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?