Companies Censoring Speech

That’s true.

So, would a liberal judge side with private business or public interest? That’s a tough call because on one hand they may want the power to censor hate speech, but on the other they generally hate unregulated private business.

Conservatives would rule for private business because because.

The Fairness Doctrine is a good example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission’s view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_ … Co._v._FCC

[i]Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), while strongly suggesting that broadcast radio stations (and by logical extension, television stations) are First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech is protected, upheld the equal time provisions of the Fairness Doctrine ruling that it was "the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here."

The FCC by administrative rulemaking had required that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. 395 U.S. 367, 369. As a result, the FCC added an “equal time rule” and a “response to personal attack” rule. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. challenged these rules as unconstitutionally infringing on the speech of the station’s editorial judgment. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority explained, the FCC has included among the conditions of the Red Lion license itself the requirement that operation of the station be carried out in the public interest.

He stated that "without government control, the medium would be of little use because of the cacophony of competing voices, none of which could be clearly and predictably heard."

Justice White also explains that it is the rights of the viewers and listeners that is the most important, not the rights of the broadcasters.The Court did not see how the Fairness Doctrine went against the First Amendments goal of creating an informed public.[/i]

Reagan apparently didn’t care for that. Wasn’t good for business.

Serendipper I would say conspiracy because there are groups in the west trying to merge all western nations under one authority. They eventually want to set up this stage for all other nations across the planet as well.

Are they doing it for some nefarious purpose or because they believe that is what is best for humanity? In other words, do they know what they are doing is wrong and are doing it anyway for their own selfish gain or do they believe what they are doing is right?

For instance the climate change agenda could be known to be crap but is driven anyway, in spite of the negatives, for the purpose of developing alternate technologies, ultimately for the good of humanity, that otherwise would not be economically viable. Solar panels for example, without the gov, no one would invest in their development because they cannot compete with fossil fuels economically. Coal has found its lower bound in electricity price because we’re finding it and burning it as efficiently as we can, but solar has no lower bound and could conceivably be a next-to-free source of energy one day, so the good of humanity seems the ultimate goal if you consider what free energy + robots can do… so the question is are they smart enough to see that or is it an unintended consequence of ignorance? Probably the latter but sometimes I wonder because the case against the climate change narrative is pretty strong.

It just goes to show how things can seem like conspiracy, but could be just an illusion. Objectively, I can’t tell if “they” are colluding or independently coming to the same conclusion. Peter Schiff is a rich jewish ‘banker’ and argues vehemently for the free market. Some fit the narrative and some don’t.

Ron Paul argues for a gold standard. Why does he do that? People argue over the national debt. Why? If we paid down the debt, we wouldn’t have a dollar to spend because debt is money. Both notions are silly and seem to be metaphorical red herrings thrown to the public so they have something to sink their teeth into and stay out of the way. Conspiracy or ignorance?

Money is debt youtube.com/watch?v=J7sBehblZk8
National debt (5 part series) youtube.com/watch?v=t6qHXtn0xX8

After taking the red pill I wonder “Why isn’t this taught in school? How can so many people be so wrong? Is it a conspiracy?”

Bill Still in the Money Masters video claims both the gold standard and the federal reserve system gives control to the “masters” while the proper way is to have the treasury simply issue debt-free money like Lincoln’s Greenbacks or Franklin’s Colonial Scrip, and so as long as we argue for a gold standard or for the fed system (pitting one side against the other), we totally miss the correct system that would remove their power. Conspiracy? So it would seem.

Money Masters youtube.com/watch?v=miD_mtAEdRs Read the comments. Not a single thumbs down.

People get the government they deserve and when they don’t have the attention span to find the truth, they get treated like the mindless cattle they aspired to be. Education is the only way out.

Conspiracies involve a great deal of complexity and many different kinds of individuals, some probably follow orders convincing themselves they’re doing what’s best while others at the top probably do it for purely malicious reasons. Either way the road to hell is paved with good intentions as the old saying goes. Conspiracy thrives in an environment of ignorance for without that it wouldn’t exist.

Totally agree.

“Kindly let me help you or you’ll drown”, said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.

Outright tyranny is too obvious so instead you kill and destroy people under the pretense of kindness or reason.

Unfortunately, I think the technical details matter to the questions here. Some of the conflict on this question comes from the different ways to describe what’s happening. The common metaphor for the internet of “cyberspace” makes it feel like websites are open rooms that people walk into and out of. Under that description, it does seem quite similar to a mall or a company-town sidewalk. This seems to be the description you rely on later in your post.

But on the back end, there’s another description, and that’s the one site owners are likely to use: the site is a file on a computer (the server), and “visiting” a website really means requesting the file, which the computer agrees to send back, and the user’s machine then turns into the websites we’re familiar with. “Posting” something on a website means sending a piece of text to the server and asking the server to repeat that text every time someone requests the site. Under this description, requiring a site to protect free speech means forcing the site’s owner to say things they don’t want to say. Under this description, the balance of free speech seems to weigh more towards the site owner, who is saying, “Say what you want, just don’t make me say it”.

Should the law favor the way the non-technical user sees the interaction, or the way the site owner sees the interaction, or should it attempt to say which description is “real”? (And I’m sure there are other descriptions, though perhaps more obviously irrelevant; files and requests are really metaphors themselves for structures and interactions composed of small electrical charges)

That’s a good question. My intuition is that speech is different, but I find it hard to articulate why. One possibility is that speech by its nature has more content than skin color or religion, i.e. it affects a business more to have someone in their store saying “black power, white genocide” than it does to have someone in their store who is black. That seems right to me, and it might be enough that in the balance of interests, we could consistently permit restrictions on a business from discrimination in the latter case and not in the former (though I am ambivalent on whether restriction in either case is wise; while I abhor discrimination, it is naive to think that bigotry can be regulated away).

I say it’s almost always an illusion. Most conspiracy theorizing is like the teleological argument in theology, and is wrong for the same reasons. Humans look for purpose in things because we’re social animals evolved to read minds and be wary of the secret intentions of those around us. When we see things happening at a societal scale, we apply the naive theory of mind that served us in tribes of a few hundred, and conclude that there must be some group of people who understand and manipulate all of society to their own ends. But much of what happens is emergent from a bunch of uncoordinated decisions. Stock market fluctuations, voting patterns, exchange rates, political movements, etc. etc. are all the result of the collective decisions of many individuals, none of which interact with enough other individuals to collude sufficiently to bring about their desired outcome. Certainly some people have more influence than others, but influence over a chaotic system is very different from control of that system. The way that a chaotic system responds to stimuli is inherently unpredictable.

Well, it’s more than just being able to stumble-in and I think the free speech case is stronger for websites than for malls because malls do not broadcast the speech all of the world on search engines. What goes on inside of a mall generally stays inside the local community (outside of news coverage). So if malls can be considered mainstreet, how much more are websites?

Forums sometimes have sections reserved for upgraded members where conversations are hidden or they have sections open to the general community that also do not appear on search engines, so it seems there is an easy way for site-owners to “Say what you want, just don’t make me say it” by simply not being public with the speech. But that’s the thing they don’t want to do and it’s transparent to me that they want their cake as well as eating it. They want to censor public speech on the grounds of the utilization of private equipment and thereby have some control over public opinion. That, I think, is what the founding fathers sought to avoid.

Well, the government is “by the people and for the people” so the best interest of the people seems to be the best interpretation of law. Therefore, are the people better served by having speech censored or by neutering those wishing to censor?

Someone in a store saying “black power, white genocide” can be interpreted as being disruptive to business depending how they’re saying it. It’s different if one had a t-shirt with the black power words or politely handing out pamphlets, but to be accosting customers or yelling or even standing on a soapbox speaking is interfering with the right of the store owner to conduct business. What constitutes disruption is subjective and seems hardly a solution because one could just about make any case for disruption, so it would have to be stated clearly what disruption means. It’s not the content of the speech, but the actions taken by the speaker that constitute disruption.

Someone could claim a black person being in a store constitutes disruption because customers are uneasy in the situation, but the black person is not doing anything in action to cause disruption. Effectively, the owner wants to censor the black person’s blackness from the store.

In my mind, censorship is akin to murder and there isn’t much distinction between either method of silencing folks. We could censor black people by throwing them in rivers or censor white people by banishing them from the community. Either way, it’s the same effect. If I get banned from here, how will anyone know I wasn’t taken out and shot? The only difference is that I know better, but as far as the community is concerned, I may as well be dead.

Yes, just yesterday I listened to Peter Schiff talking about a guy who went into a starbucks demanding audio equipment so he could hear the music. Because they didn’t have such equipment, he filed a suit for $10k. Peter says the guy has had several of those suits in a short time and calls them “driveby lawsuits”. Then he went on to talk about handicap accessible swimming pools where instead of providing the access to the handicap, businesses just close the pool. Some of the laws are getting ridiculous and it’s an artifact of a prosperous society when we start to care more and more about those around us. Reminds me of this bit from the Sopranos:

[i]Tony: This broad she’s from Russia, dirt poor. She had some kind of osocarma disease in her leg when she was nine. She says that nowhere else in the world do people expect to be happy except for here in this country, and still we’re not. And we got everything. And when we’re not, what do we do? We go to shrinks. For what, $6 or $7 a minute?

Dr. Melfi: There’s some truth to what she says. But should that be a source of shame? That when the desperate struggle for food and shelter is finally behind us we can turn our attention to other sources of pain and truth? [/i]

When societies prosper, they wonder why there aren’t more women in power and more minorities and more catering to the disabled and so on. They lose sight of the traditions which built the society and therefore undermine the very thing that caused the prosperity. I know because I’ve been there and then it dawned on me one day that “Hey, maybe there’s some value to these goofy traditions. Let me think it over for a while.” Then it all came together and made sense why empires rise and fall.

Natural selection can’t be teleological or it wouldn’t be natural selection, but natural selection itself could be a means to an end just like we use genetic algorithms to find solutions to problems. Life could be the universe’s way or reorganizing itself and natural selection is simply finding the best way to do that.

Yes, we have to be aware of our tendencies. That’s why I go back and forth because it sure seems like conspiracy, but I also know I have a propensity to see it that way.

Chaotic systems are only considered unpredictable because we don’t have instruments sensitive enough to gather the data accurately enough. Chaotic systems are not random, but are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. So, they aren’t inherently unpredictable, but essentially unpredictable. Just a minor distinction as a matter of trivia. :slight_smile:

Is this a conspiracy?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ9ce-yMEfc[/youtube]

Is she stupid or was she hired because she will tow the line? The latter seems like conspiracy to control public opinion.

Thanks for the good conversation!

:laughing: Yes, democratic controlled media is supposed to control what we think. Hilarious insert foot, but most won’t get it.

Corporate marxist media more like it.

You’re right that it promotes a reversion to group identity.

Race, nationality, and blood represent one’s origin and history, but these were not their own origin, and are generative of other values and identities that are the very reason anyone would have pride in them in the first place.

Groups which don’t isolate themselves and wage bigotted civil wars over identity politics, who cohere around higher values, are those which will not only survive but own the future. Tribalism in the nuclear age is pretty stupid and regressive. Things that may have been good enough for survival in the past don’t work as well, or at all, in other conditions.

Hello, Fuse.

When it comes to nuclear attacks, mega cities are probably the worst and rural areas probably the best places in order to survive. So in the nuclear age, a relatively small tribe, if it is located in rural areas, is probably the best kind of togetherness.

The case of nuclear attack:

  1. In the first place, you have to survive the nuclear attack, which is almost impossible in mega cities, if they are (and they probably are) the target of the nuclear attack.
  2. In the second place, you need the help of other people, but in mega cities, if they are (and they probably are) the target of the nuclear attack, the other people are too many people and acting too chaotically (because of the huge panic).
  3. In the third place, you need your water and food and to defend this, if there are other people who want to steal it from you, which is probably the case in mega cities and probably not the case in rural areas.
  4. In the fourth place, you need a small group where you can address yourself to, and this is probably possible in rural areas and probably not possible in mega cities.

I guess that e.g. the relatively small tribes of the Amazon River region have probably good prospects to survive a nuclear attack.

Maybe in the future even two species. :astonished:

I don’t see how. It’s circles of care, not circles of sexual attraction. If anything, it would point toward keeping it with myself and being sexually attracted to myself.

Well, if you’re gonna prefer a more broad category (species) to a more specific one (race), then why not also prefer genus to species, and so on?

Things that have worked in the past work now and always will work. The natural law that permeates the universe and determines interactions between physical entities didn’t change. In large societies the forces of natural selection may not act upon individuals directly, but it doesn’t make them disappear, it just means they act upon that which is protecting the individual, which is society, so instead of the individual paying the cost for his weakness/degeneracy, society will pay the accumulated costs for all the individuals whose weakness and degeneracy it shelters.

So you may set up society in which you create what you would call “other conditions”, aka, where you select for weakness, faggotry, and tribe-betrayal (whereas nature selects for strength, is anti-faggotry, and tribalistic) but this just means you are making that society weaker and that all other factors equal, it will get defeated by a society which has more natural conditions, if conflict happens (and it always does).

You can think of it in terms of concentric circles. Societies and individuals exist within the circle of nature. Each circle imposes laws upon those who exist within it. Individuals may escape the law of nature to an extent by entering the circle of society, but society itself still exists within nature and has to abide by its laws. So the natural selection that acted upon the individual is merely transferred to society instead, it doesn’t disappear.

Another way to put it is that natural selection applies to all living entities, and society is a kind of a living entity composed of many other living entities, and in the same way the overall health of an organism depends on the health of its organs, and the health of a wolf pack depends on the health of the individual wolves, the health of society depends on the health of the individuals that constitute it.

You can create a society where you select against mentalities like tribalism, but that only means you’re selecting against health and making that society weaker in relation to other societies, all other factors equal.

Changing the laws of society doesn’t mean changing the laws of nature. The latter will always remain the same and determine the former.

thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.hr/20 … ution.html

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=192780#p2663500

No, they wont.

Universal law might be a bit more complicated than you can imagine. I mean, something like “might is right” is just going to be way too general as the highest law of nature. You’d be surprised at what can possibly constitute might now and in the future. Your distinction between natural and non-natural conditions is arbitrary with respect to evolution. What matters is what competes. If a group is out-competed it goes away, doesn’t matter if it was the traditionally stronger group. The game is always “rigged” by what competes the best. “Natural conditions” is a meaningless term here. There is only a distinction between local and global optima, where there are any number of examples of what’s called a local optimum in the fitness landscape, i.e. a population that reaches it’s highest peak with respect to its characteristic set and environment. If there is a global optimum, rest assured it would not even be related to homo sapiens sapiens, much less the white ones in particular.

The welfare state example is a poor excuse for racism. You tell me how many white and black people receive welfare of some sort in a given society and why they receive it. Oh a significant proportion of white people receive welfare, too? Meanwhile, my uncle is a medical doctor using his expertise to diagnose disease, perform surgery, and treat a variety of serious health issues. I’m white. He’s black. We’re family.

The reason the white nationalist movement has found some footing lately is that the more and more populated society gets, the more people in general feel crowded, stressed, and threatened by their neighbors. Tensions are high and resource scarcity is up. The larger group fractures along predictable political lines to consolidate resources for their racial/ethnic/cultural group.

fuse, yes they will.

Might is right is pretty much correct. I used the word power instead of might but the idea is the same.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=191750

Unlikely.

You probably haven’t read and definitely didn’t understand what I wrote and the stuff I linked, as none of it wasn’t intended to be a justification for racism. But now that you say it, related:

voxday.blogspot.hr/2017/06/the-c … erica.html

Because if you had read and understood them, you wouldn’t have written any of the stuff you wrote. Go back and re read it. It addresses all of your claims. I’m not gonna waste time posting the same things all over again.

I think there’s a conflict between this and the apparent trend thatwhite nationalism is a primarily rural phenomenon. Diverse and crowded cities, with much higher crime, are much more racially tolerant, which we wouldn’t expect if crowding, stress, and threats from neighbors are what’s driving white nationalism.

What about all the white folks in the suburbs and as they fall to diversity with all diversities (“feel crowded, stressed, and threatened by their neighbors” and the accompanying crime) shortcomings and push out farther from the inner cities to create harmonious new suburbs away from older, now corrupted suburbs, aren’t they infringing on the rural folks by swallowing up small towns with their liberal mentalities and lack of traditional values? Do the whites not flee from diverse and economically impoverished areas such as Detroit, Michigan? Without economic incentives, the whites do not so willingly diversify their mentalities and sell out their souls to the highest bidders. They say they live there because they love the city culture but they do not love it walking the streets alone at night or even in certain areas during the daytime and without the fat paychecks they would never stay near those cities.

Also, I’d like to note that Stormfront has been shut down too. And keep in mind Stormfront was very moderate - I would even call them cuckolded. At Stormfront you could call whites rednecks, white trash, crackers, etc. but you weren’t permitted to call blacks “niggers” or Jews “kikes”. Their only message was that they want the white race to survive and have their own countries - some of them even willing to accept small amounts of non-white migration. If somebody denied such a basic thing as survival and a right to their own country to blacks, or Asians, or Indians, or any other race except whites, it would surely be treated as intolerant, racist, blah blah. It was also a feminist site.

Still, they were shut down in the same way Daily Stormer, a much more “radical” site, got shut down.

The point here is that there is no appeasing our (white people’s) enemies. They only care about destroying us, and they have no issues whatsoever with having double standards and doing whatever it takes to accomplish this goal, and they will have no mercy towards anybody who advocates things which would prevent them from destroying us. Trying to moderate yourself and begging for the approval of your enemies only makes you look weak and ultimately serves no purpose, because you’ll be shut down and called a “Nazi” anyway.

Freedom of speech must include hate speech although what constitutes hate is entirely subjective
No one has a right not to be offended and banning speech on those grounds is simply unacceptable