Internet No Longer Open

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

No, I'm not.  I'm pointing out that it's all connected.  Control of the internet, defunding, demonetizing, banking.   It's all about cutting off money and communications.  Those two are the key.  And look at who's going to be in control when it's all over.

The playing field is the same.  The players are different, the game is different. Maza only got temporary power because it is pride month.  Vox does not have much influence, it's not mainstream media.  Therefore, VoxAdpocalypse is not a war waged by "The Swamp".  Rather, it is part of the Cultural War.  Those 2 are not the same.  Okay 2 wars - to differentiate the two in super condensed form -

The Socio-Political War is things like Left-Wing vs Right-Wing, Trump vs the Swamp, Brexit vs EU-centric, Nationalists/Populists vs Globalists, China/Russia/Iran vs "the West", Radical Islamists vs Everybody-Else, etc.  You got things here like Rathergate, Reutersgate, Russiagate, etc.

The Cultural War is things like Feminists vs anti-Feminist, SJW vs Everybody-Else, Antifa vs College Campus speakers, 4Chan vs Shia Lebouf,  Google vs James Damore, LucasFilms vs Fandom Menace, Milo vs Ghostbusters 2016, etc., with the latest entry - Crowder vs Maza.  Here you have things like gamergate, metoo, etc.

So, why the distinction needs to be noted - the Socio-Political War is where the power play is.  That's where the banks are.  They have a specific objective - the creation of a Global Government.  The Cultural War is just full of useful idiots that the Socio-Political War can ride on.  The Cultural War - separate from the Socio-Political one - is where the preservation of moral values and cultural tradition is being waged.  The only thing this war is useful for in the Socio-Political arena is to get votes and to drive "popular opinion".

 

1 hour ago, Mores said:

I don't see much of anyone worrying about this at all.  When I hear statements from Twitter et al saying "We can no longer remain neutral" I think that shows a serious level of naivete when they don't even realize they've never been neutral.

I haven't really seen this much.  Maybe I haven't been paying attention.  But apart from Vox, I am not aware.  Could you educate me and give some examples of "MSM" trying to control "Social Media"?

So, let me start with Jack Dorsey.  He's the perfect example of a coastal elite.  He is currently just way over his head.  When he says, "we can't afford to be neutral", it comes from his understanding of harassment.  He's not much wrong.  There are tons of people who use Twitter to harass others.  And it's on all sides of the socio-political and cultural spectrum.  The only thing is, he doesn't see the harassment on the left side of that spectrum because... well, that's the nature of ideologies, when you think they're right, then they're not harassing anybody. 

Now, MSM (Socio-political war sock puppet) trying to control Social Media - #1 example is their successful deplatforming of Infowars (Alex Jones) courtesy of Oliver Darcy (CNN).  CNN has been trying to get Jones silenced but has failed.  As it happens, Dorsey was testifying to congress about campaign information manipulation in the 2016 elections when Jones showed up with his camera and publicly harassed Darcy which gave CNN the perfect ammo to pressure Big Tech into deplatforming Jones.

 So the pushback - In the aftermath of this, Jack Dorsey appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast to explain the Twitter censorship position of Jones and others.  Rogan and Jones have been good friends since Rogan's stand-up days.  Well, the podcast received Social Media backlash because Rogan didn't challenge Dorsey so much so that Rogan was bleeding subscribers.  And Jones went on a tirade against Joe Rogan.  Jones, of course, still maintains a large following through his Infowars website and apps (which is another testament to how Big Tech doesn't really have the power to silence anybody, they can just kick you out of their public square).  Rogan realized he didn't really understand the issue, so he decided to invite Jack Dorsey again, this time with Tim Pool (opinion journalist who covered Free Speech on Campus and is now covering Free Speech on Social Media).  Jack Dorsey brought his policy VP with him.  That time, Tim Pool put Dorsey's toes to the fire and that's how we basically come to the conclusion that Dorsey is trying to do the right thing, he just happens to have zero diversity of thought in his outfit.  Anyway, after this, Rogan invited Jones to an almost 4-hour podcast.  It gained millions of views.  So much for Jones censorship.  By the way, Jones showed up on Crowder's latest Change My Mind video.  Okay, so where this led to - it eventually led to a Congressional Hearing on censorship last April.

 

1 hour ago, Mores said:

 

I don't see how they will be unable if they control the banks.  How will any competition do anything without the funds to do so?

"Control the banks" is vague.  "Control Big Banks" is clearer, I think.  So, a bank - big or otherwise - cannot hold your own money hostage unless ordered by government.  Therefore, it cannot control your own money.  So what we're talking about here is Credit - one's ability to owe money.   Big Banks have the deep pockets to issue big loans.  But they're not the only source of credit.  There are many sources of credit - like community banks, credit unions, etc.  Crowdfunding is also a popular source of funding.

When it comes to Social Media, then we have the extra layer of electronic transfers where the throttle can be closed down - this is the payment processing companies - credit cards, paypal, stripe, etc. who could refuse service to a site.  This is how Sargon got kicked out of Patreon - through pressure from Paypal and Stripe.  This can be remedied by Crypto - if we ever get that thing stabilized. 

In the case of NRA vs Citigroup, that's dealt with through Congress and the DOJ.   Citi received major backlash for that policy through the Senate Banking Committee urging the GSA to not use Citigroup as well as States like Louisiana ordering Citi to provide the State with a list of all Louisiana businesses impacted by the policy and how it restricts the constitutionally protected rights of citizens so they can review if they will allow Citi to do business in Louisiana.

 

1 hour ago, Mores said:

OK... I have to stop talking about this now.  I'm getting depressed.

Looking at the success of the nationalist/populist movements going on around the entire globe, I'm not very concerned.  The trick is to get government control off of the information super highway even if that means your enemy gets to yell loudly in your ear.

[Guest Mores]

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

In the case of NRA vs Citigroup, that's dealt with through Congress and the DOJ.   Citi received major backlash for that policy through the Senate Banking Committee urging the GSA to not use Citigroup as well as States like Louisiana ordering Citi to provide the State with a list of all Louisiana businesses impacted by the policy and how it restricts the constitutionally protected rights of citizens so they can review if they will allow Citi to do business in Louisiana.

Along with all the other stuff you said, good to hear it.  Thank you.  I'm not so depressed anymore.

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Looking at the success of the nationalist/populist movements going on around the entire globe, I'm not very concerned.  The trick is to get government control off of the information super highway even if that means your enemy gets to yell loudly in your ear.

You should be concerned.  It isn't about them yelling loudly in your ear.  It is about America devolving into the global culture that has been persecuting Christians more in recent years than Jews.  Christians have become the #1 most marginalized and persecuted religious group in the world.  On a per capita basis, Jews are still ahead.  But we're not too far behind.

Additionally, I've been looking more into the fall of the Roman Empire (I really should read the series by Gibbon).  Without the details, I will predict that we will see in my lifetime (and I'm just now beginning to realize just how little time I have left) we will see a Constitutional Crisis even greater than the Civil War.  When that happens, we may no longer be ruled by the Constitution anymore.  We may have a spectre of the old republic.  But the Bill of Rights will either be torn up or nullified completely.  Elections will be done in a manner that will be a joke.  Not fraud (which we've become familiar with).  It will be something different where they will put on a show but it will be meaningless.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

You should be concerned.  It isn't about them yelling loudly in your ear.  It is about America devolving into the global culture that has been persecuting Christians more in recent years than Jews.  Christians have become the #1 most marginalized and persecuted religious group in the world.  On a per capita basis, Jews are still ahead.  But we're not too far behind.

The trend, as I see it, has reached the end swing of the pendulum and it is swinging back.  Italy, Poland, Greece, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, India, Indonesia, Australia,  Brazil, Iceland, Philippines, USA have all elected nationalist populist heads of states within the last 5 years.  The latest EU elections is a nationalist/populist victory as they gain seats all as a backlash to cultural decimation.  The US has a deeply Christian administration that has appointed 128 traditionalist judges to the courts and have 65 awaiting Senate approval.  There are still about 130 vacancies in Fed court.  Anti-abortion movements have marked success even with the uphill battle against "the swamp".   Christian membership may be in decline in developed countries but it is on the rise in developing and under-developed countries.  Christianity is especially on the rise in African countries.

In any case, Christian persecution is an indelible quality of being Christian.

 

1 hour ago, Mores said:

Additionally, I've been looking more into the fall of the Roman Empire (I really should read the series by Gibbon).  Without the details, I will predict that we will see in my lifetime (and I'm just now beginning to realize just how little time I have left) we will see a Constitutional Crisis even greater than the Civil War.  When that happens, we may no longer be ruled by the Constitution anymore.  We may have a spectre of the old republic.  But the Bill of Rights will either be torn up or nullified completely.  Elections will be done in a manner that will be a joke.  Not fraud (which we've become familiar with).  It will be something different where they will put on a show but it will be meaningless.

Well, we staved that off when the US elected Trump.  Yet we got Mitt Romney opposing him.

[Guest Mores]

Wahoo!!!

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/alexander-hall/2019/06/12/jordan-peterson-announces-free-speech-platform-thinkspot

And HEEERRRRREEEEE's Jordan!! (Peterson that is).

It appears that the new conservative social platform is nearly ready.

Quote

The only other major rule on comments he mentioned was that they need to be thoughtful. Rather than suggesting that some opinions are “off limits,” Peterson said they will have a minimum required length so one has to put thought into what they write.
 
“If minimum comment length is 50 words, you’re gonna have to put a little thought into it,” Peterson said. “Even if you’re being a troll, you’ll be a quasi-witty troll.”

That is a pretty clever way to address that problem.  It may actually work.

The only thing the article did not mention is how they're going to deal with spam.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Mores

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, Mores said:

Wahoo!!!

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/alexander-hall/2019/06/12/jordan-peterson-announces-free-speech-platform-thinkspot

And HEEERRRRREEEEE's Jordan!! (Peterson that is).

It appears that the new conservative social platform is nearly ready.

It's not a "conservative social platform".

You need to think outside the "Liberal vs Conservative" paradigm because Peterson's ThinkSpot is not about that.  ThinkSpot is a Free Speech site.  Which means - Liberal, Conservative, and everything left right center and in between.

Remember, the objective is not to segregate.  The objective is to move discussion to a NEW public square (or cafeteria table).  So, if your site only attracts conservatives, it's a bad site.

Quote

That is a pretty clever way to address that problem.  It may actually work.

The only thing the article did not mention is how they're going to deal with spam.

Here's Tim Pool's prespective.  Tim Pool leans liberal but is often called alt-right by the twitterati liberals.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/YCHGig5ZbHI/

Edited June 14, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Mores]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

It's not a "conservative social platform".

ThinkSpot is a Free Speech site.

And the difference would be...???

When putting the litmus test up, precious few liberals would actually abide by Voltaire's purported enshrining of free speech.

[Guest Mores]

So, to further the doom and gloom predictions, 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/harvard-rescinds-kyle-kashuv-admission

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  This will not be an isolated case.  In fact, I'm going to bet that this same sort of thing has happened again and again, but was simply under the radar.

[anatess2]

On 6/14/2019 at 5:41 PM, Mores said:

And the difference would be...???

There's a HUGE difference between a platform that is aligned with one ideology versus a platform that is open to all ideologies.

On 6/14/2019 at 5:41 PM, Mores said:

When putting the litmus test up, precious few liberals would actually abide by Voltaire's purported enshrining of free speech.

This is YOUR worldview.  Remember, George Washington and the American forefathers were liberals.

[Guest Mores]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There's a HUGE difference between a platform that is aligned with one ideology versus a platform that is open to all ideologies.

My take is that conservative ideology is one which does allow openness to all ideologies in a platform of public debate.  Liberals are not.

Quote

This is YOUR worldview.  Remember, George Washington and the American forefathers were liberals.

No, they were classical liberals.  This term has been used for a very long time to differentiate the ideals of freedom from tyranny, compared to the tyranny of intersectionality that they adhere to today.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Mores

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

So, to further the doom and gloom predictions, 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/harvard-rescinds-kyle-kashuv-admission

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  This will not be an isolated case.  In fact, I'm going to bet that this same sort of thing has happened again and again, but was simply under the radar.

This is actually good for Kyle Kashuv.  His plan of "changing minds in Harvard" was an immature one.  

This is not the tip of the iceberg.  This is just snow in an avalanche that you now notice because... internet.

In any case, Kashuv DID make stupid racial statements.  So yes, kids, let this be a lesson to you.  Actions have consequences - at least, stupid ones have the ability to close doors of opportunity.

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Mores said:

My take is that conservative ideology is one which does allow openness to all ideologies in a platform of public debate.  Liberals are not.

Conservatism can be just as close-minded as liberalism.   The hippie generation was a backlash against religious conservatives.  They were the censorship masters of their day.

 

13 minutes ago, Mores said:

No, they were classical liberals.  This term has been used for a very long time to differentiate the ideals of freedom from tyranny, compared to the tyranny of intersectionality that they adhere to today.

Your American worldview is shining through.  First off, the internet is not American. 2nd, Jordan Peterson is Canadian.  Therefore, when you refer to an internet platform as Conservative - it doesn't make sense to be referring only to Americans.