Greyparrot

Sky News, Australia is amazing for getting around the big tech censors.

When Wikipedia bans, you can be confident that they are crony and corrupt.

People are starting to mock and marginalize Big Tech censors like mediabiasfactchect and other gatekeeping factcheck sites.

Australia's sky news is laughing at the crony censorship and cashing in big.

It's hard to keep the lid on it when the people demand more.

NBA ratings tanked this year when they decided to branch out into the infotainment industry.

Pretty sure the president did not order the NBA to make that business decision.

PGA viewership for the first time in our lifetimes surpassed NBA viewership this year because PGA stayed with the sports entertainment business model.

Pretty sure Trump did not sign an executive order forcing the PGA to do that.

Trump says a lot of weird shit but he is not the person making actual policies or decisions that fundamentally change the industries that are comically experimenting with the woke/broke theory.

Yep.

Yep.

Cause I agree with you...duh

How did you win so fast?

You won in your first post somehow.

Obviously, scum will have to kill before you make a post now.

Yeah we were talking about predictit and betting.

I mean if Danielle wins DP1 what can you do?

This thread isn't about documents.

You win gg as usual.

Cancel culture is disgusting, uncivilized, and undemocratic.

Might be 50% I am scum

This

Rewrite the Commerce clause as such:

"The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have the power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for the punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States."

FDR completely fucked up that part of the constitution when he made that crazy grab for government control over the economy.

Elite politicians cant be allowed label and censor everything they don't like as a "theatrical fire"

Also my role has a 50% chance of being fake.

The "fire" argument is what Chomsky says is abused by powerful political elites.

And He got cancelled for just stating the obvious.

Everything is theatrics for the elites in political power. Everything is a fire to them.

One fan tweeted: “Apparently he is canceled now for signing a letter pro-open dialogue which is forbidden on the internet apparently and oh, 17-year-olds now think they’re better Chomskys than Chomsky. It’s a rabbit hole, enter at your own risk.”

I am a Someone.

My role is: vanilla.

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study, and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers, we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk-taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

-Signed by Noam Chomsky, and calls were made to censor Chomsky over this.

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

-Noam Chomsky

Cardi B has a cult of personality too, just like Trumpy the Clown.

Oh and Hitler of course.

Many of the worst man-made events that ever occurred were not the product of evil geniuses. Instead, they were the product of a parade of idiots and lunatics, incoherently flailing their way through events, helped along the way by overconfident people who thought they could control them.

I think Justices should be allocated by chance lottery from a large pool of qualified candidates and confirmed by elected officials. 

Pipedream I know.

That's fine, because your misconceptions about both people are expected.

 It's worth remembering that Hitler was actually an incompetent, lazy egomaniac and his government was an absolute clown show.

     In fact, this may even have helped his rise to power, as he was consistently underestimated by the German elite. Before he became chancellor, many of his opponents had dismissed him as a joke for his crude speeches and tacky rallies. Even after elections had made the Nazis the largest party in the Reichstag, people still kept thinking that Hitler was an easy mark, a blustering idiot who could easily be controlled by smart people.

     Why did the elites of Germany so consistently underestimate Hitler? Possibly because they weren't actually wrong in their assessment of his competency—they just failed to realize that this wasn't enough to stand in the way of his ambition. As it would turn out, Hitler was really bad at running a government. As his own press chief Otto Dietrich later wrote in his memoir The Hitler I Knew, "In the twelve years of his rule in Germany Hitler produced the biggest confusion in government that has ever existed in a civilized state."

     His government was constantly in chaos, with officials having no idea what he wanted them to do, and nobody was entirely clear who was actually in charge of what. He procrastinated wildly when asked to make difficult decisions, and would often end up relying on gut feeling, leaving even close allies in the dark about his plans. His "unreliability had those who worked with him pulling out their hair," as his confidant Ernst Hanfstaengl later wrote in his memoir Zwischen Weißem und Braunem Haus. This meant that rather than carrying out the duties of state, they spent most of their time in-fighting and back-stabbing each other in an attempt to either win his approval or avoid his attention altogether, depending on what mood he was in that day.

     There's a bit of an argument among historians about whether this was a deliberate ploy on Hitler's part to get his own way, or whether he was just really, really bad at being in charge of stuff. Dietrich himself came down on the side of it being a cunning tactic to sow division and chaos—and it's undeniable that he was very effective at that. But when you look at Hitler's personal habits, it's hard to shake the feeling that it was just a natural result of putting a workshy narcissist in charge of a country.

     Hitler was incredibly lazy. According to his aide Fritz Wiedemann, even when he was in Berlin he wouldn't get out of bed until after 11 a.m., and wouldn't do much before lunch other than read what the newspapers had to say about him, the press cuttings being dutifully delivered to him by Dietrich.

He was obsessed with the media and celebrity and often seems to have viewed himself through that lens. He once described himself as "the greatest actor in Europe," and wrote to a friend, "I believe my life is the greatest novel in world history." In many of his personal habits he came across as strange or even childish—he would have regular naps during the day, he would bite his fingernails at the dinner table, and he had a remarkably sweet tooth that led him to eat "prodigious amounts of cake" and "put so many lumps of sugar in his cup that there was hardly any room for the tea."

He was deeply insecure about his own lack of knowledge, preferring to either ignore information that contradicted his preconceptions or to lash out at the expertise of others. He hated being laughed at but enjoyed it when other people were the butt of the joke (he would perform mocking impressions of people he disliked). But he also craved the approval of those he disdained, and his mood would quickly improve if a newspaper wrote something complimentary about him.

Little of this was especially secret or unknown at the time. It's why so many people failed to take Hitler seriously until it was too late, dismissing him as merely a "half-mad rascal" or a "man with a beery vocal organ." In a sense, they weren't wrong. In another, much more important sense, they were as wrong as it's possible to get.
Hitler's personal failings didn't stop him from having an uncanny instinct for political rhetoric that would gain mass appeal, and it turns out you don't actually need to have a particularly competent or functional government to do terrible things.

We tend to assume that when something awful happens there must have been some great controlling intelligence behind it. It's understandable: how could things have gone so wrong, we think if there wasn't an evil genius pulling the strings? The downside of this is that we tend to assume that if we can't immediately spot an evil genius, then we can all chill out a bit because everything will be fine.

But history suggests that's a mistake, and it's one that we make over and over again. Many of the worst man-made events that ever occurred were not the product of evil geniuses. Instead, they were the product of a parade of idiots and lunatics, incoherently flailing their way through events, helped along the way by overconfident people who thought they could control them.

You're completely discounting the Hillarys and Bidens of Europe that Hitler dealt with.

I can't believe you're fan-fictioning Hitler of all people.

Lol, you obviously don't know history at all, and it shows.

Nah bro, Hitler was an incompetent Buffoon, roundly mocked throughout the world. Paranoid, superstitious, and just all around clownish.

Hitler was an orange freak cry baby too.

Watch this orange freak lose it...totally unhinged and unfit!

Nah, the system is adequate.

The alternative is a system where grievances are calculated by cultural groups instead of jurisprudence.

I love this banter where I pretend you are left wing and you pretend I am right wing.

Thank god for arbitrary courts then.

Lol, anything is a fighting word to a butthurt liberal.

MSM having a really hard time censoring all the evidence.

I like the last part...Biden's "DIRECTOR OF RAPID RESPONSE" (what a title lol) did not respond to questions.

I'd say Hunter was a profitable asset for sure.

yell "fuck Trump" so you don't get hurt.