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...

Hey! He resembles that remark.