Yeah, one example - that speedskating guy that was on the Uber commercial and interviewed on CNN who got arrested at the Trump rally, was also causing problems at BLM rallies. They were putting out notices to avoid him for being a troublemaker at their rallies. There are paid troublemakers, and there are also just troublemakers for the sake of it I'm sure.Originally Posted by xerxe
thats basically asking an NF to act like an ST. NFs do what NFs do (esp beta); play/act like the victim and convey feelings, not information.
yeah and it also seems like weak sensing that it took so long for him to realize the damage of the medicine. i still think most of what he says has some meaning and thought to it. he definitely helps a lot of people
Um, do you realize that people are getting fired for things like appearing in a photo with someone wearing a Trump hat, or wearing one themselves. One literary agent was fired for the huge sin of posting a link on parler and gab asking for book submissions. That's literally the only post she had on gab. Just using the site to get business was apparently enough cause to fire her.
This is what her employer wrote on twitter regarding her firing
That is incredibly disturbing. Also look for key words in these statements, you'll see them repeated over and over every time someone gets canned for contrary political views "unity, equality, social justice." It's unity I guess to completely eliminate any discussion or alternative viewpoint - only one view is allowed. The majority of the people being affected by SJWs are not nazis. You could much more easily argue that the SJW folks are the ones acting like nazis."The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, January 25th, that one of our agents has been using the social media platforms Gab and Parler. We do not condone this activity, and we apologize to anyone who has been affected or offended by this," De Chiara wrote. "The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency has in the past and will continue to ensure a voice of unity, equality, and one that is on the side of social justice."
"As of this morning, Colleen Oefelein is no longer an agent at The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency,"
Ethically and for the person's personal and social development and for the person's biological well-being (food, shelter) (and extending that, everyone's), I agree with you that a system that approaches the free market (no developed nation has a free market entirely because we like to keep our ppl alive) in a some players have more weight (capitalist) context is not best for humans, and I get why you're sad and incensed. you're having foresight about the human condition and psychology and what would be best is not where we're at.
we can't have right to work (right to fire) laws and expect this not to happen. period. we have rules that preferentially empower the wealthiest (the people with capital) when it comes to hiring and firing.
I'm not sure ppl realize what the first amendment in the U.S. does (I'm not saying you don't, squark). The U.S. free speech laws allow us protection from THE GOVERNMENT dissappearing us if we speak freely. THEY ALLOW US TO SAY A LOT BUT NOT EVERYTHING WITHOUT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. They do not afford us imperviousness to vocational repercussions, ESPECIALLY in right-to-work states.
We don't live in North Korea, and we can't expect the government to force a business owner (someone with capital) to hire or fire or keep employed anyone the business owner doesn't want to unless there's a great reason.
There are legal laws that protect people in some situations from being improperly fired from a job.
"To be wrongfully terminated is to be fired for an illegal reason, which may involve violation of federal anti-discrimination laws or a contractual breach. ... For instance, an employee cannot be fired on the basis of her race, gender, ethnic background, religion, or disability." employment.findlaw.com
your employee's race doesn't reflect negatively on your business. their actions do.
Ethically and for the person's personal and social development and for the person's biological well-being (food, shelter) (and extending that, everyone's), I agree with you that a system that approaches the free market (no developed nation has a free market entirely because we like to keep our ppl alive) in a some players have more weight (capitalist) context is not best for humans, and I get why you're sad and incensed. you're having foresight about the human condition and psychology and what would be best is not where we're at.
"Generally, private employers are free to regulate the speech of their employees and may even fire employees for sharing their thoughts on social media. ... Public sector employers, on the other hand, are subject to the First Amendment.Jun 25, 2020" thatcherlaw.com
if you are a libertarian capitalist by ideology and employ a social democratist who is neither pro- nor anti-capitalism, you might be concerned that their social media expressed views are going to have repercussions in the market.
I do think if the person doesn't state their place of work on their social media, that is a pretty good legal argument that the employer's business is SAFER if not totally safe from market shifts based on the employee's posts on social media. Again, we give the capital-carrying (richer) person in a capitalist society more power when it comes to food and shelter. We make decisions in democracy valuing constitutional republics, so we don't have to stay stuck this way, and I look forward to our Star Trek future.
I'm also very grateful that you voice dissent about the practices of someone being fired over their beliefs. It's in conflict with our freedom for the employer laws, but it brings up a really important point that capitalism as we currently run it isn't working well for us as humans with very urgent needs to feed ourselves and also the desire to express ourselves on social media.
Last edited by nanashi; 02-09-2021 at 11:06 PM.
Whoa. I just located a person making the same case I did,bringing up the same rhetorical points, but in a less conversational, nanashi-is-supposed-to-be-writing-a-work-email-but-let's-brainstorm-ideas-about-the-legalities-and-political-realities-and-economic-and-social-realities-of-this-issue-instead way and in a more professional one:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...y-free-speech/
"The right wants a hands-off approach to business. Until it hates the results.
Republican policy ideas paved the way for private companies ditching Trump and his supporters.
Years of Republican rhetoric and policy priorities, leaning heavily on the notion that the free market can determine almost everything, paved the way for this moment: The GOP worked for ages to ensure that companies could decide what was best for them. Call it cancel culture, or call it the free market reacting, well, freely to events."
While I was working as an aide to small-government supply-sider Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) in the 1970s, it took years for me to get the Wall Street Journal’s tax reporter to write about Kemp’s tax legislation, even after the paper’s conservative editorial page had endorsed it. (Later, I would come to question tax-cut orthodoxy.) My colleagues and I bemoaned liberal bias among journalists, but we never believed the media owed us anything or that our free speech was being squelched. We were conservatives: We believed that competition would sort out which ideas would see the light of day. The media referee wasn’t government; it was the news consumer.
The Republican argument, which eventually gained traction with readers and viewers, held that private enterprise knew what was best and should be left to its own devices. Executives and their allies in elective office advanced climate change skepticism in the service of environmental deregulation; during George W. Bush’s presidency, they advocated partial privatization of Social Security; they defended the right of bake shops to decline customers ordering same-sex wedding cakes; they argued successfully on behalf of companies like Hobby Lobby declining to pay for employees’ contraceptive care under Obamacare; they battled the nebulous foe of “political correctness,” labeling those on the left as “snowflakes” for favoring, in their view, restrictions, not freedom, in the domain of political speech.
These demands for liberty were always partial — often philosophically inconsistent. Antiabortion arguments often disguise a powerful role for government in regulating women’s bodies; restricting illegal immigration necessarily implicates government prohibition on hiring undocumented employees; in the Trump era, efforts to punish China for its trade policies led many on the right to endorse tariffs and quotas that raise prices and inhibit consumer choice — an approach long considered anti-free market. Similarly, conservatives who once championed abolition of the Fairness Doctrine now seem to wish for some sort of government intervention to force social media platforms to look the other way when voices on the right post baseless conspiracy theories, dangerously incorrect health data or even foment violence on their platforms.
Many voices on the right seem to have abandoned the idea that the marketplace can be trusted to sort itself out. In response to the de-platforming of Parler, podcaster Buck Sexton decried “big tech censorship,” missing the irony that Parler, a private entity, was effectively shut down by other private entities — and that Sexton retained a platform to issue his critique of “big tech” via Twitter.
It’s not clear if it has occurred to him, and others, what should be obvious: The First Amendment protects private speech from government censorship, but not from de-platforming by a private concern. Or that Twitter’s decision to ban Trump, or a publisher’s decision to cancel publication of Hawley’s book, are expressions of corporate values that reflect market forces. Some argue that Twitter is more like a public utility than a private outlet — and therefore shouldn’t censor certain voices — but that view runs counter to how conservatives have framed the role of private enterprise: Twitter isn’t the phone company; it’s the Christian-owned bakery, or Hobby Lobby.
If Twitter were required to allow Trump to remain on its platform, even if it concludes that he has serially violated its terms of service — if private companies were required to host Parler, even after determining that anti-democratic rhetoric proliferated on its platform — that wouldn’t be a win for the First Amendment or the marketplace of ideas. It would be a top-down mandate that private concerns are required to tolerate, and indirectly participate in, the dissemination of misinformation and of lawlessness, imposed by an arbitrary standard of fairness.
The idea of repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a provision that Trump and his acolytes — such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — have repeatedly railed against, could very well lead to increased scrutiny of right-wingers on the Internet. Now, under the law, social media companies aren’t treated as traditional publishers, thus they are offered protection from lawsuits related to content posted by their users and leeway to make “good faith” efforts at restricting content they deem obscene, violent or harassing. Removing Section 230 could increase the chances that these companies would be exposed to greater liability, potentially motivating them to more tightly restrict content that defames, incites or otherwise violates laws that apply to traditional media such as newspapers.
Reacting to Twitter’s banning his father, Donald Trump Jr. claimed — on Twitter — that “Free-speech no longer exists in America.” It’s a signal that conservative notions of the role of private companies, and government, have become untethered from supposedly conservative politics. Republicans once fought for the proposition that government shouldn’t dictate what messages were and weren’t acceptable. Now, their pleading is almost like a call for a new Fairness Doctrine, seeking some mechanism to require social media and Internet hosts to give equal time to their message.(...)"
Last edited by nanashi; 02-09-2021 at 07:22 PM.
Thanks BandD. I don't mind a challenge from you a bit because you have good will. I appreciate that about you.Eliza come on now lol... even an IEI knows how illogical what you just said about Trump was....
Just because there was a large gathering of Trump supporters in your localized area & convention doesn't mean the entire nation as a whole wanted to vote for Trump (they clearly didn't) or there was a conspiracy. Trump voters are also naturally 'more open' about their beliefs. A Biden supporter is generally less in your-face about their support. Even in the Bible it says 'the meek shall inherit' the earth, does it not?
I kinda wish Biden ppl were more 'oomph' about it, but I think it's like that stereotype goes that left-wing/liberal people are 'pussies' and afraid to stand up for themselves where some conservative fart-man str8 man asshole kind of just tells you about himself more confidently usually. That stereotype is often true in the real world. I mean who you vote for in the booth has no declaration on any fake Fe that goes on the outside. You could in theory have some loud, obnoxious Trump banner but then in the booth change your mind. That is like, really logically obvious... you just notice the Trumpers more because they're Trumpers and naturally more loud/confident. It's not any real indication that more Americans are for Trump.
The Quiet Shy Ones Sometimes Win & You can't Always Go By What you See (and Te & Fe)
Actually it was a huge geographical area I experienced, not just localized. I have lived pretty localized for a longtime, but I happened to step out quite a bit in these few months. Across and all over CT & Massachusetts, throughout eastern NYS (but I hear that things were the same in western NYS where I am from) and all across PA and back by a different route. And PA is a long way across, comparable to TX (but TX wins that!). And all of the states I toured are considered strong Biden states! I was not out looking for politics at all - I had other things on my mind for sure - but I describe above what I saw, while not looking for it. I have never seen anything like it in any election before. I have been through a lot of elections! That has to mean something.
I love the music in that Tappan Zee video above, which I hadn't seen before only thought to look up while writing that post, because that music describes what I experienced that evening, even though I did not have music on in my car. It felt like that. So that video really illustrates my experience of coming upon and being caught up in that parade. Not a packed bridge like that, but quite full, but bathed light of the surreally lit bridge, in a dark and rainy like that, too.
I know what it is like to live closely for a long time with a narcissist who prides himself in his ability to "make people think whatever I want them to think" (He only came out with that statement towards the end, I was an ignorant awn to his maneuvers many years, so there was always confusion). So now I have a nose for that and that is why I watch very, very little mainstream media. It just pops out at me from the get go, and I get repulsed. I would rather read the news than watch, it because then I can skim over the manure and just get to the point. Also because of that prior "programming" experience, I have learned the importance of looking around me at reality, and not letting others rewrite it for me.
Someone pointed out that Biden is now polled as the least liked president, or the one people have least confidence in ever. Yet he only just won by a landslide? How unlikely.
I like your explanation of how Biden could have been the actual favorite, in spite of the overwhelming popular support I witnessed - "Trump voters are also naturally 'more open' about their beliefs. A Biden supporter is generally less in your-face about their support..." It helps to know that people have explanations in mind for the many obvious anomalies, instead of that they are just choosing and nod to, cooperate with, gross injustice. Because the fraud is diabolic, and I prefer to believe that those who support it (and "silence means consent") are simply deceived. Especially since I know a lot of really nice people thus deceived. There sure has been an overwhelmingly united effort of brainwashing deception so I like to think this is were that silence comes from.
Yes, it's the truth that meek shall inherit the earth, and I been blessed to know over the years many truly meek people. I would not call the mainstream media or how the Democratic party presents itself, or its representatives like Pelosi, anything one iota close to "meek", though. And those that parrot these are parroting an evil which will never be in the category of meek.
Yes, so I like your generous explanation that the Biden people lack oomph.But also it could be that the Biden voters really are the tiny minority they seem to be. And that voters flocked to the polls in unprecedented numbers to vote for Trump, as evidenced by the signs and flags on their cars parked at the polls. That is what I think it is. I also think a lot of Dems voted for Trump and both they, and many Republicans were quiet and shy about it because they can't take the hate the media spewed for Trump and Trump supporters. That would be me - I shyly and without courage told hardly anyone about my politics becasue the media lies and hate does frighten me.
But I do respect your explanation, and appreciate it, especially for the reasons I give above.
I am so glad you see the evil and threat of that! I was also relieved to see a discussion in chat showing me that other committed Democrats here also see that as an issue, too.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
@Eliza Thomason
I think a lot of it has to do with that if somebody actually agrees with what the Illuminati pushes (because they are so corrupt - but they have to be right some times the way a broken clock is right twice a day and also being right a little bit is how they manipulate & control even further.) they know it's embarrassing and cringe-y and so they're not going to be as open about it to others. As most people think they are their own person and not motivated with what is shown on the media. But I think really people genuinely thought Trump wasn't going to be good and voted him out and it was just more of a coincidence that that's what the Illuminati wanted to. ((not like they give us the greatest choices every four years - they're all puppets the Dark Players use.)) Trump said he would make America great again and I don't think he really delivered on that promise.
If you drove around my state esp. there were definitely many Biden signs and a bit more than Trump. ((though those Biden people were still pretty quiet about it cuz again liberal = pussy, stereotypically and for the aforementioned reason.)) Not like there was when it was Hillary vs. Trump- there was virtually no Hillary signs cuz it was really cringe-y voting for her as she really didn't have anything offer but the SJW thing that people were so tired of. I think I literally only saw ONE hillary banner back in 2016. lol.
It might had something to do with the fear and pushing of COVID too. But again when somebody is doing something that TV tells them to do they are probably going to be quiet about it.
I mean if they were going to rig the election why not just make it so where Hillary won in the beginning - which is what they wanted anyway.
Oh the media is so fake and evil. I mean if everything was perfect in an ideal world- the Illuminati would just bully and scapegoat to death the poor person that just happened to be the 'weirdest' in the group and the most easily disliked even though there would be a utopia they would just publish article after article about the person- gathering hate and control that way. That's kind of how they operate. They are the biggest bullies. And they pretend to be against sexual abuse but are the worst creepiest pedos themselves. It really is sick and evil but I am going to LOVE watching them suffer in Hell with you as we go to Heaven!!! For God knows what they do, am I right?
In Jesus name we pray. AMEN!!!
@nanashi, I never suggested forcing anyone to do anything. But perhaps political/ideological beliefs should also be a protected class under civil rights laws. That's definitely an idea worth considering. In most cases the employers had no idea what their employees believed or what their politics were until the mob informed them. So, these weren't bad employees, and people only looked for their employers in order to shame them, not because of any harm they personally were doing to the company.
If you live in an environment that is hostile to jews, and someone discovers your employee is a jew, I suppose it's just "good business" to fire them, right? Because that's what is happening. The environment, the mob, is extremely hostile to non-conforming beliefs, and they are out for blood. There are journalists whose entire job revolves around outing the dissenters LINK to opinion article on this
In the example I gave of the literary agent, the only people who could have reported her for posting an ad on parler and gab had to have been there themselves. So, either they didn't think they were such bad places to be, or they were hunting for something to use against her. And it might not have even been personal. They may have contacted the employers of 100s of other people for all we know. For harboring a jew, I mean associating with one, ah I mean posting on an alternative social site. Man, think about how these tech folks have a monopoly already, and now there's encouragement to track down anyone using their competitors and destroy them?
That is sure true. The evil one always uses the truth to tell his lies. He infects the truth he tells with just enough lies to corrupt the whole thing.
Yes, that must be true.
I think for the reasons I state above, the Biden team will end abruptly and Trump WILL be back in "soon", for his 4 more years - and after that we will see those great goals will come to fruition. even then it won't be all due to Trump, but a change in many, many hearts that God will use to accomplish His purposes.
Do you want to mention your state here? I was thinking you were in TX, but that has to be heavily Trump..
There certainly is a lot of fear mongered, and then it gets preyed upon heavily.
This is what I believe based on things heard: They did try to rig it for Hilary to win, but the turn out was so unexpectedly big for Trump they couldn't pull it off. So they had four years to plan to take the next election, and to win even if way more for Trump turned out than expected. And way more did, so it was a sloppy steal. But they had a lot of support for their maneuvers.
Yes you are. He knows what they do just like he knows every thought we ever have and the He knows the deepest motivations of our heart better than we do, which we will soon see, all of us.
However, we really won't rejoice seeing anyone go to hell. We will know and love God, and be grateful for how He loves us in spite of so much wrong in what we choose to do, and we will know how He loves all those who chose Hell, and we will know how sad He is about that, so we won't rejoice in what they chose. Not even for the very most despicable ones. God had a better plan for them.
: ) Amen!
I believe the prophets that I have listened to about Trump, who all happen to be Protestant (there are a slew of false prophets speaking on the same topic, too). I am Catholic and that is where I know lies the fullness of truth. Lately I am considering what I believe of these prophecies, and it comes down to this:
- Trump will get four more years and God will make that happen
- The lies and fraud will be exposed, and there will be justice, and everyone (in our country AND the world) our will see the truths and know that God exposed it.
- There will soon be a great revival in our country and the world and it will change the world and our country
Catholic prophecies focus on the coming worldwide event, The Warning, or, Illumination of Consciences, the biggest act of God since the Flood. Lately I am thinking that is how this political change is going to come to pass. Yes, it will affect politics but also every person in the whole world, because the God will save souls in these terrible godless times by revealing Himself to the whole world. We will ALL have a mini-judgment, all at the same time. I am actually kind of afraid of it recently, now that I am feeling it could be coming very soon. I am thinking maybe March (but I am not a prophet).
Those who have already acknowledged God will have it easier, but it will be devastating for all of us to see ourselves as God sees us. It will be so devastating for some that they will die of shock from it. A reliable seer tells us that those who will die from the shock are those who think they are fine in God's eyes while living a life of breaking all of God's commandments (and clearly there are Christian leaders of every stripe in this category). But in dying they will have a chance to repent, so it is a great grace. Better to die and live forever in Heaven than live long and suffer eternity in Hell. What a great mercy for them, who are weak and ill-formed and might have lived to turn against God again.
But after feeling horrible about the state of our souls, that I am not looking forward to, we will love God much more. And that love will cause of a great revival on earth, even though some will still refuse to believe (like the Pharisees who saw Jesus raise stinking Lazarus from the dead and still refused to believe).
One reliable seer says that Jews and Muslims will convert and their zeal and devotion will astonish the most devout Christians.
So I believe that and I believe what those Protestant prophets say about God using Trump to accomplish His purposes in America.
And I am starting to think the one event will bring it all to pass. That is why the whole world will see the truth of God, including His actions that politically affect our country. I am re-reading the book The Warning, which I recommend to EVERYONE because it is astounding. The prophecies explaining everything about the Warning are all there. But also a lot of people tell their stories who have experienced the illumination of conscience already, so we know what it is like. If you want this book, BandD, I will mail it to you, because I have two of them and I have to mail some things this week so just let me know! There are some stories in there I think you will particularly like. They are all amazing though.
Here is 5 minutes [not including credits at end] explaining about the Warning, with some mention of the book:
https://youtu.be/soUWwsjAWtc
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
A video from the prosecution at Trump's second impeachment trial. McConnell seems to believe that Biden won the election. 3:36-4:35
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1359210725357596672
In my life, I've had some disappointments.
The first one that I remember is when a girl punched me in kindergarten and I punched her back and I got punished, which was not fair.
The second one that I remember is when I watched a movie and the bad guys won.
There have been a few more since.
The most recent disappointment is when I watch the second Trump impeachment trial and I realize that most of the Republicans are going to vote to acquit. It makes me wonder what they were thinking when they swore to uphold the Constitution.
Honestly nanashi, I know exactly what you mean. If, as business owner, I was also was confronted with an unrepentant bigot, I'd fire that employee without a second thought. I'd want to keep my workers content and productive, and that involves running a tight ship. I'm there to make money, not waste my time babysitting some dipshit troll. And let's face it, that's what these people often are: disingenuous trolls trying to push other people's buttons and test society's tolerance for bad behavior.
So, how do we maintain a tolerant society while tolerating intolerance? The solution won't come from codifying human interpersonal relations into political dogmas. The personal often shouldn't be the political, and these attempts to politicize and bureaucratize life — to fit complex human emotions into lumbering, top-down systems with precise consequences for imprecise actions — will never be persuasive.
One of the side effects of Capitalism is that it has effectively downplayed the importance of racial, social, and religious differences between people and replaced a person's value as a member of a particular belief group or sexual orientation with that person's productivity.
In other words, it doesn't matter if a person hates Catholics, Jews, Free Masons, Seventh Day Adventists, Chinese, blacks, asexuals or whites. The only measure of an individual's value under Capitalism is whether or not they contribute to production, and how well they do so. Capitalism doesn't ask you to swear a loyalty oath, it just asks you to be productive.
Now, you can make an argument that employing a cult of ritual cannibals or individual dog rapists might not be good for business, but this is merely a secondary effect. If those child rapists are making enough money for a business, then that business might be inclined to keep them on. Or not. A lot depends on how their presence might affect sales. And those offenders have the option of changing their behavior in order to keep playing the game, if they choose to do so.
People do have prejudices. I'm of the opinion that the tendency to have prejudices is mostly inborn, but I could be wrong. In any case, prejudice allows us to get through the day without having to relearn gravity and so is largely a good thing, but when it interferes with the efficient working of the company, then it is not a good thing. The manager who does not promote a productive person because she reminds him of his hated mother and he prejudges that she will surely be like his mother is not doing the company a service.
Whether this characteristic of Capitalism is good or bad is open to question, but it seems to me that judging a person on the basis of their productivity is better than condemning a person for something that they can't do anything to change. Things like the color of their skin or their grandparent's religion.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 02-11-2021 at 01:34 AM.
If they're treating people badly and acting like assholes - fire them. Judge people on their actions. The problem I have with it, is that unfortunately people are trying to do some kind of thought-police kind of thing and instead judging them based on association assuming that they must be bad, when all their actions don't reflect this.
Jordan Peterson is a whiny hypocrite who hates freedom of speech.
Peterson spoke at Liberty University, contentedly ignoring the university's history of aggressive censorship. This Christian university (founded by the late Jerry Falwell) has explicitly banned speakers it doesn't like, including Libertarian and anti-Trump Christian speakers, citing the usual "student safety" excuse; and aggressively censors what student newspapers are allowed to print. Cartoonishly, the university has positioned itself as a champion of freedom of expression against so-called 'safe space' culture at more liberal campuses.
Much more detail here about Liberty University's culture of censorship:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...s/?arc404=true
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...ch-critics-say
Peterson's visit to the university is on Youtube. He gives his usual long-winded answers about the importance of freedom of speech, seemingly (or rather, selectively) oblivious to the institutional censorship just outside that auditorium.
Any 'brutal truths' about censorship WRT this emphatically Right wing organization? Nope, just selective outrage directed at leftist speech-policing, absurdly and bombastically equated to Maoism. But, as the slimy, bottom-of-the-barrel hypocrite that he is, Peterson goes on podcasts and TV, shakes hands with influential people, and sheds real tears about the stifling of freedom; mainly his own and others' like him, as it turns out. He is assuredly not an ally of freedom of speech.
except they aren't killing them for their thoughts. they just don't want those thoughts in their world. If we have a capitalist and MARKET and demand based system...that's how the cookie crumbles. it's not like they are offing him for his views. It ain't Russia.
it's the bargaining power of the customer
Kevin is free to be a Nazi over there. We don't have to listen to it over here.
Eliza's original post was the question of "What if the election really was stolen?" Personally, I think she has been the victim of a propaganda campaign by the Republican Party and its supporters, but she may disagree. To me, their election fraud claims seem ludicrous, but then, people's beliefs are shaped largely by where they get their news and by what they have to believe.
One thing that strikes me is the simple craziness of many of the Right's claims. When these claims are investigated, they are found to be without any substance. For a long time, I had a hard time understanding why a national political party would take this tack line.
The following article goes a long way towards explaining this to me: https://progresspond.com/2021/01/21/...ite-supremacy/
One thing that stood out to me in the article was the sentence, referring to the Republican Party's demographics, "They cannot win national office without endorsing fabulist conspiracies, and they cannot win national office if they do.”
Which is, of course, not a good place to be. The Republican Party seems to be losing members and seems to be unable or unwilling to change their platform to be more inclusive. This is making them more desperate. Their backs are to the wall, so to speak. They have lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections, and things are just looking worse and worse for them.
Sigh. Did you not even read the examples I gave. These people are not Nazis, and the majority of them have been keeping their opinions to themselves. They're being targeted for things like having a political sign, wearing a hat, posting on a "bad" site when it's not even anything controversial that they're saying, or even in some cases just appearing in a photograph with someone wearing a red hat. Donating to a politician, was also something people were being targeted for - some have published donor lists and enlisted aid to track down the employers of everyone on the list to get them fired. And it's not usually customers who are even going after them. Actually, you know what, just click on the link to Greenwald's opinion piece - it's not the whole scope of things by any means, but yeah, I don't think you realize what is actually happening and he goes into some of it.
The reason I'm talking broadly is because the term is used that way. And that is really crappy. sigh.
EVERYTHING is getting called cancel culture. I already agreed some situations are dissatisfying. The ones that are bothering you? I already spoke about those...but Now I'm explaining the other points that are important...uh...we capitalist....and you're free to have actions and beliefs but you can't force someone to keep employing you if you have them. I'm not saying it's good we don't have guaranteed work or income. I'm pointing out that if we don't have guaranteed income like UBI that's the issue and forcing someone to employ someone even if it might affect the business...that's just not capitalist, afaict
@Adam Strange, re. substanceless conspiracy theories, I’d like to take this opportunity to remind you that for 4 years the Democrats were talking about Russia stealing the election, Trump being Putin’s puppet, and so on.
Look, I talked about civil rights and protected classes, so lets use that as an example. Race is a protected class. You cannot be fired for being black, asian, white etc. That cannot be the reason you are fired. But, a black or asian or white person can be fired for being a bad employee, for treating customers badly, for showing up late, for stealing from the company, etc. What they DO matters. So, what if we consider adding political ideology to the protected classes? They can still be fired for being an ass. If they're a loudmouth who shouts their views at the customers they can be fired for that. If they start passing out political pamphlets they can be fired for that, just like someone who goes around proselytizing on company time can be fired even though religion is a protected class. We have civil rights laws in place already and they don't mean that a person can never be fired.
There's a lot of weird things going on with your response. I'll address them one by one.
1. You're conflating Jordan Peterson with Liberty University. It's not his responsibility to "fix" a university's problems or whatever internal event happened. You also make the *false* assumption that the accusation against the University is correct and that JP was also aware.
2. The sources you provided give a very biased *blown out of proportion* view of what happened. These are the facts:
--The student newspaper at Liberty University is not independent. Rather, it is a paid for by the University. The students incorrectly thought they were the owners/editors. A cub reporter at the New York Times doesn't make publishing decisions.
--Jerry Falwell Jr made a choice - the correct one in hindsight. The opposing viewpoint was not shunned but it wasn't allowed to be used as an official platform of the University. They (the students) could and did set up their independent newspaper later on.
3. Your premise on Liberty University is faulty. Liberty University actually welcomes/invites people from the left to come and speak. Some examples:
--Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
--Alan Dershowitz, leftist Harvard professor. This professor's quote on Liberty University:
4.“I think many people would be shocked to know that Liberty University is more diverse in its opinions than Harvard University. … Today, unless you speak on behalf of identity politics, on groupthink, radical left views, you’re not really encouraged to come on campus. I’m a liberal, and I have been banned and shut down on university campuses because I support Israel. … I think every American should know this, that you have invited me to speak here today even though we have some fundamental disagreements about some social issues, about some political issues, about some religious issues — but you welcome me with open arms. The obverse is not true. Somebody with your views would not be welcome to speak today at major Ivy League universities. I’d be there defending you. I’d be there introducing you. I’d be proud to have you as a speaker on my campus. But you would be shut down. There would be efforts to what’s called ‘de-platform’ you, which is a fancy word of saying, censoring you, not letting you speak.”No, this is totally inaccurate. I already answered this in my first reply to you. Again, JP visits a diverse range of universities. At Liberty University JP gets welcomed (no protests, no public demonstrations, no obscene signs ) while the EXACT OPPOSITE happens at other Universities.
Stop being delusional.
5. Overall, you're twisting and being delusional with the facts.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-11-2021 at 03:24 AM.
Yes, and those things seem pretty well substantiated in my mind, at least.
Trump's businesses were bankrupt and no banks would touch him in the 1990's. But then, the USSR came apart and the 22 Russian oligarchs wanted a way to get their cash out of an unstable Russia. Putin alone is reputed to have stolen $200 billion from the Russian people. Where did that money go?
Suddenly, Trump had all the money he needed to start buying golf courses.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/33...the-funding-we
https://twitter.com/adamdavidson/sta...29478030426112
https://www.businessinsider.com/dona...-photos-2019-7
How the money laundering works: https://twitter.com/davidfickling/st...80939600510978
If Putin loaned you $100M, would you want to keep him very happy? Because Putin has a way of poisoning people who cross him, and $100M is a lot of money.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 02-11-2021 at 03:40 AM.
Alan Dershowitz aggressively aligned himself with Trump, and his "Leftist" credentials, if he has any, are somewhat convoluted. But that's neither here nor there, because Liberty University doesn't welcome a full range of views. Speakers have gotten banned there, and with very little of the same notoriety acquired by liberal universities. Here's just one example, of a banned Christian speaker: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/31/56110...cizing-trump-a
How does this impact Jordan Peterson? Because he has positioned himself as a champion of radical freedom of speech on campuses. Selective criticism is worse than none; it creates the deliberate impression that one's preferred side is innocent of the same actions. In his talk there and virtually everywhere else, he discusses freedom of speech rather extensively, and denounces it rather emphatically as universally wrong. I'd think that Liberty University was part of the same universe.
The student papers at other universities are also privately owned, alienable, or cancellable. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are also fully privately owned and operated, but the question of censorship remains the same.--The student newspaper at Liberty University is not independent. Rather, it is a paid for by the University. The students incorrectly thought they were the owners/editors. A cub reporter at the New York Times doesn't make publishing decisions.
--Jerry Falwell Jr made a choice - the correct one in hindsight. The opposing viewpoint was not shunned but it wasn't allowed to be used as an official platform of the University. They (the students) could and did set up their independent newspaper later on.
Last edited by xerx; 02-11-2021 at 06:50 AM.
Incidentally, I agree that it's deeply wrong to ban controversial speakers from universities. All universities.
People like Charles Murray should be allowed to speak. The best way to deal with them is to set up a separate counter-seminar, at the same time and with the same level of publicity, where their ideas are rebutted intelligently by qualified speakers. The only solution to fake news, even loud, sensationalistic news, is to raise the standard of discussion, and to raise people's expectations about speakers' level of intellect and expertise.
It's also the case that many of these controversial speakers, including Jordan Peterson, have a few intelligent observations that are either worth considering or point to problems that are irresolvable under the current system.
Uh, regardless of how "leftist" he is, he was unwelcomed from speaking at other universities. I'll post his quote again since it seems like there's some amnesia going on:But that's neither here nor there, because Liberty University doesn't welcome a full range of views.
“I think many people would be shocked to know that Liberty University is more diverse in its opinions than Harvard University. … Today, unless you speak on behalf of identity politics, on groupthink, radical left views, you’re not really encouraged to come on campus. I’m a liberal, and I have been banned and shut down on university campuses because I support Israel. … I think every American should know this, that you have invited me to speak here today even though we have some fundamental disagreements about some social issues, about some political issues, about some religious issues — but you welcome me with open arms. The obverse is not true. Somebody with your views would not be welcome to speak today at major Ivy League universities. I’d be there defending you. I’d be there introducing you. I’d be proud to have you as a speaker on my campus. But you would be shut down. There would be efforts to what’s called ‘de-platform’ you, which is a fancy word of saying, censoring you, not letting you speak.”
You're doing the same thing. Here's some clarification:
Now because of these false assumptions, you generate more delusional stories:It was (Martin's removal) because of the promotion of these unscheduled, publicized plans to meet on campus property without the university’s permission that justified his removal from campus grounds, according to an official statement from Liberty.
“What if someone you had never met announced on social media that they were going to come into your living room, invite others, and have a ‘prayer meeting’ after stating publicly that your home is the most hostile environment to the gospel in the U.S.?” Becki Falwell said. “Wouldn’t you call the police and have the stranger removed from your home?”
Again, you make the *false* assumption that,How does this impact Jordan Peterson? Because he has positioned himself as a champion of radical freedom of speech on campuses. Selective criticism is worse than none; it creates the deliberate impression that one's preferred side is innocent of the same actions. In his talk there, he mentions freedom of speech rather extensively, and denounces it rather emphatically as universally wrong. I'd think that Liberty University was part of the same universe.
--the accusation against the University is correct and
--JP was also aware of this.
The reality of the situation:
--Liberty university had reasons (misrepresenting the school's platform and scheduling events without permission) for their actions, which is not equated to censorship.
--JP goes to hostile universities and allows the opposition to act like wild animals. This is allowing free speech on his part. What else should he do
???The student papers at other universities are also privately owned, alienable, or cancellable. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are also fully privately owned and operated, but the question of censorship remains the same.
1. The question of censorship depends on the facts of the situation. The examples you mentioned are not censorship.
2. You're evading the central point and grasping for straws, but I guess 99% of your JP accusation rides on this Liberty university thing so I can't blame you
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-11-2021 at 05:26 AM.
I didn't think that Derschowitz was banned anywhere. If he ever was, then that's clearly wrong, and I find it problematic. But that's not the point. The point is that LU also issues bannings, with none of the same notoriety.
That's not what I read. The students who invited him to pray claim to have signed the correct paperwork. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...campus/544571/You're doing the same thing. Here's some clarification:
Now because of false assumptions, more delusion:
More relevantly, he was also disinvited from giving an alumni lecture in 2015. Right or wrong, it has the same flavour as the disinvitations of speakers by more liberal colleges. Conservative 'cancel culture', however, receives none of the same attention.
JP is aware. He's not a complete idiot.Again, you make the *false* assumption that the accusation against the University is correct and that JP was also aware of this. JP goes to hostile universities and allows the opposition to act like wild animals. What else should he do
???
1. The examples mentioned are not censorship.
2. You're evading the central point.
Finally, I feel it important to add that LU requires its students to take oaths that stipulate strict limitations on personal freedoms, limitations which include restrictions against homosexuality and sex outside marriage. Students aren't allowed to consume alcohol, tobacco, or use profane language. Only recently were students allowed to watch R-rated films. The school also practices some segregation between the sexes.
I believe in freedom of religion and don't feel the need to take an active stance against these restrictions; nor am I interested in challenging anyone's sincerely held beliefs, religious or otherwise; nor do I wish to see people discouraged from acting in earnest according to their personally-held convictions.
But, I believe that this observation cuts close to the heart of the issue, which is that evangelical Christianity, as well as the sort of Christianity practiced by Jordan Peterson, is fundamentally, constitutionally restrictive of personal expression, whereby the criticism of liberal censorship falls rather flat, at best, and is disingenuous at worst.
You didn't think so because you read biased sources
No, your original point was that LU does censorship and JP didn't condemn them for it, thus making him a hypocrite.
You didn't read it because your sources (such as theatlantic) lean left.
Did you read/research the reason why or did you stop once you found he was disinvited. You're playing the "oh yeah? well what about THIS" game which I will not further entertain
Uh... No. You can't know this for sure, especially when it wasn't censorship.
It's a Christian UniversityFinally, I feel it important to add that LU requires its students to take oaths that stipulate strict limitations on personal freedoms, limitations which include restrictions against homosexuality and sex outside marriage. Students aren't allowed to consume alcohol, tobacco, or use profane language. Only recently were students allowed to watch R-rated films. The school also practices some segregation between the sexes.
Again, removing articles that don't represent the University and removing people that make events without school permission has nothing to do with censorship. But nice try grasping for more straws blaming religion/Christianity. Blame that if all else fails.I believe in freedom of religion and don't feel the need to take an active stance against these restrictions; nor am I interested in challenging anyone's sincerely held beliefs, religious or otherwise; nor do I wish to see people discouraged from acting in earnest according to their personally-held convictions.
But, I believe that this observation cuts close to the heart of the issue, which is that evangelical Christianity, as well as the sort of Christianity practiced by Jordan Peterson, is fundamentally, constitutionally restrictive of personal expression, whereby the criticism of liberal censorship falls rather flat, at best, and is disingenuous at worst.
LOLis fundamentally, constitutionally restrictive of personal expression, whereby the criticism of liberal censorship falls rather flat, at best, and is disingenuous at worst.
This is just your surface level understanding trying to make a connection/interpretation, which fails miserably
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-11-2021 at 06:20 AM.
Oh yeah, Jordan Peterson travelled to Hungary and personally met with Victor Orban, a meeting in which the pair discussed political correctness. Orban, the president of Hungary, has banned the teaching of Women's Studies.
* https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/europ...rnd/index.html
He has forced a George Soros-funded university to literally leave the country.
* https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-...-viktor-orban/
Yet Peterson, without a hint of irony, meets with Mr. Orban to discuss the dangers of political correctness, which is evidently the most totalitarian thing in existence.
* https://hungarytoday.hu/orban-meets-...n-in-budapest/
Sarcasm aside, I want people to consider the inverse case: of a leftist figure like (say) Noam Chomsky travelling to a socialist country which bans the teaching of "Capitalist Economics", meeting with its leaders, and discussing the preservation of freedom of speech. Would anyone, let alone conservatives, seriously believe that Chomsky was making a principled stand against censorship?
That's a rhetorical question. It would almost certainly be perceived as a vulgar attempt to spread propaganda and disinformation, an attempt to cover up very serious repression of academic freedom — far worse repression than banning a dozen or so speakers from college campuses.
RE. The Atlantic: the fact that they "lean left" doesn't necessarily make them wrong about basic facts. Your sources, which presumably "lean right", aren't necessarily wrong for being right-wing. They may well be wrong, but not for the reasons you've given.
See my previous post about Peterson's meeting with the Hungarian president. At this point, calling JBP a "defender of free speech" is basically sarcastic.
It's the false narrative they paint with incomplete facts
You gather facts from both sides and find what's true.
You do this subtle gaslighting/reframing thing that refuses to see reality. I feel sorry for the people that you've confused in the past by I see through your manipulative horse shit.
You should really come with a warning label
No
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-11-2021 at 12:11 PM.
He's a professional clinical psychologist and the effects of benzos are well known, he REALLY should have known better.
ἀταραξία
Well, he seems to bow towards authority on many issues. Overall his critical thinking seems not to be really that deep. He is mainly reactionary on ethical issues.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
But he is an authority on the matter.
His dependency story comes off as lie to me.
ἀταραξία
Yes, it is hard to deal with this. I have this issue as well with those sort of people.
He is not doing hard core research. He seems to be good with personal clients and speaking. Partially this means that you need to suck towards authority especially when in university. Otherwise they might get an excuse to fire him (taken that he can not deal with his anxiety) because he is not following the official route.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Mr. Peterson seems to me to be very theoretically smart and a complete social and real-world retard. He's like these college students who argue the relative merits of communism vs socialism while being supported by their parents.
In college, I had a roommate during my first semester who was extremely smart. Well, we were both in the U of M Honors Program. He could and easily did beat anyone at chess. But he wore rumpled suits all the time. They were apparently the only clothes his mother had bought him. When he wasn't wearing suits, he was lounging around in his underwear in the dorm room, which he rarely left. He didn't go to many classes, but he knew everything there was to know about every topic you could mention. Except how to make his bed or wash his clothes.
Come to think of it, Peterson's primary advice to his lost boys audience is to "make your bed." My roommate struggled with that momentous task. I get the impression that Peterson did, too. Or maybe his daughter helps him with that, IDK.
I traded my roommate to another guy on the floor for his roommate, an IEI New York Jew, who was just as self-destructive but was less of an asshole about it. Neither of these guys made it through their first year at school. They both self-destructed. The chessmaster because he never went to class, and the IEI because he liked drugs and playing music too much.
When I see Peterson giving advice to people on how they should live, while his own house is burning down around him as he runs in circles and cries that it's not his fault, rather it's the fault of the matriarchy or Zizek or liberal censorship, I can't help but be reminded of those two roommates I had in college.
They were both hopeless fuckups, but in the case of my roommates, I mercifully have never heard from or of them again. Not so with Peterson, unfortunately.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 02-11-2021 at 02:57 PM.
wait, am I just imaginining this? No, it's pretty solid in my memory. Somewhere, afaicr, there's a legal argument or decision that universities have a unique academic responsibility to students and that even if the Uni were paid for by the government, not making room for Alex Jones speak is not blocking the first amend, free speech rights of Alex Jones. Quality of work and uniqueness of work could easily be seen as metrics with which to make the decisions about who is invited, and that would bar Peterson for many decisionmakers, regardless of how much he wants to survive his own depression and help young men.
but what if a student group invites the speaker? it's also true that a uni is allowed to observe and that if a uni in the moment determines hate-filled rhetoric is so intense that a riot against the speaker could break out, a Uni, even if govt funded, could legally interrupt the speaker.
I dug around in legal stuff on this before.
Many Unis will not understand their ability, and it's obnoxious.
How so?
Your boy doesn't stand for freedom of speech.No
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
