We need a strategy for dealing with censorship by the left

You can see this for now, while there are other things you cannot see at all, and do not even know you cannot see them because they have been obliterated by media proprietors as if they are private companies with no need to provide the service they promised before they forced their opposition out of the picture. If it’s not illegal to say something, then it should be illegal to remove anything from twitter, facebook and youtube. The backstory here: Lauren Southern’s Documentary ‘Borderless’ Goes Viral Despite YouTube Censorship.


 

YouTube reportedly censored Lauren Southern’s latest documentary on the migrant crisis in Europe but it went gone viral nonetheless.As of Monday morning her documentary had over 526,000 views.

I need hardly remind you how relevant this video is for Australia.

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Media, Western Civilsation. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to We need a strategy for dealing with censorship by the left

  1. Iampeter

    We need a strategy for dealing with censorship by the left

    Before you can formulate such a strategy, you’ll need to figure out what “censorship” actually means.

    Hint: YouTube cannot and is not censoring anybody.

    Those that think they can force YouTube to host content they don’t want to, are the ones advocating actual censorship.
    Along with numerous other rights violations and which also makes you leftists on this issue.

  2. stackja

    MSM don’t care about people who aren’t leftists. Thanks to Sinc, Cats can be open. With the exception of various court cases and suppression orders.

  3. CameronH

    Please stop calling it a migrant crisis. These people are nit migrants they are illegal aliens. Language matters and things need to be defined correctly.

  4. CameronH

    Iampeter. YouTube is now a virtual monopoly. There are laws against monopolies using their market power to interfere with market access. I am sure that President Trump is now looking strongly at this with respect to the US’s anti trust laws.

    I Australia we also now have censorship. One of the only competitors for youtube is a recent startup called BitChute which has is now being censored by our Government by forbidding ISP to display it.

  5. The BigBlueCat

    Those that think they can force YouTube to host content they don’t want to, are the ones advocating actual censorship.

    Huh????

    Hint: YouTube cannot and is not censoring anybody.

    Really? Anybody???? I bet there are some who have actual experience of this …. Tommy Robinson maybe?

    Censorship: The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

    That’s what their community standards are all about. But who are they to define what is obscene or politically unacceptable? Do they have objective standards for these?

  6. John Brumble

    Oh ffs, can we boot this loon? I used to think that people (Americans generally) who claimed that their First Amendment rights were violated whenever there was censorship were obnoxious, but they have nothing on this donkey.

  7. John Brumble

    Bigbluecat- Iampeter’s shtick (aside from being an authoritarian leftist troll) is that he thinks (pretends to think?) the only possible form of censorship is one which, if applied in the US, would violate their First Amendment.

  8. Gilas

    Has anyone seen iampeter and numbnutz in the same room?

  9. Stimpson J. Cat

    Before you can formulate such a strategy, you’ll need to figure out what “censorship” actually means.

    Sinc, can you please hide all of Iampeter comments on this private Libertarian blog so he can take this opportunity to learn to code and build his own Libertarian blog?
    It’s not censorship.

  10. Empire 5:5

    Hint: YouTube cannot and is not censoring anybody.

    Youtube most certainly is censoring. The fact the hosting platform is private property and Alphabet is legally entitled to do so, doesn’t change the fact they are censoring.

  11. Pyrmonter

    A start would be to recognize that Southern is just a statist leftist with a (nasty) ethnic-chauvinist overlay.

  12. 2dogs

    The strategy should be to:

    1. Fix Facebook first: by moving the social graph into the public domain. This would require US government regulation to pull it off. The required technologies already exist (e.g. Mastodon), the regulation would simply require social media companies to implement the required APIs.

    2. Currently our media regulations state only 2 of 3: TV, radio, newspapers. Why have newspapers there? It is not as though newspapers have a large barrier to entry. Replace them in that list with social media.

    3. Send Twitter bankrupt. It only recently became profitable, and that situation is fairly unstable. Once step 1 is complete, opportunities will present themselves.

  13. Empire 5:5

    Lauren is a paytriot. The jury is out on whose hand moves the mouth. She was on the receiving end of a 70 large crowd control bill from vicpol. That ain’t right.

    WTF is “ethno-chauvinism?

  14. Nob

    Rafe:
    You’re wasting your time.

    People who have time to waste playing politics all day are overwhelmingly leftist.

    ‘Twas ever thus.

    Leave it to them.

  15. Nob

    Twitter would ban Trump too if he wasn’t the best box office they’ve ever had.

    You’ve got to be that good if you’re going to take them on.

  16. Nob

    I mean Steve, not Rafe.

    If only I had more time to check these things.

  17. Tel

    There are laws against monopolies using their market power to interfere with market access. I am sure that President Trump is now looking strongly at this with respect to the US’s anti trust laws.

    Correct … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

    Even in a privately owned company town, where the ground literally under your feet is owned by someone else, you still have free speech rights, provided it is declared part of the “public square”. That works in the USA at least for the time being.

    Those laws are not particularly Libertarian, but since the law exists, the tech companies should obey it. Better to demand enforcement of existing laws rather than try to get government to create new laws.

    I Australia we also now have censorship. One of the only competitors for youtube is a recent startup called BitChute which has is now being censored by our Government by forbidding ISP to display it.

    There’s plenty of competitor sites but if censorship becomes standard then that won’t make any difference, they will all get hit.

    I note that TPG did not censor anything so far … you guys might want to keep that in mind.

  18. Empire 5:5

    3. Send Twitter bankrupt. It only recently became profitable, and that situation is fairly unstable. Once step 1 is complete, opportunities will present themselves.

    I don’t like your chances of getting 45 off the tweets for a month.

    Maybe better odds for @jack shipping himself a coupla slugs in the back of the pill, Arkanstyle?

  19. 2dogs

    I don’t like your chances of getting 45 off the tweets for a month.

    He’d then be posting under an account on a Trump owned social media company, and the API’s will simply present those posts on his Twitter feed. Blue-checked journalists would be locked out of replying. The revenue from all this would go to Trump’s company, not @jack’s.

  20. Dr Fred Lenin

    The left do not censor anything but , alleged racism ,homophobia .islamophobia ,generphobia , anti gobalism .pro populism. Nationalism ,patriotism ,anti feminazism ,anti narxism. Anti socialism ,anti antifaism , anti fauxberiginalism ,anti msm ism ,anti EU ism ,anti UN ism ,anti migrant welfareism ,anti dole bludgerism . Apart from those subjects you are free to speak your mind ,we marxist socialist globalists are supporters of free speech.

  21. Empire 5:5

    There’s plenty of competitor sites but if censorship becomes standard then that won’t make any difference, they will all get hit.

    I note that TPG did not censor anything so far … you guys might want to keep that in mind.

    It’s all kind of moot until a big test case gets appealed to the SC. What are these outfits? Are they infrastructure or publishers, or both? Who really created them and why? What is the common piece if IP they share? What have they been doing with your data? Is it their data? Did every individual legally consent to collection of their data? How is the data aggregated, packaged an shared? Discovery through the lower court will publicly expose the answers.

    Voluntary IP blocking by ISPs [Eg. Telstra>8chan] is inexcusable. It’s also easily circumvented.

    Be the real resistance. Do not yield. Say what you mean and say it mean.

  22. Scott

    Note that not only did the original upload get deleted without any explanation (other than a vague earlier response about a processing error despite it being watched 70k times over 12 hours), paypal placed her website’s account in a restricted state a few days ago right before the launch. (The documentary was entirely funded by small donations and provided for free – laurensouthern.net).

  23. mizaris

    It’s available for download at the Buccaneers Cove. I have a copy.

  24. Empire 5:5

    He’d then be posting under an account on a Trump owned social media company, and the API’s will simply present those posts on his Twitter feed. Blue-checked journalists would be locked out of replying. The revenue from all this would go to Trump’s company, not @jack’s.

    I like this so much words cannot express.

  25. Rob MW

    Personally I think that the left’s monopoly on all things digital will eventually create it’s own competition but in the mean time, I don’t use the left’s known dressed atrocities; I don’t use Google preferring instead Bing, I don’t do Facebook (fuck em’) but I watch shit on YouTube but I don’t contribute and I also watch other shit produced by what appears to be independent hosting channels – Breitbart, Daily Caller etc.

    The antidote to Twitter is Twitchy – love it.

  26. Kneel

    “…is now being censored by our Government by forbidding ISP to display it.”

    That “block” is trivially easy to bypass – permanently and for free. The same minor change will also unblock the pirate bay. If you have a geo-unblocker to get, eg, US Netflix in Aus, you likely already bypass it.

  27. Arky

    Notice how libertarian fuckheads are first off the block to derail the discussion, with points they have had refuted time and time again.
    Your stupid narrow definition of censorship isn’t the point of this post. We have heard you multiple times.
    Now fuck off.

  28. Cowards. Call them out as cowards, trembling in fear of ideas they wish to hide from others. Their only power is their ability to supress ideas that demonstrate the poverty and travesties of their own thoughts.

  29. The BigBlueCat

    John Brumble
    #3028409, posted on May 28, 2019 at 5:36 pm
    Bigbluecat- Iampeter’s shtick (aside from being an authoritarian leftist troll) is that he thinks (pretends to think?) the only possible form of censorship is one which, if applied in the US, would violate their First Amendment.

    He’s a Randian Objectivist, John. He thinks everyone’s a socialist, apart from other Randian Objectivists … Ayn Rand said it once, so it must be true.

  30. The BigBlueCat

    Pyrmonter
    #3028439, posted on May 28, 2019 at 6:04 pm
    A start would be to recognize that Southern is just a statist leftist with a (nasty) ethnic-chauvinist overlay.

    Yeah, she must be … that’s why her opponents call her alt-right …. go figure.

  31. her opponents call her alt-right …. go figure.

    Geert Wilders too – his criticisms of Islam are all from a leftist humanitarian point of view, but because he is against Islamic immigration he’s called far right. Ditto Oriana Fallaci. This is how ‘progressive group-think’ excuses itself from having to confront their own paradoxical hatreds.

  32. Fisky

    I note that Pyrmonter believes the invasion of Europe is wonderful for individual freedom! He’s not much better than the weirdo randroid Iampeter.

  33. Fisky

    The migrant invasion of Europe has totally ripped the mask off the fake “libertarian” movement, exposing it as a Leftist auxiliary force that runs interference for cultural Marxism. We must isolate and purge these people so they cannot influence anything!

  34. Fisky

    Notice how libertarian fuckheads are first off the block to derail the discussion, with points they have had refuted time and time again.
    Your stupid narrow definition of censorship isn’t the point of this post. We have heard you multiple times.
    Now fuck off.

    The great irony is that most of them are employed by the state.

  35. Jannie

    YouTube has been ramping up its censorship of the right and conservatives recently, and is lockstep with Twitter and Facebook. YouTube tries to ban specific videos and people, but they can appear under different posters. They routinely demonetise conservatives and centre right libertarians (demonetization means YouTube do not pay to creator a share of the advertising it attracts), they also “shadow ban”, which means the content is not ever recommended and sometimes not referenced in searches so its impossible to find. But YouTube is the best we got.

    Yada Yada about it being a private company, its a Monopoly, and should not have the right to censor. It should be treated like a carrier, and follow the law consistently about what should not be allowed, like the postal service. If not the anti trust laws should blow it into thousands of pieces along with its wicked stepsisters, Facebook and Twitter.

    YouTube will get a lot worse when it fully implements articles 11 and 13 of the EU communications code in about six months. Its supposed to be about copyright but its going to have a huge impact on independent content creators, much material may be banned including fair usage quoting and referencing, and it will be a huge benefit to the establishment corporate media who have the resources to employ lawyers, monitors and moderators. .

    The Left almost totally controls the establishment legacy media, and they are not happy that the cannot control the content of the internet, and they are trying hard with help from the Chinese and maybe even the local Security. The only good sign on the horizon is that Trump has set up a website to monitor social media censorship, because it always censors Small and Right, while it promotes Big and Left.

  36. None

    Why are you complaining about the left. Scott Morrison wants to censor the internet. If that most moves to censor stuff of come from the f****** so called Centre Right. Don’t let your ideology take your eyes off the ball.

  37. Bad Samaritan

    This thread is all very pretty, but can we please get either an Open Forum or maybe a dedicated US-Politics thread since the shyte is really hitting the fan over there and may soon blow the entire Leftism / Industrial / Digital Complex completely out of the water…at which point a total collapse of their putrid edifice will (maybe!) ensue….making this current thread’s concerns redundant.

    A foretaste of what Cats may learn: Hillary’s 30,000 missing E-Mails went somewhere and did not disappear = why the Deep State is in total melt-down over Barr looking at US Intel databases.

    Get off your backsides and stop covering for the Democrat Party Miscreant Commies, blog-operators.

    Open Thread Now! Thanks.

    BTW: If threads are not to be derailed, why not put an open one up early each day?

  38. Iampeter

    Oh ffs, can we boot this loon? I used to think that people (Americans generally) who claimed that their First Amendment rights were violated whenever there was censorship were obnoxious, but they have nothing on this donkey.

    The First Amendment restricts the government NOT private enterprise. Obviously.
    It’s loons like you that need to be booted off here as you have no business on a right wing political website.

    Notice how libertarian fuckheads are first off the block to derail the discussion, with points they have had refuted time and time again.

    Making the correct argument to which you have no counter is not “derail the discussion.”
    It also should not be a debatable position on a, “leading libertarian and centre-right blog.”

    The real question is, why are there so many politically illiterate leftists here?
    Go to GetUp where you belong.

  39. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    YouTube do not pay to creator a share of the advertising it attracts), they also “shadow ban”, which means the content is not ever recommended and sometimes not referenced in searches so its impossible to find.

    twitter’s shadowban, which I have received means the only person who can see your content is yourself. deceitful.

    these are not “social” platforms these are socialist platforms.

  40. Arky

    To the libertarian moron:
    You know damn well that your comments are irrelevant to this thread.
    You left wing loon.
    This thread is about the behaviour of the left who have captured all the institutions built by the sweat and sacrifice of good men.
    You have nothing to add to this argument, You have no solution to the problem raised. You simply repeat your usual autistic drivel.
    Which you only come here to display in support of the take over of conservative institutions by your progressive mates.
    All concerned about property rights are ya? Bullshit. You had no problem at all in posting your thread- wrecking dreck on another mans post. Go author your own post. See how few people bother to comment on it. You moron.
    You have nothing to say about the curtailment of property rights, except when it aligns with your progressivism. You only pull this shit out when the target is conservative. Go write twenty posts on the ABC, university funding, behaviour of local councils, crony capitalism and all the other ways individuals in this country get dicked. No you never do. But first out of the block to help your progressive captured globalist corporations out. You turd.
    You are transparent.
    You are only concerned that something might actually be done to curtail your destructive fellow travellers.
    Now seriously: go fuck yourself, you progressive lunatic.

  41. Bad Samaritan

    ummm. What’s most alarming about this thread is the constant hate-speech when referring to Lauren, whom I notice is bigotorially declared to be a “she” or a “her” when, in fact, Lauren is a man.

    Before I am forced to report this to Sinc, I’ll just ask you all to show some respect, and I’ll let it go this time.. OK, haters?

    BTW: For those stuck in their CIS-Gendered redneckerey…..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGpZSefYvwM

    .

  42. Ellen of Tasmania

    Your stupid narrow definition of censorship isn’t the point of this post. We have heard you multiple times.

    Part of our problem, at least in my mind, is that we keep trying to work with old categories that don’t properly describe the conflicts we now face. We are used to wars between nations, but are now facing ideological wars that don’t have a lot to do with national borders – ISIS being a good example.

    We speak about left and right in politics, but the main point of contention at the moment seems to be between those who want global governance and those who want nation or smaller-than-nation sovereignty.

    On this issue of censorship, I don’t think we’re dealing with a private vs. government situation. I believe we will one day see that TPTB (whoever they are) are working with both government and non-government entities to manage the narrative that they wish we poor plebs to receive – and believe.

  43. Fisky:

    The migrant invasion of Europe has totally ripped the mask off the fake “libertarian” movement, exposing it as a Leftist auxiliary force that runs interference for cultural Marxism. We must isolate and purge these people so they cannot influence anything!

    What I’ve been saying for yonks – Libertarianism is for dorks of either sex who want to be socialists but also want to bonk the chickiebabes who think Libertarianism is cool.

  44. Sfw

    WordPress recently deleted ‘Chateau Heartiste’ just because he said stuff they didn’t like.

  45. Iampeter

    To the libertarian moron:
    You know damn well that your comments are irrelevant to this thread.
    You left wing loon.

    The only thing that’s irrelevant here is this thread itself, which does not belong on a right wing blog and demonstrates zero understanding of the subject.
    The left wing loons are Kates and those supporting this clueless drivel. People like you.
    You’re triggered because on some level you know I’m right but wish I was wrong.
    Well, facts don’t care about your feelings.

    The rest of your post is the usual unhinged drivel of someone who has no clue and is triggered about this fact.
    Don’t take it out on me and don’t go to political blogs.

  46. Arky

    this thread itself, which does not belong on a right wing blog

    ..
    Yep.
    You just admitted it.
    Your tactic is to disrupt and derail threads like this. You just admitted it.
    You just admitted what you are. you know you are capable of writing a post anyone would bother to reply to. You slimy shit.
    Fuck off you xunt.

  47. Iampeter

    Part of our problem, at least in my mind, is that we keep trying to work with old categories that don’t properly describe the conflicts we now face.

    This is not a part of your problem.
    Politics has always been about the same fundamental subject.
    The problem for the triggered fools here and you, is a lack of understanding of this subject to begin with. You need to learn it, if you are interested, not invent new terms so you can have more faux political discussions.

    What I’ve been saying for yonks – Libertarianism is for dorks of either sex who want to be socialists but also want to bonk the chickiebabes who think Libertarianism is cool.

    There’s too much wrong with what you and Fisky have posted to even bother addressing. Especially since we all know that you don’t know what you’re saying, so it’ll be a waste of time.
    What I will say is, this IS a blog for Libertarians and right wingers, so why are you clueless leftists here telling those of us who are actually right wing to fuck off?
    Especially since you all seem to agree that you are the ones that don’t belong here?

  48. Iampeter

    Your tactic is to disrupt and derail threads like this. You just admitted it.

    Pointing out the basic facts that render this post and thread pointless on this blog is not derailement.
    This is not supposed to be a website for clueless leftists to pretend to be discussing politics from a right wing perspective for some reason.

    I know that pointing basics about how censorship actually works is pretty embarrassing for you, since you and others fancy yourselves afficianado’s for some reason, so finding out that you are clueless is quite triggering.

    But have some self respect and don’t take your cringy embarrassment, at your own ignorance, out in me.

  49. Roger W

    I’m amazed that none of the comments actually relate to the content and presentation of the documentary.
    It seems to be an entirely reasonable and accurate portrayal of events, with a sympathetic representation of the point of view of the migrants themselves, and a condemnation of the people smugglers above all others. What is it about the documentary itself that caused it to be banned or to be regarded as controversial? It is probably something that, had it been produced by 4 Corners some 20 years ago, would have seemed entirely acceptable to the mainstream.
    Am I missing something?

  50. The BigBlueCat

    Roger W
    #3028937, posted on May 29, 2019 at 11:46 am
    I’m amazed that none of the comments actually relate to the content and presentation of the documentary.
    It seems to be an entirely reasonable and accurate portrayal of events, with a sympathetic representation of the point of view of the migrants themselves, and a condemnation of the people smugglers above all others. What is it about the documentary itself that caused it to be banned or to be regarded as controversial? It is probably something that, had it been produced by 4 Corners some 20 years ago, would have seemed entirely acceptable to the mainstream.
    Am I missing something?

    No, I don’t think you are wrong. The world has shifted leftwards – what was once centre is now considered hard-right. What was once considered socialist/Marxist/Leftist is now considered centrist. It’s only because the world doesn’t want to see itself as leftist that they disparage centrists and the moderate right.

    I watched the documentary – the first half-hour or so was pretty amateurish. But after that they got into some reasonable meaty stuff. I didn’t think the journalistic standard was particularly up to MSM standards, who have been polishing crap for a while now.

    But the documentary does highlight the issues. Pity that the people who need to see it will ignore it, or that various platforms will prevent it from being made available for viewing.

  51. Empire 5:5

    The First Amendment restricts the government NOT private enterprise. Obviously.

    Obviously you know little of what you speak. Obviously.

  52. Chris M

    WordPress recently deleted ‘Chateau Heartiste’

    Oh no, really? Whilst sometimes a bit crude and wack that guy is a superb communicator and writer.

  53. Win

    I remember the frustration when the SMH and the Australian used to send all non approved points of view to the shredder so no body bothered to write a bit like today’s polls.
    I also remember Bill Mitchells cartoons and the fun letter pages of the pre Keating era in the Australian. Keating put a stop to that when he started government punishments against the writers.

  54. Arky

    You have admitted you are a slimy creep and exactly what you are up to.
    Now for the last time: Fuck off.

  55. Karabar

    “Borderless” is available on DVD at http://bit.ly/BorderlessDVD
    BadSamaritan
    Thanks. I hadn’t seem that on the Rebel before.
    I am aware of situations up there in which a young man will “identify” as a female in order to save on auto insurance. Under the auspices of Justin Castro, the country has gone completely insane.
    I note the last sentence, regarding reality and fiction.
    That, in a nutshell, is the AGW issue.

  56. John Brumble

    Empire –
    The First Amendment to the US constitution restricts government. And that’s it.

    What Iamtrollter pretends to think is that this is the only type of censorship. He knows this isn’t true, but this approach suits the trolling.

    Key items to identify the leftist troll:
    – Uses the term “triggered” when talking about someone disagreeing with him. The original use of the term against leftists was in reference to massive screeds of barely (if at all) coherent angry ramblings. Since then, leftists have started to think it’s funny or at all apt to use it against people who simply disagree with them. It’s a childish “but you’re crying too” response – generally made through rushing tears at someone who’s about as moved as the Hoover Dam.
    – “Get an education”. Anyone who disagrees with a leftist is obviously just not educated enough. It’s not up to the leftist to provide any evidence for their arguments, feels are enough. If Iampeter doesn’t *feel* that censorship by a corporate monopoly is crony censorship, then it just isn’t so nyaaa.
    – Projection. Leftists always project. In this case, he’s demanding that other people don’t make up terms right in the middle of him making up a new definition of “censorship” that only he follows.

    And that’s just from one post.

    Bluey – I fundamentally disagree. He’s a Randian Objectivist only insofar as he’s pretending to hold the same views that a cartoon version of a Randian Objectivist would. In evidence: the fact that he’s using the standard leftist-hypocrite approach to censorship i.e. “but you guys just love the free market”. Obviously he can’t just come out and say it (because he’s not being honest, he’s trolling), but if he was an actual Randian Objectivist, he’d be arguing that it was censorship, but that censorship is ok.

    Here, Iamtrollter, I’ll help you with your next post:

    “But but but, leftist, but, but.. actually I was just kidding because you lot wouldn’t understand – censorship really is ok and you’re a leftist if you don’t agree”.

  57. Iampeter

    You have admitted you are a slimy creep and exactly what you are up to.
    Now for the last time: Fuck off.

    You seem to not understand what’s happening here. I’ve simply explained that you have no clue what you are talking about and have no business on a political blog. It’s you who needs to “fuck off” as you put it.

    Take the other morons here with you.

  58. Iampeter

    What Iamtrollter pretends to think is that this is the only type of censorship. He knows this isn’t true, but this approach suits the trolling.

    Trolling is what I used to think you and others were doing here when you posted stuff like this.
    I never thought anyone could be both this clueless and this unaware of it.

    Cat posters have proven me wrong about that.

  59. Herodotus

    Yet another thread which demonstrates why Sinc should wield the big spear as did Blair’s former bouncer Ms. Harris.

  60. Iampeter

    Yet another thread which demonstrates why Sinc should wield the big spear as did Blair’s former bouncer Ms. Harris.

    You realize you are posting this in a thread where people are trying to argue that such an action is “censorship?”

    SMH, you morons really are beyond parody.
    There’s no words.

    Also, if anyone should be “big speared” on Australia’s leading center right blog, it’s the people that are getting censorship and free speech literally backwards, then getting unhinged when people point out their total ignorance. Not only do you know nothing about politics, but you’re not interested, nor capable of discussing it anyway.

    That or change the wording to, “Australia’s leading blog of unhinged, politically illiterate leftists, pretending to talk politics and driving off anyone who might actually have a clue.”

  61. Rafe Champion

    No offence Nob. Steve and i are twins separated at birth.

  62. Iampeter

    No offence Nob. Steve and i are twins separated at birth.

    What does that even mean? Who are you calling a nob?
    The one person explaining basics that shouldn’t need to be explained, or even be controversial to anyone who is not a leftist?
    Or, the grown men here, engaging in unhinged rants, like triggered, teenage SJW’s, because their total ignorance is exposed?

    My first comment in this thread, which caused the triggering, is completely correct.

    No amount of rants or insults will change this.
    The only question is, how little self respect posters here have and how low they’re prepared to go to avoid conceding.

  63. Tel

    He’s a Randian Objectivist, John. He thinks everyone’s a socialist, apart from other Randian Objectivists …

    Naaa I reckon he’s a fake. A real Randian can generally argue on topic and focus on the issue instead of depending on stupid distractions.

    The purpose is to spam the discussion and make libertarians look bad with deliberately over-the-top arguments.

    Ayn Rand said it once, so it must be true.

    If he provided genuine quotes from Ayn Rand, and relevant to the topic at hand … that might be a tiny bit useful. So far I’ve never seen anything out of him that was supported by references or backed up by quotes. Not a sausage. When you push him on it, he turns to water.

  64. bespoke

    Roger W
    #3028937, posted on May 29, 2019 at 11:46 am
    I’m amazed that none of the comments actually relate to the content and presentation of the documentary.
    It seems to be an entirely reasonable and accurate portrayal of events, with a sympathetic representation of the point of view of the migrants themselves, and a condemnation of the people smugglers above all others. What is it about the documentary itself that caused it to be banned or to be regarded as controversial? It is probably something that, had it been produced by 4 Corners some 20 years ago, would have seemed entirely acceptable to the mainstream.
    Am I missing something?

    No and her convolution at the end was vary sympathetic. So who is YouTube protecting?

  65. Empire 5:5

    Empire –
    The First Amendment to the US constitution restricts government. And that’s it.

    This statement is incorrect. Tel even referenced one of the commonly cited cases upthread, but the myth continues.

    Whatever the framers’ original intent or the punters’ interpretation, the practical application since 1791 proves otherwise. The clause itself extends beyond expression to include freedom of association. It did not apply to state laws until 1925. The amendment has been successfully invoked in cases where neither party was the state.

    The body of accessible work on this subject is huge. Why do people imagine when they can research?

  66. Iampeter

    The purpose is to spam the discussion and make libertarians look bad with deliberately over-the-top arguments.

    Spamming discussions with nonsense is a description of many other here, not me. You are a liar.
    My argument was made in my first post. The response has been the predictable triggering from idiots who wanted to LARP discussing politics but their game of make-believe was ruined by basic facts.

    If he provided genuine quotes from Ayn Rand, and relevant to the topic at hand … that might be a tiny bit useful. So far I’ve never seen anything out of him that was supported by references or backed up by quotes. Not a sausage.

    Yes, throwing random quotes is a common strategy at the Cat. Second only to doubling down and hurling ad hominems when proven totally wrong. It’s a symptom of not knowing what you’re talking about and not having any arguments that stand on their own.
    Sorry, I don’t have that problem.

    When you push him on it, he turns to water.

    No, it’s you idiots who turn into sperging, teenage SJW’s, throwing mindless tantrums, when pushed on anything.
    You know nothing about politics.
    You’re incapable of having any discussions on the subject in a civil manner and learning.
    Yet you’ll come in here and direct absurd criticism at me, that you should be directing at pretty much everyone else.
    You’re a liar and a moron, Tel.

  67. Tel

    No, it’s you idiots who turn into sperging, teenage SJW’s, throwing mindless tantrums, when pushed on anything.
    You know nothing about politics.
    You’re incapable of having any discussions on the subject in a civil manner and learning.
    Yet you’ll come in here and direct absurd criticism at me, that you should be directing at pretty much everyone else.
    You’re a liar and a moron, Tel.

    No real arguments anywhere in that lot. Thanks for proving my point so well. I’m serious: “blah blah idiots blah blah mindless blah blah know nothing blah blah incapable blah blah absurd, liar, moron”. That is all you got and all you have ever delivered.

    A real Randian would not behave that way. Too illogical.

  68. Annie A

    @bespoke, I don’t think I got to answer your question from the other thread about this doco. You asked what was the conclusion and now that you have watched it, I can concur with your comments above.
    I was expecting her to criticise the refugees for illegally coming into Europe, deserting their own countries, not staying to fight etc, that ISIS put them up to it so they can terrorise from within etc . BUT, she did not. She said they are just normal people wanting the same for their families as most westerners etc and it is not their fault. All she said was the answer to all the issues was not open borders. And the evil people smuggles were profiting from their situation. I can not see why they deleted it either. The only thing I can think of was she exposed some NCO’s ( I think that is what they are called?) coaching the refugees to get asylum?

  69. Annie A

    @bespoke.

    So who is You-tube protecting?

    Good question.

  70. bespoke

    NGO’s Annie A and that’s who YouTube is protecting.

  71. Iampeter

    No real arguments anywhere in that lot.

    Yes there was. An argument supported by the rest of this threads content and your posts too.
    Not to mention that my first argument was in my first post, which you also ignored.
    But never mind, you’ll just double down and keep going.

    Like the others here, clarity, truth, consistency, honesty, are not values to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.