On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a public
>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a public
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video against
>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as they
>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile, mocking,
>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of leftism.
>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think bad
>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>
>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap water?
>>>>
>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv on
>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
>>>
>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>>> university studies and even information from the government itself because
>>> the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric. How is that
>>> "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>
>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>> American freedom.
>>>
>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and here
>>> you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for objecting to
>>> "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>
>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
>
> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>
> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
> opposite position in another thread.

Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.

I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.

In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
> >>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
> >>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a public
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video against
> >>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as they
> >>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
> >>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
> >>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
> >>>>>>>>>> mocking,
> >>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
> >>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
> >>>>>>>>> leftism.
> >>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
> >>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
> >>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
> >>>>>>>> "deceptive".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
> >>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
> >>>>>> selectivity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
> >>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think bad
> >>>>> things about the government.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap water?
> >>>>
> >>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
> >>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv on
> >>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
> >>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
> >>>
> >>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
> >>> university studies and even information from the government itself
> >>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
> >>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
> >>>
> >>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
> >>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
> >>> American freedom.
> >>>
> >>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
> >>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
> >>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
> >>
> >> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
> >
> > I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
> > pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
> >
> > However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
> > was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
> > society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
> > opposite position in another thread.
>
> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>
> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.

On 2023-03-19 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think bad
>>>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap water?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv on
>>>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>
>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
>>>
>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>>>
>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>
>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>
>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>
> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
> freedoms.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> > In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>> >>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>> >>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves have
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a public
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a separate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video against
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as they
>> >>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>> >>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>> >>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>> >>>>>>>>>> mocking,
>> >>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>> >>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>> >>>>>>>>> leftism.
>> >>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>> >>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
>> >>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>> >>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
>> >>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>> >>>>>> selectivity.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>> >>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think bad
>> >>>>> things about the government.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap water?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>> >>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv on
>> >>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
>> >>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
>> >>>
>> >>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>> >>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>> >>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>> >>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>> >>>
>> >>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>> >>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>> >>> American freedom.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
>> >>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>> >>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>> >>
>> >> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
>> >
>> > I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>> > pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>> >
>> > However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
>> > was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
>> > society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>> > opposite position in another thread.
>>
>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>
>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>
>Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
>no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
>freedoms.

On 3/19/2023 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think bad
>>>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap water?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv on
>>>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>
>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
>>>
>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>>>
>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>
>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>
>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>
> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
> freedoms.

On 3/19/2023 4:09 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
>>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think bad
>>>>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap water?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv on
>>>>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
>>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
>>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>>>>
>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
>>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
>>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>>
>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>>
>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>>
>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
>> freedoms.
>
> I've never seen moviePig waive his hands so quickly to falsely proclaim
> his full support for liberty and denying that the censorhip he dearly
> favors is truly censorship.
>
> This is above and beyond any moviePig of the past.
>
> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
> mis/interpretations
>
> How can you not admire his ability to mix metaphors and misuse so many
> words in that sentence fragment to commit to the Big Lie with his whole
> head and heart?
>
> All hail moviePig.

On 3/19/2023 5:05 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/19/2023 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
>>   moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>>>    moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account',
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely
>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the
>>>>>>>>>> insanity
>>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people
>>>>>>>> think bad
>>>>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap
>>>>>>> water?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern.
>>>>>>> Ymmv on
>>>>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
>>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to
>>>>>>> countenance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
>>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports
>>>>> censored?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>>>>
>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford
>>>> crew
>>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
>>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>>
>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>>
>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>>
>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
>> freedoms.
>
> Got a concise example of "free speech" I'd wrongheadedly disallow?

On 3/19/23 1:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think bad
>>>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap water?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv on
>>>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>
>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
>>>
>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>>>
>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>
>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>
>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>
> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
> freedoms.

On 3/19/23 4:12 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/19/2023 4:09 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>>>>    moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the
>>>>>>>>>>> insanity
>>>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people
>>>>>>>>> think bad
>>>>>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap
>>>>>>>> water?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern.
>>>>>>>> Ymmv on
>>>>>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that
>>>>>>>> letting
>>>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to
>>>>>>>> countenance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the
>>>>>>> results of
>>>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>>>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?"
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports
>>>>>> censored?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably
>>>>> florid.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford
>>>>> crew
>>>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers
>>>>> please"
>>>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>>>
>>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>>>
>>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>>>
>>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
>>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
>>> freedoms.
>>
>> I've never seen moviePig waive his hands so quickly to falsely proclaim
>> his full support for liberty and denying that the censorhip he dearly
>> favors is truly censorship.
>>
>> This is above and beyond any moviePig of the past.
>>
>>     Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>     mis/interpretations
>>
>> How can you not admire his ability to mix metaphors and misuse so many
>> words in that sentence fragment to commit to the Big Lie with his whole
>> head and heart?
>>
>> All hail moviePig.
>
> Why not fix the bad syntax and misspellings in your own first sentence?

In article <pOKRL.139578$eRZ7.14476@fx06.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 3/19/2023 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
> >>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
> >>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.co
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mocking,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
> >>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
> >>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
> >>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
> >>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
> >>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
> >>>>>>>> selectivity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
> >>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think
> >>>>>>> bad things about the government.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap
> >>>>>> water?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
> >>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv
> >>>>>> on what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
> >>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
> >>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
> >>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
> >>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
> >>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
> >>>>> American freedom.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
> >>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
> >>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
> >>>
> >>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
> >>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
> >>>
> >>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
> >>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
> >>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
> >>> opposite position in another thread.
> >>
> >> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
> >> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
> >> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
> >>
> >> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
> >
> > Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
> > no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
> > freedoms.
>
> Got a concise example of "free speech" I'd wrongheadedly disallow?

On 3/19/2023 6:16 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/19/23 4:12 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 3/19/2023 4:09 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>>>>>    moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos as they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the
>>>>>>>>>>>> insanity
>>>>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it
>>>>>>>>>>>> promises.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even
>>>>>>>>>> true
>>>>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people
>>>>>>>>>> think bad
>>>>>>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's
>>>>>>>>> tap water?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion,
>>>>>>>>> if it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern.
>>>>>>>>> Ymmv on
>>>>>>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that
>>>>>>>>> letting
>>>>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to
>>>>>>>>> countenance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the
>>>>>>>> results of
>>>>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's
>>>>>>>> rhetoric.
>>>>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers
>>>>>>>> please?" and
>>>>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports
>>>>>>> censored?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably
>>>>>> florid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The
>>>>>> Stanford crew
>>>>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers
>>>>>> please"
>>>>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>>>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>>>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
>>>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
>>>> freedoms.
>>>
>>> I've never seen moviePig waive his hands so quickly to falsely proclaim
>>> his full support for liberty and denying that the censorhip he dearly
>>> favors is truly censorship.
>>>
>>> This is above and beyond any moviePig of the past.
>>>
>>>     Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>>     mis/interpretations
>>>
>>> How can you not admire his ability to mix metaphors and misuse so many
>>> words in that sentence fragment to commit to the Big Lie with his whole
>>> head and heart?
>>>
>>> All hail moviePig.
>>
>> Why not fix the bad syntax and misspellings in your own first sentence?
>
>
> That's beyond his ken.  And his Barbies.

On 3/20/2023 11:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <pOKRL.139578$eRZ7.14476@fx06.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/2023 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.co
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even remotely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the insanity
>>>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think
>>>>>>>>> bad things about the government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap
>>>>>>>> water?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv
>>>>>>>> on what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that letting
>>>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to countenance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>>>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>>>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
>>>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports censored?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford crew
>>>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
>>>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>>>
>>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>>>
>>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>>>
>>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
>>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
>>> freedoms.
>>
>> Got a concise example of "free speech" I'd wrongheadedly disallow?
>
> We had one earlier upthread where you defended censoring true
> information because it was inconvenient for politicians.

In article <NQ%RL.1480358$iS99.766526@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 3/20/2023 11:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <pOKRL.139578$eRZ7.14476@fx06.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/19/2023 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
> >>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
> >>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sexuality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account',
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harassment,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mocking,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the
> >>>>>>>>>>> insanity
> >>>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
> >>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
> >>>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think
> >>>>>>>>> bad things about the government.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap
> >>>>>>>> water?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
> >>>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv
> >>>>>>>> on what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that
> >>>>>>>> letting some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to
> >>>>>>>> countenance.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
> >>>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
> >>>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
> >>>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
> >>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
> >>>>>>> American freedom.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
> >>>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
> >>>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports
> >>>>>> censored?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
> >>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford
> >>>>> crew
> >>>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
> >>>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
> >>>>> opposite position in another thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
> >>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
> >>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
> >>>>
> >>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
> >>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
> >>> freedoms.
> >>
> >> Got a concise example of "free speech" I'd wrongheadedly disallow?
> >
> > We had one earlier upthread where you defended censoring true
> > information because it was inconvenient for politicians.
>
> It's a lengthy thread, so you'd have to be more specific. But I think
> I've never "defended censoring true information because it was
> inconvenient for politicians".

On 3/20/2023 12:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <NQ%RL.1480358$iS99.766526@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2023 11:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <pOKRL.139578$eRZ7.14476@fx06.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/2023 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention, resulting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate account',
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own video
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the videos as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insanity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it promises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even true
>>>>>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people think
>>>>>>>>>>> bad things about the government.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap
>>>>>>>>>> water?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if it
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern. Ymmv
>>>>>>>>>> on what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that
>>>>>>>>>> letting some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to
>>>>>>>>>> countenance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results of
>>>>>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's rhetoric.
>>>>>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?" and
>>>>>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports
>>>>>>>> censored?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>>>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably florid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford
>>>>>>> crew
>>>>>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers please"
>>>>>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>>>>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>>>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>>>>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
>>>>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
>>>>> freedoms.
>>>>
>>>> Got a concise example of "free speech" I'd wrongheadedly disallow?
>>>
>>> We had one earlier upthread where you defended censoring true
>>> information because it was inconvenient for politicians.
>>
>> It's a lengthy thread, so you'd have to be more specific. But I think
>> I've never "defended censoring true information because it was
>> inconvenient for politicians".
>
> You defended the Stanford study, which is what it advocated.

In article <wI2SL.1484295$iS99.1024371@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 3/20/2023 12:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <NQ%RL.1480358$iS99.766526@fx16.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/20/2023 11:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <pOKRL.139578$eRZ7.14476@fx06.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/19/2023 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
> >>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig"
> >>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> insanity of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> promises.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even
> >>>>>>>>>>> true information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people
> >>>>>>>>>>> think bad things about the government.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap
> >>>>>>>>>> water?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if
> >>>>>>>>>> it doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern.
> >>>>>>>>>> Ymmv on what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think
> >>>>>>>>>> that letting some polemic stand as objective medical advice is
> >>>>>>>>>> hard to countenance.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results
> >>>>>>>>> of university studies and even information from the government
> >>>>>>>>> itself because the results didn't conform to the administration's
> >>>>>>>>> rhetoric. How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
> >>>>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
> >>>>>>>>> American freedom.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?"
> >>>>>>>>> and here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people
> >>>>>>>>> for objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports
> >>>>>>>> censored?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
> >>>>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably
> >>>>>>> florid.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford
> >>>>>>> crew was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers
> >>>>>>> please" society and you're apparently cool with that here while
> >>>>>>> taking the opposite position in another thread.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
> >>>>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
> >>>>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
> >>>>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
> >>>>> freedoms.
> >>>>
> >>>> Got a concise example of "free speech" I'd wrongheadedly disallow?
> >>>
> >>> We had one earlier upthread where you defended censoring true
> >>> information because it was inconvenient for politicians.
> >>
> >> It's a lengthy thread, so you'd have to be more specific. But I think
> >> I've never "defended censoring true information because it was
> >> inconvenient for politicians".
> >
> > You defended the Stanford study, which is what it advocated.
>
> I doubt it advocated 'censorship for political convenience' ...even
> though you perceive that intent, and *even though you could be right*.

They literally said certain information should be suppressed, even if
true, because it might undermine the narrative the government was
pushing or undermine trust in the government.

> What I probably defended was the possibility of "secrecy for the common
> good". And I doubt I'd have done so without substantial qualification.

On 3/20/23 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <wI2SL.1484295$iS99.1024371@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2023 12:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <NQ%RL.1480358$iS99.766526@fx16.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/20/2023 11:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <pOKRL.139578$eRZ7.14476@fx06.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/19/2023 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insanity of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think bad things about the government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's tap
>>>>>>>>>>>> water?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion, if
>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ymmv on what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>> that letting some polemic stand as objective medical advice is
>>>>>>>>>>>> hard to countenance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the results
>>>>>>>>>>> of university studies and even information from the government
>>>>>>>>>>> itself because the results didn't conform to the administration's
>>>>>>>>>>> rhetoric. How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>>>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>>>>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers please?"
>>>>>>>>>>> and here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people
>>>>>>>>>>> for objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports
>>>>>>>>>> censored?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>>>>>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably
>>>>>>>>> florid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The Stanford
>>>>>>>>> crew was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers
>>>>>>>>> please" society and you're apparently cool with that here while
>>>>>>>>> taking the opposite position in another thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>>>>>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>>>>>>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you have
>>>>>>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our guaranteed
>>>>>>> freedoms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got a concise example of "free speech" I'd wrongheadedly disallow?
>>>>>
>>>>> We had one earlier upthread where you defended censoring true
>>>>> information because it was inconvenient for politicians.
>>>>
>>>> It's a lengthy thread, so you'd have to be more specific. But I think
>>>> I've never "defended censoring true information because it was
>>>> inconvenient for politicians".
>>>
>>> You defended the Stanford study, which is what it advocated.
>>
>> I doubt it advocated 'censorship for political convenience' ...even
>> though you perceive that intent, and *even though you could be right*.
>
> They literally said

Was that before or after you 'drove off a cliff?' Where's the quote for
what they 'literally said?' Didn't you have time for the subsequent
drop box image?

certain information should be suppressed, even if
> true, because it might undermine the narrative the government was
> pushing or undermine trust in the government.
>
>> What I probably defended was the possibility of "secrecy for the common
>> good". And I doubt I'd have done so without substantial qualification.

On 3/20/23 11:15 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/19/2023 6:16 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 3/19/23 4:12 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 3/19/2023 4:09 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <B1GRL.1118592$Tcw8.487568@fx10.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 9:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <JirRL.356335$5CY7.238946@fx46.iad>,
>>>>>>>    moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 3:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <2wnRL.1459191$iS99.1184159@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2023 1:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <sIkRL.1114929$Tcw8.446530@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 6:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 2:42:13 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos that leftists post of themselves doing things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers bragging about how they use their position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stealthily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinate kids in Marxism and 'non-traditional'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sexuality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reposts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these videos, they often gain national attention,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firing of the leftist who was stupid enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of their own misbehavior. This has resulted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uniting to condemn "Libs of TikTok" as a 'hate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account', even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though all it does repost videos that leftists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Twitter regime for violating the rule against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harassment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Twitter management never explained how it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntarily posted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum. When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first accounts he restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether "hate speech" can be defined or disallowed is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but note that editing can turn anyone's own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The account literally just reposts or retweets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos as they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. It's never been accused of editing them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   From Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It reposts content created by left-wing and LGBT people on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TikTok,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and on other social media platforms, often with hostile,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    mocking,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    or derogatory commentary."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I won't debate whether a pointed surrounding context is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'editing'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Said 'derogatory commentary' mostly just being criticism of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leftism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to be labeled 'hostile', 'hateful', or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'harassing' these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, posting a commentary on a video is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to deceptively editing a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are (at least) two sorts of 'criticism'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither of which edits a video.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, even *selecting* a video for presentation can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deceptive".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for an account that explicitly exists to highlight the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insanity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of leftists on TikTok. It's giving you exactly what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> promises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on whether it significantly minimizes the degree of
>>>>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
>>>>>>>>>>> You sound like Stanford advocating for the censorship of even
>>>>>>>>>>> true
>>>>>>>>>>> information about the Wuhan Flu because it might make people
>>>>>>>>>>> think bad
>>>>>>>>>>> things about the government.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's with the "censorship" shtick? Are you drinking Adam's
>>>>>>>>>> tap water?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Information" presented as argument for a medical conclusion,
>>>>>>>>>> if it
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't include analysis of known alternatives, is of concern.
>>>>>>>>>> Ymmv on
>>>>>>>>>> what ameliorating steps may be appropriate, but I think that
>>>>>>>>>> letting
>>>>>>>>>> some polemic stand as objective medical advice is hard to
>>>>>>>>>> countenance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people talking about the
>>>>>>>>> results of
>>>>>>>>> university studies and even information from the government itself
>>>>>>>>> because the results didn't conform to the administration's
>>>>>>>>> rhetoric.
>>>>>>>>> How is that "polemic as medical advice"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They were talking about censoring people from objecting to vaccine
>>>>>>>>> passports and discussing how such things run counter to notions of
>>>>>>>>> American freedom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just in another thread this very day you decried "Papers
>>>>>>>>> please?" and
>>>>>>>>> here you're sticking up for those who wanted to censor people for
>>>>>>>>> objecting to "Papers please?" You're truly amazing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay. *Was* anyone's "freedom"-objection to vaccine passports
>>>>>>>> censored?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey of all the
>>>>>>> pre-Musk Wuhan Flu censorship at Twitter, but it was inarguably
>>>>>>> florid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, whether it actually happened isn't the point. The
>>>>>>> Stanford crew
>>>>>>> was advocating for shutting up anyone who objected to a "Papers
>>>>>>> please"
>>>>>>> society and you're apparently cool with that here while taking the
>>>>>>> opposite position in another thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>>>>> mis/interpretations, suffice to say that my version of censorship is
>>>>>> unchanged: it's the suppression of the availability of ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e., 'free speech' not 'free screech'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and my evaluation of it also remains unchanged: thank god you
>>>>> have
>>>>> no actual say in circumscribing the depth and breadth of our
>>>>> guaranteed
>>>>> freedoms.
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen moviePig waive his hands so quickly to falsely proclaim
>>>> his full support for liberty and denying that the censorhip he dearly
>>>> favors is truly censorship.
>>>>
>>>> This is above and beyond any moviePig of the past.
>>>>
>>>>     Without punctiliously un-peeling past dialogue and its numerous
>>>>     mis/interpretations
>>>>
>>>> How can you not admire his ability to mix metaphors and misuse so many
>>>> words in that sentence fragment to commit to the Big Lie with his whole
>>>> head and heart?
>>>>
>>>> All hail moviePig.
>>>
>>> Why not fix the bad syntax and misspellings in your own first sentence?
>>
>>
>> That's beyond his ken.  And his Barbies.
>
> His anatomically incorrect Ken...

On Mar 17, 2023 at 12:35:17 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <339200090.700767632.331272.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Netflix recently canceled a children's animated show featuring a non-binary
>>>> bison who insists on using they/them pronouns.
>>>>
>>>> RIDLEY JONES premiered in 2021 and just released its fifth and final
>>>> season. The show is rated TV-Y, meaning it's aimed at a very young
>>>> audience, including children from ages 2-6. The series follows a girl named
>>>> Ridley who lives in a magical museum with her mother and grandmother.
>>>> She's accompanied by her non-binary bison Fred who has two "dad mummies".
>>>>
>>> I am offended
>>>
>>>> Creator Chris Nee, a lesbian and mom, said of the series launch in 2021: "I
>>>> am here to change the world. Or retire trying. I know what it is to be
>>>> 'othered'. My job is to show the world as I want it to be."
>>>
>>> And by that you mean not only sick and wrong, but wrong sick?
>>>
>>>> People strongly reacted to episode 8 of season 5, "Herd Day". This episode
>>>> focuses on the non-binary bison discussing pronoun usage. Cyndi Lauper
>>>> voices Fred's grandmother.
>>>>
>>>> Fred says, "My heart says that the way I feel most myself is to go by the
>>>> name Fred. That's because I'm nonbinary and Fred is the name that fits me
>>>> best. And I also use 'they' and 'them', because calling me a she or a he
>>>> doesn't feel right to me." This inspires the little bison's Grandma Dottie
>>>> to apologize to Fred for using a previous name and pronouns.
>>>>
>>>> Twitter erupted with reactions from accounts that accused the show of
>>>> attempting to foist radical left-wing gender theory on preschoolers.
>>>>
>>>> "Don't tell me there is not an agenda. Netflix has done it again. This show
>>>> is for preschoolers," one user posted. "Bye Netflix."
>>>>
>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your kids.
>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>
>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>
>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>
>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok videos that
>> leftists post of themselves doing things like teachers bragging about how
>> they use their position to stealthily indoctrinate kids in Marxism and
>> 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>>
>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it reposts these
>> videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in the firing of
>> the leftist who was stupid enough to post a public video of their own
>> misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists uniting to condemn "Libs of
>> TikTok" as a 'hate account', even though all it does repost videos that
>> leftists themselves have posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several
>> times under the old Twitter regime for violating the rule against
>> harassment, but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>> just to retweet a video someone voluntartily posted to a public forum.
>> When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of the first accounts
>> he restored.
>>
>
> Ah. Thanks!

FYI, I did a thread on LibsofTikTok back in 2021 and how the legacy media is
enraged by the woman who runs the account:

Apparently the Washington Post is *really* pissed about the person who runs
the Twitter account @LibsofTikTok.

For those of you who don't know, this account regularly collates all the
videos that insane leftists-- a lot of them public school teachers-- have made
of themselves admitting they're attempting to indoctrinate the children who
have been entrusted to their care into everything from Marxism to bizarre
sexual ideologies.

The account has become wildly popular and "fuels right-wing sentiment" and
therefore must be destroyed by the gatekeepers of our 'progressive' culture at
the Post. (Notice how "fueling left-wing sentiment" never seems to be a
problem for our garbage media?) They assigned a reporter named Taylor Lorenz
to investigate the evil person behind the account who has committed the crime
of pointing to things leftists have posted and laughing at them. Lorenz
proceeded to not only dox the account holder, but her parents, siblings,
friends, and employer, and described the account as "an LGBTQ hate site".

Lorenz never bothered to explain how merely playing videos that leftists
themselves recorded, voiced, edited, appeared in, even occasionally scored
with music, and then they posted on the internet, for-- quite literally-- the
entire planet to see, constitutes a "hate campaign against LGBTQ people".

But none of that matters. This account mocks leftists-- by literally doing
nothing more than showing videos they themselves have made-- but since it
results in ridicule rather than supportive calls of "Slaaaaayyy queen!", it
must be stopped and the Washington Post is stepping into the breach on our
behalf. One wonders how they can be upset at videos being publicly shown that
were posted to the public internet by their authors in the first place. Isn't
it reasonable to assume that the pink-haired nose-ringed creatures who make
these videos *want* their recordings to be seen and promulgated?

No, says the Post. No, it's not reasonable. You see, when @LibsofTikTok posts
or retweets them, they are now reaching the wrong audience. They're now being
displayed for conservatives, who laugh and mock them instead of only being
seen by the young, vulnerable, and impressionable kids for whom they were
intended. The Post also sees the thousands of conservative responses to the
videos and defines it as "hate". You see, leftists don't want conservatives
coalescing together like that, as they know it's a fundamental strength. They
believe they're the only ones who should be allowed to do that.

This is why leftists want conservatives banned from "their" social media. So
they have a safe echo chamber to post their crazy. It's why "free speech Elon"
has them in a frenzy.

Oh, and when someone decided to do to Taylor Lorenz exactly what she'd done to
the account holder of @LibsofTikTok-- namely showing up at the homes of her
friends and family and demanding comments from them on what they think of her
behavior-- she lost her shit and started screaming about "right-wing
conspiracies to destroy journalism". One thing I've noticed over the years is
that our precious, precious journalists absolutely will not tolerate having
the same light shined on them that they're more than happy to shine on you and
me.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>. . .

>FYI, I did a thread on LibsofTikTok back in 2021 and how the legacy media is
>enraged by the woman who runs the account:

Believe women!

>. . .

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>>> Netflix recently canceled a children's animated show featuring a non-
>>>>> binary bison who insists on using they/them pronouns.
>>>>>
>>>>> RIDLEY JONES premiered in 2021 and just released its fifth and final
>>>>> season. The show is rated TV-Y, meaning it's aimed at a very young
>>>>> audience, including children from ages 2-6. The series follows a girl
>>>>> named Ridley who lives in a magical museum with her mother and
>>>>> grandmother. She's accompanied by her non-binary bison Fred who has
>>>>> two "dad mummies".
>>>>>
>>>> I am offended
>>>>
>>>>> Creator Chris Nee, a lesbian and mom, said of the series launch in 2021:
>>>>> "I am here to change the world. Or retire trying. I know what it is to be
>>>>> 'othered'. My job is to show the world as I want it to be."
>>>>
>>>> And by that you mean not only sick and wrong, but wrong sick?
>>>>
>>>>> People strongly reacted to episode 8 of season 5, "Herd Day". This
>>>>> episode focuses on the non-binary bison discussing pronoun usage. Cyndi
>>>>> Lauper voices Fred's grandmother.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fred says, "My heart says that the way I feel most myself is to go by the
>>>>> name Fred. That's because I'm nonbinary and Fred is the name that fits me
>>>>> best. And I also use 'they' and 'them', because calling me a she or a he
>>>>> doesn't feel right to me." This inspires the little bison's Grandma Dottie
>>>>> to apologize to Fred for using a previous name and pronouns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Twitter erupted with reactions from accounts that accused the show of
>>>>> attempting to foist radical left-wing gender theory on preschoolers.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Don't tell me there is not an agenda. Netflix has done it again. This
>>>>> show is for preschoolers," one user posted. "Bye Netflix."
>>>>>
>>>>> An actual kid's show on Netflix. They're coming for your kids.
>>>>> pic.twitter.com/rN9GtxHK6E
>>>>>
>>>>> --Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2023
>>>>
>>>> Are the Libs offended or threatening us?
>>>
>>> "Libs of TikTok" is a conservative account that finds TikTok videos that
>>> leftists post of themselves doing things like teachers bragging about how
>>> they use their position to stealthily indoctrinate kids in Marxism and
>>> 'non-traditional' sexuality.
>>>
>>> Because "Libs of TikTok" has a massive following, when it reposts these
>>> videos, they often gain national attention, resulting in the firing of
>>> the leftist who was stupid enough to post a public video of their own
>>> misbehavior. This has resulted in leftists uniting to condemn "Libs of
>>> TikTok" as a 'hate account', even though all it does repost videos that
>>> leftists themselves have posted. "Libs of TikTok" was suspended several
>>> times under the old Twitter regime for violating the rule against
>>> harassment, but Twitter management never explained how it's harassment
>>> just to retweet a video someone voluntartily posted to a public forum.
>>> When Musk took over Twitter, "Libs of TikTok" was one of the first accounts
>>> he restored.
>>
>> Ah. Thanks!
>
>FYI, I did a thread on LibsofTikTok back in 2021 and how the legacy media is
>enraged by the woman who runs the account:
>
>Apparently the Washington Post is *really* pissed about the person who runs
>the Twitter account @LibsofTikTok.
>
>For those of you who don't know, this account regularly collates all the
>videos that insane leftists-- a lot of them public school teachers-- have made
>of themselves admitting they're attempting to indoctrinate the children who
>have been entrusted to their care into everything from Marxism to bizarre
>sexual ideologies.
>
>The account has become wildly popular and "fuels right-wing sentiment" and
>therefore must be destroyed by the gatekeepers of our 'progressive' culture
>at the Post. (Notice how "fueling left-wing sentiment" never seems to be a
>problem for our garbage media?) They assigned a reporter named Taylor Lorenz
>to investigate the evil person behind the account who has committed the crime
>of pointing to things leftists have posted and laughing at them. Lorenz
>proceeded to not only dox the account holder, but her parents, siblings,
>friends, and employer, and described the account as "an LGBTQ hate site".

These are the same nitwits who claim that "genocide" is being comitted.

--
Let's go Brandon!