On 4/15/2022 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <g0oj5hdol9v20kpi7h80uuvstas1v4einh@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <vt2i5hpepl50lmpq3jdmgttnt7c9u519ct@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:18:44 -0500, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, a painstakingly curated echo chamber of leftist narrative in which
>>>>> no
>>>>> dissenting voices of any consequence are allowed. Just look at the
>>>>> absolute
>>>>> panic at the threat of people actually being able to speak without being
>>>>> censored. How the idea of people being able to hear things without them
>>>>> first
>>>>> being put through the "official narrative filter" is devastating to the
>>>>> Left.
>>>>
>>>> So what are you suggesting? That a Musk dominated Twitter will morph
>>>> into a Trump friendly zone?
>>
>> Given Musk's statements in the past I think that is exactly what would
>> happen. At least initially. Who knows what the over reaction would be
>> among the twitter users and how Musk would react.
>>
>> Not that it's going to happen given the poison pill that the board
>> just implemented. They just implemented a temporary (till 2023) poison
>> pill where in if anyone gains more than 15% of the stock every
>> shareholder will be able to increase their shares at a reduced cost. I
>> didn't see how many more shares they could buy but if it's even just
>> doubling their shares suddenly the cost to buy the company becomes
>> much greater.
>>
>>> More like a place where sanity reigns and people don't get banned for
>>> stating scientific facts because reality is 'harassing' or some such
>>> nonsense.
>>
>> Part of that is just the headache involved in clearing all of the
>> posts people make whether on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube. There's so much
>> being posted that they have to use machine learning but even then the
>> humans can't be given more than a few seconds to review the posts that
>> come up as questionable just to keep up. It doesn't allow them time to
>> think it through.
>
> No Twitter has a broad policy that disallows any discussion-- even
> scientific research-- that indicates mammals have only two sexes and/or
> that it's impossible to switch sex merely by wishing hard enough.

William Shockley's data on race and IQ is 'scientific research'. What
would be your moderator-verdict on someone repeatedly Tweeting it?

On 4/15/2022 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <u6m6K.188213$yi_7.143050@fx39.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/2022 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <g0oj5hdol9v20kpi7h80uuvstas1v4einh@4ax.com>,
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <vt2i5hpepl50lmpq3jdmgttnt7c9u519ct@4ax.com>,
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:18:44 -0500, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, a painstakingly curated echo chamber of leftist narrative in
>>>>>>> which no dissenting voices of any consequence are allowed. Just look
>>>>>>> at the absolute panic at the threat of people actually being able
>>>>>>> to speak without being censored. How the idea of people being able
>>>>>>> to hear things without them first being put through the "official
>>>>>>> narrative filter" is devastating to the Left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what are you suggesting? That a Musk dominated Twitter will morph
>>>>>> into a Trump friendly zone?
>>>>
>>>> Given Musk's statements in the past I think that is exactly what would
>>>> happen. At least initially. Who knows what the over reaction would be
>>>> among the twitter users and how Musk would react.
>>>>
>>>> Not that it's going to happen given the poison pill that the board
>>>> just implemented. They just implemented a temporary (till 2023) poison
>>>> pill where in if anyone gains more than 15% of the stock every
>>>> shareholder will be able to increase their shares at a reduced cost. I
>>>> didn't see how many more shares they could buy but if it's even just
>>>> doubling their shares suddenly the cost to buy the company becomes
>>>> much greater.
>>>>
>>>>> More like a place where sanity reigns and people don't get banned for
>>>>> stating scientific facts because reality is 'harassing' or some such
>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Part of that is just the headache involved in clearing all of the
>>>> posts people make whether on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube. There's so much
>>>> being posted that they have to use machine learning but even then the
>>>> humans can't be given more than a few seconds to review the posts that
>>>> come up as questionable just to keep up. It doesn't allow them time to
>>>> think it through.
>>>
>>> No Twitter has a broad policy that disallows any discussion-- even
>>> scientific research-- that indicates mammals have only two sexes and/or
>>> that it's impossible to switch sex merely by wishing hard enough.
>>
>> William Shockley's data on race and IQ is 'scientific research'. What
>> would be your moderator-verdict on someone repeatedly Tweeting it?
>
> Free speech. Tweet away.

Your idea of free speech does anything but free speech.

> Of course now you seem to be suggesting that a basic truism of
> biological science accepted as scientific fact for the last 500 years or
> so is no longer such because a bunch of whiny weirdos with purple hair
> and neckbeards not only demand it but also require the silencing of
> anyone who objects.

No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for asking. What I *do* suggest
is that anything -- even "scientific research -- can be used as an
openly bigoted cudgel, obvious to sensible adults as well as to victims.

On 4/16/2022 10:05 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 23:05:49 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/2022 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <u6m6K.188213$yi_7.143050@fx39.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <g0oj5hdol9v20kpi7h80uuvstas1v4einh@4ax.com>,
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <vt2i5hpepl50lmpq3jdmgttnt7c9u519ct@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:18:44 -0500, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, a painstakingly curated echo chamber of leftist narrative in
>>>>>>>>> which no dissenting voices of any consequence are allowed. Just look
>>>>>>>>> at the absolute panic at the threat of people actually being able
>>>>>>>>> to speak without being censored. How the idea of people being able
>>>>>>>>> to hear things without them first being put through the "official
>>>>>>>>> narrative filter" is devastating to the Left.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what are you suggesting? That a Musk dominated Twitter will morph
>>>>>>>> into a Trump friendly zone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given Musk's statements in the past I think that is exactly what would
>>>>>> happen. At least initially. Who knows what the over reaction would be
>>>>>> among the twitter users and how Musk would react.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that it's going to happen given the poison pill that the board
>>>>>> just implemented. They just implemented a temporary (till 2023) poison
>>>>>> pill where in if anyone gains more than 15% of the stock every
>>>>>> shareholder will be able to increase their shares at a reduced cost. I
>>>>>> didn't see how many more shares they could buy but if it's even just
>>>>>> doubling their shares suddenly the cost to buy the company becomes
>>>>>> much greater.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More like a place where sanity reigns and people don't get banned for
>>>>>>> stating scientific facts because reality is 'harassing' or some such
>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of that is just the headache involved in clearing all of the
>>>>>> posts people make whether on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube. There's so much
>>>>>> being posted that they have to use machine learning but even then the
>>>>>> humans can't be given more than a few seconds to review the posts that
>>>>>> come up as questionable just to keep up. It doesn't allow them time to
>>>>>> think it through.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Twitter has a broad policy that disallows any discussion-- even
>>>>> scientific research-- that indicates mammals have only two sexes and/or
>>>>> that it's impossible to switch sex merely by wishing hard enough.
>>>>
>>>> William Shockley's data on race and IQ is 'scientific research'. What
>>>> would be your moderator-verdict on someone repeatedly Tweeting it?
>>>
>>> Free speech. Tweet away.
>>
>> Your idea of free speech does anything but free speech.
>
> Twitter's current stance is ANYTHING but free speech.
>
>>
>>
>>> Of course now you seem to be suggesting that a basic truism of
>>> biological science accepted as scientific fact for the last 500 years or
>>> so is no longer such because a bunch of whiny weirdos with purple hair
>>> and neckbeards not only demand it but also require the silencing of
>>> anyone who objects.
>>
>> No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for asking. What I *do* suggest
>> is that anything -- even "scientific research -- can be used as an
>> openly bigoted cudgel, obvious to sensible adults as well as to victims.
>
> You've just described Twitter to a T - allowing the promotion of the
> trans religion, BLM and other leftist ideas while banning people who
> disagree with it.

Well, that'd be "wrong" (if true), but afaik also Twitter's prerogative.

On 4/16/2022 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ioq6K.605747$LN2.518761@fx13.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/2022 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <u6m6K.188213$yi_7.143050@fx39.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <g0oj5hdol9v20kpi7h80uuvstas1v4einh@4ax.com>,
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <vt2i5hpepl50lmpq3jdmgttnt7c9u519ct@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:18:44 -0500, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, a painstakingly curated echo chamber of leftist narrative in
>>>>>>>>> which no dissenting voices of any consequence are allowed. Just look
>>>>>>>>> at the absolute panic at the threat of people actually being able
>>>>>>>>> to speak without being censored. How the idea of people being able
>>>>>>>>> to hear things without them first being put through the "official
>>>>>>>>> narrative filter" is devastating to the Left.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what are you suggesting? That a Musk dominated Twitter will morph
>>>>>>>> into a Trump friendly zone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given Musk's statements in the past I think that is exactly what would
>>>>>> happen. At least initially. Who knows what the over reaction would be
>>>>>> among the twitter users and how Musk would react.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that it's going to happen given the poison pill that the board
>>>>>> just implemented. They just implemented a temporary (till 2023) poison
>>>>>> pill where in if anyone gains more than 15% of the stock every
>>>>>> shareholder will be able to increase their shares at a reduced cost. I
>>>>>> didn't see how many more shares they could buy but if it's even just
>>>>>> doubling their shares suddenly the cost to buy the company becomes
>>>>>> much greater.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More like a place where sanity reigns and people don't get banned for
>>>>>>> stating scientific facts because reality is 'harassing' or some such
>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of that is just the headache involved in clearing all of the
>>>>>> posts people make whether on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube. There's so much
>>>>>> being posted that they have to use machine learning but even then the
>>>>>> humans can't be given more than a few seconds to review the posts that
>>>>>> come up as questionable just to keep up. It doesn't allow them time to
>>>>>> think it through.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Twitter has a broad policy that disallows any discussion-- even
>>>>> scientific research-- that indicates mammals have only two sexes and/or
>>>>> that it's impossible to switch sex merely by wishing hard enough.
>>>>
>>>> William Shockley's data on race and IQ is 'scientific research'. What
>>>> would be your moderator-verdict on someone repeatedly Tweeting it?
>>>
>>> Free speech. Tweet away.
>>
>> Your idea of free speech does anything but free speech.
>
> Not sure why. Under my idea, no one is prohibited from saying whatever
> they want. I just don't care if people are offended. They need to put on
> their big boy and girl pants and learn that hearing things they don't
> like is just part of life.
>
>>> Of course now you seem to be suggesting that a basic truism of
>>> biological science accepted as scientific fact for the last 500 years or
>>> so is no longer such because a bunch of whiny weirdos with purple hair
>>> and neckbeards not only demand it but also require the silencing of
>>> anyone who objects.
>>
>> No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for asking. What I *do* suggest
>> is that anything -- even "scientific research -- can be used as an
>> openly bigoted cudgel, obvious to sensible adults as well as to victims.
>
> Well, cudgel back then. Don't whine and demand people be silenced
> because you don't like what they're saying.

And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to declare
"cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g., any poster whose
intent is plainly to dun rather than to inform.

On 4/16/2022 1:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <yfB6K.262432$%uX7.157448@fx38.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2022 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ioq6K.605747$LN2.518761@fx13.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2022 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <u6m6K.188213$yi_7.143050@fx39.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <g0oj5hdol9v20kpi7h80uuvstas1v4einh@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <vt2i5hpepl50lmpq3jdmgttnt7c9u519ct@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:18:44 -0500, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a painstakingly curated echo chamber of leftist narrative in
>>>>>>>>>>> which no dissenting voices of any consequence are allowed. Just look
>>>>>>>>>>> at the absolute panic at the threat of people actually being able
>>>>>>>>>>> to speak without being censored. How the idea of people being able
>>>>>>>>>>> to hear things without them first being put through the "official
>>>>>>>>>>> narrative filter" is devastating to the Left.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what are you suggesting? That a Musk dominated Twitter will morph
>>>>>>>>>> into a Trump friendly zone?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given Musk's statements in the past I think that is exactly what would
>>>>>>>> happen. At least initially. Who knows what the over reaction would be
>>>>>>>> among the twitter users and how Musk would react.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not that it's going to happen given the poison pill that the board
>>>>>>>> just implemented. They just implemented a temporary (till 2023) poison
>>>>>>>> pill where in if anyone gains more than 15% of the stock every
>>>>>>>> shareholder will be able to increase their shares at a reduced cost. I
>>>>>>>> didn't see how many more shares they could buy but if it's even just
>>>>>>>> doubling their shares suddenly the cost to buy the company becomes
>>>>>>>> much greater.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More like a place where sanity reigns and people don't get banned for
>>>>>>>>> stating scientific facts because reality is 'harassing' or some such
>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Part of that is just the headache involved in clearing all of the
>>>>>>>> posts people make whether on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube. There's so much
>>>>>>>> being posted that they have to use machine learning but even then the
>>>>>>>> humans can't be given more than a few seconds to review the posts that
>>>>>>>> come up as questionable just to keep up. It doesn't allow them time to
>>>>>>>> think it through.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No Twitter has a broad policy that disallows any discussion-- even
>>>>>>> scientific research-- that indicates mammals have only two sexes and/or
>>>>>>> that it's impossible to switch sex merely by wishing hard enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> William Shockley's data on race and IQ is 'scientific research'. What
>>>>>> would be your moderator-verdict on someone repeatedly Tweeting it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Free speech. Tweet away.
>>>>
>>>> Your idea of free speech does anything but free speech.
>>>
>>> Not sure why. Under my idea, no one is prohibited from saying whatever
>>> they want. I just don't care if people are offended. They need to put on
>>> their big boy and girl pants and learn that hearing things they don't
>>> like is just part of life.
>>>
>>>>> Of course now you seem to be suggesting that a basic truism of
>>>>> biological science accepted as scientific fact for the last 500 years or
>>>>> so is no longer such because a bunch of whiny weirdos with purple hair
>>>>> and neckbeards not only demand it but also require the silencing of
>>>>> anyone who objects.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for asking. What I *do* suggest
>>>> is that anything -- even "scientific research -- can be used as an
>>>> openly bigoted cudgel, obvious to sensible adults as well as to victims.
>>>
>>> Well, cudgel back then. Don't whine and demand people be silenced
>>> because you don't like what they're saying.
>>
>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to declare
>> "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g., any poster whose
>> intent is plainly to dun rather than to inform.
>
> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny and let the
> users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it doesn't mean there's no
> free speech.

Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least until, say,
the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the available bandwidth.

On 4/16/2022 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 1:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <yfB6K.262432$%uX7.157448@fx38.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2022 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ioq6K.605747$LN2.518761@fx13.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <u6m6K.188213$yi_7.143050@fx39.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <g0oj5hdol9v20kpi7h80uuvstas1v4einh@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vt2i5hpepl50lmpq3jdmgttnt7c9u519ct@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:18:44 -0500, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a painstakingly curated echo chamber of leftist narrative in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which no dissenting voices of any consequence are allowed. Just look
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the absolute panic at the threat of people actually being able
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to speak without being censored. How the idea of people being able
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hear things without them first being put through the "official
>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrative filter" is devastating to the Left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So what are you suggesting? That a Musk dominated Twitter will morph
>>>>>>>>>>>> into a Trump friendly zone?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Given Musk's statements in the past I think that is exactly what would
>>>>>>>>>> happen. At least initially. Who knows what the over reaction would be
>>>>>>>>>> among the twitter users and how Musk would react.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that it's going to happen given the poison pill that the board
>>>>>>>>>> just implemented. They just implemented a temporary (till 2023) poison
>>>>>>>>>> pill where in if anyone gains more than 15% of the stock every
>>>>>>>>>> shareholder will be able to increase their shares at a reduced cost. I
>>>>>>>>>> didn't see how many more shares they could buy but if it's even just
>>>>>>>>>> doubling their shares suddenly the cost to buy the company becomes
>>>>>>>>>> much greater.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> More like a place where sanity reigns and people don't get banned for
>>>>>>>>>>> stating scientific facts because reality is 'harassing' or some such
>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Part of that is just the headache involved in clearing all of the
>>>>>>>>>> posts people make whether on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube. There's so much
>>>>>>>>>> being posted that they have to use machine learning but even then the
>>>>>>>>>> humans can't be given more than a few seconds to review the posts that
>>>>>>>>>> come up as questionable just to keep up. It doesn't allow them time to
>>>>>>>>>> think it through.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No Twitter has a broad policy that disallows any discussion-- even
>>>>>>>>> scientific research-- that indicates mammals have only two sexes and/or
>>>>>>>>> that it's impossible to switch sex merely by wishing hard enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> William Shockley's data on race and IQ is 'scientific research'. What
>>>>>>>> would be your moderator-verdict on someone repeatedly Tweeting it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Free speech. Tweet away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your idea of free speech does anything but free speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure why. Under my idea, no one is prohibited from saying whatever
>>>>> they want. I just don't care if people are offended. They need to put on
>>>>> their big boy and girl pants and learn that hearing things they don't
>>>>> like is just part of life.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course now you seem to be suggesting that a basic truism of
>>>>>>> biological science accepted as scientific fact for the last 500 years or
>>>>>>> so is no longer such because a bunch of whiny weirdos with purple hair
>>>>>>> and neckbeards not only demand it but also require the silencing of
>>>>>>> anyone who objects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for asking. What I *do* suggest
>>>>>> is that anything -- even "scientific research -- can be used as an
>>>>>> openly bigoted cudgel, obvious to sensible adults as well as to victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, cudgel back then. Don't whine and demand people be silenced
>>>>> because you don't like what they're saying.
>>>>
>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to declare
>>>> "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g., any poster whose
>>>> intent is plainly to dun rather than to inform.
>>>
>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny and let the
>>> users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it doesn't mean there's no
>>> free speech.
>>
>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least until, say,
>> the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the available bandwidth.
>
> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and plentiful.

Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.

On 4/16/2022 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 1:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <yfB6K.262432$%uX7.157448@fx38.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ioq6K.605747$LN2.518761@fx13.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <u6m6K.188213$yi_7.143050@fx39.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <g0oj5hdol9v20kpi7h80uuvstas1v4einh@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vt2i5hpepl50lmpq3jdmgttnt7c9u519ct@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:18:44 -0500, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a painstakingly curated echo chamber of leftist narrative in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which no dissenting voices of any consequence are allowed. Just look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the absolute panic at the threat of people actually being able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to speak without being censored. How the idea of people being able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hear things without them first being put through the "official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrative filter" is devastating to the Left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what are you suggesting? That a Musk dominated Twitter will morph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a Trump friendly zone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given Musk's statements in the past I think that is exactly what would
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen. At least initially. Who knows what the over reaction would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> among the twitter users and how Musk would react.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that it's going to happen given the poison pill that the board
>>>>>>>>>>>> just implemented. They just implemented a temporary (till 2023) poison
>>>>>>>>>>>> pill where in if anyone gains more than 15% of the stock every
>>>>>>>>>>>> shareholder will be able to increase their shares at a reduced cost. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't see how many more shares they could buy but if it's even just
>>>>>>>>>>>> doubling their shares suddenly the cost to buy the company becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>> much greater.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> More like a place where sanity reigns and people don't get banned for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating scientific facts because reality is 'harassing' or some such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of that is just the headache involved in clearing all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> posts people make whether on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube. There's so much
>>>>>>>>>>>> being posted that they have to use machine learning but even then the
>>>>>>>>>>>> humans can't be given more than a few seconds to review the posts that
>>>>>>>>>>>> come up as questionable just to keep up. It doesn't allow them time to
>>>>>>>>>>>> think it through.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No Twitter has a broad policy that disallows any discussion-- even
>>>>>>>>>>> scientific research-- that indicates mammals have only two sexes and/or
>>>>>>>>>>> that it's impossible to switch sex merely by wishing hard enough.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> William Shockley's data on race and IQ is 'scientific research'. What
>>>>>>>>>> would be your moderator-verdict on someone repeatedly Tweeting it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Free speech. Tweet away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your idea of free speech does anything but free speech.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure why. Under my idea, no one is prohibited from saying whatever
>>>>>>> they want. I just don't care if people are offended. They need to put on
>>>>>>> their big boy and girl pants and learn that hearing things they don't
>>>>>>> like is just part of life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course now you seem to be suggesting that a basic truism of
>>>>>>>>> biological science accepted as scientific fact for the last 500 years or
>>>>>>>>> so is no longer such because a bunch of whiny weirdos with purple hair
>>>>>>>>> and neckbeards not only demand it but also require the silencing of
>>>>>>>>> anyone who objects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for asking. What I *do* suggest
>>>>>>>> is that anything -- even "scientific research -- can be used as an
>>>>>>>> openly bigoted cudgel, obvious to sensible adults as well as to victims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, cudgel back then. Don't whine and demand people be silenced
>>>>>>> because you don't like what they're saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to declare
>>>>>> "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g., any poster whose
>>>>>> intent is plainly to dun rather than to inform.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny and let the
>>>>> users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it doesn't mean there's no
>>>>> free speech.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least until, say,
>>>> the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the available bandwidth.
>>>
>>> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and plentiful.
>>
>> Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.
>
> You have the right to speak freely but no one ever promised you an
> audience.

But what we're confronting here is "free speech" drowning out *other*
"free speech", whether by volume, repetition, or general un-savoriness.

On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 1:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <yfB6K.262432$%uX7.157448@fx38.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <ioq6K.605747$LN2.518761@fx13.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <u6m6K.188213$yi_7.143050@fx39.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <g0oj5hdol9v20kpi7h80uuvstas1v4einh@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vt2i5hpepl50lmpq3jdmgttnt7c9u519ct@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:18:44 -0500, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a painstakingly curated echo chamber of leftist narrative in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which no dissenting voices of any consequence are allowed. Just look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the absolute panic at the threat of people actually being able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to speak without being censored. How the idea of people being able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hear things without them first being put through the "official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrative filter" is devastating to the Left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what are you suggesting? That a Musk dominated Twitter will morph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a Trump friendly zone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given Musk's statements in the past I think that is exactly what would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen. At least initially. Who knows what the over reaction would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> among the twitter users and how Musk would react.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that it's going to happen given the poison pill that the board
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just implemented. They just implemented a temporary (till 2023) poison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pill where in if anyone gains more than 15% of the stock every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shareholder will be able to increase their shares at a reduced cost. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't see how many more shares they could buy but if it's even just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubling their shares suddenly the cost to buy the company becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much greater.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More like a place where sanity reigns and people don't get banned for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating scientific facts because reality is 'harassing' or some such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of that is just the headache involved in clearing all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posts people make whether on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube. There's so much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being posted that they have to use machine learning but even then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans can't be given more than a few seconds to review the posts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up as questionable just to keep up. It doesn't allow them time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No Twitter has a broad policy that disallows any discussion-- even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific research-- that indicates mammals have only two sexes and/or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's impossible to switch sex merely by wishing hard enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> William Shockley's data on race and IQ is 'scientific research'. What
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be your moderator-verdict on someone repeatedly Tweeting it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Free speech. Tweet away.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your idea of free speech does anything but free speech.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not sure why. Under my idea, no one is prohibited from saying whatever
>>>>>>>>> they want. I just don't care if people are offended. They need to put on
>>>>>>>>> their big boy and girl pants and learn that hearing things they don't
>>>>>>>>> like is just part of life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course now you seem to be suggesting that a basic truism of
>>>>>>>>>>> biological science accepted as scientific fact for the last 500 years or
>>>>>>>>>>> so is no longer such because a bunch of whiny weirdos with purple hair
>>>>>>>>>>> and neckbeards not only demand it but also require the silencing of
>>>>>>>>>>> anyone who objects.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for asking. What I *do* suggest
>>>>>>>>>> is that anything -- even "scientific research -- can be used as an
>>>>>>>>>> openly bigoted cudgel, obvious to sensible adults as well as to victims.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, cudgel back then. Don't whine and demand people be silenced
>>>>>>>>> because you don't like what they're saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to declare
>>>>>>>> "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g., any poster whose
>>>>>>>> intent is plainly to dun rather than to inform.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny and let the
>>>>>>> users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it doesn't mean there's no
>>>>>>> free speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least until, say,
>>>>>> the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the available bandwidth.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and plentiful.
>>>>
>>>> Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.
>>>
>>> You have the right to speak freely but no one ever promised you an
>>> audience.
>>
>> But what we're confronting here is "free speech" drowning out *other*
>> "free speech", whether by volume, repetition, or general un-savoriness.
>
> I don't know how one person being unsavory can drown out everyone else, but
> regardless, so what?

On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 1:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <yfB6K.262432$%uX7.157448@fx38.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <ioq6K.605747$LN2.518761@fx13.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <u6m6K.188213$yi_7.143050@fx39.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <g0oj5hdol9v20kpi7h80uuvstas1v4einh@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:00:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vt2i5hpepl50lmpq3jdmgttnt7c9u519ct@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:18:44 -0500, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a painstakingly curated echo chamber of leftist narrative in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which no dissenting voices of any consequence are allowed. Just look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the absolute panic at the threat of people actually being able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to speak without being censored. How the idea of people being able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hear things without them first being put through the "official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrative filter" is devastating to the Left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what are you suggesting? That a Musk dominated Twitter will morph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a Trump friendly zone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given Musk's statements in the past I think that is exactly what would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen. At least initially. Who knows what the over reaction would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> among the twitter users and how Musk would react.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that it's going to happen given the poison pill that the board
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just implemented. They just implemented a temporary (till 2023) poison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pill where in if anyone gains more than 15% of the stock every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shareholder will be able to increase their shares at a reduced cost. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't see how many more shares they could buy but if it's even just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubling their shares suddenly the cost to buy the company becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much greater.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More like a place where sanity reigns and people don't get banned for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating scientific facts because reality is 'harassing' or some such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of that is just the headache involved in clearing all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posts people make whether on Twitter/Facebook/Youtube. There's so much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being posted that they have to use machine learning but even then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans can't be given more than a few seconds to review the posts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up as questionable just to keep up. It doesn't allow them time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No Twitter has a broad policy that disallows any discussion-- even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific research-- that indicates mammals have only two sexes and/or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's impossible to switch sex merely by wishing hard enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> William Shockley's data on race and IQ is 'scientific research'. What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be your moderator-verdict on someone repeatedly Tweeting it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free speech. Tweet away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your idea of free speech does anything but free speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure why. Under my idea, no one is prohibited from saying whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> they want. I just don't care if people are offended. They need to put on
>>>>>>>>>>> their big boy and girl pants and learn that hearing things they don't
>>>>>>>>>>> like is just part of life.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course now you seem to be suggesting that a basic truism of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> biological science accepted as scientific fact for the last 500 years or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so is no longer such because a bunch of whiny weirdos with purple hair
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and neckbeards not only demand it but also require the silencing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone who objects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for asking. What I *do* suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>> is that anything -- even "scientific research -- can be used as an
>>>>>>>>>>>> openly bigoted cudgel, obvious to sensible adults as well as to victims.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, cudgel back then. Don't whine and demand people be silenced
>>>>>>>>>>> because you don't like what they're saying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to declare
>>>>>>>>>> "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g., any poster whose
>>>>>>>>>> intent is plainly to dun rather than to inform.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny and let the
>>>>>>>>> users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it doesn't mean there's no
>>>>>>>>> free speech.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least until, say,
>>>>>>>> the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the available bandwidth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have the right to speak freely but no one ever promised you an
>>>>> audience.
>>>>
>>>> But what we're confronting here is "free speech" drowning out *other*
>>>> "free speech", whether by volume, repetition, or general un-savoriness.
>>>
>>> I don't know how one person being unsavory can drown out everyone else, but
>>> regardless, so what?
>>
>> "Free speech" as a license to bludgeon is,
>
> No one's saying you can hit people under the guise of free speech.

On 4/17/2022 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <piW6K.361605$f2a5.147908@fx48.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 1:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course now you seem to be suggesting that a basic truism of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biological science accepted as scientific fact for the last 500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years or so is no longer such because a bunch of whiny weirdos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with purple hair and neckbeards not only demand it but also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require the silencing of anyone who objects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for asking. What I *do*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest is that anything -- even "scientific research -- can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used as an openly bigoted cudgel, obvious to sensible adults
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well as to victims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, cudgel back then. Don't whine and demand people be silenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you don't like what they're saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to
>>>>>>>>>>>> declare "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>>>> any poster whose intent is plainly to dun rather than to inform.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny and
>>>>>>>>>>> let the users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>>>> there's no free speech.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least until,
>>>>>>>>>> say, the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the available bandwidth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have the right to speak freely but no one ever promised you an
>>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what we're confronting here is "free speech" drowning out *other*
>>>>>> "free speech", whether by volume, repetition, or general un-savoriness.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how one person being unsavory can drown out everyone else,
>>>>> but regardless, so what?
>>>>
>>>> "Free speech" as a license to bludgeon is,
>>>
>>> No one's saying you can hit people under the guise of free speech.
>>
>> Perhaps you're not distinguishing between, say, "hitting people" and
>> "hitting people where it hurts".

> That's part of being an adult in this world. Sometimes people will hurt
> your feelings. Suck it up and deal.

It's not about "feelings", it's about material damage under the guise of
"free speech" ...e.g., publishing an adversary's private address.

>>>> misguided and unworkable ...and not, afaics, a sound reading of original
>>>> intent.
>>>
>>> The original intent said "shall make no law"...
>>
>> Yes. Good quoting, albeit of an undisputed phrase...
>
> If you don't dispute it, then your position that speech should be
> censored for merely being 'unsavory' is untenable.

What's in dispute is the intent of the words that follow, iirc. The
only intent in "shall make no law" is law-prevention...

On 4/17/2022 5:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <I%%6K.848597$aT3.155139@fx09.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2022 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <piW6K.361605$f2a5.147908@fx48.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any poster whose intent is plainly to dun rather than to inform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> let the users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's no free speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least until,
>>>>>>>>>>>> say, the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the available
>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have the right to speak freely but no one ever promised you an
>>>>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But what we're confronting here is "free speech" drowning out *other*
>>>>>>>> "free speech", whether by volume, repetition, or general
>>>>>>>> un-savoriness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know how one person being unsavory can drown out everyone else,
>>>>>>> but regardless, so what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Free speech" as a license to bludgeon is,
>>>>>
>>>>> No one's saying you can hit people under the guise of free speech.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you're not distinguishing between, say, "hitting people" and
>>>> "hitting people where it hurts".
>
>>> That's part of being an adult in this world. Sometimes people will hurt
>>> your feelings. Suck it up and deal.
>>
>> It's not about "feelings", it's about material damage under the guise of
>> "free speech" ...e.g., publishing an adversary's private address.
>
> Since when are addresses private? They used to be (and still are)
> published in big paper search engines called phone books that anyone
> could access.

Some celebrities have *two* (or more) addresses, including private ones.

>>>>>> misguided and unworkable ...and not, afaics, a sound reading of original
>>>>>> intent.
>>>>>
>>>>> The original intent said "shall make no law"...
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Good quoting, albeit of an undisputed phrase...
>>>
>>> If you don't dispute it, then your position that speech should be
>>> censored for merely being 'unsavory' is untenable.
>>
>> What's in dispute is the intent of the words that follow, iirc.
>
> Everything that follows it falls under the "make no law prohibition".

....and what it intends to prohibit is what's disputed.

On 4/17/2022 8:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <we17K.87141$Kdf.48117@fx96.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2022 5:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <I%%6K.848597$aT3.155139@fx09.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2022 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <piW6K.361605$f2a5.147908@fx48.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any poster whose intent is plainly to dun rather than to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and let the users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean there's no free speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until, say, the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available bandwidth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have the right to speak freely but no one ever promised you an
>>>>>>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But what we're confronting here is "free speech" drowning out
>>>>>>>>>> *other* "free speech", whether by volume, repetition, or general
>>>>>>>>>> un-savoriness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know how one person being unsavory can drown out everyone
>>>>>>>>> else, but regardless, so what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Free speech" as a license to bludgeon is,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one's saying you can hit people under the guise of free speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you're not distinguishing between, say, "hitting people" and
>>>>>> "hitting people where it hurts".
>>>
>>>>> That's part of being an adult in this world. Sometimes people will hurt
>>>>> your feelings. Suck it up and deal.
>>>>
>>>> It's not about "feelings", it's about material damage under the guise of
>>>> "free speech" ...e.g., publishing an adversary's private address.
>>>
>>> Since when are addresses private? They used to be (and still are)
>>> published in big paper search engines called phone books that anyone
>>> could access.
>>
>> Some celebrities have *two* (or more) addresses, including private ones.
>
> They're still not private. Land ownership deeds and titles are a matter
> of public record.
>
> So is all the information compiled by info brokers like Lexus/Nexis.
> Their entire business model would be illegal if that information was
> actually private.
>
>>>>>>>> misguided and unworkable ...and not, afaics, a sound reading of
>>>>>>>> original intent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The original intent said "shall make no law"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Good quoting, albeit of an undisputed phrase...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't dispute it, then your position that speech should be
>>>>> censored for merely being 'unsavory' is untenable.
>>>>
>>>> What's in dispute is the intent of the words that follow, iirc.
>>>
>>> Everything that follows it falls under the "make no law prohibition".
>>
>> ...and what it intends to prohibit is what's disputed.
>
> Not by anyone who can read plain English.

Sure.

On 4/17/2022 2:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <piW6K.361605$f2a5.147908@fx48.iad>, moviePig
> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 1:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course now you seem to be suggesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a basic truism of biological science
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted as scientific fact for the last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 500 years or so is no longer such because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bunch of whiny weirdos with purple hair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and neckbeards not only demand it but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also require the silencing of anyone who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't suggest that at all, thanks for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking. What I *do* suggest is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything -- even "scientific research --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be used as an openly bigoted cudgel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious to sensible adults as well as to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> victims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, cudgel back then. Don't whine and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> demand people be silenced because you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like what they're saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might
>>>>>>>>>>>> "cudgel back" is to declare "cudgeling"
>>>>>>>>>>>> off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g., any
>>>>>>>>>>>> poster whose intent is plainly to dun rather
>>>>>>>>>>>> than to inform.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of
>>>>>>>>>>> super-nanny and let the users cudgel back or not
>>>>>>>>>>> as they see fit, it doesn't mean there's no free
>>>>>>>>>>> speech.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech
>>>>>>>>>> ...at least until, say, the din of cudgeling
>>>>>>>>>> effectively clogs the available bandwidth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and
>>>>>>>>> plentiful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have the right to speak freely but no one ever
>>>>>>> promised you an audience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what we're confronting here is "free speech" drowning
>>>>>> out *other* "free speech", whether by volume, repetition,
>>>>>> or general un-savoriness.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how one person being unsavory can drown out
>>>>> everyone else, but regardless, so what?
>>>>
>>>> "Free speech" as a license to bludgeon is,
>>>
>>> No one's saying you can hit people under the guise of free
>>> speech.
>>
>> Perhaps you're not distinguishing between, say, "hitting people"
>> and "hitting people where it hurts".
>
> That's part of being an adult in this world. Sometimes people will
> hurt your feelings. Suck it up and deal.

There it is: "Pull yourself up by your dickstraps. We're Amurricans,
we're not here to help each other!!!"

On 4/17/2022 4:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <I%%6K.848597$aT3.155139@fx09.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2022 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <piW6K.361605$f2a5.147908@fx48.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any poster whose intent is plainly to dun rather than to inform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> let the users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's no free speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least until,
>>>>>>>>>>>> say, the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the available
>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have the right to speak freely but no one ever promised you an
>>>>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But what we're confronting here is "free speech" drowning out *other*
>>>>>>>> "free speech", whether by volume, repetition, or general
>>>>>>>> un-savoriness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know how one person being unsavory can drown out everyone else,
>>>>>>> but regardless, so what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Free speech" as a license to bludgeon is,
>>>>>
>>>>> No one's saying you can hit people under the guise of free speech.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you're not distinguishing between, say, "hitting people" and
>>>> "hitting people where it hurts".
>
>>> That's part of being an adult in this world. Sometimes people will hurt
>>> your feelings. Suck it up and deal.
>>
>> It's not about "feelings", it's about material damage under the guise of
>> "free speech" ...e.g., publishing an adversary's private address.
>
> Since when are addresses private? They used to be (and still are)
> published in big paper search engines called phone books that anyone
> could access.

LOL! WELL ANONYSHITTED.

On 4/18/2022 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <m_37K.369446$f2a5.214835@fx48.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2022 8:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <we17K.87141$Kdf.48117@fx96.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2022 5:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <I%%6K.848597$aT3.155139@fx09.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <piW6K.361605$f2a5.147908@fx48.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And one way that someone (Twitter?) might "cudgel back" is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare "cudgeling" off-limits in its forum ...curbing, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any poster whose intent is plainly to dun rather than to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if a company chooses not to play the role of super-nanny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and let the users cudgel back or not as they see fit, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean there's no free speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it doesn't mean there's no free speech ...at least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until, say, the din of cudgeling effectively clogs the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available bandwidth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is 2022, not 1995. Bandwidth is cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attention-bandwidth is never cheap and plentiful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have the right to speak freely but no one ever promised you an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But what we're confronting here is "free speech" drowning out
>>>>>>>>>>>> *other* "free speech", whether by volume, repetition, or general
>>>>>>>>>>>> un-savoriness.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how one person being unsavory can drown out everyone
>>>>>>>>>>> else, but regardless, so what?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Free speech" as a license to bludgeon is,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one's saying you can hit people under the guise of free speech.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you're not distinguishing between, say, "hitting people" and
>>>>>>>> "hitting people where it hurts".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's part of being an adult in this world. Sometimes people will hurt
>>>>>>> your feelings. Suck it up and deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not about "feelings", it's about material damage under the guise of
>>>>>> "free speech" ...e.g., publishing an adversary's private address.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when are addresses private? They used to be (and still are)
>>>>> published in big paper search engines called phone books that anyone
>>>>> could access.
>>>>
>>>> Some celebrities have *two* (or more) addresses, including private ones.
>>>
>>> They're still not private. Land ownership deeds and titles are a matter
>>> of public record.
>>>
>>> So is all the information compiled by info brokers like Lexus/Nexis.
>>> Their entire business model would be illegal if that information was
>>> actually private.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> misguided and unworkable ...and not, afaics, a sound reading of
>>>>>>>>>> original intent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The original intent said "shall make no law"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. Good quoting, albeit of an undisputed phrase...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't dispute it, then your position that speech should be
>>>>>>> censored for merely being 'unsavory' is untenable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's in dispute is the intent of the words that follow, iirc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything that follows it falls under the "make no law prohibition".
>>>>
>>>> ...and what it intends to prohibit is what's disputed.
>>>
>>> Not by anyone who can read plain English.
>>
>> Sure.
>
> Great, we agree at long last.

Sure we do.

On 4/22/2022 3:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2022 at 4:17:47 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2022 5:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <I%%6K.848597$aT3.155139@fx09.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2022 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That's part of being an adult in this world. Sometimes people will hurt
>>>>> your feelings. Suck it up and deal.
>>>>
>>>> It's not about "feelings", it's about material damage under the guise of
>>>> "free speech" ...e.g., publishing an adversary's private address.
>>>
>>> Since when are addresses private? They used to be (and still are)
>>> published in big paper search engines called phone books that anyone
>>> could access.
>>
>> Some celebrities have *two* (or more) addresses, including private ones.
>
> They used to dox literally everyone in the whole city and then deliver the Dox
> Book to everyone's house. At the library you could get free access to the Dox
> Books for other cities, too. Also, if you called (area code) 555-1212, the
> phone company would dox anyone you wanted for you.

If your point is that such "free speech" isn't damaging because
addresses aren't private, then substitute 'medical history'...