Re: Confront time: David Duke interview
OK for all those who want to read rather than view, below begins the
transcription of the interview with David Duke.
This is just the first 15 minutes, the rest will come soon.
Regards,
Zenaan
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 09:59:39PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> May be a bit confronting for some - too many facts, so brain overload
> for those programmed by the Lame Stream Media :
>
> http://www.dailystormer.com/the-david-duke-show-why-our-survival-depends-on-defeating-jewish-power/
>
> It's about a GiB, so the following might be your friend:
>
> youtube-dl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0y29F2AYjM --list-formats
> youtube-dl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0y29F2AYjM -f X+Y
> (where X is the video format you choose, and Y is the audio format, or
> just use the number for a combined format)
>
--
Free Australia: www.UPMART.org
Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
..
David Duke interview transcript - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0y29F2AYjM
A Revolutionary Interview with the Real Dr. David Duke
Published on Jul 29, 2016
http://dukeforsenate.com/
http://davidduke.com/
http://dailystormer.com/
-
youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0y29F2AYjM --list-formats
The default version ("best" which is not the highest quality by the
looks) is roughly 1 gigabyte, so if your internet download is scarce,
perhaps download a smaller version.
-
Disclaimer from the DailyStormer.com website:
We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution
through the education of the masses. When the information is available
to the people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable.
Anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be
immediately banned, permanently.
--
* Question 01:
-- [Time 00:00:14]
How do you explain your popularity with the voters, despite the
media characterization of you?
Text:
Dr. David Duke, Former Member, House of Representatives-LA
& History PhD
David Duke:
Because the voters of this state, and my district, they knew the real
David Duke, not the media characterisation of me.
They knew my true positions and my writings, and the kind of person I
was.
I grew up with the people of this state and they also saw my voting
record in the house of representatives.
So that's why we've had the support we've had here, and why I've done
very well - even in the Republican primaries for president in 1992, in
15 primaries that they let me into, I received an average of 4% of the
votes, in some states much higher.
In South Carolina for instance, before Super Tuesday, I received
literally 7% of the vote, which was more votes than Ben Carson won, more
votes than Fiona, more votes than actually 13 of the 17 Republican
candidates this year [2016 USA elections].
So people that got to know me, and actually understood what I truly
stood for, they trusted me and they voted for me in great numbers.
--
* Question 02:
-- [Time 00:01:20]
Dr. Duke, do you consider yourself a racist?
David Duke:
Well, according to the controlled media in this country, any European
American who defends the rights and the heritage of European Americans,
is called a racist.
"A racist" is nothing but a nasty, dirty epithet, that's only applied to
European Americans, white people in this country, when the truth is
"racist" could apply to anyone - if someone hates other people, wants
to oppress them or harm them or hurt them, that's an appropriate term.
I believe in equal rights, for all.
I believe in the right of all people to have human rights in this world.
I also believe in the right of European Americans to stand up for
themselves.
It's kind of amazing in this country that any candidate, any person for
public office, can talk about what they're going to do that will benefit
African Americans, or Mexican Americans, and for that matter Jewish
Americans - a very tiny percentage, and the foreign nation of Israel,
but no politician dares to talk about why European Americans should vote
for them.
See every people has certain interests and certain things that they are
concerned about, and I think European Americans have that same right.
It is not racist to defend your own rights, your own heritage in this
country.
And we must remember, the fundamental fact is, that the policy of this
government, the policy of our controlled media in America, has been
promoting immigration in the United States, that is determined to make
European Americans a minority in the nation that our forefathers
created.
And as that people, our people, become a minority, you can be sure that
the values of this country, will change. We see that.
The Democrats didn't promote massive immigration change,
Censor check
Check check.
alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
Once known as the "free speech wing of the free speech party", Twitter's true colours are hard to hide for even those with slowest brainial neorone. Facebook to follow and Google joining the party. Where's that "True Free Speech" app where you need it... Actor James Woods quits Twitter over its recent mass censorship and “alt-right” account purge http://theduran.com/actor-james-woods-quits-twitter-over-its-recent-mass-censorship-and-alt-right-account-purge/
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
aff Original Message On Nov 18, 2016, 1:44 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Once known as the "free speech wing of the free speech party", Twitter's true colours are hard to hide for even those with slowest brainial neorone. Facebook to follow and Google joining the party. Where's that "True Free Speech" app where you need it... Actor James Woods quits Twitter over its recent mass censorship and “alt-right” account purge http://theduran.com/actor-james-woods-quits-twitter-over-its-recent-mass-censorship-and-alt-right-account-purge/
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On 11/18/2016 03:44 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Once known as the "free speech wing of the free speech party", Twitter's > true colours are hard to hide for even those with slowest brainial > neorone. > > Facebook to follow and Google joining the party. I wouldn't call them "alt-left" just because they want the garbage off of their service. There is a difference between free speech and garbage. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On 11/18/2016 02:55 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 11/18/2016 03:44 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >> Once known as the "free speech wing of the free speech party", Twitter's >> true colours are hard to hide for even those with slowest brainial >> neorone. >> >> Facebook to follow and Google joining the party. > > I wouldn't call them "alt-left" just because they want the garbage off > of their service. There is a difference between free speech and garbage. Well, ACLU has supported rights of KKK to rally :)
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Mirimir wrote: > On 11/18/2016 02:55 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > On 11/18/2016 03:44 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > >> Once known as the "free speech wing of the free speech party", Twitter's > >> true colours are hard to hide for even those with slowest brainial > >> neorone. > >> > >> Facebook to follow and Google joining the party. > > > > I wouldn't call them "alt-left" just because they want the garbage off > > of their service. There is a difference between free speech and garbage. > > Well, ACLU has supported rights of KKK to rally :) > > Aye, but they've not also given them a section on their blog to post on have they? If you look a little deeper, you'll also find it's not the fundamental views (and expression of) themselves that Twitter have taken issue with, it's that the users in question repeatedly violated the ToS. There's really not that much wrong with an individual service provider deciding there are rules if you want to use their service. There might, of course, be some chilling effects if all players in that area decide to enforce overly strict rules, but that's somewhat different. As ever, XKCD is relevant - https://xkcd.com/1357/ -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 23:05:58 + Ben Tasker wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Mirimir wrote: > > > On 11/18/2016 02:55 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > > On 11/18/2016 03:44 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > >> Once known as the "free speech wing of the free speech party", > > >> Twitter's true colours are hard to hide for even those with > > >> slowest brainial neorone. > > >> > > >> Facebook to follow and Google joining the party. > > > > > > I wouldn't call them "alt-left" just because they want the > > > garbage off of their service. There is a difference between free > > > speech and garbage. > > > > Well, ACLU has supported rights of KKK to rally :) > > > > > Aye, but they've not also given them a section on their blog to post > on have they? > > If you look a little deeper, you'll also find it's not the fundamental > views (and expression of) themselves that Twitter have taken issue > with, it's that the users in question repeatedly violated the ToS. > > There's really not that much wrong with an individual service provider > deciding there are rules if you want to use their service. 'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the fascist government they work for. What kind of sane 'cypherpunk' 'activist' would defend fascist corporations like twitter? Rhetorical question of course The 'terms of service' of the corporate mafia are null and void, in case you never noticed. There > might, of course, be some chilling effects if all players in that > area decide to enforce overly strict rules, but that's somewhat > different. > > As ever, XKCD is relevant - https://xkcd.com/1357/ > >
Re: zcash: zero proof knowledge crypto currency based on Bitcoin
On Nov 14, 2016 9:51 PM, "Cannon" wrote: > > What are everyones thoughts on z-cash? Will it become major cryptocurrency along side with bitcoin? https://z.cash "Zcash is a decentralized and open-source cryptocurrency that offers privacy and selective transparency of transactions. Zcash payments are published on a public blockchain, but the sender, recipient, and amount of a transaction remain private." * "Keybase chooses Zcash" https://keybase.io/blog/keybase-and-zcash * "A Blockchain Currency That Beats Bitcoin On Privacy" Zcash’s new cryptocurrency promises complete anonymity. http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/a-blockchain-currency-that-beats-bitcoin-on-privacy
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, juan wrote: > 'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the fascist > government they work for. > > Twitter is entirely dependant on it's userbase, yes. If they feel that allowing that kind of speech is going to lead to users not feeling comfortable using the service (leading to a reduction of the userbase) the only sane commercial decision is to remove the problematic speech, no? Working for the government or not, they're hardly likely to stand and defend harassment when that'll cost them users. Especially given that it sounds like they do a terrible job of making money out of those users anyway > What kind of sane 'cypherpunk' 'activist' would defend fascist > corporations like twitter? Rhetorical question of course > It's not intended as a defence of Twitter per se. I'm not a fan of corporations by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not of the American capitalism rules all mindset. But you know what, I believe in individual rights, and that includes the right not to be party to something like harassment. If you're being made to carry things you staunchly disagree with, in a world where people will associate them with you, that's - in effect- compelling speech which is just as bad (if not worse) than suppressing speech. A corporation actually take a stance to try and prevent some of the targeted abuse that flows online is a good thing. It might not (nay, doesn't) offset the myriad faults with the system, but it's a lean towards benefiting the userbase (even if driven primarily by self-interest). The world isn't black and white, even the truly evil can perform good acts from time to time. Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of directly harassing people for race, gender, whatever. They're still free to continue running websites promoting their views. I'd have a bigger issue with a hosting company refusing to host what amounts to a political (if extreme) opinion or news site. The line seems to be drawn at launching direct attacks, which doesn't seem unreasonable, especially given the reality is we live in a world where capitalism currently exists, and most of society doesn't want to have to deal with that type of bullshit. Course, there is the question of how direct attacks should be defined too, and there's no good way to do that definitively. I think encouraging hundreds, if not thousands, of followers to hurl abuse at one user is probably well over it though. > > The 'terms of service' of the corporate mafia are null and > void, in case you never noticed. > > > Not if you plan to use a service provided and controlled by that mafia. The (non-corporate) mafia, in fact, tend to be quite insistent that you abide by their terms I know you'll probably disagree with huge chunks of that, if not all of it, and it's probably a bit muddled where it's been rattled out. The TL:DR is, there isn't a good answer that works in the world we currently live in. Those that were banned (or at least those I've bothered to look up) were assholes. Not because of their speech, but of their actions. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
From: Ben Tasker On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, juan wrote: 'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the fascist government they work for. >Twitter is entirely dependant on it's userbase, yes. If they feel that >allowing that kind of speech is going to lead to users not feeling comfortable >>using the service (leading to a reduction of the userbase) the only sane >commercial decision is to remove the problematic speech, no? As opposed to that old concept of actually letting people engage in FREE SPEECH?!?Sorry, but I have to laugh! A lot of speech will bother _somebody_. If a service removes speech that _somebody_ claims to object to, fairly soon there will be little or no speech to see. I suspect these people are merely trying to justify PC censorship. Stop it. Jim Bell
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
> As opposed to that old concept of actually letting people engage in FREE SPEECH?!? Except as I tried to make clear in the rest of the email, it's not the speech that's the issue, but the actions. Want to post how much you hate (to pick an example) mexicans on twitter? Go for it, it's unlikely you'll be banned. Encourage hundreds, if not thousands, of others to tweet racist shit at a single user? Its your action there that gets you banned. It's not what you've said so much as the fact you've led a charge. Twitter'll deny you the tools to take those actions. My comment was in the context of a commercial decision, and yes, the sane commercial decision is to remove those that are causing issues, if they're in the minority. They're a corporation and can't let a small chunk of revenue drive away large chunks. It's that simple. Reddit had to go through a similar thing a while back, and shuttered coontown (amongst other subs). Many predicted the demise of reddit, but in reality, whilst some users left for Voat and probably never came back, most of the remaining subs continue to thrive. Admittedly, that was more about getting money to come onboard in the first place, so it was as much about the investors sensibilities as the userbase. > A lot of speech will bother _somebody_. If a service removes speech that _somebody_ claims to object to, fairly soon there will be little or no speech to see. I agree. And booting someone for saying something offensive isn't right. Encouraging others to descend, en masse, on someone else though isn't just speech, it's incitement - an action. Or at least as much as an action as the average user can actually take online >I suspect these people are merely trying to justify PC censorship I suspect you dropped "PC" in there because it's one of your trigger words. This isn't about political correctness, this is about people getting targeted, en masse, because their skin's the wrong colour, or because they lack a penis (or in some cases, have one). Not about protecting peoples sensibilities, but about outright, deliberate victimisation. FTR, There's fuckload wrong with world of Political Correctness, especially once you get people arguing that we should use so-called "positive discrimination". Leaving actions aside, and going back to the original reason I mailed the list, Mirimir noted that ACLU supported the KKK's right to rally. IOW they defend the KKK's right to free speech. ACLU don't however, let the KKK hold those rallies in their carpark, or provide them with megaphones etc. There's a big difference in defending the right to speech and actively helping someone make that speech. I see this as much the same, you've got the right to say what you like, and I'll gladly defend that, but I'm not going to help you say it. Why would Twitter be any different? Hell, the world in general is no different. You don't see Breitbart hosting guest columns from lefties, just as you don't tend to see liberal publications inviting the alt-right to put their views forward. Each have to find their own, accommodating, venues to push their agendas from. On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:14 AM, jim bell wrote: > > > *From:* Ben Tasker > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, juan wrote: > > 'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the fascist > government they work for. > > > >Twitter is entirely dependant on it's userbase, yes. If they feel that > allowing that kind of speech is going to lead to users not feeling > comfortable >using the service (leading to a reduction of the userbase) the > only sane commercial decision is to remove the problematic speech, no? > > As opposed to that old concept of actually letting people engage in FREE > SPEECH?!? > Sorry, but I have to laugh! A lot of speech will bother _somebody_. If > a service removes speech that _somebody_ claims to object to, fairly soon > there will be little or no speech to see. > I suspect these people are merely trying to justify PC censorship. Stop > it. >Jim Bell > > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 00:01:34 + Ben Tasker wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, juan wrote: > > > 'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the > > fascist government they work for. > > > > > Twitter is entirely dependant on it's userbase, yes. If they feel that > allowing that kind of speech is going to lead to users not feeling > comfortable using the service (leading to a reduction of the > userbase) the only sane commercial decision is to remove the > problematic speech, no? > > Working for the government or not, they're hardly likely to stand and > defend harassment when that'll cost them users. Especially given that > it sounds like they do a terrible job of making money out of those > users anyway The profits of businesses like twitter are certainly no concern of mine...though from a purely commercial point of view you are right. On the other hand, that means they should suppress ANYTHING that the mob doesn't like. Or pander to anything the mob ikes, be it clever and uplifting, stupid or outright criminal. > > > > > What kind of sane 'cypherpunk' 'activist' would defend > > fascist corporations like twitter? Rhetorical question of course > > > > It's not intended as a defence of Twitter per se. > > I'm not a fan of corporations by any stretch of the imagination, and > certainly not of the American capitalism rules all mindset. > > But you know what, I believe in individual rights, So do I. that's why I'd never invoke individual rights to defend fascist twitter or their laughable (from a legal and moral point of view) 'terms of service'. More important, the people who call themselves 'twitter' don't believe in individual rights. If they did they would not be a leading company under 'jurisdiction' of the US state. > and that includes > the right not to be party to something like harassment. If you're > being made to carry things you staunchly disagree with, in a world > where people will associate them with you, that's - in effect- > compelling speech which is just as bad (if not worse) than > suppressing speech. > > A corporation actually take a stance to try and prevent some of the > targeted abuse that flows online is a good thing. Oh yes. Censorship is a 'good thing'... Anyway, I should mention that this incident is just propaganda, as usual. Twitter and their political masters need to pretend that they are not 'racists' so they lynch a few racists..so that all the official racism of the US empire can happily continue. It's called 'plausible deniability'...hypocrysy...or The American Way. > It might not (nay, > doesn't) offset the myriad faults with the system, but it's a lean > towards benefiting the userbase (even if driven primarily by > self-interest). The world isn't black and white, even the truly evil > can perform good acts from time to time. > > > Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for > expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of > directly harassing people for race, gender, whatever. How did they harrass people? By posting bullshit on twitter? It must have been that, since, as far as I know, twitter hasn't become the thought police in the offline world...yet. > > They're still free to continue running websites promoting their > views. I'd have a bigger issue with a hosting company refusing to > host what amounts to a political (if extreme) opinion or news site. It's the same thing. You can claim that 'property rights' trump free speech in that case too. > > > The line seems to be drawn at launching direct attacks, which doesn't > seem unreasonable, especially given the reality is we live in a world > where capitalism currently exists, and most of society doesn't want > to have to deal with that type of bullshit. > > Course, there is the question of how direct attacks should be defined > too, and there's no good way to do that definitively. Right. Which means twitter can ban and censor whoever they wish for whatever 'reason' they can come up with, or none at all. I'm sure their 'terms of service' say exactly that. > I think > encouraging hundreds, if not thousands, of followers to hurl abuse at > one user is probably well over it though. > > > > > > > The 'terms of service' of the corporate mafia are null and > > void, in case you never noticed. > > > > > > > Not if you plan to use a service provided and controlled by that > mafia. They still have no value from a moral or legal point of view. Except of course inside the same legal fascist system that created them. Circular logic backed by guns. I realize it may be expedient to comply with some mafia requirement or '
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:00 AM, juan wrote: > On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 00:01:34 + > Ben Tasker wrote: > > > Working for the government or not, they're hardly likely to stand and > > defend harassment when that'll cost them users. Especially given that > > it sounds like they do a terrible job of making money out of those > > users anyway > > > The profits of businesses like twitter are certainly no concern > of mine...though from a purely commercial point of view you are > right. On the other hand, that means they should suppress > ANYTHING that the mob doesn't like. Or pander to anything the > mob ikes, be it clever and uplifting, stupid or outright > criminal. > > > Which unfortunately, corporations sometimes do. It's a very hard line to draw to define when that's right or wrong, especially as it's always going to be based on individual bias and opinions. What you find gravely offensive I might find funny as fuck, and vice versa. > > > > > > > > > What kind of sane 'cypherpunk' 'activist' would defend > > > fascist corporations like twitter? Rhetorical question of course > > > > > > > It's not intended as a defence of Twitter per se. > > > > I'm not a fan of corporations by any stretch of the imagination, and > > certainly not of the American capitalism rules all mindset. > > > > But you know what, I believe in individual rights, > > > So do I. that's why I'd never invoke individual rights to > defend fascist twitter or their laughable (from a legal and > moral point of view) 'terms of service'. > > More important, the people who call themselves 'twitter' > don't believe in individual rights. If they did they would > not be a leading company under 'jurisdiction' of the US state. > > I've been on this list more than long enough to know you're not a statist Juan, and I don't entirely disagree with a lot of your views, so I'm not going to try and disagree here. All I will say, is that the corporate entity is made up of lots of individuals, though the corporate ethos (if you'll forgive the term, I know it implies ethics which might actually be absent) will be dictated from on high. > > > > and that includes > > the right not to be party to something like harassment. If you're > > being made to carry things you staunchly disagree with, in a world > > where people will associate them with you, that's - in effect- > > compelling speech which is just as bad (if not worse) than > > suppressing speech. > > > > A corporation actually take a stance to try and prevent some of the > > targeted abuse that flows online is a good thing. > > > Oh yes. Censorship is a 'good thing'... > > It's a little more fine-grained than that. A corporation trying to protect users (even if it does simply view them as a revenue source) is a good effect for the majority of users. Doesn't help much if you're in the minority though. > Anyway, I should mention that this incident is just > propaganda, as usual. Twitter and their political masters need to pretend that they > are not 'racists' so they lynch a few racists..so that all the > official racism of the US empire can happily continue. It's > called 'plausible deniability'...hypocrysy...or The American > Way. > > Here, I agree. > > > > It might not (nay, > > doesn't) offset the myriad faults with the system, but it's a lean > > towards benefiting the userbase (even if driven primarily by > > self-interest). The world isn't black and white, even the truly evil > > can perform good acts from time to time. > > > > > > Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for > > expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of > > directly harassing people for race, gender, whatever. > > > How did they harrass people? By posting bullshit on twitter? It > must have been that, since, as far as I know, twitter hasn't > become the thought police in the offline world...yet. > > See the answer to your final question below > > > > > > They're still free to continue running websites promoting their > > views. I'd have a bigger issue with a hosting company refusing to > > host what amounts to a political (if extreme) opinion or news site. > > > It's the same thing. You can claim that 'property rights' > trump free speech in that case too. > > The difference is in the presentation. If you view something I've tweeted, you've got twitter.com in the address bar, twitter branding spewed across the page and have probably consciously chosen to visit twitter. Twitter is associated (even if they're at pains to say they don't agree with everything posted). If I host my website with (say) godaddy, most visitors will be completely unaware (unless I've deliberately added "hosted by go-daddy" to the site). How many users look at who owns the IP block before vis
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On 11/18/2016 01:44 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Once known as the "free speech wing of the free speech party", Twitter's > true colours are hard to hide for even those with slowest brainial > neorone. > > Facebook to follow and Google joining the party. > > > Where's that "True Free Speech" app where you need it... > > > > Actor James Woods quits Twitter over its recent mass censorship and > “alt-right” account purge > http://theduran.com/actor-james-woods-quits-twitter-over-its-recent-mass-censorship-and-alt-right-account-purge/ Do you use twitter Zen? If you do you don't tweet social issues. Most of the alt-right accounts are 'hit' accounts that troll and abuse b/c that's what they were doing for trump, and that's all the morons behind them know to do besides watching old Leni Riefenstahl films to catch a glimpse of her snatch. Besides, the very idea that tech companies are to the left of anything other than right is beyond bizarre. Nor are most of their employees, Young republican 'libertarians' closeted racists make up most of the work force I've met in the Bay Area, no matter HOW 'hipster' their mannerism. Ps. Whose James Woods and why should I give a fuck what some Actor... ie professional publicity hound and liar, thinks? Rr
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
From: Ben Tasker >> As opposed to that old concept of actually letting people engage in FREE >>SPEECH?!? >Except as I tried to make clear in the rest of the email, it's not the speech >that's the issue, but the actions. Oh, really? Have you ever heard of something called "selective enforcement"? You didn't identify the "actions" involved. Somehow, I suspect that these "actions" are not going to be enforced against the PC crowd, only those opposed to them. Go ahead, surprise me. >Want to post how much you hate (to pick an example) mexicans on twitter? Go >for it, it's unlikely you'll be banned. Are people who post how much they hate Trump, or hate people who support him, going to be banned? Somehow, I don't think so. It's PC nonsense. Selective enforcement. "Encourage hundreds, if not thousands, of others to tweet racist shit at a single user?" "Free speech" means allowing people to say things you hate. If you haven't learned that yet, you don't know what free speech is. " Its your action there that gets you banned. It's not what you've said so much as the fact you've led a charge. Twitter'll deny you the tools to take those actions." Oh, I see! Posting such statements are "actions", not "speech".Well, if that trick were used, people could be prosecuted for uttering sounds that happen to sound like "hate speech". See the problem? Of course you don't. >My comment was in the context of a commercial decision, and yes, the sane >commercial decision is to remove those that are causing issues, if >they're in >the minority. They're a corporation and can't let a small chunk of revenue >drive away large chunks. It's that simple." If the speech involved was objected to by 99% of the population, or even 95%, you might have a point. but I suspect you are really only referring to the opinions objected to by (at most) 51% of the population, or in fact far less. (Say, speech objected to by 75% of the PC crowd, or maybe 10% of the population.) "Reddit had to" HAD TO? Really? Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, somehow, their computer servers would melt down, or something, if HTML data with certain data patterns were stored in it? " go through a similar thing a while back, and shuttered coontown (amongst other subs). Many predicted the demise of reddit, but in reality, whilst some users left for Voat and probably never came back, most of the remaining subs continue to thrive. Admittedly, that was more about getting money to come onboard in the first place, so it was as much about the investors sensibilities as the userbase." If the existence of alternate forums was a justification for censorship, the state of California (for example) could negate the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment, with the explanation: "If you don't like it, you can move to another state". See the problem? Of course you don't! >> A lot of speech will bother _somebody_. If a service removes speech that >>_somebody_ claims to object to, fairly soon there will be little or no speech >>to see. >I agree. And booting someone for saying something offensive isn't right. >Encouraging others to descend, en masse, on someone else though >isn't just >speech, it's incitement - an action. Or at least as much as an action as the >average user can actually take online "descend, en masse, on someone else"??? You mean, like, physically attack them? Or do you merely mean using speech that offends them? If the former, I don't see much of a problem. If it is the latter, I see a huge problem. >>I suspect these people are merely trying to justify PC censorship >I suspect you dropped "PC" in there because it's one of your trigger words. >This isn't about political correctness, this is about people getting >>targeted, en masse, because their skin's the wrong colour, or because they >lack a penis (or in some cases, have one). Not about protecting >peoples >sensibilities, but about outright, deliberate victimisation. Again, you say, "targeted". You mean, like being shot at? Struck with a baseball bat? Or merely criticized? Do these people need their "safe spaces", or "trigger warnings", etc? >FTR, There's fuckload wrong with world of Political Correctness, especially >once you get people arguing that we should use so-called "positive >>iscrimination". Yes, but that's far from its only problem. >Leaving actions aside, and going back to the original reason I mailed the >list, Mirimir noted that ACLU supported the KKK's right to rally. IOW >they >defend the KKK's right to free speech. Yes, but "rallying" is "actions", right? Or is it "speech"? "ACLU don't however, let the KKK hold those rallies in their carpark, or provide them with megaphones etc. There's a big difference in defending the right to speech and actively helping someone make that speech." Private property is different. Twitter MIGHT justify discrimination based on the fact it's privately-owned. However, that's a
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On 11/18/2016 06:07 PM, jim bell wrote: > Somehow, I suspect that these "actions" are not going to be > enforced against the PC crowd, only those opposed to them. Go > ahead, surprise me. Surprise! I think you're out to lunch if you believe the people who operate twitter or Fb or any of them care about "PC" as you see it. THEY get to decide what's PC and they're Young Republican 'libertarian' closet racists and gentrifiers (again, racists) Any questions? Talk to the hand. Rr > *From:* Ben Tasker > > >> As opposed to that old concept of actually letting people engage in > FREE SPEECH?!? > > >Except as I tried to make clear in the rest of the email, it's not > the speech that's the issue, but the actions. > > Oh, really? Have you ever heard of something called "selective > enforcement"? You didn't identify the "actions" involved. Somehow, I > suspect that these "actions" are not going to be enforced against the > PC crowd, only those opposed to them. Go ahead, surprise me. > > > >Want to post how much you hate (to pick an example) mexicans on > twitter? Go for it, it's unlikely you'll be banned. > > Are people who post how much they hate Trump, or hate people who > support him, going to be banned? Somehow, I don't think so. It's PC > nonsense. Selective enforcement. > > > "Encourage hundreds, if not thousands, of others to tweet racist shit > at a single user?" > > "Free speech" means allowing people to say things you hate. If you > haven't learned that yet, you don't know what free speech is. > > " Its your action there that gets you banned. It's not what you've > said so much as the fact you've led a charge. Twitter'll deny you the > tools to take those actions." > > Oh, I see! Posting such statements are "actions", not "speech". > Well, if that trick were used, people could be prosecuted for uttering > sounds that happen to sound like "hate speech". See the problem? Of > course you don't. > > > >My comment was in the context of a commercial decision, and yes, the > sane commercial decision is to remove those that are causing issues, > if >they're in the minority. They're a corporation and can't let a > small chunk of revenue drive away large chunks. It's that simple." > > If the speech involved was objected to by 99% of the population, or > even 95%, you might have a point. but I suspect you are really only > referring to the opinions objected to by (at most) 51% of the > population, or in fact far less. (Say, speech objected to by 75% of > the PC crowd, or maybe 10% of the population.) > > > "Reddit had to" > > HAD TO? Really? Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, somehow, > their computer servers would melt down, or something, if HTML data > with certain data patterns were stored in it? > > " go through a similar thing a while back, and shuttered coontown > (amongst other subs). Many predicted the demise of reddit, but in > reality, whilst some users left for Voat and probably never came back, > most of the remaining subs continue to thrive. Admittedly, that was > more about getting money to come onboard in the first place, so it was > as much about the investors sensibilities as the userbase." > > If the existence of alternate forums was a justification for > censorship, the state of California (for example) could negate the > U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment, with the explanation: "If you > don't like it, you can move to another state". > See the problem? Of course you don't! > > > >> A lot of speech will bother _somebody_. If a service removes > speech that _somebody_ claims to object to, fairly soon there will be > little or no speech to see. > > >I agree. And booting someone for saying something offensive isn't > right. Encouraging others to descend, en masse, on someone else though > >isn't just speech, it's incitement - an action. Or at least as much > as an action as the average user can actually take online > > "descend, en masse, on someone else"??? You mean, like, physically > attack them? Or do you merely mean using speech that offends them? > If the former, I don't see much of a problem. If it is the latter, I > see a huge problem. > > > >>I suspect these people are merely trying to justify PC censorship > > >I suspect you dropped "PC" in there because it's one of your trigger > words. This isn't about political correctness, this is about people > getting >targeted, en masse, because their skin's the wrong colour, or > because they lack a penis (or in some cases, have one). Not about > protecting >peoples sensibilities, but about outright, deliberate > victimisation. > > Again, you say, "targeted". You mean, like being shot at? Struck > with a baseball bat? Or merely criticized? Do these people need > their "safe spaces", or "trigger warnings", etc? > > > >FTR, There's fuckload wrong with world of Political Correctness, > especially once you get people arguing that we should use so-called > "positive >iscrimination". > > Yes, b
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 01:37:31 + Ben Tasker wrote: > > > Course, there is the question of how direct attacks should be > > > defined too, and there's no good way to do that definitively. > > > > Right. Which means twitter can ban and censor whoever they > > wish for whatever 'reason' they can come up with, or none at all. > > > > I'm sure their 'terms of service' say exactly that. > > > > > They're actually reasonably explicit in what they consider "hateful" - > https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175050 - not that there isn't > wiggleroom if they wanted to though Good old George would be proud I think =) Twitter's ministry of love is fighting against hate. "Freedom of expression means little if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. " "Freedom of expression means nothing if you can control what people post and effectively silence anyone you want to silence." Plus in this case it's important to not only look at what is being said, but who is saying it. We have self-appointed crusader against hate twitter, which is an arm of the american state. Their commitment against hate is hardly credible ;) > > > Analogies tend to be flawed, but let me offer one anyway. > > Say we meet in a bar. > > - Case 1: You say something offensive and I punch you. Who's most in > the wrong? > > Fairly cut and dry, you may be a dick, but I'm in the wrong there. > You used your right to free speech, whereas I've taken an action that > some (most?) would consider unacceptable. > > > - Case 2: You decide you don't like me, and proceed to loudly tell > the rest of the bar that I'm (for example) a queer thats clearly in > need of a beating. Half the bar takes the opportunity to beat the > shit out of me. > > Half the bar crossed the line I crossed in case 1, so clearly they're > in the wrong. > You still only used speech (assuming you didn't get a crafty kick in, > anyway), but you used it in order to incite the bar to cause harm. Yes, that would make me morally responsible for it, and more. The people who carry the physical actions do it out of their own free will so they are fully guilty, but the 'intellectual' author carries a good deal of blame too. > > Physically, you didn't take any action, but I'd argue that convincing > others to do it for you is effectively an action by proxy. Indeed. > > Physical harm still came to me though, so we're still not close > enough to the Twitter angle. > > > - Case 3: Same as in case 2, except they don't beat the shit out of > me. Instead, they yell abuse and threaten to beat the shit out of me > every time they see me for the next month (or week if you prefer). > > Again, you've only used speech, but you've used it to try and ensure > that my life is made a living hell (for whatever period of time). > That's not without it's ill effects (for me) Right. > > I'll agree that "action" isn't necessarily the best word for it, but > incitement sounds too much like something the government would say > and I don't like repeating it. The difference between your previous scenarios and the twitter thing is that if there were any threats, I doubt they were credible at all. I mean, what kind of threat is an anonymous idiot with a fake account half accross the world saying he'll kill you? Your own account probably not giving any real info about you either. > > Most people just aren't equipped to deal with intense, persistent > verbal abuse, so if they're the victim of it, most don't cope too > well. For much the same reason, bystanders tend to be afraid to speak > up in their defence too. Which plays merry havoc with the ideal that > the best defence against "bad" speech is more speech, at least on the > individual level. At a higher level it works over time, but it's the > individual revenue sources that corporations are trying to keep happy I had a facebook account for a few years, and a lot of fake libertarians ended up blocking me - surprise surprise. More than a few of them whined about the lazy poor on welfare...while literally working for the state themselves. Of course for those people tha ability to block anybody who called them out was essential.
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:01:34AM +, Ben Tasker wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, juan wrote: > > > 'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the fascist > > government they work for. > > > > > Twitter is entirely dependant on it's userbase, yes. If they feel that > allowing that kind of speech is going to lead to users not feeling > comfortable using the service (leading to a reduction of the userbase) the > only sane commercial decision is to remove the problematic speech, no? > > Working for the government or not, they're hardly likely to stand and > defend harassment when that'll cost them users. Especially given that it > sounds like they do a terrible job of making money out of those users anyway > > > > > What kind of sane 'cypherpunk' 'activist' would defend fascist > > corporations like twitter? Rhetorical question of course > > > > It's not intended as a defence of Twitter per se. > > I'm not a fan of corporations by any stretch of the imagination, and > certainly not of the American capitalism rules all mindset. > > But you know what, I believe in individual rights, and that includes the > right not to be party to something like harassment. If you're being made to > carry things you staunchly disagree with, in a world where people will > associate them with you, that's - in effect- compelling speech which is > just as bad (if not worse) than suppressing speech. At what userbase level would you consider a communication platform to have crossed the line into "service provider"? 100 million? More? Less? Do you agree that "Twitter" has become a communication platform/ conduit? And do you agree that no one is obliged to "follow" anyone else? > Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for > expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of directly > harassing people for race, gender, whatever. So you say. This is Twitter we're talking about - where the only way you can be "attacked" (you should at least be saying 'verbally' attacked) is if you "follow" the person "attacking" you. > The TL:DR is, there isn't a good answer that works in the world we > currently live in. Those that were banned (or at least those I've > bothered to look up) were assholes. Not because of their speech, but > of their actions. So now "speech == actions". The Ministry of Truth congratulates you; take notice that the Ministry's cheques take up to 48 hours to arrive.
Re: Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:14 PM, John Newman wrote: > wouldn't a bigtime drug supplier be interested in making political donations > to politicians who declare themselves unalterably opposed to drug > legalization? It would be by far the most logical use of a relatively small portion of his money No, because while illegality produces high profit, it's also high risk of jail / death. Lobbying instead for a legal regime of business friendly regulation (unfree trade, franchise, licensure, exclusive zoning, etc) can produce good profit at low risk. > why the > average person would even a.) give a shit what I (or anyone) puts in > their own body Even if completely legal and unregulated without a single drug production distibution sale posession law on the books, that production distribution sale process has a cost. Govt will not give drugs away for free. And even if walmart stocks them next to the cheerios and milk, consumer must still buy them. But crackheads don't have jobs, so they'll still either steal them raising your prices, or steal from you to buy them, and jack up your taxes to cover their addicted, public intox, no life caring about aids transmitting, ass in medical. Avg people don't like that. Legality quiets some of the messy aspects, but is nowhere complete solution without solving addiction and health. Go invent synthehol.
