Joe Rogan * Mod Warning Post 234*

nullzero

85603 wrote: »

Jones and Icke are dangerous idiots.

And while I support their right to free speech, Im quite content for that right to stop at the door of a private company like youtube.

Zero thought is give to the faceless corporation, fair enough, but what of the rights of the employees and owners of this faceless corporation.

They might wake up one day and hear of some terrible act committed by some mentally ill person who listened too much to these ranting idiots. And now they're complicit. Having not filtered out their ramblings, lest the patriots start banging on again.
Wouldn't that be nice for them.

I want to put my piece titled 'why you shouldn't listen to assclowns like Icke or Jones' on the websites of Icke and Jones.

Im thinking they wont let me, probably needing the page space to sell brain pills and water filters, and I support their right to manage their private property as they like.

All the various free speech warriors out there have to do is open a new tab and go to their space-guardians respective websites. It takes a lot less energy to do that than it does to reee about fighting for free speech.

How censored are you that all your nonsense is a new tab away, and that all your books are available on amazon, barnes and noble etc.

You've just ignored everything I said and doubled down on your opinion. And you call other people ranting idiots.

nullzero

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Of course not, but that's not remotely the same scenario, is it?

The scenario is different but it shows how shallow a defence "its a private company" can potentially be.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

You have stated that Rogan shouldn't be giving a platform to Jones or Shapiro (I'm assuming if he was employing your preferred measure of journalistic scrutiny to these people he wouldn't have them on his show) which is supporting censorship. I can only take from what you've said that you believe those people don't deserve a platform which is in effect censorship of them and their beliefs.

You seem confused as to what “censorship” means, then. Censorship is the act of preventing someone from expressing their ideas. Not offering someone a platform to spread unverified and untrue statements isn’t censorship. There’s nothing stopping either Jones or Shapiro from hosting podcasts or posting articles on their own websites, for example.

I would suggest you head off and learn the meaning of some words before you try to use them in a discussion, lest you embarrass yourself again.

Woke Hogan

Woke Hogan wrote: »

You seem confused as to what “censorship” means, then. Censorship is the act of preventing someone from expressing their ideas. Not offering someone a platform to spread unverified and untrue statements isn’t censorship. There’s nothing stopping either Jones or Shapiro from hosting podcasts or posting articles on their own websites, for example.

I would suggest you head off and learn the meaning of some words before you try to use them in a discussion, lest you embarrass yourself again.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

You seem confused as to what “censorship” means, then. Censorship is the act of preventing someone from expressing their ideas. Not offering someone a platform to spread unverified and untrue statements isn’t censorship. There’s nothing stopping either Jones or Shapiro from hosting podcasts or posting articles on their own websites, for example.

I would suggest you head off and learn the meaning of some words before you try to use them in a discussion, lest you embarrass yourself again.

I have already addressed this if you care to read the thread.

YouTube and its ilk creates a lot of what is acceptable and indeed accessible in today's world. Being banned from a platform of this type essentially removes people and opinions from society at large.

Here's a definition of censorship from a Google search ;"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

How I have deviated from that I'm not sure.

The only person embarrassing themselves here is you.

jibber5000

Woke Hogan wrote: »

You seem confused as to what “censorship” means, then. Censorship is the act of preventing someone from expressing their ideas. Not offering someone a platform to spread unverified and untrue statements isn’t censorship. There’s nothing stopping either Jones or Shapiro from hosting podcasts or posting articles on their own websites, for example.

I would suggest you head off and learn the meaning of some words before you try to use them in a discussion, lest you embarrass yourself again.

Good example of the problem is when YouTube have been pulling videos of doctors discussing Covid.

For example the head of You Tube claimed they would pull any video of doctors proposing vitamin C as a treatment for Covid.

Except that Vitamin C is used as a treatment for ICU covid patients. Censoring medical treatments that are factually correct should not be applauded.

nullzero

jibber5000 wrote: »

Good example of the problem is when YouTube have been pulling videos of doctors discussing Covid.

For example the head of You Tube claimed they would pull any video of doctors proposing vitamin C as a treatment for Covid.

Except that Vitamin C is used as a treatment for ICU covid patients. Censoring medical treatments that are factually correct should not be applauded.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Woke Hogan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let’s imagine I have a podcast called “The Woke Hogan Experience” and you wanted to be on it to say The Holocaust didn’t happen.

If I didn’t let you onto my podcast because I don’t believe that I should be responsible for spreading Holocaust Denial, I wouldn’t be censoring you I would be making an editorial decision to protect my journalistic integrity and to prevent the spreading of untruths.

However, if I was a policeman or a soldier and I came around to your house, burned your “research” and killed you for speaking out, then I would have been censoring you. Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

blinding wrote: »

Shapiro took it for granted that Andrew Neil was your typical BBB Leftie Luvvie ! ! !

99% of the time Shapiro would probably have been right but he had ( in Andrew Neil ) the one BBC person who is not a BBC Leftie Luvvie ! !

It really highlighted how divided and cartoonish everything is in American politics. Very little nuance. Shapiro apparently couldn’t conceive of being criticised by somebody not far away from him on the political spectrum. He clearly approached it thinking “BBC bad. Lefty organisation” in his head and did no further research (being well researched is something he prides himself on). The BBC does lean left overall but not all its journalists are.

As for Shapiro being right otherwise. Sometimes he is, sometimes he isn’t. His secret weapon is talking fast and not giving people time to formulate their response. It works best on wet behind the ears young people. But a seasoned interviewer and journalist like Neil would not be rattled by him.

blinding

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It really highlighted how divided and cartoonish everything is in American politics. Very little nuance. Shapiro apparently couldn’t conceive of being criticised by somebody not far away from him on the political spectrum. He clearly approached it thinking “BBC bad. Lefty organisation” in his head and did no further research (being well researched is something he prides himself on). The BBC does lean left overall but not all its journalists are.

As for Shapiro being right otherwise. Sometimes he is, sometimes he isn’t. His secret weapon is talking fast and not giving people time to formulate their response. It works best on wet behind the ears young people. But a seasoned interviewer and journalist like Neil would not be rattled by him.

I can’t think of another BBC journalist that is not a leftie Luvvie.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

blinding wrote: »

I can’t think of another BBC journalist that is not a leftie Luvvie.

Well, even if all the rest are, the “Yeah well the BBC is leftist so that’s why you’re posing tough questions” is a pretty childish stance to take. It was absolutely fascinating to witness him get flustered over questioning that wasn’t even that tough. He got mild pushback and started flailing.

Woke Hogan

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Let’s imagine I have a podcast called “The Woke Hogan Experience” and you wanted to be on it to say The Holocaust didn’t happen.

If I didn’t let you onto my podcast because I don’t believe that I should be responsible for spreading Holocaust Denial, I wouldn’t be censoring you I would be making an editorial decision to protect my journalistic integrity and to prevent the spreading of untruths.

However, if I was a policeman or a soldier and I came around to your house, burned your “research” and killed you for speaking out, then I would have been censoring you. Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you.

:eek::eek:

And it's rare I resort to emojis..

85603

nullzero wrote: »

I have already addressed this if you care to read the thread.

YouTube and its ilk creates a lot of what is acceptable and indeed accessible in today's world. Being banned from a platform of this type essentially removes people and opinions from society at large.

Here's a definition of censorship from a Google search ;"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

How I have deviated from that I'm not sure.

The only person embarrassing themselves here is you.

But are they suppressing?

I see it more as people not wanting to faciliate someone rather than actively suppressing them.

Lets say you have a popular web forum, and I come along and say 'hey i want to put up a tainted recipe for hallucinogens'.
Well why would you say no to this?
You'd say no, because you want to go home that day and not risk having blood on you hands.

So you say no, no you cannot use my property to do that. go away.

And there endeth your role, you say no, you go home and now you dont have to worry about that. You never think of it again, and you dont follow up. You dont track the person.You're out of the picture.

How is this suppression.

Maybe if you followed that person, and actively stopped them that would be suppression.
But telling someone no isn't really suppression.

Not when there are a multitude of other options out there.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

And it's rare I resort to emojis..

Not in this thread it isn't.

1 sheep2

blinding wrote: »

I can’t think of another BBC journalist that is not a leftie Luvvie.

Nick Robinson was heavily involved in young Conservatives and John Humphrys (recently retired) said some questionable things in his time.

JohnnyFlash

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Nick Robinson was heavily involved in young Conservatives and John Humphrys (recently retired) said some questionable things in his time.

Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil are both conservatives. Maybe not the party itself, but in their political beliefs.

Earendil

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Let’s imagine I have a podcast called “The Woke Hogan Experience” and you wanted to be on it to say The Holocaust didn’t happen.

If I didn’t let you onto my podcast because I don’t believe that I should be responsible for spreading Holocaust Denial, I wouldn’t be censoring you I would be making an editorial decision to protect my journalistic integrity and to prevent the spreading of untruths.

However, if I was a policeman or a soldier and I came around to your house, burned your “research” and killed you for speaking out, then I would have been censoring you. Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you.

With truth on your side, you should be able to expose the fool that denies the Holocaust happened with literary evidence..through debate. You weak betas though are just angry and want to band together and whinge.

nullzero

85603 wrote: »

But are they suppressing?

I see it more as people not wanting to faciliate someone rather than actively suppressing them.

Lets say you have a popular web forum, and I come along and say 'hey i want to put up a tainted recipe for hallucinogens'.
Well why would you say no to this?
You'd say no, because you want to go home that day and not risk having blood on you hands.

So you say no, no you cannot use my property to do that. go away.

And there endeth your role, you say no, you go home and now you dont have to worry about that. You never think of it again, and you dont follow up. You dont track the person.You're out of the picture.

How is this suppression.

Maybe if you followed that person, and actively stopped them that would be suppression.
But telling someone no isn't really suppression.

Not when there are a multitude of other options out there.

The reach of the "multitude of other options" you speak of when combined cannot begin to compete with the reach of YouTube, surely this is self evident, are you being willingly obtuse in relation to this obvious fact?

Ipso

God, another beta projectionist.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Let’s imagine I have a podcast called “The Woke Hogan Experience” and you wanted to be on it to say The Holocaust didn’t happen.

If I didn’t let you onto my podcast because I don’t believe that I should be responsible for spreading Holocaust Denial, I wouldn’t be censoring you I would be making an editorial decision to protect my journalistic integrity and to prevent the spreading of untruths.

However, if I was a policeman or a soldier and I came around to your house, burned your “research” and killed you for speaking out, then I would have been censoring you. Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you.

Have you heard of Internet censorship?

JohnnyFlash

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil are both conservatives. Maybe not the party itself, but in their political beliefs.

Laura Kuenssberg, Politic Editor of BBC News - about as left as my right foot.

riclad

Free speech is not absolute, any service has a right
to ban content that is false malicious defamatory or is
just spreading rumours or conspiracy theorys. And theres
plenty of websites that host that sort of content if you
want to read it. I have zero respect for people who are
claiming to be victims of censorship because they got banned by youtube because they were pushing weird
conspiracy theorys or insulting some minority group. Free
speech does not give you the right to make up fake news
in order to get followers or pageviews

EagererBeaver

nullzero wrote: »

The scenario is different but it shows how shallow a defence "its a private company" can potentially be.

It's an absolute defence. Breach the terms and conditions and you get banned. Absolutely nothing to do with civil liberties whatsoever.

EagererBeaver

Earendil wrote: »

You weak betas though are just angry and want to band together and whinge.

blinding

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Nick Robinson was heavily involved in young Conservatives and John Humphrys (recently retired) said some questionable things in his time.

The BBC would soon remove any trace of the young conservatives from ya. You wouldn’t make much headway in the BBC if you could not pass the BBC leftist criteria.

blinding

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil are both conservatives. Maybe not the party itself, but in their political beliefs.

Jeremy Paxman has not done any political stuff for the BBC for a long time !

blinding

Deleted User wrote: »

Laura Kuenssberg, Politic Editor of BBC News - about as left as my right foot.

A Re-Mainer Lefty . Ok after the Tory Land Slide she and a few others have come back to Neutral because the BBC Charter is up for Renewal.

Nobody knows better than BBC Lefty Luvvies that somebody has to pay for their circus ! !

Buck_rodgers

"We have free speech, but no guarantee of freedom after speech."- Idi Amin
Youtube is the modern version, go say what you want and then we will ban you if we don't like it

EagererBeaver

Buck_rodgers wrote: »

"We have free speech, but no guarantee of freedom after speech."- Idi Amin
Youtube is the modern version, go say what you want and then we will ban you if we don't like it

Big first day at school for you yesterday.