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.