Joe Rogan * Mod Warning Post 234*

23-05-2020 9:18pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Note that I have only spoken about Rogan’s personal responsibility as a broadcaster to millions, without once ever mentioning governmental intervention or censorship. You’re inventing invisible enemies to rail against.

He's a dude with a podcast.. Demand journalistic integrity from the journalists..

nullzero · 23-05-2020 9:18pm

85603 wrote: »

Youtube don't censor, only governments can censor.

Censorship is when you are pursued. Not when a company denies you use of their private property.

Youtube, and its shareholders, owe nothing to anyone who doesn't have a contract with them.

Just as Alex Jones or Shapiro can just say 'no thank you' to someone who wants to sell the communist manifesto on their site, youtube retains that same right.

As do you for any website you may own.

There is no high lofty argument about the tenets of free speech vs authoritarianism and its consequences on society and all that horsesht when it comes to youtube.

Youtube never promised free speech - quite the opposite in fact, doesn't owe you use of their property, and wont pursue you if you say what you want elsewhere.

Whats more, they have to filter their content to comply with american law. Or else they'd have all sorts of 'exotic' content, how to build explosives, why you need to kill celebrity x, etc.
why were the patriots never up in arms about this.

rogans recent move to spotify (and russle brands use of luminary) shows alternatives exist.

what happened in the case of youtube not featuring/removing certain content was that basement dwellers decided that their mild inconvenience was of global level importance.

your free speech is out there, in the press, on the internet, at the printers, in conference halls, nobody from youtube will stop you.

The problem with what you're saying is that ignores how all pervasive platforms such as YouTube are.

What is seen as normal on YouTube becomes what is permissable within society at large.

Jesus, most people see the world almost exclusively through the lens of their smartphones, and social media companies are undoubtedly the biggest forces in that space.

While your post has validity, the fact remains, what's accessible, and acceptable on your smartphone is day by day what is acceptable and accessible for all society. So sadly youtube does has a massive influence on freedom of expression.

EagererBeaver · 23-05-2020 9:20pm

It's privately owned. End of story.

nullzero · 23-05-2020 9:24pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

No, what I mean is what I say. I leave it to the likes of your heroes Alex Jones and David Icke to hide behind wink wink hidden messages when they’re referring to “bankers” (Jews) and “lizards” (Jews).

The ideal I’m subscribe to being journalistic integrity from internet content creators isn’t winning hands down, I’m afraid. I think that you’ll find that there’s significantly more unregulated and unverified news sources out in the wider world than ever before.

Note that I have only spoken about Rogan’s personal responsibility as a broadcaster to millions, without once ever mentioning governmental intervention or censorship. You’re inventing invisible enemies to rail against.

Alex Jones never gets on that backs of "Jews" , in fact he's pretty hawkish in his support of Israel.
David Icke openly condemns Israel but states that he isn't anti semitic, but hey I'm sure somebody who demands journalist integrity from others would have been able to figure that out themselves.

Also, these people aren't "heroes" of mine my any measure, I never stated they were or that I even agreed with anything they said but then what have facts got to do with anything when you can make things up about people and feign moral superiority?

Woke Hogan · 23-05-2020 9:24pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He's a dude with a podcast.. Demand journalistic integrity from the journalists..

Yeah “he’s a dude with a podcast” with millions of listeners per episode. He has people like Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, Dan Crenshaw and so on spreading idiotic ideologies without ever making a cursory attempt to challenge them himself.

He’s happy to accept the perks and benefits of having the world’s biggest podcast with none of the responsibility. So much for conquering his inner bitch.

23-05-2020 9:26pm

Haha..call him a grifter there for the laugh..

nullzero · 23-05-2020 9:26pm

EagererBeaver wrote: »

It's privately owned. End of story.

If YouTube started espousing racist sentiment tomorrow and began inciting hatred would "It's privately owned" be a reasonable argument for allowing that to continue?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 23-05-2020 9:28pm

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

I'll watch clips of his podcast on Youtube, if he has someone on I'm interested in then I'll check it out. For a comedian, I've never heard him say one single funny/witty thing on his podcasts. Ever. I've never even heard him try and crack a joke. I know his standup (which is terrible) and podcasts are two completely separate things, but you'd think any comedian wouldn't be able to resist cracking the odd joke now and then.

Ha, yes, good point. And, well, that’s because his comedy is gentle, at best. He’s a grafter with connections but I don’t think he’s naturally very funny. I mean, contrast him will Bill Burr, who is frequently hilarious in normal conversation and interviews.

If I watched Rogan’s podcast without knowing he was also a comedian, I would never have guessed.

blinding · 23-05-2020 9:29pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Yeah “he’s a dude with a podcast” with millions of listeners per episode. He has people like Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, Dan Crenshaw and so on spreading idiotic ideologies without ever making a cursory attempt to challenge them himself.

He’s happy to accept the perks and benefits of having the world’s biggest podcast with none of the responsibility. So much for conquering his inner bitch.

Jordan Peterson wipes the floor with Leftist / Communist Ideology.

Admittedly, its not hard. When Leftists / Communists killed 100 Million People they don’t have a leg to stand on :eek::eek:

Woke Hogan · 23-05-2020 9:30pm

nullzero wrote: »

Alex Jones never gets on that backs of "Jews" , in fact he's pretty hawkish in his support of Israel.
David Icke openly condemns Israel but states that he isn't anti semitic, but hey I'm sure somebody who demands journalist integrity from others would have been able to figure that out themselves.

Also, these people aren't "heroes" of mine my any measure, I never stated they were or that I even agreed with anything they said but then what have facts got to do with anything when you can make things up about people and feign moral superiority?

“Making things up” and “feigning moral superiority” like when you just claiming that I was celebrating the nanny state and censorship, yeah? That door swings both ways, pal.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 23-05-2020 9:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it only the people you oppose ideologically that you want him to question?..
Have you seen what happened anyone that tried to argue with Peterson or Shapiro?..

Well, Andrew Neil took Shapiro down in spectacular fashion. I think Shapiro got rattled because he’s used to debating people on the opposite end of the political spectrum to him. But faced with tough questioning from a fellow right-winger rattled him. The guy who tells people not to get emotional. Beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

nullzero · 23-05-2020 9:49pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

“Making things up” and “feigning moral superiority” like when you just claiming that I was celebrating the nanny state and censorship, yeah? That door swings both ways, pal.

I never said you were "celebrating" anything(oh look you're making things up and feigning moral superiority AGAIN).
Your posts did seem to support censorship, once it's a type of censorship you agree with, I haven't made this up, you wrote it pal. Be careful that door doesn't hit you in the backside.

Woke Hogan · 23-05-2020 9:50pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, Andrew Neil took Shapiro down in spectacular fashion. I think Shapiro got rattled because he’s used to debating people on the opposite end of the political spectrum to him. But faced with tough questioning from a fellow right-winger rattled him. The guy who tells people not to get emotional. Beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

Shapiro made a complete and absolute tit out of himself there. Just like he always does whenever he has to engage with anyone who isn’t a weepy “gender studies” undergraduate student or someone else who is easy to bully in a discussion.

Woke Hogan · 23-05-2020 9:51pm

nullzero wrote: »

I never said you were "celebrating" anything.
Your posts did seem to support censorship, once it's a type of censorship you agree with, I haven't made this up, you wrote it pal. Be careful that door doesn't hit you in the backside.

Where did I “write it?” Where did I support censorship? Prove it.

23-05-2020 9:54pm

nullzero wrote: »

Alex Jones never gets on that backs of "Jews" , in fact he's pretty hawkish in his support of Israel.
David Icke openly condemns Israel but states that he isn't anti semitic, but hey I'm sure somebody who demands journalist integrity from others would have been able to figure that out themselves.

Also, these people aren't "heroes" of mine my any measure, I never stated they were or that I even agreed with anything they said but then what have facts got to do with anything when you can make things up about people and feign moral superiority?

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.

blinding · 23-05-2020 9:54pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, Andrew Neil took Shapiro down in spectacular fashion. I think Shapiro got rattled because he’s used to debating people on the opposite end of the political spectrum to him. But faced with tough questioning from a fellow right-winger rattled him. The guy who tells people not to get emotional. Beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

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 ! !

EagererBeaver · 23-05-2020 9:55pm

nullzero wrote: »

If YouTube started espousing racist sentiment tomorrow and began inciting hatred would "It's privately owned" be a reasonable argument for allowing that to continue?

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

EagererBeaver · 23-05-2020 9:57pm

Is blinding a bot or just stupid?

nullzero · 23-05-2020 9:58pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Where did I “write it?” Where did I support censorship? Prove it.

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.

markc1184 · 23-05-2020 9:58pm

I watch his YouTube clips. If it's a subject or person I find interesting I might then dig out the podcast episode. His YouTube clips have led me down some very interesting rabbit holes when there has been an enjoyable guest on.

nullzero · 23-05-2020 10:00pm

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 · 23-05-2020 10:01pm

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 · 23-05-2020 10:02pm

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.

23-05-2020 10:04pm

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 · 23-05-2020 10:08pm

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 · 23-05-2020 10:11pm

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 · 23-05-2020 10:12pm

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 · 23-05-2020 10:14pm

[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 · 23-05-2020 10:19pm

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 · 23-05-2020 10:22pm

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 · 23-05-2020 10:28pm

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.

23-05-2020 10:38pm

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:

23-05-2020 10:38pm

And it's rare I resort to emojis..

23-05-2020 10:39pm

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.

23-05-2020 10:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

And it's rare I resort to emojis..

Not in this thread it isn't.

1 sheep2 · 23-05-2020 10:45pm

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 · 23-05-2020 10:47pm

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 · 23-05-2020 11:11pm

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 · 23-05-2020 11:17pm

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 · 23-05-2020 11:18pm

God, another beta projectionist.

nullzero · 23-05-2020 11:18pm

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?

23-05-2020 11:29pm

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 · 23-05-2020 11:31pm

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 · 24-05-2020 12:05am

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 · 24-05-2020 12:24am

Earendil wrote: »

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

blinding · 24-05-2020 12:28am

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 · 24-05-2020 12:30am

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 · 24-05-2020 12:33am

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 · 24-05-2020 2:05am

"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 · 24-05-2020 7:47am

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.

Joe Rogan * Mod Warning Post 234*

Comments