BUT A JOKE FROM JAMES WOODS DOES.
 |
Ted and Heidi get their just desserts anyway: "Per our policy for events of this nature, police were called and the guest escorted to privacy," chef and owner Fabio Trabocchi said. "When the situation resolved a few minutes later, our guests returned to thank the staff for their support and to finish their exceptional meal.”.......
Whereupon the Twitter Mob issued death threats to the restaurant staff.
But at least they didn't make a joke. What is it about Democrats and segregated lunch counters anyway? |
UPDATED-UPDATE:
"A few weeks later, he's called before a committee of the District Party Secretariat. He tries to explain he was making a joke. Immediately they remove him from his position at the Students Union; then they expel him from the Party, and the university; and shortly thereafter he's sent to work in the mines. As a waggish adolescent, I liked the absurdity of the situation in which Ludvik finds himself. Later, I came to appreciate that Kundera had skewered the touchiness of totalitarianism, and the consequential loss of any sense of proportion. It ['The Joke'] was the book I read on the flight to Vancouver, when Maclean's magazine and I were hauled before the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal for the crime of "flagrant Islamophobia." In the course of a week-long trial, the best part of a day was devoted to examining, with the aid of "expert witnesses," the "tone" of my jokes. Who would have thought all the old absurdist gags of Eastern Europe circa 1948 would transplant themselves to the heart of the West so effortlessly?"--Mark Steyn
Conservative actor James Woods has one of the funniest and most interesting Twitter feeds on the web--at least, that's what yer mom says. heh. He has over 1.7 million followers and millions more who read his posts regularly.
And that's precisely why Twitter is censoring him.
Woods posted this clever joke recently:
Twitter responded with this: :
Twitter is trying to lump James in with well-known criminal election-tamperers such as John Brennan, James Comey and Vladimir Putin.
They really seem to be afraid that Democrat Man-Boy will see this joke and stay home on election day. Wow.
Funny thing is, speaking of Democrat Man-Boys, Twitter did not object to these tweets, on which Wood's humor is based:
“We should have a constitutional amendment that for the next 2 years only women should be elected to Congress”
It's obviously time for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution: "Until we can figure out what the hell is going on, only Americans of the female sex shall be eligible to serve in the Congress of the United States."
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) November 22, 2017
Why isn't that also, to use Twitter's words, "text which has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election"?
You can joke that only women should be elected, but you can't joke that only women should elect?
That's crazy. Have you ever read 'The Joke', Herr Dorsey? You should Google it. That's a joke--don't censor me.
In fact, Facebook even hired Kristol to help them censor others, both liberal and conservative. Slate explains the "Fact-Checking" censorship game here. But then, Kristol supports police state politics now, so he's right at home with his new owners at OGooFaceTwitApp, Inc.:
James Woods: Letter From a Twitterham Jail
"First let me say how much I cherish each of you to whom this email is addressed. It saddens me that more people can’t be like us – politically diverse, yet friends and defenders of each other’s beliefs and opinions. That to me is what America is fundamentally about. It is also about a standard of ethics and human values that we all embrace and promote in our daily affairs. I love you all and I admire you for that and for who you are as people and artists and citizens of the world. I mean this with all sincerity. Today I am not in the mood for jokes.
The facts are that I was banned from Twitter yesterday because of an anonymous complaint referencing a tweet I posted in July (yes, the Stasi mentality lives on in the Twittersphere, it seems). Henceforth my 1.7 million followers will no longer hear my views. The purge of conservatives continues unabated on social media (and yes, it was because I posted a sarcastic remark about Democrats).
The offending tweet was included in the email from Twitter Support. It is attached below for your reference.
The good news, I guess, is that liberals (Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, is an unabashed ultra liberal) are now closer to their nirvana of a world without criticism or opposition.
The bad news is they will inevitably be next.
The reason I’m sending this to you is that, liberal or conservative, I know every single one of you agrees that this muzzle on free speech is a cancer that, if allowed to metastasize, will destroy this nation and everything it stands for.
Please feel free to share this email.".......
While you still can.
 |
| "No Jokes For You!" Manipulating elections themselves while accusing you of manipulating elections--well-played! |
Mark Steyn again, a man also censored by Big Duct Tape:
"A couple of weeks back, I was guest-hosting "Tucker Carlson Tonight" and introduced an interview Tucker had conducted with Dennis Prager, a man for whom I have nothing but the greatest respect: He is blessed with magnificent moral clarity, and an unerring grasp of what's really at stake in the flotsam and jetsam of the daily news churn. Like many of us, Dennis is concerned at the leftward tilt of Big Tech: Facebook and Google/YouTube are bigger and more powerful than many sovereign nations, and in the last decade their malign duopoly has shrunk the Internet from a vast jostling cacophony into a blander, tightly formatted landscape run by a cartel of devious algorithms.
You don't even have to be that "right-wing". Mandy O'Brien ran a popular "body language channel on YouTube, but made the mistake of analyzing St David of Hogg's body language - and now YouTube has disappeared her channel, and the only body language you can spot over there is rigor mortis.
What to do about it? Some (including Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg) favor government regulation - which would turn them into Ma Bell and give them a hammerlock on the 21st century as Bell had for almost the entirety of the 20th. Others prefer an anti-trust break-up: If Standard Oil was too big in 1911, both Facebook (as a news outlet) and Google/YouTube (as a content promoter) are far bigger today - and, unlike Esso, there are no Shells, Texacos, BPs or Totals on the horizon.
However, I'm slightly less clear on the logic of suing YouTube in order to get them to give your content more prominence than they wish to. That's like me suing Barnes & Noble because I'm on the bottom shelf in the back room rather than in the front window. So, at the end of the Tucker/Dennis segment, I remarked en passant:
Hmm. I hope Dennis has a good lawyer - 'cause that's actually quite a subtle needle his legal team will need to thread there...
It is and they didn't. Last week Judge Lucy Koh dismissed the Prager suit in an order that was noticeably unimpressed by his legal team's theory of the case. As Nasim Aghdam realized, YouTube is operating a class system: You check the "monetization" box, but then somebody complains about you and you're "de-monetized", which kinda leaves a taint of festering resentment, like all that blue-check bollocks at Twitter. Why, it's almost like being made to sit at the back of the cyber-bus or use a separate de-monetized drinking fountain...
Don't like it? Well, you can go to a rock-ribbed conservative like, say, Senator Mike Lee of Utah. But Google/YouTube recently moved into his state and - surprise! - he now seems disinclined to rock that particular boat. Tucker Carlson interviewed him, and some edgy Internet types lifted the interview and posted it to YouTube, billing Senator Lee as "Google's Number One bootlicker"- and then complained that Google/YouTube had "shadow banned" them so they'd only just realized that Google/YouTube were preventing them cleaning up with Google/YouTube ad revenue by posting somebody else's content on Google/YouTube in order to trash Google/YouTube. That right there is the Internet in a nutshell.
Presumably someone someday will lay a motion before an American judge arguing the case rather better than the slapdash Prager brief did. But YouTube will now be able to respond that they don't just discriminate against conservatives, they discriminate against all sorts of people, including Iranian vegan immigrants - and they have the bullet-holes to prove it.
The San Bruno attack also underlines a point I've been making for over a decade, ever since my troubles with Canada's "human rights" commissions: "Hate speech" doesn't lead to violence so much as restraints on so-called "hate speech" do - because, when you tell someone you can't say that, there's nothing left for him to do but open fire or plant his bomb. Restricting speech - or even being perceived to be restricting speech - incentivizes violence as the only alternative. As you'll notice in YouTube comments, I'm often derided as a pansy fag loser by the likes of ShitlordWarrior473 for sitting around talking about immigration policy as opposed to getting out in the street and taking direct action. In a culture ever more inimical to freedom of expression, there'll be more of that: The less you're permitted to say, the more violence there will be.
Google/YouTube and Facebook do not, of course, make laws, but their algorithms have more real-world impact than most legislation - and, having started out as more or less even-handed free-for-alls, they somehow thought it was a great idea to give the impression that they're increasingly happy to assist the likes of Angela Merkel and Theresa May as arbiters of approved public discourse. Facebook, for example, recently adjusted its algorithm, and by that mere tweak deprived Breitbart of 90 per cent of its ad revenue. That's their right, but it may not have been a prudent idea to reveal how easily they can do that to you.".......
A century ago, Standard Oil controlled energy supplies. But the reach of Standard Oil pales in comparison to Information Age Monopolies. Not even John D. Rockefeller had files on every American. Nor did he seek to control what they could say about him.
 |
"I believe that monopolies, unjust discriminations, which prevent or cripple competition, fraudulent overcapitalization, and other evils in trust organizations and practices which injuriously affect interstate trade can be prevented under the power of the Congress..."--President Theodore Roosevelt, State of the Union, 1902
|
 |
| "With Enough Duct Tape, We Could Censor the World!" |
No comments:
Post a Comment