Parler liberté

There is now an alternative to Twitter: Liberal Media Sure Are Obsessed With Villifying #Parler As Alternative To Twitter. I’ve joined up and we shall see how many others do as well.

“A whopping 500,000 users [including Legal Insurrection] signed up for social-media platform Parler after Twitter shut down two conservative accounts this week”

And from the post:

There have been many attempts to create a Twitter alternative, but in the wake of Twitter’s decision to censor a tweet by President Trump and its permanent bans on prominent right-leaning accounts like that of meme master CarpeDonktum, Parler is attracting users at a startling rate.

So startling is the growth of Parler, a free speech-friendly Twitter alternative, that the leftstream and #NeverTrump media are attempting to vilify it as the refuge of racists and white supremacists and fascists. Oh my!

The headlines are hilarious:

  • Newsweek: “Who Owns Parler? Social Media Platform Offers Safe Space for the Far Right”
  • The Bulwark: “The Far Right Establishes Autonomous Zone Safe Space App Parler: ‘Free Speech!’ cry the snowflakes seeking a place to vent about their triggered feelings.”
  • Hollywood Reporter: “‘I’m Done’: Right-Wing Personalities Ditching Twitter for Parler Over Claims of Censorship”
  • Fast Company: “I joined Parler, the right-wing echo chamber’s new favorite alt-Twitter”
  • Forbes: “As Twitter Labels Trump Tweets, Some Republicans Flock To New Social Media Site”
  • Yahoo News: “Parler, a right-wing social media site, lures conservatives, but Trump sticks with Twitter — so far”

And why shouldn’t the President use both, at least for now?

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

74 Responses to Parler liberté

  1. Lee

    ◾The Bulwark: “The Far Right Establishes Autonomous Zone Safe Space App Parler: ‘Free Speech!’ cry the snowflakes seeking a place to vent about their triggered feelings.”

    Except that the “snowflakes” are the Left banning conservatives and right wingers to protect their “triggered feelings.”
    It seems that anyone to the right of these people are “far right,” even conservatives.
    All the anti-free speech leftists can go and get buggered as far I am concerned.
    If the Left didn’t have double standards, they would have none.

  2. Lee

    ◾Hollywood Reporter: “‘I’m Done’: Right-Wing Personalities Ditching Twitter for Parler Over Claims of Censorship”

    “Claims”?!?!

  3. NoFixedAddress

    Steve

    Not accessible through google store

  4. Tom

    I tried to create a parler.com account on Friday. I tried again just now.

    It wouldn’t let me “submit” my application — even with the required (valid) US phone number. On one attempt it told me my password wasn’t “sophisticated” enough (even though it’s the password I use on almost all of my online accounts).

    I know it will face interference/hacking from the entire Silicon Valley swamp, but it needs to be more user-friendly or I won’t bother.

  5. Carpe Jugulum

    Since twitter suspended my account 2 weeks ago i had no choice but to go to Parler.

    The downside is it is an awkward system to use.

    Im @CarpeJugulum

  6. Tom

    It seems that anyone to the right of these people are “far right,” even conservatives.

    That’s a standard propaganda tactic: try to make your opponents sound like extremists (i.e., “far right”) when you are the extremist lunatic — classic lefty projection.

    The fact that “news” organisations are using this tactic is disgraceful and should tell news consumers they are reading the work of political extremists, even if it is the New York Times — which used to be a credible newspaper but has become a propaganda outfit, primarily to defeat Donald Trump.

    At one stage in 2017, the NYT gave its reporters permission to campaign against Trump, such was the threat the Times thought he represented to the Washington establishment, which the Times suddenly felt compelled to defend.

    The Times proves Trump’s fake news thesis every day.

  7. Neil

    Since twitter suspended my account 2 weeks ago

    I got banned 4 weeks ago. When you see the stuff they publish from leftists it is clear that Twitter is a home for lefties. I have been banned from the Guardian also.

    What is it with these people and humans which have a different opinion? They just cannot tolerate other humans with a different point of view.

  8. NoFixedAddress

    What about the GAB social media site?

    Is it any good?

  9. Scott Osmond

    We’ve seen the left’s playbook so we already know what will happen next. Step 1 the labelling as far right. Step 2 SPLC and it’s affiliates designating as a hate group or a hate group supporter. Step 3 complaints to the domain who will promptly cancel their hosting and give them a day or so to leave. Step 4 complaints to companies like cloudflare who will say that this company isn’t in step with their values and cancel protection immediately. This announcement will be trumpeted thus letting all the lefties know it’s safe to launch DDoS attacks. Steps 3 and 4 can be used at the same time or out of order. So damned predictable that if they haven’t planned for it they should have.

  10. NoFixedAddress

    I never bothered to join twitter but I’ll have to now so I can get my “Banned by Twitter” credentials.

  11. Kneel

    “I got banned 4 weeks ago.”

    Parler only takes down illegal content – incitement to violence, etc.
    Nothing is stopping the left from using it too – they certainly won’t be banned for having an opinion that the Parler owners disagree with. That is, after all, Parler’s “selling point”. Of course, they won’t – they want their sanitised, no wrong-think echo chamber.
    Most amusingly, if the right-leaning all jump ship the Parler, while the left-leaning remain on Twitter, the N*zi thugs on twitter will start “eating their own” – even more than they already have.
    Popcorn futures look like a good investment…

  12. Major Elvis Newton

    I’m on Parler…

  13. Walter Plinge

    I signed up after a mention on The Outsiders a couple of weeks back.

  14. Bruce of Newcastle

    Trump will stay on Twitter because he uses it like a cat toy. He waves the feather-on-a-stick around so that the MSM jumps at it. Works every time.

    The number of news cycles he’s been able to dominate by this method is amazing.

  15. one old bruce

    But how do we find these sites? I searched “@CarpeJugulum” at Duckduckgo and google, nothing about a Parler site. What does it all mean? And I have no probs finding Gab sites, so what’s going on?

  16. one old bruce

    Do you have to join or something?

  17. Carpe Jugulum

    I got banned 4 weeks ago. When you see the stuff they publish from leftists it is clear that Twitter is a home for lefties.

    They are bansturbators, i got the flick for saying the 400 odd aboriginal deaths by the plod meme was horse pucky

  18. Squirrel

    Wouldn’t it be fun if the intolerance of the big social media sites eventually drives away so many users that it has the same effect as the calls from the Democrats to split up those sites.

  19. Carpe Jugulum

    But how do we find these sites? I searched “@CarpeJugulum” at Duckduckgo and google, nothing about a Parler site. What does it all mean? And I have no probs finding Gab sites, so what’s going on?

    Search for Parler, and then search for my name.

    If you use google look for Kurisu Shimei (that’s me)

  20. Neil

    They are bansturbators, i got the flick for saying the 400 odd aboriginal deaths by the plod meme was horse pucky

    If these people got into power we would be sent to the gas chambers very quickly. It is strange. The Australia i grew up in is very different to the Australia i meet on social media.

    I have no idea why i got banned from Twitter. I suspect i said something a leftie did not like and then they sent a message to the authorities protesting my comment

  21. one old bruce

    Thanx CJ, I mean not just you but I’d be happy to read unfiltered Trump there or anyone.

    But maybe my connection’s too slow, the main page just has a dancing P and I never get further. Oh well whatever.

  22. thefrollickingmole

    Im on, same nick as now.

    Thought i shitstir a little for me first post.
    Its good to see the true patriots of British Lives Matter finally striking back against the symbols of democratic oppression and returning the 13 American colonies to the crown.
    The overthrow of statues of the Tyrant Washington as well as the Awful Lincon (crusher of their own independence movement) by the copperheads and Kings Men is well worth a Pip! Pip! Huzzah!
    Of course there will have to be a period of probation before you are readmitted to the Empire, so you will be temporarily annexed to Canada under the wise leadership of that nice Mr Trudeau chap.
    God Save King Charles!

  23. pbw

    What about Gab? It’s been struggling along for well over a year.

  24. Neil

    Since twitter suspended my account 2 weeks ago i had no choice but to go to Parler.

    I suspect you said something a leftie did not like so he reported you. I am guessing you only get suspended if you are reported otherwise how the hell would Twitter find out about your comments??

  25. Cassie of Sydney

    “Scott Osmond
    #3498173, posted on June 28, 2020 at 4:22 pm
    We’ve seen the left’s playbook so we already know what will happen next. Step 1 the labelling as far right. Step 2 SPLC and it’s affiliates designating as a hate group or a hate group supporter. Step 3 complaints to the domain who will promptly cancel their hosting and give them a day or so to leave. Step 4 complaints to companies like cloudflare who will say that this company isn’t in step with their values and cancel protection immediately. This announcement will be trumpeted thus letting all the lefties know it’s safe to launch DDoS attacks. Steps 3 and 4 can be used at the same time or out of order. So damned predictable that if they haven’t planned for it they should have.”

    You forgot other steps…..Step 5 – targeting advertisers for advertising on a far-right nazi platform; Step 6 – attacking payment processors like PayPal, Mastercard, Visa for allowing far-right nazis to use a platform that allows free speech.

    Scott…all of the steps you and I have written above have been applied to strangle Gab. …another free speech platform. It has struggled because of these steps…miraculously it is still going…but last week Visa pulled its services because of far-left progressive activism. It is relentless…already if you do a basic google search, Parler is smeared as “far-right”.

  26. Scott Osmond

    Cassie, thanks forgot those steps. Several people say that we should build our own platforms but what do we do about the financial system? Build entire banks? build entire money transfer networks? This is why I say we on the right shouldn’t be talking about shrinking government but using it’s instruments to restore order. Because at this point the next steps are submission or open warfare.

  27. Carpe Jugulum

    I suspect you said something a leftie did not like so he reported you. I am guessing you only get suspended if you are reported otherwise how the hell would Twitter find out about your comments??

    I had 20 tweets going back over 5 years reported in about 2 hours, the rest as they say is history.

    I can go back if i delete about 200 comments but, fvk that

  28. Neil

    I had 20 tweets going back over 5 years reported in about 2 hours, the rest as they say is history.

    Have you reported any Tweets? I have not reported a single Tweet but i guess i got suspended because the lefties did not like my comments. Lefties appear to spend most of their time reporting comments they do not agree with. To this day i have not reported any comment on any blog i have posted on

    I am guessing i got banned from The Guardian because they could not argue against my comments so i got reported to be banned. Same goes when i got banned from Twitter

  29. pbw

    …what do we do about the financial system?

    Maybe set up a bitcoin exchange for smallish amounts with a simplified interface and wallet system to allow users to easily turn such smallish amounts of cash into bitcoin?

  30. Cassie of Sydney

    “Scott Osmond
    #3498384, posted on June 28, 2020 at 7:57 pm
    Cassie, thanks forgot those steps. Several people say that we should build our own platforms but what do we do about the financial system? Build entire banks? build entire money transfer networks? This is why I say we on the right shouldn’t be talking about shrinking government but using it’s instruments to restore order. Because at this point the next steps are submission or open warfare.”

    I have been banging on about this for the last two years….particularly since Alex Jones was cleansed from all major social media platforms in 2018 because various far-left progressives and activists campaigned for his removal..using the bullshit of “hate speech”. Now whilst I happen to think that Alex Jones is a lunatic….an entertaining one but nonetheless a lunatic…Jones has never advocated violence….unlike Antifa and other hard left groups who operate with impunity on Facebook and Twitter. I knew then that the cold winds of censorship would not stop with Jones…that one day they would come after more mainstream conservatives and right-of centre commentators…and sure enough…I have been proven correct. But this gets to the gist of my argument …..we have spineless conservatives, libertarians and others on the right who parrot on about free speech and then say that private companies can operate in any way they so wish…that companies such as twitter and facebook can discriminate if they so desire. And then these same cretins say….don’t worry…people just need to build their own platform alternatives to twitter and facebook. And so a few have emerged…Gab, Minds, Bitchute….and what happens…the left go after them to try and shut them down…smearing them with lies such as “far-right, nazi, white supremacist, hate speech, hate speech, hate speech, hate speech…..and on and on it goes….and these new tech platforms struggle to get financing, struggle to get advertising, struggle to get payment processors and on and on it goes. It is ALL part of the left’s desire to completely eradicate any thought and any opinion that differs from their own. They have almost destroyed Gab…..and they will try with Parler.

    How will it end? We are in dark times and it will worse but I will never submit…and nor should anyone else.

  31. BorisG

    When you see the stuff they publish from leftists it is clear that Twitter is a home for lefties.

    Like DJT. He used Twitter to win 2016. some leftist.

  32. BorisG

    Major companies are now boycotting Twitter and Facebook for their failure to censor free speech. For Uniliver and Coca-Cola, Facebook it too ‘ pro free speech’ !

    I know these guys are just virtue signalling but it likely reflects consumer sentiment.

    who will advertise on a right wing platform?

  33. BorisG

    basically this is democracy and capitalism for you.

  34. BorisG

    Cassie, not all is lost. Bibi has just eat opposition for breakfast. No left wing shift in the holy land.

  35. Scott Osmond

    Cassie, the claim that they are private businesses is a lie. Take the banks. They have bank deposit guarantees, credit lines to the reserve banks and suchlike all subsidised by the taxpayer. How much does this help by reducing borrowing costs on the international markets? A real government of the right would respect their wish to be a free market business and remove any taxpayer guaranteed protection. Fuckers would suddenly embrace the idea that a bank shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what customers should be spending their own money on. Use the “not our values” argument on them.
    You weren’t the only one who saw that the Alex Jones deplatforming was a practice run. These sorts of things are trialed first to discover if the right and government regulators will act. When they don’t it’s open season. Same with the statues. 2017 was the trial 2020 is the great historical cleansing of western civilisation.

  36. Boris

    Scott you may be right about banks but twitter and google are not subsidized by taxpayers. They are driven mainly by commercial considerations and reflect the prevailing views of their customer base (and indirectly, customer base of their advertisers and investors).

    This is capitalism for you. And democracy.

    Conservatives are mainly relatively less educated, blue collar hard working and older people and they don’t use Twitter or facebook as much. And maybe they are also in a minority overall.

  37. NoFixedAddress

    Boris
    #3498530, posted on June 29, 2020 at 2:59 am

    Scott you may be right about banks but twitter and google are not subsidized by taxpayers. They are driven mainly by commercial considerations and reflect the prevailing views of their customer base (and indirectly, customer base of their advertisers and investors).

    This is capitalism for you. And democracy.

    Conservatives are mainly relatively less educated, blue collar hard working and older people and they don’t use Twitter or facebook as much. And maybe they are also in a minority overall.

    Boris, can you smell a conservative when you walk into a Coles or Aldi?

    How much money do you think the American Government has paid to Google or even Twitter, let alone Face Book, from the very inception.

    Your CCP propaganda is frothing.

  38. NoFixedAddress

    Belt and Road Baby!

    Xi Heil.

  39. Scott Osmond

    Boris, rethink it’s capitalism for you. I used to think the same. What sane business wouldn’t follow it’s customer’s desires? Proffits afterall. However it’s become obvious that to the left ideological purity trump profits. Look at the situation in America for example. Football and NASCAR have each taken a hammer to the values of customers. As viewers and attendants dropped they doubled down. The Gillette attack on males cost them about 8 billion. All it takes is several SJW’s and an amendable manager or board and a market supported by a fed that seems willing to soak up any slump in share prices. In many ways the system is broken.

  40. Cassie of Sydney

    “I know these guys are just virtue signalling but it likely reflects consumer sentiment.

    who will advertise on a right wing platform?”

    LOL..BolshevikG just showing his true colours.

  41. Cassie of Sydney

    BolshevikG is here looking for attention. He needs to go back to school…ASAP.

  42. Cassie of Sydney

    “Conservatives are mainly relatively less educated, blue collar hard working and older people and they don’t use Twitter or facebook as much. And maybe they are also in a minority overall.”

    I think I will just respond to this offensive idiocy from an all round ignoramous, Soviet bore and CCP shill with two words…fuck off.

  43. Cassie of Sydney

    “Scott Osmond
    #3498583, posted on June 29, 2020 at 7:22 am
    Boris, rethink it’s capitalism for you.”

    BolshevikG has long shilled for the CCP. Every word he writes reeks of totalitarianism.

  44. Your CCP propaganda is frothing.

    You forgot, BorisG, that Communism (which hasn’t survived in China) is responsible for bad skin, nose bleeds and piles.

  45. Neil

    Like DJT. He used Twitter to win 2016. some leftist.

    I am sure if Trump was a nobody Twitter would ban him

  46. duncanm

    Carpe Jugulum
    #3498252, posted on June 28, 2020 at 5:38 pm

    Search for Parler, and then search for my name.

    nup – too hard to find atm.

    Go to parler.com – if you’re not a user, you can’t view anything, or search.

    I should be able to do a search on “carpejugulum site:parler.com”

    get nuttin.

  47. Cassie of Sydney

    “Neil
    #3498604, posted on June 29, 2020 at 8:15 am
    Like DJT. He used Twitter to win 2016. some leftist.

    I am sure if Trump was a nobody Twitter would ban him”

    Without a doubt Neil…and I am sure that Twitter would love to get rid of Trump but they can’t and won’t…so now they are trying to censor him.

  48. Mother Lode

    Incitement to violence?

    Who is prone to violence?

    Incitement can only mean ‘say something with which some other people, who have a predisposition to rapine and pillage, disagree and which they will seize upon as an excuse to go on a rampage’.

    I know the left likes to pretend that for the right every night is Kristallnacht, but since there actually are not right wing riots then nothing is being said that incites them.

    Look at what it has taken to get substantial numbers of people from the right to come out – the sight of their cities being burned, monuments defaced, history erased, and unbridled violence from the left. And these people of the right’s response is not to attack, but to defend.

    To infuriate a lefty all you have to do is guess their imagined gender wrong.

  49. Iampeter

    I was going to link to The Bulwark article which pretty much says it all, but I see you already have, while missing the point entirely.

    As the article mentions quite rightly, today’s conservatism is a burning dumpster fire of a political movement, far from what it’s superficial supporters like the OP in this thread imagine it to be. Like Gab, Parler is going to quickly devolve into a racist madhouse that no sane person will want to associate with.

    PS – Obligatory LOL at all the Trump supporters calling others “lefties,” or something.

  50. Iampeter

    ◾Hollywood Reporter: “‘I’m Done’: Right-Wing Personalities Ditching Twitter for Parler Over Claims of Censorship”
    “Claims”?!?!

    Yes. Because Twitter can’t censor anybody by definition.
    The only ones advocating censorship here are the conservatives who don’t even understand terms like “censorship” or “free speech.”

  51. Struth

    According to Boris G logic,, extortion money paid to the mafia would be capitalism and democratic in so far as all the mob agreed it must be paid.
    All you left wing fuckheads claiming you understand anything about capitalism and freedom or even democracy is a sad joke.

  52. Arnost

    It will be interesting to see for how long Parler survives. I’ve been there for abt a year.

    However!. The fact that it allows “free speech” is its weak point. It, like GAB, will inevitably be swamped with racist, sexist and anti-Semitic/Musulman posts [shit-posters / bots / socks] from ANTIFA and the like, and used as evidence that the site promotes that shit. And if the shit’s censored … then it’ll be labelled as hypocritical etc. Eventually it will be strangled as a consequence of lack of funding (upgrades, enhancements and security are expensive!) and the ensuing lack of use by the principals like Trump, news orgs, and influencers that make the sites interesting.

    All credit to the doom-lord for ensuring that this site has not spiralled down that toilet.

  53. Cassie of Sydney

    “Arnost
    #3498729, posted on June 29, 2020 at 10:37 am”

    Parler will be targeted as a depository of hate speech…actually it already is being smeared as I write. But what do we do….give up? I also suspect that twitter will grind itself to the ground with increasing censorship which will only get worse….and yes, that might take a few years…but it will happen.

  54. Struth

    Parler will be targeted as a depository of hate speech…actually it already is being smeared as I write. But what do we do….give up?

    The right just want a choice and complain that the choice will be taken away from them by the left.

    The left are the minority.
    They may be loud but they are the minority.
    The gutless right aren’t able to call left wing speech hate speech?
    The gutless right aren’t able to call out these true racists.
    The gutless right can’t demand the left take back nazism as the socialist shit it was.
    The gutless right won’t shout back?

    If only the right would fight.
    But, it may involve being de-friended on facebook.
    What a fucking disaster that would be.
    I’m sure plenty of soldiers who died for our freedoms would understand the dilema that puts us in.

  55. Kneel

    “Yes. Because Twitter can’t censor anybody by definition.”

    From Dictionary.com:

    censorship
    / (ˈsɛnsəˌʃɪp) /
    noun
    a policy or programme of censoring
    the act or system of censoring
    psychoanal the activity of the mind in regulating impulses, etc, from the unconscious so that they are modified before reaching the conscious mind

    censor
    [ sen-ser ]
    SEE SYNONYMS FOR censor ON THESAURUS.COM
    noun
    an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
    any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
    an adverse critic; faultfinder.
    (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.

    No mention of who is doing it, just that it is done.
    Got a cite to support your claim?

  56. Arnost

    But what do we do….give up?

    It is a civilisational war – but as GC Scott said in the Patton movie – “make the other bastard die for his”.

    Everyone now has the ability to ridicule the lefties, and get them to self consume via social media. And this is what Trump does so well!

    if only the right would fight.
    But, it may involve being de-friended on facebook.

    Most of the right don’t have facebook, twitter and tik-tok. And they don’t like to fight / get into conflict. Which is perfectly fair enough. But because the left are a minority, it does not take all the right to fight!

    So sites like this, Parler and Gab that expose and ridicule the left excesses are so important. It allows enough right leaning “influencers” and “fighters” (if you like) to challenge and most importantly ridicule the left. And just maybe, if we help expose the left for what they are now, we may prevent the endless cycle of democracy / revolution / republic## / empire.

    [The other key is educating the young to think critically, to investigate, and to question. We all have kids or grand-kids that we can imbue with these foundations of western civilisation. And we are at the inflection of another cycle: kids like to be radical and rebel against the status-quo which is PC and leftism. So give them all the ridicule ammunition and let it go viral]

    ## People in history inevitably “elect” a dictator to protect them from the mob, and why the US founding fathers built a constitutional republic rather than a democracy.

  57. The BigBlueCat

    Because Twitter can’t censor anybody by definition.

    Taken in the correct context of the Twitter “community”, yes they can. While an individual is free to find another platform, if Twitter takes down a post or bans a user from posting, they are censoring that person in the context of Twitter. It means that person is unable to speak to other users on the Twitter platform. Of course, the biggest concern is that the Twitter organisation is using less-than-objective standards for applying who (and what) gets turned off on the platform, which is a major concern – who makes them judge, jury and executioner for what they think is objectionable?

    Twitter holds itself out as a public platform … clearly they think some views should be more public than others (which they take down).

    From their own website: Twitter is what’s happening in the world and what people are talking about right now. See what people are talking about. Spark a global conversation. See what’s happening.

    Clearly some of what people are talking about they don’t want people to see or hear. That’s censorship. While it might well be for very good reasons (eg. terrorism), it’s still censorship. The question is if they should do it, and by what standards they do it. Just being suspicious (or critical) of political agendas shouldn’t be a reason, but it appears that it is.

    But I am curious as to why you might be defending Twitter …. where are your “personal rights” and “capitalism” arguments?

  58. Iampeter

    Got a cite to support your claim?

    You need to learn how to use words correctly in their proper context before you get into these discussions.

    Taken in the correct context of the Twitter “community”, yes they can.

    That’s not the context anyone is using it in, nor intending for the word “censorship” to be used.
    The only “correct” context for the term “censorship” is the political one, which is how it’s being used and in such a context only the government can censor you.
    Saying something like “Twitter is censoring me, the government must do something,” would actually be calling for actual censorship and attacking Twitters free speech. And property rights. And individual rights.
    Anyway, this stuff is basic and the fact it needs any explaining is the actual issue.

    The left are the minority.
    They may be loud but they are the minority.

    Who are “they?”
    You’re a Trump supporter, right? If you’re calling other people leftists then you have bigger problems to resolve then you even realize.

    Also, Parler’s indemnity clause should be good for a few laughs.
    Can’t wait for that to blow up and for conservatives to start calling for laws that can protect companies from being sued for things they aren’t liable for. Like a certain section of a certain Communications Act they currently want repealed.
    Fun times ahead with Parler!

  59. Iampeter

    But I am curious as to why you might be defending Twitter …. where are your “personal rights” and “capitalism” arguments?

    Yea, why would a capitalist defend the rights of a private company to choose who they do business with and who they allow on their property. Crazy!

    Here’s a question: why are you on a political blog?

  60. The BigBlueCat

    That’s not the context anyone is using it in, nor intending for the word “censorship” to be used.

    Wikipedia (for one) would beg to differ: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or “inconvenient.” Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.

    Yea, why would a capitalist defend the rights of a private company to choose who they do business with and who they allow on their property. Crazy!

    A capitalist should defend the rights of a private company if it is their rational self-interest to do so. But if a capitalist (or any other individual) is having their posts unilaterally removed (without recourse) by said private company and contrary to the individual’s rational self-interest, why would they defend that company’s rights? The private company (Twitter) invited them in on a proposition of “say something”, then said “shut up” and “go away”. Indefensible I would think, especially for anyone intending to use the Twitter platform for lawful personal or political gain and might now be a victim of that platform’s unreasonable and unilateral take-down practices.

    Of course, Twitter can, and does, do this according to their terms of service (ie. take down posts, ban posters, etc), but don’t tell me that’s not censorship on their part; it’s crazy to think otherwise. Twitter may have good reasons to remove content and posters, but they are clearly censoring in terms of their platform. That they may be removing political commentary on the basis of “they don’t like it” makes their censorship egregious and unfair. Caveat emptor, I suppose.

  61. Cassie of Sydney

    “The BigBlueCat
    #3499060, posted on June 29, 2020 at 4:48 pm”

    Great comment.

  62. Tintarella di Luna

    I would love a check-out chick from Chester Hill Coles to write an article too about her experiences

    Along the lines of — I am 29 years old. I am a woman. A daughter. A sister. A friend. I am NOT a barrister, I’m a check-out chick at Chester Hill Coles. And I have NOT ONLY been sexually harassed, but I have had my uniform re-arranged by an overly familiar customer, I’be been called a lazy slut, a coat, I’be been spat at and I have been physically assaulted by women fighting over a trolley-full of toilet paper…

  63. Tintarella di Luna

    oops wrong thread

  64. Kneel

    “You need to learn how to use words correctly in their proper context before you get into these discussions.”

    So that would be a “no” then?

    “The only “correct” context for the term “censorship” is the political one”

    Again, got a cite to anyone other than yourself supporting that?

    I cited dictionary.com, which doesn’t appear to support your claim – here is what thesaurus.com returns:
    abridge
    black out
    blacklist
    delete
    edit
    excise
    restrict
    sanitize
    suppress
    withhold
    bleach
    bleep
    blue-pencil
    bowdlerize
    conceal
    control
    cork
    criticize
    cut
    decontaminate
    examine
    expurgate
    inspect
    launder
    narrow
    oversee
    purge
    purify
    repress
    restrain
    review
    revile
    squelch
    sterilize
    clean up
    drop the iron curtain
    exscind
    prevent publication
    put the lid on
    refuse transmission
    scissor out
    strike out
    supervise communications

    Which doesn’t appear to restrict it to GovCo only either.

    I’m happy to concede if you can cite a few places showing it’s only GovCo can censor. Surely, if you are so confident, you can find dozens. Clearly I’ve had a look myself, and I can’t find your definition of “only governments”.

  65. Lee

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

    – Lewis Carroll

  66. Iampeter

    Wikipedia (for one) would beg to differ:

    It can beg all it wants and it will still be wrong. Also, “wikipedia sez” is not an argument.

    A capitalist should defend the rights of a private company if it is their rational self-interest to do so.

    No, a capitalist should just defend rights. Period. You don’t know what capitalism even is, nor do you know what rights are.

    I look forward to your next response as you pretentiously continue to argue about politics, capitalism, censorship and rights, without knowing what any of those words mean or how to use them correctly.

  67. Iampeter

    Again, got a cite to anyone other than yourself supporting that?

    Your not at the stage where you need any citations about anything.
    You need to learn the subject you’re discussing, then you’ll know how to use the words correctly in the discussion of that subject.

  68. The BigBlueCat

    It can beg all it wants and it will still be wrong. Also, “wikipedia sez” is not an argument.

    No, not necessarily an argument, but certainly offers a much different and much fuller meaning than the narrow one you gave. It is but one, of course. They can’t all be wrong. But your single source (you) can be. You really do need to read more.

    No, a capitalist should just defend rights. Period. You don’t know what capitalism even is, nor do you know what rights are.

    You said: “Yea, why would a capitalist defend the rights of a private company” … I was responding to that. You have the mind of a goldfish! I know what capitalism is … it’s how I got to where I am, and likely where you aspire to be.

    Capitalism, rights and freedom are things to be defended – the Socialist/Communist/Marxist hoards are at our door and we can’t let them in as it will destroy our way of life. They have infiltrated too many of our institutions (1 is too many), and resistance is not futile.

  69. Kneel

    “You need to learn the subject you’re discussing, then you’ll know how to use the words correctly in the discussion of that subject.”

    So another “no” then.

    Perhaps it is not so much that I need to learn about politics, but rather that you need to use standard definitions of the English language rather than making up meanings to suit yourself – clearly, having been given several opportunities to cite something and declining, and also refusing to point anyone at anything that would let them “learn” about politics, it would seem you have nothing other than bald assertions. 3 cites to places that disagree with you, not a single cite to support your case – that’s a very weak argument on your side, Peter!

  70. Iampeter

    No, not necessarily an argument, but certainly offers a much different and much fuller meaning than the narrow one you gave.

    No, it doesn’t. It just fits your mindless talking point, which is why you NEED it to be the case.

    They can’t all be wrong. But your single source (you) can be.

    I’m sure if you could explain how a private business exercising their free speech and property rights could possibly be censorship, you would’ve done so by now.
    Your viewpoint doesn’t even work on the face of it.

    I was responding to that. You have the mind of a goldfish!

    What you were responding to isn’t in dispute. You don’t know what you’re saying or what’s being said to you. I wouldn’t be calling anyone else a goldfish in your shoes.

    So another “no” then.

    No, to what?
    You haven’t said anything other than linking an out of context definition of a term you don’t know how to use in the political context.
    You have no position and don’t know where to begin. But that isn’t a show stopping problem for a genius like you, is it?

  71. The BigBlueCat

    No, it doesn’t. It just fits your mindless talking point, which is why you NEED it to be the case.

    Well, actually, both definitions are right – yours is more finely tuned to suit your argument and the political nuances you want people to understand, but mine is more generic and is certainly valid (despite your protestations). I’m a tolerant kind of person … perhaps you aren’t, which is why you get so triggered. You think your definition is the only one out there, and refuse to listen to anything contrary to that. For some reason, you decided to say my definition is wrong, and the source of the definition is wrong, and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong …. boy, you must be a joy to be around. (/sarc)

    I’m sure if you could explain how a private business exercising their free speech and property rights could possibly be censorship, you would’ve done so by now.

    Censorship has neither a positive or negative meaning – it’s just an act of suppression (again neither positive or negative), and can even be done by individuals (self-censorship – it’s a common thing – I bet you do it all the time assuming you have a “filter” – I know I do when responding to you). Your concept of censorship is in terms of how a government might infringe upon individuals rights (natural rights I am assuming, maybe legal/property rights too), and in the absence of that people are free agents to do and say whatever they want to do as long as someone’s rights or property aren’t being abused. (You’ll probably disagree with that assessment too, but stay with me.) That is a particular definition and I get how it suits individualism, capitalism, et al. But it’s not a generic, all-encompassing definition of the word censorship. You have placed a particular connotation on it, which is fair enough in political terms, but quite limiting.

    Twitter (and other social-media companies) removes offensive and violence-inciting posts all the time – fair enough, they’re unlawful and can infringe on individual’s rights. That’s censorship. They also remove post containing political ideas they don’t like. That’s also censorship, and often isn’t “fair enough” if it doesn’t contravene the Terms of Service agreement. (The legal rights and obligations between the platform and the user are defined by the ToS agreement, which allows Twitter to remove certain posts, and terminate users for breaches of the ToS.)

    So the ToS provides for censorship (maybe not using the word, but the intent). Not your definition – the generic definition. That has been my whole point – which you missed (or thought was wrong – it isn’t, it just isn’t defined as narrowly as yours).

    What you were responding to isn’t in dispute. You don’t know what you’re saying or what’s being said to you. I wouldn’t be calling anyone else a goldfish in your shoes.

    We’re just talking at different ends of the same thing – sure, capitalists should defend rights is a truism of sorts, although the key here is understanding “rights” and “should” (Whose “rights”? Why “should” they? What if they don’t? What are the “rights” being defended? Does everyone agree with those “rights”? Are the “rights” authoritative?). Capitalists defend the (understood) rights of other private companies if it is in their rational self-interest to do so is a truism. They can easily decide not to if it’s not in their interest to do so (eg. defend a competitor’s rights? Why? Which rights? At what cost? At what benefit?). We see “woke” companies defend “rights” all the time, but is it always in their rational self-interest for them to do so? Maybe in the short-term, but always? Or at all? Seems to work for some, but not others … so how true is it that “capitalists should defend rights” is a maxim under all circumstances? Seems to me their decisions ought to be made on free-market economic principles and the environment in which they operate than it does their undefined “defence of rights” (though defending their actual rights under the law and their moral rights will be something they need to do in their rational self-interest).

    What can I say? It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, and one man’s rational self-interest could be another’s downfall, and often is. And “rights” aren’t always clearly understood or commonly defined (except under the law, and even then can conflict, or not be “rights” at all.) No-one needs to defend another’s rights unless it benefits them to, and governments (or anyone else) shouldn’t force them to. That’s how the world works, not how you might dream it be. You’re free to agree or disagree – doesn’t make me wrong/right or you right/wrong. It’s just how I see it, and you can take it or leave it.

    BTW – my reference to “goldfish” relates to attention span, not intelligence.

    You have no position and don’t know where to begin. But that isn’t a show stopping problem for a genius like you, is it?

    Why thank you for the genius compliment. I don’t consider myself that, but if you do I guess I’ll take it …. it’s all relative I suppose. I think my position is quite good – you don’t have to agree with it and I don’t expect you to. Whatever. Maybe what I say isn’t really said for you …..

    (BTW – I don’t really think you meant “genius” as a compliment, just so you know.)

  72. Kneel

    “No, to what?
    You haven’t said anything other than linking an out of context definition of a term you don’t know how to use in the political context.
    You have no position and don’t know where to begin. But that isn’t a show stopping problem for a genius like you, is it?”

    Your case would be considerably more convincing if you were to cite evidence of its correctness.
    I and others have cited evidence that suggests you are wrong, you have failed to provide any supporting evidence, instead suggesting it is “obvious” and it is only others “ignorance” that is the issue.

    It feel it would be appropriate at this point to suggest that it is perhaps your own ignorance of how debate and discussion works to convince people that is the issue here – simply put, you opinion is like your arsehole: everyone has one and they all stink, yours more than most IMO (your opinion, that is – I don’t care to investigate the other).

  73. The BigBlueCat

    Kneel … time to let it go … he’s deaf to it.

Comments are closed.