No. You are not clarifying. You are insinuating and muddying the water. My comment is about hypocrisy and vague rules made by hypocrites, rules designed to hide the real motives for censorship. They hide their real motives for censorship behind fake tropes and social signalling objectives. It doesn’t matter if it is X, Facebook, Mastodon, or any other platform. A huge chunk of the moderators of such platforms are criminally insane and are only interested in suppressing speech based upon partisan objectives rather than objective reality or objective morality or objective civility. Basically it is gangs competing for power in the mindshare space and that power is enforced through acceptable speech policies that have nothing to do with civility and everything to do with compliance and obedience to the gang.
Their acts of censorship and the fake motives they give expose their true character as fundamentally orwellian and dishonest.
A person who is orwellian and anti-goldstein would not understand. A totalitarian never thinks of himself as a totalitarian. He is a hero and genius in his own mind. Gangbangers think their gangs are in a war with, ‘the man’ and the same goes for politcos.
> “… let you screech anything you want …”
They are the ones screeching. Even their nebulous and inconsistent censorship rules are a screech. Almost everything they say in public is screeching. And if you don’t screech with them, you are the one who gets muzzled. If you screech with them, you’re a ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘warrior’ or ‘hero’ or ‘virtuous’ or ‘patriotic’ or a ‘true OG’ or whatever.
Gotcha, so you are in fact implying that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want on other people’s digital property, and cloaking it in platitudes about censorship and 1984 rah rah. Trying to be eloquent in your response doesn’t hide the substance of what you’re saying.
Side note: I always love how conservatives, “nonpolitical” people, and “centrists” evoke 1984 imagery while also claiming that liberals are a vast and powerful, but also clumsy and weak, enemy. Almost like you use the same rhetoric on your enemies that the book you jackoff to had its sheep masses believe about their fake enemy. I’m sure that realization won’t have much impact on your programmed double-think, though.
No, you once again are playing the smug, snide troll just insinuating your cult speak nonsense. I explained the true motives behind censorship, as opposed to the pretexts supplied by the liars. My point was that these people are liars who play mind games and wordsmithing games, just like you are doing. You are a false accuser and a slanderer trying to pump his preconceived cult notions. Your arguments are banal, childish, and simple-minded.
Don’t bother responding. I won’t see it. The next time you nymshift to harass me I will immediately block you and report you to the system administrator. Quit following me around the Internet, creepy stalker kook.
No. You are not clarifying. You are insinuating and muddying the water. My comment is about hypocrisy and vague rules made by hypocrites, rules designed to hide the real motives for censorship. They hide their real motives for censorship behind fake tropes and social signalling objectives. It doesn’t matter if it is X, Facebook, Mastodon, or any other platform. A huge chunk of the moderators of such platforms are criminally insane and are only interested in suppressing speech based upon partisan objectives rather than objective reality or objective morality or objective civility. Basically it is gangs competing for power in the mindshare space and that power is enforced through acceptable speech policies that have nothing to do with civility and everything to do with compliance and obedience to the gang.
Their acts of censorship and the fake motives they give expose their true character as fundamentally orwellian and dishonest.
A person who is orwellian and anti-goldstein would not understand. A totalitarian never thinks of himself as a totalitarian. He is a hero and genius in his own mind. Gangbangers think their gangs are in a war with, ‘the man’ and the same goes for politcos.
They are the ones screeching. Even their nebulous and inconsistent censorship rules are a screech. Almost everything they say in public is screeching. And if you don’t screech with them, you are the one who gets muzzled. If you screech with them, you’re a ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘warrior’ or ‘hero’ or ‘virtuous’ or ‘patriotic’ or a ‘true OG’ or whatever.
Gotcha, so you are in fact implying that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want on other people’s digital property, and cloaking it in platitudes about censorship and 1984 rah rah. Trying to be eloquent in your response doesn’t hide the substance of what you’re saying.
Side note: I always love how conservatives, “nonpolitical” people, and “centrists” evoke 1984 imagery while also claiming that liberals are a vast and powerful, but also clumsy and weak, enemy. Almost like you use the same rhetoric on your enemies that the book you jackoff to had its sheep masses believe about their fake enemy. I’m sure that realization won’t have much impact on your programmed double-think, though.
No, you once again are playing the smug, snide troll just insinuating your cult speak nonsense. I explained the true motives behind censorship, as opposed to the pretexts supplied by the liars. My point was that these people are liars who play mind games and wordsmithing games, just like you are doing. You are a false accuser and a slanderer trying to pump his preconceived cult notions. Your arguments are banal, childish, and simple-minded.
Don’t bother responding. I won’t see it. The next time you nymshift to harass me I will immediately block you and report you to the system administrator. Quit following me around the Internet, creepy stalker kook.
You sure you dont want to put any more buzzwords and random accusations you can think of into your response? I’ll give you another go at it.
Baaaaaaaa