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.

Indeed! Movie Pig supports "free speech" (i.e. any speech he agrees
with) enthusiastically and condemns "free screech" (any speech he
disagrees with) and seeks to have it kept from those who might hear it.
He'll never put it that way, seeking to bury his musings in his standard
bafflegab, but that's what he means.

--
Rhino