patrick.net

Any voice that reminded America of her wickedness, she sought to destroy that voice. America wants to silence my voice. Jews want to silence my voice. But if you silence the Voice of Truth that shows you a mirror of yourself, how then can you change and save yourself?— MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) August 7, 2018

Jack Approved Tweet!

I reported it. I'm sure Twitter will suspend or ban Farrakhan's account.

Free Speech is more than the #1A. It's a societal value. And your turnabout still doesn't explain the Leftist hypocrisy in the original graphic.

And of course, a huge difference between one of a hundred bakeries in an area, and a literal handful of huge corporate social media tech giants.

Like I said, if Harry who personally runs his own bakery doesn't want to bake a cake, you can go to Tom, Dick, Larry, Laura, Linda, Mary's bakery. Or a few blocks over another 10 bakeries.

If Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T refuse to provide you cell service, you're fucked.

And yes, I DO believe in different standards between small businesses and multinational corporations. Have said so before.

Pretty weird that Farrakhan Speeches, #KillAllMales, and ISIS shit don't get taken down from Youtube.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Pretty weird that Farrakhan Speeches, #KillAllMales, and ISIS shit don't get taken down from Youtube

It's almost like gasp they are targeting one group w biased interpretations of their own rules.

"Seems totes fair" - moderate leftists.

Let's say we're at war with Nazi Germany, would the free speech libertarians here let nazi Americans run large scale propaganda operations in the US aimed sinking American morale, while American soldiers are fighting and dying in Europe?

I'm all for free speech in general, but not free propaganda.

There is a level of naivete in the arguments brought forth here.

Heraclitusstudent says

would the free speech libertarians here let nazi Americans run large scale propaganda operations in the US aimed sinking American morale

Depends what you mean. Are you talking about a foreign economic tyrant owning the NYT? Or a globalist, also richest man on earth who gets billion $ deals w the CIA own the WashPo. Or perhaps you are talking about UK spies leaking salacious rumors about a POTUS candidate to effect our elections? Or are you talking about Russian nationals releasing actual emails sent by a POTUS candidate to the public? Or are you talking about China buying Hollywood studios to push their agenda? Or are you talking about Russian nationals buying divisive advertising?

^^ the only fair effective way to fight back against a world of lies and deception is to allow a 1st amendment wherein people can freely speak truth to power.

It seems like you would prefer a biased (everyone is biased) beaurocrat pick and choose what is propaganda vs what is is truth. You really think a Ministry of Truth is a good idea? Yeah... how about we just have a bullet proof 1st amendment and call it a day.

Heraclitusstudent says

There is a level of naivete in the arguments brought forth here.

You want a Ministry of Truth, and assume those who dont are naive? Lol, please read about the history of censorship and its murderous results. Censorship will lead to terrible things.

"Wherever they burn books, in the end will also burn human beings." - Heinrich Heine

CBOEtrader says

^^ the only fair effective way to fight back against a world of lies and deception is to allow a 1st amendment wherein people can freely speak truth to power.

You're not fighting back. You just creates clans of people living in echo chambers, and the country is collapsing every day a bit more under the false beliefs, ultra-polarized society, strident accusations, and increasingly, violent reactions.

CBOEtrader says

Depends what you mean. Are you talking about a foreign economic tyrant owning the NYT? Or a globalist, also richest man on earth who gets billion $ deals w the CIA own the WashPo. Or perhaps you are talking about UK spies leaking salacious rumors about a POTUS candidate to effect our elections? Or are you talking about Russian nationals releasing actual emails sent by a POTUS candidate to the public? Or are you talking about China buying Hollywood studios to push their agenda? Or are you talking about Russian nationals buying divisive advertising?

I asked a simple question: would you let nazi Americans run large scale propaganda, for example showing captured or killed Americans, while American troops are fighting against the same nazis in Europe?

Yes or no?

CBOEtrader says

You want a Ministry of Truth, and assume those who dont are naive? Lol, please read about the history of censorship and its murderous results. Censorship will lead to terrible things.

You certainly don't need to censure reasonable exchange of ideas. Debates are not propaganda. There is a clear difference.

Heraclitusstudent says

Let's say we're at war with Nazi Germany, would the free speech libertarians here let nazi Americans run large scale propaganda operations in the US aimed sinking American morale, while American soldiers are fighting and dying in Europe?

Sure, if you mean there's a "war war" on that includes a draft call, an actual declaration of war, and a national war footing. Or at least 2 of those 3.

Not a mere cooling of relations.

Also, bitching about Russian Influence with a few bucks spent on Facebook while Saudis, Qataris, Norwegians, Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese, Germans, and god knows how many Oligarchs from Soros to Slim pump money into politics, think tanks, lobbyists, etc. is kind of misfocused, IMHO. Everything from University Chairs to Think Tanks to Conferences to Paid Lobbyists, involving millions upon millions of dollars direct from national governments, plus countless bucks via NGOs and Companies and Individuals of these nations.

Hillary's 13 fundraisers in foreign countries.
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/03/17/hillary-clinton-campaign-totals-13-fundraisers-in-foreign-countries/

The Clinton's Moroccan Money Mess
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-foundation-morocco-marrakech-230717

Morocco, that pinnacle of Democracy.

Heraclitusstudent says

You're not fighting back. You just creates clans of people living in echo chambers, and the country is collapsing every day a bit more under the false beliefs, ultra-polarized society, strident accusations, and increasingly, violent reactions.

Somehow these millions upon millions haven't gotten the same level of scrutiny from WaPo and the NYT. Oligarchs don't want the sums given to Hillary by Foreign Countries, many of which are Authoritarian Non-Democracies (and connected to terrorists) compared to the sums allegedly spent by Russia on promoting BLM issues on Facebook.

Heraclitusstudent says

You're not fighting back.

I am not the first amendment. Perhaps you missed my point.

Lets be clear. Answer this question: would you rather have a 1st amendment, or a ministry of truth? There is no 3rd option.

I choose a 1st amendment. You?

Heraclitusstudent says

I asked a simple question: would you let nazi Americans run large scale propaganda, for example showing captured or killed Americans, while American troops are fighting against the same nazis in Europe?

This is a bizarre hypothetical which you are using to dodge the conversation. No, I do not think we should block those ISP's for Americans to search out and view, if that's what you mean.

How about you answer my real world question now? Which of the dozens of identified propaganda campaigns would you shut down? Better yet, to whom do you grant this judgement?

My argument is that noone deserves this power, and the only functional effective way to combat propaganda is the 1st amendment.

The only alternative to 1st amendment is a ministry of truth. So choose: do you want a ministry of truth or a 1st amendment?

Democrats, 2005: We have a right to disagree and debate with this Administration!
Democrats, 2018: You have no right not to disagree and debate with this Russian-backed Administration!

Unbelievable oppression of those Freedom Voices expressing Dissent.


Tuck Buckford hahaha. Alex Jones got booted off Social Media, lost the Info War hahahahaha!

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

spent by Russia on promoting BLM issues on Facebook.

This was maybe a few hundred thousand, if they ran terribly inefficient ads. If they're halfway intelligent, they could get the reported reach w $50k or so. That includes the pro hillary and pro trump ads. Even if you assume they spent more on trump, we are MAYBE talking about $25k of Russian bought ads for the Donald. Glad we spent a few hundred million researching this influence when we completely ignore the multiple hundreds of $millions noted in twoscoops post above.

A 1st amendment would solve this problem. Let individuals point out and discuss facts. Meet propaganda w well reasoned argunents. The propaganda will be shown to be lies against the truth. This is why propagandists ALWAYS want to eliminate the 1st amendment. This is also why the 1st amendment is the best and only way to fight nack against propaganda.

The question remains: would you choose a 1st

Patrick says

The fact that Google fired Damore for speaking sympathetically and correctly about these factual differences proves that Google is evil

Isn't "evil" a little strong for erring on the side of political correctness - or on the side of their agenda - which may be about more than political correctness.

There's a paradoxical aspect to this. Considering that fully one half or so of the population is below average in intelligence, and even many above average folks are susceptible to propaganda, it's not surprising that some true facts end up being suppressed from being thrown around in careless ways, as CBOE did with is rather extreme mischaracterization of Jordan Peterson point about IQ.

That's exactly the reason for being careful. Otherwise intelligent people will use actual facts, that are misunderstood, to justify believing what they want to believe, which you yourself argue (and exemplify) is dependent more on self interest than it is on objective analysis of what's true.

If true facts were being censored from long form discussions by the intelectual dark web, then you would have a cause for concern, but that's where cases such as Damore's are given analysis. Google will ultimatley have to adjust based on what deeper analysis reveals to have been an error.

But meanwhile the agenda of having more women in stem will continue based on the theory (although possibly wrong) that more women in stem, (actually computer science specifically) will lead to still more women in stem, just by virtue of it being less male dominated. I question this strategy.

Btw, the fact is that in some stem fields such as health care, women are very well represented. I believe that at this point the yearly numbers of new doctors in the U.S. are higher for women than for men. Or if not, definitely more women in medical school than men.

marcus says

and even many above average folks are susceptible to propaganda,

Hypnotists will tell you that above average people are easier to manipulate. Pretending like you are immune to manipulation is about the surest way to be manipulated.

marcus says

as CBOE did with is rather extreme mischaracterization of Jordan Peterson point about IQ.

You are the one mis-characterizing JP, and using his statements to rationalize your bias. I've asked you to clarify your statements, but you wont. I, however, have been crystal clear.

JP specifically calls out the SJW types who blame the patriarchy as a misguided, when in fact differences of success are largely explained by IQ differences. He has been very clear about this many, many times. Please explain what you feel is missing in this perspective

marcus says

Google will ultimatley have to adjust based on what deeper analysis reveals to have been an error.

Or they will just label facts as racist and censor everything, which is what they've been doing. https://torontosun.com/2017/08/01/free-speech-advocate-jordan-peterson-suspects-political-reasons-might-have-been-behind-google-shutdown/wcm/41894f5b-5dca-4ad1-a076-ed7267b4ace4

marcus says

Isn't "evil" a little strong for erring on the side of political correctness

No, political correctness is about thought control. It is well deserved to be described as evil.

marcus says

I believe that at this point the yearly numbers of new doctors in the U.S. are higher for women than for men.

I dont know exact numbers, but it my understanding that women out number men for entry level medical doctors. It is also my understanding that this is not due to bias, just a representation of women being highly interested in and attracted to the profession. ^^ if true, there is NOTHING wrong w this.

If the medical profession decided to put limits on women vs men for equality purposes, THAT would be WRONG. Unfortunately, in every respected field where men dominate this is happening. This is exactly why James Damore spoke out. Absolutely evil to oppress him for discussing facts. I'm shocked that anyone would disagree but here we are. #moderateleftist

CBOEtrader says

when in fact differences of success are largely explained by IQ differences. He has been very clear about this many, many times. Please explain what you feel is missing in this perspective

Actually he uses the word competence, which is not the same as IQ. Btw I did clarify my point in post # 99

This is what you said earlier, first you stated this gem:

CBOEtrader says

go tweet an article discussing the IQ differential between blacks and whites. Watch how quickly you get shut down.

Then in a later comment this:

CBOEtrader says

Do you disagree with your hero JP who feels this IQ discussion is at the core of societal importance? Sorry, I do agree w JP. If society wants to fixate on equality of results, it is imperative to discuss differences in IQ levels that drive those results rather than blaming white patriarchy.

Taking these points together - you seem to think that African Americans who feel disenfranchised, or libtards speaking on their behalf, want to blame the Patriarchy for their difficulties, when in fact the true cause of difficulties are their intherant inferior intellect. And that somehow Jordan Peterson is on your side backing this point of view.

Please explain what I'm getting wrong here.

By the way, Jordan Peterson actually is on the record agreeing that people with your point of view shouldn't even be allowed to be in the conversation.

See the part that starts at 12:30

www.youtube.com/embed/E1PeOfbT_q0

marcus says

when in fact the true cause of difficulties are their intherant inferior intellect

That may play a small part as JP said but it's the culture which is the true cause. There are plenty of successful AAs and they all have one in common - they left the leftoid plantation victim culture. The real oppressors are the leftoids/Dems who tell AAs which way they must vote (clearly an admission that leftoids erroneously think they are mentally superior) and even have the audacity to insult and harass AAs that don't conform to their plantation politics (e. Candace, Diamond & Silk etc.).

CBOEtrader says

You mean when he expresses his opinion on his social media channel or personally owned radio station?

When someone spreads conspiracy theories as if they are proven and being hidden by the government, that is theories that actually hurt people or that hurt political candidates with only that intention, or even if it's not intended, and just propaganda generated by Oligarchs *Russian or our own) it's far different than someone simply expressing an opinion.

This is even more true when hate and fear rage so high on the right. It's immoral and against America's best interest to manipulate people based on that hate and fear that's been nurtured so much by the right wing media for decades now. He calls himself an entertainer, and he feels self righteous becasue of the haters that love having justification for more fear and more hate.

Decreasing extremism on both sides of the political spectrum would be beneficial, if we hope to ever productively address very real problems that are going to need to be addressed.

marcus says

Actually he uses the word competence, which is not the same as IQ

He specifically mentions IQ differences between races. I'm not sure why you are rejecting this fact.

marcus says

When someone spreads conspiracy theories as if they are proven and being hidden by the government, that is theories that actually hurt people or that hurt political candidates with only that intention, or even if it's not intended, and just propaganda generated by Oligarchs *Russian or our own) it's far different than someone simply expressing an opinion.

Who gets to decide what speech equals what you describe? I think Rachel Maddow is a comically unhinged conspiracy theorist. Should RM be banned? So far there is zero evidence of Russian collusion w Trump. Should Trump use the federal govt powers to shut down CNN and others who parrot the Russian conspiracy theory?

Again, the point is that no person should have this power. The only reasonable solution is an iron clad 1st amendment. The only alternative is a ministry of truth. Unfortunately people disagree on truth, so who gets to be the minister of truth?

marcus says

you seem to think that African Americans who feel disenfranchised, or libtards speaking on their behalf, want to blame the Patriarchy for their difficulties, when in fact the true cause of difficulties are their intherant inferior intellect. And that somehow Jordan Peterson is on your side backing this point of view.

Please explain what I'm getting wrong here.

This is accurate. JP points out the difference in IQ levels among races, and the resulting predictive nature of IQ on success in life. JP even goes specifically into Ashkanazi Jews who have a much higher than average verbal IQ, and their resulting success as journalists/play-writes/authors.

What part of this is confusing to you?

marcus says

you seem to think

LOL, when did i ever say what i think? I have repeated what JP says. You should stop making assumptions.

marcus says

By the way, Jordan Peterson actually is on the record agreeing that people with your point of view shouldn't even be allowed to be in the conversation.

You have legit gone off the deep end man. Refrain from ad homs please, and discuss the topic only.

For the record, you are representing the #moderateleft in a terribly extremist way. Sorry, I will not have you call me a racist, had to mark your comment as personal... though mostly it was just stupid.

Disqus ends commentary provision for all Infowars sites, citing non-specific violations of the Terms of Service.

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

when in fact differences of success are largely explained by IQ differences. He has been very clear about this many, many times. Please explain what you feel is missing in this perspective

Actually he uses the word competence, which is not the same as IQ.

Do you read what you write or no?

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

But I do enjoy the same people who bitch about "Net Neutrality" claiming that ISPs can censor or at least speed or delay speech that they like or dislike, defend content platforms censoring speech (and not in a transparent, objective way).

I'm confused about who "the same people" are. Net neutrality was upheld under Obama and repealed under trump. So you are saying republicans claim ISP's can censor are also defending platforms that censor speech. That's very odd. All the republicans have been screaming that platforms are censoring their conservative speech in every outlet from breitbart to cnn. So they favor it secretly while speaking out against it publicly? That makes sense using patnet "logic".

Either a little fuzzy on the concept or deliberately disingenuous here, ISP's are frequently government sanctioned monopolies like cable carriers or phone carriers and under net neutrality are not allowed to use their monopoly position to restrict competing products from other companies from their customers. Content platforms have no monopoly. If you can't want to watch alex jones on youtube then you are certainly fee to go directly to the infowars site. That's a far cry from actually locking ISP customers out competing services like phone company isp's locking out vonage. Freedom of speech doesn't include being too lazy to to type in infowars.com if you don't see it on youtube.

Freedom of speech in the first amendment has nothing to do with what any private company does. It only applies to government regulation. The supreme court has held in many decisions that a "clear and present danger" test as described by Justice Holmes and "advocacy of action" are the standard for judging what is not constitutionally protected free speech that could be regulated by the government.

Nice bit of meaningless hyperbole though.

bob2356 says

Freedom of speech doesn't include being too lazy to to type in infowars.com if you don't see it on youtube.

The legal argument version of this should be interesting to watch.

bob2356 says

Either a little fuzzy on the concept or deliberately disingenuous here, ISP's are frequently government sanctioned monopolies like cable carriers or phone carriers and under net neutrality are not allowed to use their monopoly position to restrict competing products from other companies from their customers.

Yes, your statement is both.

Leftists just finished insisting that Comcast (a private company) shouldn't be able to charge Facebook or it's Users or it's Customers more money to have speedy access. Or, feel obligated to provide rapid, updated connections to somebody's shitty Wix website rather than offer it at the slowest speeds.

We were told that would have a chilling effect on Free Speech, and allow a few companies to decide "What content you can access on the Internet"

Now the same Leftists who fought for Net Neutrality are insisting that Facebook and Youtube should have the power to censor outright. In other words "What content you can access on the internet"

Just like a handful of ISPs have a near monopoly in most areas, a handful of Social Media companies have a near monopoly.online. If it's not on there, it pretty much won't be seen.

It's pretty clear and not at all complicated.

Yes. It's scary how leftist/democrats can show their true skin when content they disagree with is censored. Ideologically, they don't care if viewpoints they don't agree with are censored, and are more than willing to suppress free speech.

A couple of people have really shown their true colors, and I suspect the true colors of leftists in general.

Goran_K says

A couple of people have really shown their true colors, and I suspect the true colors of leftists in general.

Yep.

It's actually kinda similar to what happened in the past year at Pat.net.

Despite a perfectly good "Ignore" button, some insisted that some users be banned from Pat.net for their content they thought was conspiratorial, false, or whatever.

Mere months after peak "Ban this guy", many of these same users got bounced or flounced when Patrick imposed an ad hom ban and they ran afoul of it, screeching "Muh Free Speech".

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Despite a perfectly good "Ignore" button, some insisted that some users be banned from Pat.net for their content they thought was conspiratorial, false, or whatever.

Mere months after peak "Ban this guy", many of these same users got bounced or flounced when Patrick imposed an ad hom ban and they ran afoul of it, screeching "Muh Free Speech".

Perfect example.

On the whole though, it shows the dangers of collectivist mind set versus the power of the individual. Collectivist are okay with trouncing on people as long as they are "outside of the group", while Constitutionalism favors the individual right over the group think. Collectivism lead to the formation of the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, it's an extremely dangerous ideology, and it's sad to see people here cling to it.

Anyone who finds joy in Alex Jones being censored, while not illegal, should never call themselves liberal, constitutional, or even American. This is collectivism, and by extension, totalitarianism that you support.

Oh, and the Legacy Media in favor of Social Media Giants banning Alt Media have competitive motive$ to support it.

But some from the Kronkite Era can't imagine a world without large corporate Media entities having some special magic power of discernment.