Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by mmm....shiney!, Feb 8, 2020.
You mean like this?
I'm guessing Shiney was using it in the context of #15 or #17 . I stopped watching at that point.... Lol
Whether it is Fukushima, Corona-chan or Agenda 21, we will be around in some capacity.
@jnkmbx , you’ve taken the first step in acknowledging you have a problem.
That one is actually great. Type in your favourite YouTube nut job and you get a pretty good overview. If anything it’s good to get a rational view of how the ‘other side’ thinks.
Hawkish Senators Demand Twitter 'Obey Sanctions' By Banning Iran's Leaders https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...-twitter-obey-sanctions-banning-irans-leaders
depending on the sentence its being used in.
We also like to call our mates "dickheads" as well as call people we dont like "dickheads". lol it goes both ways.
Previously to all this PC bullshit that has taken over the world, Aussies seemed to understand context pretty well, so we could say the most offensive shit imaginable to each other as a sign of respect, lol, But thats starting to change.
Don't forget, you can be a "Good Bastard" too in Aust.
@Jim4silver : Yep, how "mate" is used really depends on the tone and conversation and usually is F2F......that said, one can tell that old mate was not using "mate" in an affectionate tone in their prior post. Don't expect a Chrissy card mate from old mate.
no buddy mates
opposite sex only
Just blew your chances of having Margaret Court Arena renamed Alor Arena.
Since when is that libertarian? A popular consensus has libertarian philosophy as the polar opposite of authoritarianism
The libertartian view might find it reasonable that the private owner of an information distribution system can censor its users, but it would also object to a government doing it, I would have thought.
A quick check from the Libertarian Party website confirms this impression (at least regarding government censorship):
"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation."
"Of all of the rights that we are born with, the most sacred and fundamental of them all is the right to our own lives; in other words, the right to pursue our own values without interference.
Our right to free speech is intimately connected to our right to life, in that we cannot pursue our own values, we cannot create or exchange values, or peacefully defend our rights if we are under constant threat of being punished for saying the wrong thing. In a free society individuals may use their free speech to counter the speech of others, but they may never use force as a means of countering speech, especially if they seek to use the force of government to do so."
You answered your own question.
ZH was wrong on silver. It was spot on with BTC and was right there at the beginning. The comments aren't censored afaik, other than certain words pertaining to race. That is miles ahead of most media.
Infowars on the other hand does at times pander to tinfoilers. The commentary is littered with NPCs and snark, so not worth reading. None of that deserves a ban from the app store though! I've hardly read it in many years.
Breitbart is MSM, based in Israel I think.
What I think you are implying (correct if wrong) is that if a site leans right, its bullshit. Hardly a libertarian viewpoint!
Although as a libertarian, saying something is bullshit should be allowed whether you lean one way or the other, as long as coercion is not involved, especially by the State
All 3 of thouse sites appear to be American conservative (or pundit?) "News" style websites
This is a private forum, the owner is well within his rights to censure views he doesn't agree with. If it was my forum I would probably censure, or at least caution, any reference to the sites I have listed as they are damaging to the truth. It would really depend upon how tolerant I'd be feeling on the day and whether the forum member is a dickhead or not.
In the same way whilst I don't necessarily agree with the motive behind Facebook and Twitter censuring users, I support their right too. The same with Rugby Australia sacking Folau as another example.
Edit to add: eg @JOHNLGALT kicked off for being a pissant, Roman Control (who is not with this forum anymore) allowed to stay because he's an hilarious nutjob.
If "the truth" was verifiably objective and the mission was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then it would seem fair enough to take that stand.
Yet, since much of what is considered "truth" is groupthink consensus, it is vulnerable to deception, whether induced by self or other. That is a good reason to adopt a more laissez-faire approach with speech, because in many cases objective truth is unknowable for humans.
A problem with the private ownership model occurs when media organisations centralise, coalesce to trample competition and then dominate discourse, where dissent, even when objectively truthful, may be quashed, as though truth can be brokered and is in fact the imprimatur of the corporation.
How is that any different in outcome to when a government does it?
A statist example was the (now deceased) Chinese opthalmologist, punished for "spreading rumours" about this virus. The CCP took the line his truth was "bullshit".
Rationally, there is little difference in outcome whether a communist authority does this, FB, Apple or Twitter. People used to howl each other down here at the POS top in 2011. Remember John Christian getting pelted here for bailing out? If censure were the rule, then his speech would have been vetoed by herd orthodoxy, but he understood "the truth". The herd was wrong.
This illustrates the problem with censorious platforms. Truth may be buried, but does that mean it no longer is the truth?
Separate names with a comma.