itself. Is this correct?
24
Goran_K
2017 Oct 10, 10:22am
Goran_K
2017 Oct 10, 10:22am
errc says
lol, how exactly?
Using their politicians to destroy this country while harming its citizens.
lol, how exactly?
25
anonymous
2017 Oct 10, 10:33am
"Standard oil controls 90% of the oil supply, raising and lowering prices at a whim for maximum profit. We need competition to get better quality and quantity."
—————
The Christians control 90% of the supply of all land used for ‘religious ‘ purposes that is tax exempt. We need competition to get better use of the land, and put an end to The Church subverting the First Amendment.
Remember, the Church is a corporation.
And we’re all fighting to defend the first amendment, correct? What was the first mention in the first amendment of the Constitution? More important than the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press?
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.
—————
The Christians control 90% of the supply of all land used for ‘religious ‘ purposes that is tax exempt. We need competition to get better use of the land, and put an end to The Church subverting the First Amendment.
Remember, the Church is a corporation.
And we’re all fighting to defend the first amendment, correct? What was the first mention in the first amendment of the Constitution? More important than the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press?
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.
26
bob2356
2017 Oct 10, 10:58am
Patrick says
Damn it sure would be nice looking forest if all these fucking trees weren't in the way.
What are google and youtube a monopoly of? No one needs to use google or youtube. They want to use them, but anyone can walk away at any time. If someone has such a compelling message there are other ways to get it out. People got out their message for many millennium before google and youtube existed. It's not as convenient is all. You are talking about a monopoly on being convenient not a monopoly on the message.
Google is a near-monopoly, and the others are not too far behind.
When in actual fact they become monopolies and are telling you what you may not read, will you be concerned? Or not, because after all, they can choose to lose you as a customer ... to nobody?
Damn it sure would be nice looking forest if all these fucking trees weren't in the way.
What are google and youtube a monopoly of? No one needs to use google or youtube. They want to use them, but anyone can walk away at any time. If someone has such a compelling message there are other ways to get it out. People got out their message for many millennium before google and youtube existed. It's not as convenient is all. You are talking about a monopoly on being convenient not a monopoly on the message.
27
anonymous
2017 Oct 10, 4:00pm
Bob said "you are talking about a monopoly on being convenient not a monopoly on the message.
Precisely degenerate groups have communicated via newsletters and other very low-tech means for decades or longer. According to Wikipedia, The North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is still around in some way shape or form but I very much appreciate that for mankind's sake that we have been able to frustrate their intent to get their message out.
Precisely degenerate groups have communicated via newsletters and other very low-tech means for decades or longer. According to Wikipedia, The North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is still around in some way shape or form but I very much appreciate that for mankind's sake that we have been able to frustrate their intent to get their message out.
28
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 7:19pm
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 7:19pm
anonymous says
Ideally, there would be no near-monopolies in the media.
But if there are, they should be bound to present all non-violent sides without political discrimination. Remember the "equal time" doctrine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
Anyway - to carry your answer to the logical extreme of my sterilization hypothetical, is it fair to state your position as:
When an entity is at or near monopoly power it MUST accommodate all ideas, even if those ideas/info are potentially destructive to civilization itself. Is this correct?
Ideally, there would be no near-monopolies in the media.
But if there are, they should be bound to present all non-violent sides without political discrimination. Remember the "equal time" doctrine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
29
anonymous
2017 Oct 10, 8:08pm
Ok - so per the all ideas deserve equal time rule - the Paul Erlich contemporaries who openly advocate for someone to spike our water supply with "temporary sterilants" to deprive anyone from having children deserve as much a voice as anyone else. Correct?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
BTW - I do sincerely appreciate the open debate as I ask you to answer the extremes of your black & White position - even if it turns out you and I end up agreeing to disagree.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
BTW - I do sincerely appreciate the open debate as I ask you to answer the extremes of your black & White position - even if it turns out you and I end up agreeing to disagree.
30
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 8:10pm
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 8:10pm
anonymous says
All nonviolent ideas deserve at least a hearing, so sure, even Paul Erlich should be heard.
Ok - so per the all ideas deserve equal time rule - the Paul Erlich contemporaries who openly advocate for someone to spike our water supply with "temporary sterilants" to deprive anyone from having children deserve as much a voice as anyone else. Correct?
All nonviolent ideas deserve at least a hearing, so sure, even Paul Erlich should be heard.
31
anonymous
2017 Oct 10, 8:14pm
Patrick says
You don’t think that spiking the water supply with sterilants constitutes violence? It certainly causes harm and deprived people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
anonymous saysOk - so per the all ideas deserve equal time rule - the Paul Erlich contemporaries who openly advocate for someone to spike our water supply with "temporary sterilants" to deprive anyone from having children deserve as much a voice as anyone else. Correct?
All nonviolent ideas deserve at least a hearing, so sure, even Paul Erlich should be heard.
You don’t think that spiking the water supply with sterilants constitutes violence? It certainly causes harm and deprived people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
32
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 8:17pm
Patrick
2017 Oct 10, 8:17pm
I suppose it's a kind of poisoning, which is somewhat like violence. But if we assume the effect is temporary and harmless, maybe not.
Anyway, my principle is that nonviolent ideas do not deserve censorship.
Anyway, my principle is that nonviolent ideas do not deserve censorship.
33
joeyjojojunior
2017 Oct 11, 6:05am
Patrick says
I wish Trump agreed with you.
Anyway, my principle is that nonviolent ideas do not deserve censorship.
I wish Trump agreed with you.
35
joeyjojojunior
2017 Oct 11, 7:19am
rando says
NFL players?
Trump is strongly advocating for a monopoly to siilence non-violent free speech.
What do you mean? Trump has not tried to censor anything.
NFL players?
Trump is strongly advocating for a monopoly to siilence non-violent free speech.
36
mell
2017 Oct 11, 7:30am
joeyjojojunior says
Enough with this bs comparison. You can't go work for Monsanto and run a blog against Round-Up. They have all the free speech they want on the internet as all providers would host their protest opinion. This is about freedom of information, not about freedom to shit on your employer. Comparing this to website providers (who are not employers of their clients) censoring paying clients to prevent the dissemination of their opinion/information is asinine. Of course you could make the argument that those big providers have the right to refuse service to anyone, BUT then you have to be consequent and that reasoning then would also mean people running restaurants (or any other business) should be able to choose their clients by race, opinions, gender, sex. In any case I think Trump could/should/may have stayed out of this as it's not really that important and the NFL in itself is a racket. But he is not censoring anybody.
NFL players?
Trump is strongly advocating for a monopoly to siilence non-violent free speech.
Enough with this bs comparison. You can't go work for Monsanto and run a blog against Round-Up. They have all the free speech they want on the internet as all providers would host their protest opinion. This is about freedom of information, not about freedom to shit on your employer. Comparing this to website providers (who are not employers of their clients) censoring paying clients to prevent the dissemination of their opinion/information is asinine. Of course you could make the argument that those big providers have the right to refuse service to anyone, BUT then you have to be consequent and that reasoning then would also mean people running restaurants (or any other business) should be able to choose their clients by race, opinions, gender, sex. In any case I think Trump could/should/may have stayed out of this as it's not really that important and the NFL in itself is a racket. But he is not censoring anybody.
37
joeyjojojunior
2017 Oct 11, 7:40am
mell says
Sure.. But Patrick, McGee, et. al can't have it both ways either.
Either you want free speech that corporations can't stop or you don't. Trumpkins want free speech that agrees with them uncensored but free speech that counters their view is fine to censor.
Hypocrisy at its finest. A Trump hallmark.
Enough with this bs comparison. You can't go work for Monsanto and run a blog against Round-Up
Sure.. But Patrick, McGee, et. al can't have it both ways either.
Either you want free speech that corporations can't stop or you don't. Trumpkins want free speech that agrees with them uncensored but free speech that counters their view is fine to censor.
Hypocrisy at its finest. A Trump hallmark.
38
joeyjojojunior
2017 Oct 11, 7:42am
me123 says
Nope. I'm just pointing out the extreme hypocrisy in Patrick and McGee and almost all Trumpkins.
Do you really think people have total "free speech" when on the company timeclock. Can you go around at work spewing any type of political or personal beliefs, even if they go against the company wishes, and not get some sort of backlash?
Nope. I'm just pointing out the extreme hypocrisy in Patrick and McGee and almost all Trumpkins.
39
bob2356
2017 Oct 11, 8:17am
mell says
Someone's race, gender, and sex is dissemination of opinion/information? It's great how you learn something new every single day on patnet. Restaurants refuse service and ask people to leave all the time if the information they are disseminating is disruptive.
Comparing this to website providers (who are not employers of their clients) censoring paying clients to prevent the dissemination of their opinion/information is asinine. Of course you could make the argument that those big providers have the right to refuse service to anyone, BUT then you have to be consequent and that reasoning then would also mean people running restaurants (or any other business) should be able to choose their clients by race, opinions, gender, sex.
Someone's race, gender, and sex is dissemination of opinion/information? It's great how you learn something new every single day on patnet. Restaurants refuse service and ask people to leave all the time if the information they are disseminating is disruptive.
40
anonymous
2017 Oct 11, 8:29am
mell says
What exactly is the bs?
Are the players holding the NFL hostage?
It seems that the NFL is fine with what the NFL players are doing, but you Special Snowflakes don’t like it, and you’re demanding that the NFL change their rules to cater to you.
This is America, not North Korea. The NFL is a private business, not a public one. The players are employees. They are not disrespecting the flag, the Anthem, nor the country. They are quietly and respectfully taking a knee during the Anthem, in protest of cops murdering [black] citizens unnecessarily, and not being held accountable for it. I get that they’re black really rubs you guys the wrong way, but your gripe is with the NFL owners and the league.
Write Jerry Jones and tell him how bothered you are by these jigs “speaking out” against excessive and racially motivated police (government) violence against our fellow citizens, and you hate that he joined arms and kneeled with them before the Anthem.
What they’re doing is not Un-American or divisive. Your whinging about it IS actually divisive and very Un-American, not to mention you are now what you hate: a triggered special snowflake.
If you hate America, move to North Korea with this fucking claptrap
joeyjojojunior says
NFL players?
Trump is strongly advocating for a monopoly to siilence non-violent free speech.
Enough with this bs comparison. You can't go work for Monsanto and run a blog against Round-Up. They have all the free speech they want on the internet as all providers would host their protest opinion. This is about freedom of information, not about freedom to shit on your employer. Comparing this to website providers (who are not employers of their clients) censoring paying clients to prevent the dissemination of their opinion/information is asinine. Of course you could make the argument that those big providers have the right to refuse service to anyone, BUT then you have to be consequent and that reasoning then would also mean people running restaurants (or any other business) should be able to choose their clients by race, opinions, gender, sex. In any case I thin...
What exactly is the bs?
Are the players holding the NFL hostage?
It seems that the NFL is fine with what the NFL players are doing, but you Special Snowflakes don’t like it, and you’re demanding that the NFL change their rules to cater to you.
This is America, not North Korea. The NFL is a private business, not a public one. The players are employees. They are not disrespecting the flag, the Anthem, nor the country. They are quietly and respectfully taking a knee during the Anthem, in protest of cops murdering [black] citizens unnecessarily, and not being held accountable for it. I get that they’re black really rubs you guys the wrong way, but your gripe is with the NFL owners and the league.
Write Jerry Jones and tell him how bothered you are by these jigs “speaking out” against excessive and racially motivated police (government) violence against our fellow citizens, and you hate that he joined arms and kneeled with them before the Anthem.
What they’re doing is not Un-American or divisive. Your whinging about it IS actually divisive and very Un-American, not to mention you are now what you hate: a triggered special snowflake.
If you hate America, move to North Korea with this fucking claptrap
41
mell
2017 Oct 11, 9:09am
errc says
I don't care whether the kneelers are black or white. Sure there are injustices that happen in law enforcement. But those are very few and I have seen no proof of any racial motivation. It also doesn't make sense as 99% of people are not racist enough (everybody is a little racist) to risk their career/family. You may as well argue that the flag represents the many sacrifices on the right side (many many more than the few injustices) soldiers and law enforcement, firefighters, EMTs etc. have done to enable a free world where the players can make these exorbitant salaries, regardless of race or identity. It's a matter of respect and if their employers or the fans vote with suspension to this behavior it's their right to do so. At many public and non-public elementary schools even in CA the kids and parents must pledge every morning to the flag (and even in CA the lingo contains God), and while you may not face harsh penalties if you don't, it is frowned upon and called out if you don't. I may or may not like the pledge, but a little respect/tradition can go a long way.
This is America, not North Korea. The NFL is a private business, not a public one. The players are employees. They are not disrespecting the flag, the Anthem, nor the country. They are quietly and respectfully taking a knee during the Anthem, in protest of cops murdering [black] citizens unnecessarily, and not being held accountable for it. I get that they’re black really rubs you guys the wrong way, but your gripe is with the NFL owners and the league.
Write Jerry Jones and tell him how bothered you are by these jigs “speaking out” against excessive and racially motivated police (government) violence against our fellow citizens, and you hate that he joined arms and kneeled with them before the Anthem.
I don't care whether the kneelers are black or white. Sure there are injustices that happen in law enforcement. But those are very few and I have seen no proof of any racial motivation. It also doesn't make sense as 99% of people are not racist enough (everybody is a little racist) to risk their career/family. You may as well argue that the flag represents the many sacrifices on the right side (many many more than the few injustices) soldiers and law enforcement, firefighters, EMTs etc. have done to enable a free world where the players can make these exorbitant salaries, regardless of race or identity. It's a matter of respect and if their employers or the fans vote with suspension to this behavior it's their right to do so. At many public and non-public elementary schools even in CA the kids and parents must pledge every morning to the flag (and even in CA the lingo contains God), and while you may not face harsh penalties if you don't, it is frowned upon and called out if you don't. I may or may not like the pledge, but a little respect/tradition can go a long way.
42
anonymous
2017 Oct 11, 9:15am
mell says
It’s the fans right to do so?
What 3rd world hellhole are you from?
The Special Snowflake fans can whine and cry all they want, and if the NFL owners fear they will lose money, than they can abandon their beliefs and cower to the Snowflakes in the name of profits.
The entire discussion is so beyond dishonest, because people like you keep lying that there’s no such thing as racism. What fucking world do you live in? Your loudest mate here in this site, CiC, posted “Bye Bye Nigger boy!!!!!” Directed at Obama during Trumps inauguration and you dumbfucks gave him likes. Booger and xxyxxz are always posting racist crap against blacks. I don’t give a fuck, believe me, I’ve lived in places where whites are the minority and I’m kinda racist too, but why lie about it?
errc saysThis is America, not North Korea. The NFL is a private business, not a public one. The players are employees. They are not disrespecting the flag, the Anthem, nor the country. They are quietly and respectfully taking a knee during the Anthem, in protest of cops murdering [black] citizens unnecessarily, and not being held accountable for it. I get that they’re black really rubs you guys the wrong way, but your gripe is with the NFL owners and the league.
Write Jerry Jones and tell him how bothered you are by these jigs “speaking out” against excessive and racially motivated police (government) violence against our fellow citizens, and you hate that he joined arms and kneeled with them before the Anthem.
I don't care whether the kneelers are black or white. Sure there are injustices that happen in law enforcement. But those are very few and I have seen no proof of any racial m...
It’s the fans right to do so?
What 3rd world hellhole are you from?
The Special Snowflake fans can whine and cry all they want, and if the NFL owners fear they will lose money, than they can abandon their beliefs and cower to the Snowflakes in the name of profits.
The entire discussion is so beyond dishonest, because people like you keep lying that there’s no such thing as racism. What fucking world do you live in? Your loudest mate here in this site, CiC, posted “Bye Bye Nigger boy!!!!!” Directed at Obama during Trumps inauguration and you dumbfucks gave him likes. Booger and xxyxxz are always posting racist crap against blacks. I don’t give a fuck, believe me, I’ve lived in places where whites are the minority and I’m kinda racist too, but why lie about it?
43
Patrick
2017 Oct 11, 9:30am
Patrick
2017 Oct 11, 9:30am
What you do on your own time should not be used against you at work. But when you are at work, you should just work like you are being paid to.
But none of that has anything to do with the censorship of minority views which corporations are imposing lately.
But none of that has anything to do with the censorship of minority views which corporations are imposing lately.
44
mell
2017 Oct 11, 9:30am
errc says
Latent, problematic racism that extends beyond personal preferences is a very small and negligible percentage in the total population, and studies have shown that white people today are less racist than their Asian or African-American peers. So yes, I claim that there is no racism to protest in the US, if you disregard the few Klansmen or Panthers marching. So do the fans and their team owners and made their voices heard. You also know that most studies about differences in societal behavior or achievements between races/religions/cultures are not allowed to be discussed so you just postulate everybody is equal and should just mix with everybody else while even in a melting pot such as the US many cultures and races tend to stick to themselves and form their own little neighborhoods (and there are reasons for that). I have no problems with that, there is freedom of association. That extends even to people that "post racist crap" although I would argue that many of those memes are tongue-in-cheek triggers for others. So yeah we disagree about racism and its extent.
It’s the fans right to do so?
What 3rd world hellhole are you from?
The Special Snowflake fans can whine and cry all they want, and if the NFL owners fear they will lose money, than they can abandon their beliefs and cower to the Snowflakes in the name of profits.
The entire discussion is so beyond dishonest, because people like you keep lying that there’s no such thing as racism. What fucking world do you live in? Your loudest mate here in this site, CiC, posted “Bye Bye Nigger boy!!!!!” Directed at Obama during Trumps inauguration and you dumbfucks gave him likes. Booger and xxyxxz are always posting racist crap against blacks. I don’t give a fuck, believe me, I’ve lived in places where whites are the minority and I’m kinda racist too, but why lie about it?
Latent, problematic racism that extends beyond personal preferences is a very small and negligible percentage in the total population, and studies have shown that white people today are less racist than their Asian or African-American peers. So yes, I claim that there is no racism to protest in the US, if you disregard the few Klansmen or Panthers marching. So do the fans and their team owners and made their voices heard. You also know that most studies about differences in societal behavior or achievements between races/religions/cultures are not allowed to be discussed so you just postulate everybody is equal and should just mix with everybody else while even in a melting pot such as the US many cultures and races tend to stick to themselves and form their own little neighborhoods (and there are reasons for that). I have no problems with that, there is freedom of association. That extends even to people that "post racist crap" although I would argue that many of those memes are tongue-in-cheek triggers for others. So yeah we disagree about racism and its extent.
45
anonymous
2017 Oct 11, 9:38am
Patrick says
You should be going after Republicans and Citizens United then. Corporations are people. This is America, and we have Constitutional protection of Freedom of Speech.
Do you think you morons would be whinging if some white players were respectfully and non-violently taking a knee to protest the Federal Reserve? I know the answer but I doubt yous would be honest about it
What you do on your own time should not be used against you at work. But when you are at work, you should just work like you are being paid to.
But none of that has anything to do with the censorship of minority views which corporations are imposing lately.
You should be going after Republicans and Citizens United then. Corporations are people. This is America, and we have Constitutional protection of Freedom of Speech.
Do you think you morons would be whinging if some white players were respectfully and non-violently taking a knee to protest the Federal Reserve? I know the answer but I doubt yous would be honest about it
46
joeyjojojunior
2017 Oct 11, 11:01am
Patrick says
So you're 100% behind Google for firing the engineer that wrote the internal memo then, right?
What you do on your own time should not be used against you at work. But when you are at work, you should just work like you are being paid to.
But none of that has anything to do with the censorship of minority views which corporations are imposing lately.
So you're 100% behind Google for firing the engineer that wrote the internal memo then, right?
47
anonymous
2017 Oct 11, 12:36pm
Patrick said: "my principle is that nonviolent ideas do not deserve censorship."
Ok - so what about NAMBLA and the Pedophile community? The "grooming" process is very nonviolent as 4-5 year old boys are selected for first exposure to an erect penis. Do you cover it in whipped cream for licking? Is there a name to call it or "special game" to play with the erection which works best for preschoolers?
What are good places to select victims (oops I mean "lovers")? At the kindergarten? The playground? Perhaps adopt a boy and have "play dates"? How do you get them to keep "our special secret" from "grown ups who just don't understand"?
And at what point do you first enter them? Do you cover their mouth in case they scream as you share your love? How do you best stop rectal bleeding from their tiny bodies? So many questions!!!
Wouldn't it be nice for them to have censor free websites to discuss their non violent ideas? Maybe a members only section to post pictures and share stories? And what of the poor poor children who will never know the joys of Man-boy love? Like daly stormer, Isn't this nonviolent group also worthy of broad online publication?
Ok - so what about NAMBLA and the Pedophile community? The "grooming" process is very nonviolent as 4-5 year old boys are selected for first exposure to an erect penis. Do you cover it in whipped cream for licking? Is there a name to call it or "special game" to play with the erection which works best for preschoolers?
What are good places to select victims (oops I mean "lovers")? At the kindergarten? The playground? Perhaps adopt a boy and have "play dates"? How do you get them to keep "our special secret" from "grown ups who just don't understand"?
And at what point do you first enter them? Do you cover their mouth in case they scream as you share your love? How do you best stop rectal bleeding from their tiny bodies? So many questions!!!
Wouldn't it be nice for them to have censor free websites to discuss their non violent ideas? Maybe a members only section to post pictures and share stories? And what of the poor poor children who will never know the joys of Man-boy love? Like daly stormer, Isn't this nonviolent group also worthy of broad online publication?
« First « Previous Comments 8 - 47 of 69 Next » Last » Search these comments
I've taken a copy of the censored dailystormer.com page "A Normie's Guide to the Alt-Right" from the Internet Archive and hosted it on my own site, here:
http://patrick.net/content/stormer.html
Style sheets don't quite work, but you can read the text. And that's the important thing. They tried to prevent you from having the ability to read it, but I'm saying that is wrong. You should have the ability to read it even if our corporate overlords say no. Especially if they say no. I encourage all other websites to also host parts or all of dailystormer.com as a protest.
I'm not a Nazi. Technically Jewish (long story). Just a believer that corporations should not be in actual fact dictating what we can and cannot read online.
#censorship