Suppression of Free Speech
History teaches us that the leaders of Totalitarian Systems of Government, be they fascist or communist, deliberately seek to co-opt monopolistic corporations so that they will help to facilitate government sponsored efforts to suppress and cancel any actions, ideas, or speech that oppose the "official" government position on a wide range of issues.
Like Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Castro, totalitarian governments abide by the dictum: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
This is exactly what the Biden Administration, using the cover of the issue of Covid vaccination, is seeking to accomplish right now in the USA in intimate cooperation with the leadership and censorship activities of Facebook, Twitter, etc.
No one's opinions should be censored in our constitutional republic. PERIOD!!!!!!
They're trying to take away our first amendment rights and they're claiming that the end justifies the means.
Like Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Castro, totalitarian governments abide by the dictum: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
This is exactly what the Biden Administration, using the cover of the issue of Covid vaccination, is seeking to accomplish right now in the USA in intimate cooperation with the leadership and censorship activities of Facebook, Twitter, etc.
No one's opinions should be censored in our constitutional republic. PERIOD!!!!!!
They're trying to take away our first amendment rights and they're claiming that the end justifies the means.
Comments (158)
Biden’s bagmen and propagandists such as the DNC are currently pressuring SMS carriers to “dispel misinformation”. We now have the ruling party inserting itself into our private messages. So long free speech.
When was the last time in history that a politician didn't LIE? When is Fauxcci going to be censored for his misinformation?
The same document allows for it in cases of public health. If the censorship was effective I wouldn't keep hearing about censorship. Yet, it seems to get its ironic message across every hour of every day.
It does not matter if it is effective or not. What matters is the ethics and politics of the situation, whether the state should determine what can and cannot be said, and so on.
Hmm. Much as I wish it were true, I'm not seeing it.
Links? Can you support this?
Meh.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278
What Psaki said today is very interesting and important. We keep hearing that Facebook and other social media companies can't be held liable for restrictions of free speech "because they're private companies." Nevermind that this is false; after all, southern lunch counters used to be able to discriminate against black customers until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 declared them to be "public accommodations," and legally bound by the 14th Amendment on equal protection. Likewise the phone company can't shut off your service because they don't like what you're saying on your calls, because they are legally defined as common carriers. In the end, an act of Congress will so label the social media companies and put an end to their rampant free speech suppression.
But what Psaki admitted today is that the government is pressuring Facebook to act as an agent of the government. In that case, there is legal precedent that Facebook is bound by the same Constitutional restrictions as the government is. The government can't hire a private company to restrict people's free speech rights, any more than the government can do so itself. By admitting that the government is telling Facebook to restrict the free speech of Americans, they put Facebook in legal jeopardy and give legal ammo to Trump's lawsuit against the social media companies.
Stay tuned. And remember the phrases public accommodation and common carrier, we'll be hearing more about them as the latest fight over free speech progresses.
The dictum “they are private companies” holds true. When the government forces a company such as Facebook to operate in an approved manner, it violates their free speech.
Sure, perhaps he made it up.
You missed this story?
https://nypost.com/2021/07/12/dnc-biden-allies-want-phone-carriers-to-vet-anti-vax-messages/
http://www.gilmermirror.com/view/full_story/27810003/article-Biden-allied-groups--including-the-DNC--planning-to-work-with-SMS-carriers-to-police-text-messages-critical-of-vaccines?instance=news_special_coverage_right_column
If you Google around you'll find plenty of other links to the same story, in addition to a number of spin pieces frantically trying to deny it. But they said it. The DNC wants the phone carriers to police your private text messages.
I mean, do oyu honestly think that folk ought not get vaccinated?
Why?
Do you disagree with calling privately owned lunch counters public accommodations in order to force them to serve black customers? They're private companies too, and before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was perfectly legal for them to discriminate on the basis of race.
Quoting Banno
The subject is free speech. One can support X and still support the right of people to express opposition to X. When you support X and also support suppressing the free speech rights of people who disagree with you, that crosses a line to a very bad place that nobody wants to go.
I don’t think that. I just think that governments shouldn’t police someone’s speech and beliefs. Do you think they should?
I do disagree.
Yeah. I'm not that interested in foreign affairs.
There's nothing very convncing there - jus tmore accusations. I suport this:
Looks good to me.
"The most common argument you’ll hear from those who support monopolistic social media giants controlling speech on their platforms is that these are private corporations, not the government, so it doesn’t count as censorship. Whenever you object to Silicon Valley oligarchs exerting total control over the political speech of billions of people, mainstream liberals instantly transform into an army of Ayn Rands defending the private property rights of those companies. The fact that these platforms are inseparably interwoven with the highest branches of the US federal government kills such arguments stone dead.
In a corporatist system of government, where there is no separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship. The actual government as it actually exists is censoring the speech not just of its own people, but people around the world. If US law had placed as much emphasis on the separation of corporation and state as it had on the separation of church and state, the country would be unrecognizably different from what we see today.
Only infantile narcissists and power-worshipping bootlickers want the most powerful government on earth controlling what people are allowed to say to each other about a virus response which affects everybody, and only those with no sense of self-preservation entrust worldwide human speech to an alliance of government agencies and powerful tech plutocrats."
Well, they do, just in virtue of having an opinion. Free speech is a fetish. Is it OK to spread falsehoods that undermine public health? I say no. I've no problem with that.
For the same enlightened reason that Kamala Harris did. Because it was Trump who facilitated development of the vaccine(s) and recommended taking them.
I don't think anyone wants to live in a society where the government can't restrict the behavior of private companies. How about this example. Do you think the local board of health should be allowed to inspect privately-owned restaurants, and shut them down if they are operating in an unsafe or unclean manner?
I've no way to make sense of this. Is it an attempt at irony? Perhaps I'm missing some background?
Caitlyn got that talking point from me :-)
Example of a new form of logic. It's called Democratic logic.
I, for one, don’t want to live in such a society. I believe giving the state such power has the corresponding effect of diminishing social power.
As if you have, or have ever had, any principle whatsoever. I think four years of Trump took away all doubt about the "integrity" of conservatives in this country. You're simply upset that Trump got booted from Twitter. Pretend to be outraged about "first amendment" issues, but it fools no one.
The social media platforms are major corporations. Corporations have far too much power in this country. Trump and the Republican Party gave them even greater power. Didn't seem to care about this issue back then, when handing out over a trillion in tax cuts. When it starts to effect them, suddenly they become trust-busters. So I laugh at your tears.
--
Opinions shouldn't be censored. These companies shouldn't have the monopolies they have, with zero regulation. They're also responsible for designing algorithms that accelerate dangerous disinformation. Now the government is asking them to better regulate themselves, as if this is the solution. It isn't.
Do you think the government should have the power to inspect restaurants and shut them down if it finds them operating contrary to the public interest? Or do you favor a "buyer beware" policy where if enough customers drop dead, everyone else will eat somewhere else?
This is not intended to be a difficult question. It's meant to make the point that even a libertarian believes in the board of health. Or eats at home.
Is "dog whistle" a phrase used over there? Your OP was a whistle to the local dogs, who are now barking at nothing. You havn't made a point of any significance,
Fetishising free speech.
Being allowed to say what you want assumes a critical capacity on the part of your audience. But look at the posts here.
Didn't think there were this many.
No, I don’t think so and for the same reason I stated. I don’t know of any solution, but there has to be a better alternative than aggrandizing the state.
It was government posturing and regulations that led to censorship on social media in the first place.
Wrong. This isn't some abstract argument over bookworm principles. This is about letting the most bloodthristy government on the planet work with the most duplicitous corporate stooges on on the planet in order to control what can and cannot be expressed in the among the largest forums of expression on the planet.
Oh yes. And the net result will be saving lives.
Quoting Xtrix
Sometimes when the dogs start barking at nothing, it is fun to bark back just to see how loud they will get.
Sad to see you lick boots this way.
Remember that I have no skin in this. I'm just laughing at a silly OP.
Yeah, we know. Because in your world, government — to quote St. Reagan — is always the problem.
Let me guess: the solution is the free market?
As a fellow libertarian I salute your absolutism and ideological purity. I myself take a more nuanced approach. Lunch counters have to serve everyone and the health department has the right to make sure the local restaurants are keeping out the rats. And social media companies serving as de facto town squares can't engage in what's legally called viewpoint discrimination. And as has been noted, even a private company can't violate the Constitution when it is effectively acting as a government agent, as Jen Psaki just admitted Facebook is doing.
Though misattributed to Voltaire, to him it was obvious: "I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
https://youtu.be/3RVJrr16NZo
Quite frankly, I think you are a very rude person who resorts to ad hominem arguments when frustrated. How meanspirited to refer to me or anyone else as a dog. I made my point and don't need your approval.
We've always held that dangerous speech should be censored.
Woof.
Indeed. Hence fetish: an object believed to have special power to protect.
And what is to be done about Assange? Why talk about this piddling issue while Assange remains in gaol in Britain? How are your own priorities?
Really? A misdirect? That's your response?
If you wish to defend freedom of speech, do it for real, not as a response to a dogwhistle OP.
@charles ferraro, @NOS4A2, @fishfry, @MondoR - if you are so keen on free speech, where are your defences of Assange? Were have you argued for his release?
Or is it just freedom to say the things you like to hear?
I agree, but this thread isn't about that. If anything, the cruelty imposed on Assange is all the more reason why what the OP is about ought to be opposed at every point. We know what these people are capable of - and the last thing we need to is give our blessing and support for them getting away with yet more.
Even a broken clock like the OP is right once in a while, even if for stupid reasons.
Good. Then i apologise for pulling your strings. But I maintain that free speech is a fetish for the many amongst us who lust after it only to server their private illicit cravings.
I thought Assange has just become another useful idiot of putin (AKA @jamalrob), no?
If this is a matter of line drawing, are these lines drawn based upon some clear principle or are they arbitrary and political compromises?
If I stand before the court charged with violating someone's 1st Amendment rights, do you defer to the prosecution the right to define those limits after I'm charged?
He's being used by shit-tin and his apologists for propaganda purposes (the Spanish version of this 'documentary' has nearly a million views, so god knows about other language versions):
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1117722591882559488?s=19[/tweet]
You're comparing a whistleblower journalist held in appalling conditions with one of the most powerful media moguls on Earth? Get a grip.
I haven't read this whole thread, but how is that "forcing" anyone to do anything? I'd like to see fact-checkers engaged more aggressively and misinformation dispelled. And hasn't the government always been an advocate for it's position? Aren't they always getting out there trying to sell their side against the other? I mean, dummy was on on Faux News and Twitter all the time.
My apologies if the U.S. is actually forcing media to quash opinion.
Again, it was government that led to censorship on social media in the first place, so it makes little sense to me that only an act of legislation and some legal precedent can fix it.
For a long time we thought some people should be slaves. The prevalence of the denial of some right is certainly not an argument against the right itself.
Free speech is not an object and no one believes it has magical powers, or at least you haven’t shown otherwise. At any rate, any argument against free speech is an argument for censorship, so maybe we can skip the word association and get right to arguing why speech ought to be censored.
Right, so we aren't entering into new territory, as in "so long free speech.". It's just slavery as usual.
This is new territory, and it’s just as outrageous as the last.
Are all the territories outrageous?
Police power as defined by Chief Justice Marshall is certainly broad enough to counter the mass dissemination of false information during a pandemic. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/property-and-police-power
Yes. When is yelling "Vaccines aren't safe" when they are safe, the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in the theater when there is no fire?
Hey, I've got a novel idea: Hows about we let big government shut the yellers down, then the yellers can sue big government in the third branch of government under Article III of the Constitution; then we let a judge decide, based upon all the evidence, whether big government reasonably relied upon the science?
Of course there is weakness in my proposal: How do we know the courts aren't secretly part of the deep state? Even those judges appointed by Trump are probably under threat (and their families) if they don't do the bidding of the Bilderbergs. They will be fried by Jewish space lasers if they don't comply.
Wait, let me get my looting cloths.
I don't recall making this strawman argument, so I don't think I'll be defending it. Really, the Feds have only complained publicly, they aren't shutting down social media. Social media has elected to censor and fact check; denying them the right to do so would be more of an infringement than the complaints made here. But, I'm bias, if it was my uneducated fever dreams being shut down, then I might have a different position.
It could be interesting to compare the level of concentration of power of the US government
with what the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century possessed. Likely, the task is not workable. Yet, despite the enormous increase of the means of social control, neither most people perceive the Biden administration as totalitarian or authoritarian, nor are these views accepted in academia.
No need. It wasn't really straw man, but rather, a natural extension of the Chief Justice Marshal reasoning you put up and with which I agree.
Ok, that's fair, I must have misattributed the context.
Yeah, I'm not always clear when I agree with someone. I get carried off in anticipatory argument, sarcasm and whatnot. :blush:
And I disagree. If the censorship is "not effective" then one isn't being censored; are they?
:100:
The problem is that the whole vaccination public discourse is so superficial, it's scientism. And hostile. On both sides, the provaccination side as well as the antivaccination side.
While it's understandable that people are exhausted from the pandemic, are both afraid and desperate for a solution, this still doesn't warrant that critical thinking and science be kicked to the curb.
But I'm afraid that this is a lost cause, and that we're left to soundbites and non-communication on both sides.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights recognize precisely that this is NOT a perfect world. That's the exact reason why both exist, viz., to try to specify precisely what must be protected from being infringed upon, or even cancelled by, totalitarian regimes of the left or the right.
As the saying goes: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will respectfully refrain from insulting or otherwise demeaning your character or belittling your intellect and protect, to the very end, your right to say it."
If this, in your opinion is a form of ranting, or not knowing what I am talking about, then so be it.
When politicians and their health officials can shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, and rule by decree, it necessarily becomes a political issue. Authoritarianism isn’t the only way to educate and prepare the public for threats to public health, but our so-called liberal democracies have proven that they are willing to resort to such tactics.
No, it becomes a political issue when the idiot president pretends it doesn't exist cause it makes him look bad. What you are mentioning are called legal issues covered by due process. The Right tried to do the same thing with civil rights after the world watched a man be murdered in the streets and it blew up in their face.
Is that even in the hopper? Just asking. If it's not, then I think some folks might be getting all spun up by Tucker Carlson and other founts of truth and wisdom. Oh, maybe it's the "slippery slope" argument?
There are other countries in the world, and conservative, liberal and socialist politicians employed the same authoritarianism. The only place I can think of that didn’t was Sweden, and they aren’t exactly the most right-leaning government on Earth. I’m not really sure what you’re getting at, in any case.
I don’t get the question.
Do it. Where's a .gov link that supports the existence of anything you mentioned. Executive actions are part of the public record.
You said: "When politicians and their health officials can shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, and rule by decree, it necessarily becomes a political issue." [Emphasis added.]
I agree with the sentiment but was curious if any politicians and their health officials were actually doing that, or even thinking about it? I'm not aware of it in the U.S. but I suppose it could be happening somewhere where you have an interest.
Governments around the entire world have seized unprecedented control over the daily lives of their citizens. The restriction of movement, border closures, economic intervention, lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, police checkpoints, curfews—all of this has been occurring for quite some time now. I thought it was common knowledge at this point.
Exclamation.
I guess I live a sheltered life. I certainly have not seen the "politicians and their health officials [] shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, [or] rule by decree."
I see people running their sucks on the interwebs like never before. No one has been rounded up or put on the trains. I did see China welding some people's doors shut but, well, that's China. I don't think the control that governments around the world have seized is "unprecedented" by any stretch of the imagination. Seems about the norm to me.
The restriction of movement is cool if it's a nationalist thing, but not so cool if it's to prevent disease from spreading? Even Trump was closing boarders and I only heard the left whining about it. I don't see economic intervention, unless you mean bailing out those who need it instead of banks and those who don't. In fact, I've just seen the accelerated transfer of wealth that's been going on for years.
I have heard of 600,000 dead in the U.S. and I attribute that largely to the failure of government to do exactly what you seem to claim they are doing. People have been partying and flouting "recommendations" since day one. And now we have variants and pass-through viruses. All this seems to bely your fears. All I've personally witnessed is pleading from government.
I have yet to see stats on deaths and illnesses from countries that either had stricter lock-down policies, or who have an educated or socially-oriented population, but even then, as we have been told since the beginning, it won't help if only some play be the rules. Any poor countries who can't get the vaccine, or those rich ones with inconsiderate, selfish populations, will defeat the protocols because the disease does not respect borders. It just takes one asymptomatic asshole to spread it.
Anyway, I do admit to being sheltered. I'm socially isolated and don't go to town much. But when I do go, all the "necessities" seem to be there, save shit paper, and even that is back to norm.
I think you're falling prey to Poe's Law. To me, this thread is just a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense; I read "This is exactly what the Biden Administration, using the cover of the issue of Covid vaccination, is seeking to accomplish right now in the USA in intimate cooperation with the leadership and censorship activities of Facebook, Twitter, etc." as saying that Biden is Hitler because Facebook won't let me post Covid-19 conspiracy theories on their site.
A sheltered life must be nice. But even the biggest recluse can stay up on current events.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/03/04/future-choices/charting-equitable-exit-covid-19-pandemic
https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/03/how-authoritarians-are-exploiting-covid-19-crisis-grab-power
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/16/future-government-powers-coronavirus-pandemic/
https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/un_policy_brief_on_human_rights_and_covid_23_april_2020.pdf
I didn't claim otherwise. Treating free speech as an object of adoration is fetishising it. Now go re-read the OP, and replies, and note the way free speech is treated.
Assange.
How about some bullet points with citations instead of citations to tomes? When I engage people I prefer it when they think on their own two feet.
Edited to add: If you decide to take me up on it, please make sure they make your case, not with speculation about what could happen (slippery slopes, etc.) but what has actually happened. Thanks. Otherwise I'll remain sheltered and you will have failed to enlighten your bro on TPF. :grin:
I think you are right. I also think I just saw another one on the thread about "Is Racisms a Natural Response." Bury someone in a lengthy, unrelated quote from somewhere. I bit, parsed it, and responded, even though I think it drifted far from the merits of my post to which it purported to respond. They are all variations of the old "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS." LOL!
I just though you might wish to peruse some information on the topic. It’s all a rhetorical ploy and a language game about a fetish, anyways. Nothing to see here.
Are you trying to give an example of precisely what I'm talking about?
:clap: Wow! :up:
The link provided details the police powers reserved for the state and they include measures that restrict otherwise guaranteed rights. Which is why most of the Covid restrictions in the US were on a state by state basis by executive action of the respective governors. There isn't an explicit section on limiting speech regarding pandemics if that's what you mean, but there is plenty about the governments ability to act toward the ends of public health. One could imagine under the right conditions the government could curb misinformation.
Quoting InPitzotl
You said executive orders; which is a thing. Yes, I agree the OP well outside of the boundaries of reality, but that's where many stand at the moment. So, Poe's Law sort of doubles back on itself, because your sarcasm could just as easily been representative of a literal position of the day. But, thanks for the clarification.
I get that, but when I opened all five links and started reading them, I was not put off by any facts that may or may not have been found within them but, rather, I was put off by their length.
I also have had nasty experiences where I followed someone's references only to find that support for what they were saying could not be found therein. Or one had to contort and stretch and twist, or worse yet, one had to assume a slippery slope we had yet to wonder on to. Or a conspiracy. Or the author was more impressed with his writing ability than getting to the point. Or the first six chapter were devoted to qualifications or exceptions or caveats to what was said in the last chapter.
It's common courtesy to just say: "Australian rounded people up, put them on trains and hauled them off to Covid camps." [Citation]. Then, if I want to engage you on that, I can go read that, check the source to see if I want to vet their credibility, etc.
I personally do not think there exists a unified antivaccination side. People who are not overtly enthusiastic about vaccination are a versatile group: from those who are rabidly against any kind of vaccination, to those who are just not very enthusiastic but who get vaccinated anyway, and anything inbetween.
But the existence of a unified antivaccination side is supposed by some high politicians (and other individuals) who put the same label on anyone who is not overtly enthusiastic about vaccination.
Just the other day I watched the daily press conference of the Croatian health department on covid issues. The minister is promoting exactly this same simplistic separation into those who are in favor of vaccination and those who are "antivaccers".
From what I'm seeing, government officials don't care about people's concerns about the vaccines, enforce the party line "the vaccines are safe and effective", despite daily reports of serious negative side effects from the vaccine and despite reports of people getting sick from covid despite being vaccinated, and coerce people into vaccination with socio-economic measures.
The worst are the ones that profit off of fear and build little media empires on BSing the public.
Personally, I've had two and my arm remained attached.
I've thrown my lot in with those who say we can reach herd immunity with X% of the people vaccinated. That leaves an available Y% that don't have to get vaccinated if they don't want. Out of that Y% I'm willing to consider as understandable all those people across your entire spectrum except one group: People who don't get vaccinate simply because Tucker Carlson and other morons who got the vaccine are telling them not to. I think if we could get some of the best ropers in the country to round those people up, run them through the squeeze chute, inoculate their dumb asses, and turn them back out into the herd, we'd be all good. Maybe brand them and cut their balls off while we're at it. I'm willing to tolerate general stupidity; what I can't abide is the manipulation of stupidity by conniving charlatan cult-leading assholes. Trump said this was a war against an invisible enemy. In war, we would take care of business, my proposal would not sound outlandish, and these same people would agree wholeheartedly. But they don't support the troops.
Of course pretty much everyone wants such protection. That's not the issue. You're strawmanning.
The question is whether such protection is even possible, whether it exists, and whether it is possible in one's particular case, given one's current state of health.
To me, people who are confident that they won't get any negative side effects from the vaccine are the same as people who are confident that there is no covid or that they will beat it by sheer force of will.
Which is a strange thing to say, after decades of fierce indoctrination that everyone should be responsible only for themselves.
To now introduce the socialist idea of solidarity just shows how unprepared for real life the authorities have been. I'd love to see what Margaret Thatcher would have to say to it, how her idea of there being no society, only individuals, would go over now.
That's glib.
I suppose it's like this for some people. It seems to me that for many more, it's "I'm already in bad shape, exhausted and stressed out to the max, I dread what will happen if I add more strain". For such a person, if they choose to get vaccinated and end up with serious side effects, they will have noone to blame but themselves. Hardly a prospect that one looks forward to.
One wonders when people will acknowledge that life is a group activity.
This covid crisis is an opportunity to acknowledge this, but it looks like it will go by unused, as people are looking forward to go back to the old normal where they don't have to care about others.
You're obsesssed with X and Y. :lol:
I don't think they are the same. I think the former realize risk but think of others. The latter realize risk but think of themselves.
Quoting baker
Chickens come home to roost. Many people realized that indoctrination was all BS from the get go. It's the dummies who swallowed it who we are dealing with now.
Quoting baker
Bingo!
I don't know where it is, but there was a cool meme going around about all the take-aways from this experience. The list has probably gotten longer. But in the end, that meme would have to be contextualized by the other meme that essentially said "In the rush to get back to normal, think about what it is we want to get back to."
It seems, as you said, that this has been an opportunity. And it may very well be squandered by those who have a vested interest in ignoring the list of lessons learned. They will fire up the old mythmaking machine again and we'll be right back to loner-lives of quiet desperation, blaming government for all our woes, and idolizing the plutocrats and cartels who toss us bones.
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled about enduring the typical immune response from the second dose, but nothing happened. Same reason I dodged the flu shot for years. Not wanting to introduce a flu like experience to avoid one.
Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR.
I’ve read the OP and replies and do not see how one can make the association. I’ve also read you in many threads on censorship and free speech pooh-poohing the topic, so maybe it’s more of a pet-peeve than a fetish. Assange.
Fuck you for this cynicism.
At the end of the day, it's all about confidence. It's not even about health.
I'm not the one who needs to look it up.
I can only speak for myself, but I did it for others, not myself. Specifically my wife and son. While I want to live, I'm not married to life. I'm married to my wife and I love my son. I also don't want to be the one that murders some other poor sap for no reason other than my own pseudo skepticism.
I suspect that a great many people who got the vaccine think along the same line. But I could be wrong.
P.S. Put this in the back of your brain pan for future reference: Did Isis or AQ or some other group weaponize this? And if not, why not? If so, why aren't the alphabet agencies telling us? If I was a T, I'd get sick and go attend western spreader events. That will be the excuse used in the future, at some time, when the anti-vaxers are sick and dying and can't blame the left. There are all kinds of angles to play on this.
Yeah, fair enough. I wasn’t trying to convince you of anything anyways. You asked, I thought I’d help. Cheers.
It's all good. I am curious about the parade of horribles though, so if you want to hook me up with some bullets, I'd check it out.
:up:
Oh, Nos, I haven't poo poo'd your fetish before.
Here's the point, just for you: the complaint in the OP is about a mooted schemes that might just stop folk telling lies. Assange is in jail for sharing truths.
This one, amongst others.
In a constitutional republic who should get to differentiate truths from lies?
Should persons be appointed who possess unique abilities or special knowledge that qualify them to do this?
Or, are there no such persons qualified to do this, because they simply do not exist?
So then, why not publish everything, why not let it all be said or written, whether we agree with it or not, whether we think it might be hurtful to some, or not, whether we think it is true or not, and let the citizens debate and judge for themselves.
Assange is in jail for skipping bail. But that’s ok. You’re allowed to spread falsities. We make mistakes; we get the wrong information; we believe stupid shit. And the fact that we are fallible is enough reason to oppose anyone having the power to determine what is or isn’t true in the first place.
The same institution after Assange is the same one now pressuring social media companies to enforce state truth. I don’t care if people start believing the moon is made out of cheese, no one should have the power to govern what is or isn’t true, especially a government like the United States.
That's factually incorrect.
Sorry, he was arrested for skipping bail. He is now facing extradition in the same cell. Now that’s a corrupt maneuver.
Really? So we're supposed to believe that, for example, people who drive aggressively, who tailgate, cut in front, run others off the road etc. suddenly become paragons of compassion and empathy when a pandemic strikes? That men who refuse to wear condoms and who routinely risk the health and life of their female sex partners suddenly grew a conscience? Employers who have their workers work in unsafe conditions now suddenly "care about others"? Really?
Eh?
Have you noticed that in the beginning, when they began vaccinating and vaccination was limited to the elderly and some other critical groups, the medical protocols were quite different than they are now?
Back then, a doctor would actually interview and examine the prospective vaccinee, their temperature was measured and a covid test done, and only if the covid test was negative was the person vaccinated, otherwise not. Now they don't do any of that anymore. They don't even have people wait for ten minutes afterwards.
The crowds and waiting lines for covid tests and vaccination are one of the main sources of infection. If it would be possible to reasonably guarantee that one isn't infected already shortly prior to the vaccination, and would be sent to quarantine after vaccination for long enough for the body to process the vaccine as it should, then it would all be an entirely different scenario. But the way medical protocols have been loosened, it's all so much more dangerous.
Your hostility is duly noted. Which of my bills are you willing to pay?
Yes, really.
Quoting baker
No. You are supposed to believe those same pieces of shit are the same people who refuse a vaccine.
Quoting baker
Yes. It's called "science." Like when Fauci first said "no masks" he was just fully aware of how stupid people are, having witnessed it first hand, with the run on shit paper. He the selfish, greedy, inconsiderate, disrespectful shitheads outlined in your paragraph above would execute a nun on masks to the detriment of first responders. Once the masks were spun up and there was enough for everyone, he said to mask up. That was not a flip flop. That was not evidence of inconsistency or duplicity. It was science and a scientist running head-long into non-scientist idiots. Besides, if you know anything about science, you know it changes, all the time.
Regarding the rest of your post, it's not worth my time. It's stupid Faux News, Tucker Carlsonesque BS.
I'm not willing to pay any of your bills. If you don't social distance, don't mask and don't vax, and if you get sick and go to the hospital and take up a bed that my wife or kid or me need for covid or some other reason, I will not only not pay your bills, but I'll rip the vent out of your mouth and dump your worthless carcass out the window and tell the Hippocratic Oath doc to forget your ass and get to work on me or mine.
I think you are worthless.
I social distance for the same reason I have always social distanced.
I wear a mask for the same reason I wear a gun.
I took the vaccine for the same reason I joined the Marine Corps.
I’ve never liked crowds, concerts, packed bars, or the teaming hordes. Six feet is tolerable, but I prefer fifty feet or, even better, fifty miles. The idea of wrestling or grappling or otherwise getting close to another man gives me the heeby jeebies. I’m good with distance. I do like essential workers, but I don’t want to snuggle with them
I wear a gun as a defense against sick people. I’ve done an un-scientific, subjective calculation of the odds versus the inconvenience and determined a mask is nothing. My gun weighs more, is less convenient, and the chances of needing it are less than a need for a mask. But I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I’d have to be physically or mentally handicapped to be inconvenienced by a mask.
I did not join the Marine Corps for any high ideals, to protect my fellow Americans, or to serve selflessly. I was too immature to understand deep patriotism beyond the propaganda I’d been fed. My patriotism was the kind that makes me cry when I hear the National Anthem. It was culturally imbued, intuitive; it was not learned, not cognitive, not philosophical, or deep. That would come later. But as a young man, I joined with reckless abandon, throwing caution to the wind, signing on the dotted line, a blank check up to and including my life. That’s why I took the vaccine. Was it a risk? Yes. So what? I roll the dice every time I go out the door. But I try to not risk other people when I risk myself.
I try to not be inconsiderate, disrespectful, or selfish.
I look to the BTDTs for guidance on science. Everyone else is a poser. Poser’s mistake being a critic for critical thinking. They forget analytics. Those who know are full of doubt. Those who don’t know are full of confidence. The world is funny that way.
I don’t pretend to be the man I want to be. But back in the day, there was a prototype. He was tough, and strong, and silent. He did not complain. He carried everyone else on his broad shoulders. I don’t know what happened to that man. Maybe he’s still out there: an Atlas not shrugging. Now we have tough, strong, loud mouths; incessantly complaining about those they perceive as weak or stupid. Shrugging off the load.
I feel like apologizing to the women of the world, but the closest thing I see to the prototype today are some women. The world is funny that way. More power to them.
I don't want to start an argument, but you are being a little harsh on rats, snakes, weasels and vermin. I mean come on! :wink:
Yeah, those Governors of TX and FL are pieces of shit. Wait, that's not fair to shit.
I assume from your posting history that you think hate speech should be banned; if that is right then why do you not apply the same principle to the kinds of baseless claims and disinformation that will likewise cause social and individual harm?
How did you come to be such an authority on the motivations of others?
The principle at work is to follow the concentration and exercise of arbitrary power and oppose it.
Rarely mentioned these days are the traditional justifications : truth, the public interest, and so on. Rather there is a blanket demand that lies and bullshit should have equal status for no reason except that it is sometimes hard to discern truth from falsehood.
But it becomes apparent that when they do have equal status, communication breaks down, and the resulting isolation produces madness and folly on an industrial scale.
To me this is rather like campaigning against teaching children how to cross the road on the grounds that it will endanger them. This would be fine if roads were hidden away underground and children never encountered them, but whatever dangers are in their environment, children need to be educated to cope with.
That's right. Hatred and contempt are the noblest emotions of all.
Vote for Trump!
You think people change just like that, over night? Because of a pandemic?
Quoting baker
And don't forget that the fully vaccinated are still spreading the disease. In fact, they are superspreaders, given the freedoms they have.
[quote=John Stuart Mill]The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.[/quote]
H-O-W-E-V-E-R (how do I increase the font size?), as Abu Hirawa, in the Misfits (2021), says,
[quote=Abu Hirawa (Misfits 2021)]I believe you but there are those who are not interested in the truth [...][/quote]
It's well known that when people face adversity together it can bring them together. In any case I was taking issue with your generalising human nature by implying that everyone is primarily motivated by self-interest, I wasn't making any claim about people's motivations suddenly changing.
Quoting baker
That some vaccinated people, due to breakthrough infection, are spreading covid is undeniable. That they are superspreaders has not been established. That said I think even the vaccinated should be adhering to the normal protocols designed to minimise transmission as long as there is covid in the community.
Hatred and contempt bind people closer together than love, indeed.
That is your inference, not my implication.
I wasn't generalizing human nature. I'm saying that the people who do as described above (from aggressive drivers to employers who have their employees work in unsafe conditions) often happen to be the same people who are enthusiastically in favor of the covid vaccine. When a person proves, with their behavior, that they do not care about others, it's hard to believe that they got vaccinated out of concern for others.
Mr. Riley and Mr. Wood, for example, certainly didn't get vaccinated out of concern for me. They don't even care enough to actually read what I say; they don't care enough to check whether the hatred and the contempt they have for me is in fact over something I actually said.
Like I said:
Quoting baker
But they don't. In fact, the whole idea of covid vaccination is that one can "go back to normal" once vaccinated.
They want to offer us the sole outlet by which we communicate freely, and then to dictate how we communicate within their networks. And thus, to dictate how we communicate in the real world.
It's all just silly, of course...we're not a bunch of crazy people. But it's like...they don't want us to be individuals or have individual creative thought AT ALL. Which is just...sociopathic. And I can't imagine that we're actually being controlled by sociopaths, so I must assume we're being controlled by idiots.
"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci
Neither do I.
I was talking about the empathy and compassion that can come form facing adversity together, not hatred and contempt.
Quoting baker
Well, that advice was stupid from the start since it has also always been acknowledged that the vaccines are only about 90% effective. From that it follows that there can be no guarantee that you are not infectious even if vaccinated. That advice is already changing due to the extreme infectiousness of the Delta variant.
As to your road rage example, I haven't said that everyone gets vaccinated on account of altruistic motives, so it's not clear to me what you think you are arguing against there.
You said earlier: "Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR." and now you say
Quoting baker
Can you not see that you are contradicting yourself and that the first statement is a generalization about human nature?
Doh! No; The whole idea of covid vaccination is that one can "go back to normal" once enough people are vaccinated. As usual, all the Murican Rebels have fucked it up for everyone else. The idiots who didn't distance, mask or vax are rendering the whole program a waste. They don't understand the enemy or how it works.
We don't charge up the hill and take the machine gun nest when half the platoon is arguing about how best to do it or if it should even be done. Then, when those who went end up, undermanned, get shot to shit, those at the bottom say "See! I was right!". Then, when the machine gun sends one though their stupid ass, they want help. But doc is dead. He went up the hill with the real men.
Yeah, you're right Baker. I'm already against the next war so maybe I should be against this one too. Let the chips fall where they may. Hopefully it thins the heard. That's got to be a good thing for the Earth. You guys who know better can let the virus morph and do what it will. Maybe it won't do anything. Maybe we'll get herd immunity after we get rid of all the elderly, immuno-compromised and weak, worthless members of society.
You mean like this?
Quoting James Riley
But not in the popular social narrative. If people who are so enthusiastically in favor of covid vaccination would have really acknowledged what you're stating above, then whence their hatred and contempt for everyone who doesn't fall in line with their enthusiasm?
But what isn't changing is the enthusiasm of the pro-vaccers, nor their hatred and their contempt.
The point about altrusitic motives for vaccination was in the context of another discussion with other posters earlier in the thread who are on a crusade against those who aren't all that enthusiastic about covid vaccination. The argument of those crusaders is like the one I quoted in the beginning of this post. "If you don't get vaccinated, you're selfish" is one of their points.
?
I do not believe that the selfish-altruistic distinction is meaningful to begin with. I do not believe that humans are, by nature, selfish, nor that they are, by nature altruistic. I think they are strategists.
I object to the idea that people get vaccinated out of concern for others; but this doesn't mean I think they get vaccinated out of selfish reasons. Like I said, I do not believe that the selfish-altruistic distinction is meaningful to begin with.
The popular social narrative about covid vaccination would have us believe that we should get vaccinated out of concern for others, and that those who don't get vaccinated are selfish, while those who do are acting altruistically. Yet when you look at so many vaccinated people and so many enthusiastic supporters of covid vaccination, you can see that they are hardly people who can be described as "caring for others". So it's hard to believe that they got vaccinated out of concern for others.
The popular social narrative about covid vaccination is one thing, and people's actual reasons for vaccination are another matter. Yet some people love to hide behind the popular social narrative about covid vaccination. Virtue signalling and white-knighting and whatnot.
Right now I'm engaging with a passive aggressive, fascist racist, namely you.
https://chrismaleyblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/devils-advocate-white-guy-3.jpg
No, I mean like you. Like this:
https://chrismaleyblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/devils-advocate-white-guy-3.jpg
But, hey, Jesus loves you!!!!!
I can't even remember why I called you a fascist racist but I think it had something to do with your refusal to refute fascism and racism. But as to the passive aggressive BS, well, that's just the truth. Can't ban a man for telling the truth.