No, not Covid. But the undermining of everything our country stands for.
I have been reading up on this and pretty much every true thinker (including leadership at the ACLU) is disapproving of the social media companies suddenly deciding that they have the right to be the thought police. Those who disagree tend to live in a fantasy world where:
Obviously they succeeded. Just as the Nazi Party in Germany succeeded in getting their followers to hate the Jews, and using that hatred to demand that all Jews be rounded up, silenced, and eventually many of them were just "eliminated"... the liberal elite has convinced their followers that "conservatives" are the new Jews who need to be whisked away to some camp to be executed for thought crimes.
- after supporting multiple violent riots in "response" to the election of Donald Trump
- after supporting the infiltration of federal capital buildings by liberals opposed to the confirmation of a USSC justice
- after supporting the riots that cost the American public over $100 billion
- after voting for a Vice Presidential candidate who create funds to bail rioters out of jail
They have deemed President Trump to be "Hitler" and must be stopped by any and all (constitutional or unconstitutional) because of a single riot that they blame on the President. This all coming after not blaming any of the rest of the hundreds of riots on liberal politicians who were considerably more openly supportive of them than anything Trump said or did. These are people so hateful of one man, that they are simply blind to the hypocrisy of what is happening.
All one has to do is go back to Nazi Germany, where Hitler and his people were the ones who were trying to control thought, while rounding up and imprisoning opposition to their own thoughts. Whether you agree or disagree with Trump and his policies, he never once suggested that free speech should be taken away or that people did not have the right to disagree with him. He certainly didn't like it and lashed out at those who did disagree, but he never attempted to take that right to disagree away.
Nope. The idea of not allowing anyone to disagree with you and doing everything in your power to censor or ban any thought or ideas that are alternate to your views is ENTIRELY under the ownership of Democrats, the liberal media, and the liberal tech companies.
Conservatives put up with nearly three years of having to listen to every liberal and their brother on every social media, public platform, and major news and network television tell us that the duly elected President was a Russian asset who conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the election and undermine democracy. That was always a lie, I assumed most people knew it was a lie, but they pushed it anyways. Moreover, that was just one of many lies that were so ridiculous that nobody in their right minds would have believed it.
But there was no demand from anyone that such ridiculous thoughts (even when they inspired riots, violence, and civil unrest) be censored. In fact, most conservatives assumed that Democratic leadership and the liberal medias were stoking unrest on purpose to serve the political purpose of undermining Trump and making their sheep followers hate him.
Obviously they succeeded. Just as the Nazi Party in Germany succeeded in getting their followers to hate the Jews, and using that hatred to demand that all Jews be rounded up, silenced, and eventually many of them were just "eliminated"... the liberal elite has convinced their followers that "conservatives" are the new Jews who need to be whisked away to some camp to be executed for thought crimes.
There is zero such historical comparison with Trump or Republicans to Nazi Germany. They always allowed for dissent and freedom of thought, even when that thought was stupid, dangerous and eventually led us to one of the most violent and destructive times in our nation. Perhaps there even is a prudent argument that had the American system allowed for some censorship and banning of certain types of speech, that we could have avoided much of the civil unrest, destruction, and ultimate undermining of our American civility.
But there was never even a conversation or even a suggestion of such a thing. Nope... such a thing only happens from tyrants and fascists. That is a historical and fundamental fact that is universal and will never change (even if Facebook and Twitter says it has).
So either you are on the side of free speech or you are on the side of the fascists. Pick one.
17 comments:
When Donald Trump stood before his followers on Jan. 6 and urged them to march on the United States Capitol, he was doing what he had always done. He never took electoral democracy seriously nor accepted the legitimacy of its American version.
Even when he won, in 2016, he insisted that the election was fraudulent — that millions of false votes were cast for his opponent. In 2020, in the knowledge that he was trailing Joseph R. Biden in the polls, he spent months claiming that the presidential election would be rigged and signaling that he would not accept the results if they did not favor him. He wrongly claimed on Election Day that he had won and then steadily hardened his rhetoric: With time, his victory became a historic landslide and the various conspiracies that denied it ever more sophisticated and implausible.
People believed him, which is not at all surprising. It takes a tremendous amount of work to educate citizens to resist the powerful pull of believing what they already believe, or what others around them believe, or what would make sense of their own previous choices. Plato noted a particular risk for tyrants: that they would be surrounded in the end by yes-men and enablers. Aristotle worried that, in a democracy, a wealthy and talented demagogue could all too easily master the minds of the populace. Aware of these risks and others, the framers of the Constitution instituted a system of checks and balances. The point was not simply to ensure that no one branch of government dominated the others but also to anchor in institutions different points of view.
In this sense, the responsibility for Trump’s push to overturn an election must be shared by a very large number of Republican members of Congress. Rather than contradict Trump from the beginning, they allowed his electoral fiction to flourish. They had different reasons for doing so. One group of Republicans is concerned above all with gaming the system to maintain power, taking full advantage of constitutional obscurities, gerrymandering and dark money to win elections with a minority of motivated voters. They have no interest in the collapse of the peculiar form of representation that allows their minority party disproportionate control of government. The most important among them, Mitch McConnell, indulged Trump’s lie while making no comment on its consequences.
Post-truth is pre-fascism, and Trump has been our post-truth president. When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions. Truth defends itself particularly poorly when there is not very much of it around, and the era of Trump — like the era of Vladimir Putin in Russia — is one of the decline of local news. Social media is no substitute: It supercharges the mental habits by which we seek emotional stimulation and comfort, which means losing the distinction between what feels true and what actually is true.
Post-truth wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth. These last four years, scholars have discussed the legitimacy and value of invoking fascism in reference to Trumpian propaganda. One comfortable position has been to label any such effort as a direct comparison and then to treat such comparisons as taboo. More productively, the philosopher Jason Stanley has treated fascism as a phenomenon, as a series of patterns that can be observed not only in interwar Europe but beyond it.
My own view is that greater knowledge of the past, fascist or otherwise, allows us to notice and conceptualize elements of the present that we might otherwise disregard and to think more broadly about future possibilities. It was clear to me in October that Trump’s behavior presaged a coup, and I said so in print; this is not because the present repeats the past, but because the past enlightens the present.
Like historical fascist leaders, Trump has presented himself as the single source of truth. His use of the term “fake news” echoed the Nazi smear Lügenpresse (“lying press”); like the Nazis, he referred to reporters as “enemies of the people.” Like Adolf Hitler, he came to power at a moment when the conventional press had taken a beating; the financial crisis of 2008 did to American newspapers what the Great Depression did to German ones. The Nazis thought that they could use radio to replace the old pluralism of the newspaper; Trump tried to do the same with Twitter.
Thanks to technological capacity and personal talent, Donald Trump lied at a pace perhaps unmatched by any other leader in history. For the most part these were small lies, and their main effect was cumulative. To believe in all of them was to accept the authority of a single man, because to believe in all of them was to disbelieve everything else. Once such personal authority was established, the president could treat everyone else as the liars; he even had the power to turn someone from a trusted adviser into a dishonest scoundrel with a single tweet. Yet so long as he was unable to enforce some truly big lie, some fantasy that created an alternative reality where people could live and die, his pre-fascism fell short of the thing itself.
240 hours and the dawn will come!!!!!!!!11 BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!!!! Buh Bye donnie!!!!!
In response to So either you are on the side of free speech or you are on the side of the fascists. Pick one.
You are ignoring modern technology. When the founding fathers wrote this first amendment, the internet did not exist. They wrote it in response to written papers and newspaper articles.
The internet is 100% open to anyone who wants to build a website, which is a private company.
Twitter can block you too because they are a private business and publisher. If you violate their guidelines.
But the internet can't block you from saying anything. Even child porn sites exist.
But you can become a billionaire if you can create a new twtlcold.com and let the President tirade. And you can sell companies to sell their products via ads like Facebook, which made Zuckerberg one of the richest people on earth
The American Abyss https://nyti.ms/35nixPu
Twitter can block you too because they are a private business and publisher. If you violate their guidelines.
and so can a bakery when a couple of fags wanders in.
like i said on the other thread, we need to doxx every twitter employee everywhere, and deny them access to everything.
make these scumbags live by their own rules.
this is going to be fun.
LOL.
Seriously this is an example of mental illnesses
the liberal elite has convinced their followers that "conservatives" are the new Jews who need to be whisked away to some camp to be executed for thought crimes.
Nobody is saying that Auschwitz needs to be reopened.
Nazi's were invited by the President to invade the Capital building were wearing shirts saying that six million Jews was not enough
Twitter can block you too because they are a private business and publisher. If you violate their guidelines.
awesome.
so every private business in America can refuse you service if they state in their "guidelines" the right to refuse to serve liberals and democrats.
okey dokey.
The bakerys won the decision in the courts
Your too fucking stupid!
Nobody is saying that Auschwitz needs to be reopened.
yes, in fact, they are. just not in s many words.:
:
An ABC News article calling for the "cleansing" of the movement of President Trump's supporters was stealth-edited after critics questioned the charged word.
"Even aside from impeachment and 25th Amendment talk, Trump will be an ex-president in 13 days," ABC's Rick Klein and MaryAlice Parks wrote for The Note on Thursday. "The fact is that getting rid of Trump is the easy part. Cleansing the movement he commands, or getting rid of what he represents to so many Americans, is going to be something else."
It now reads, "Cleaning up the movement he commands, or getting rid of what he represents to so many Americans, is going to be something else."
[...]
"You may not like it, but it’s perfectly within Klein’s right to say everything he said," the Media Research Center's Nick Kangadis wrote. "He can celebrate that Trump is leaving office all he wants. But it is the height of hypocrisy for those in the media to condemn others for violent acts that are dwarfed in comparison to the consistent violence of the far-left — one act doesn’t justify the other — and then go out and call for something like a 'cleansing' of people and think there’s nothing wrong with a statement like that."
Klein leads the network's political coverage and provides analysis across its platforms.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-news-movement-trump-supporters-following-capitol-riots
believe them when they tell you who they are. and trust that they want you DEAD.
Walmart can ban you from entering their stores.
Most private businesses have a single saying they can not let you in.
"cleansing"
"work sets you free"
next, the left will require a patch sewn to your clothing, or a tattoo on your forearm.
"cleansing"...
A Yahoo News journalist urged Twitter to ban other journalists such as The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway from Twitter because they are conservative.
“Now do Jack Posobiec, Dan Scavino, Mollie Hemingway, Rogan O’Handley, Tucker Carlson…” Alexander Nazaryan wrote as Twitter purged its communications channels of President Donald Trump, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and others while Google and Apple banned Twitter alternative Parler from their app stores.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/09/yahoo-news-journalist-urges-twitter-to-ban-mollie-hemingway/
Dennis Prager:
There is no example of the left – not liberals, they value free speech – no example of the left having power and not suppressing speech. It doesn’t exist. The left does not value free speech because free speech is its dire enemy. If people can actually say what is wrong with the left, it crumbles… I think we can predict there will be more and more suppression. If you read a brief synopsis of the Reichstag fire in Germany in 1933. Fire was set to the German parliament a month after Hitler took power. He used the Reichstag fire in order to start killing communists. What we’re having now, and I’m not calling them Nazis, I’m calling them totalitarians, the use of an event to suppress liberty.
https://youtu.be/84KyK62KK04
Members of Congress and staff informed that 'many' may have been exposed to coronavirus during Capitol evacuation.
Hunter Walker
WASHINGTON — Members of the House of Representatives and their staff received a memo from the attending physician on Sunday morning that said “many” of them “may have been exposed” to the coronavirus during the violent riot that took place at the Capitol on Wednesday. The exposure took place as House members and staff were evacuated to secure locations as supporters of President Trump breached the Capitol and ransacked offices in an effort to stop the certification of Trump’s election loss.
Many
May have
Possibly
Maybe
A lot or a few
Somewhere
A whole lot of mayben maybe not
The rioters were acting at the behest of the president of the United States, who wanted them to overturn the results of a legal election and keep him in power.
It's not the same as the destruction of a CVS store.
Post a Comment