France, Germany, Mexico, Australia Join International Outcry over Censorship of Donald Trump

a reply to: uncommitted

Yes, the source is Breitbart. Not sure much more needs to be said

Really? You're not sure??? Let me help you out.

If you don't believe the source, do your own due diligence and prove or disprove that source. These are all public figures being quoted in public comments which should be easily found if true. If the source is bogus, then there will be no such quotes. Easy peasy.

Or, if you just want to believe what you want to believe, then do nothing.

Makes no difference to anyone else. You can choose to be informed or you can choose to be ignorant.

a reply to: uncommitted

How does Poland oppress free speech, exactly?

Are the Communists back or something? Is it like a weird Catholic North Korea in Poland now?

Seems to me Poland is one of the most steadfast against the global authoritarian corporate takeover.

Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: uncommitted

Yes, the source is Breitbart. Not sure much more needs to be said

Really? You're not sure??? Let me help you out.

If you don't believe the source, do your own due diligence and prove or disprove that source. These are all public figures being quoted in public comments which should be easily found if true. If the source is bogus, then there will be no such quotes. Easy peasy.

Or, if you just want to believe what you want to believe, then do nothing.

Makes no difference to anyone else. You can choose to be informed or you can choose to be ignorant.

Yeah, I'd say none of it amounts to an international outcry - that's Breitbart trying to make you think that.

The fact you think heads of state should decide who a platform can and cannot choose to ban based on their T's and C's being violated says an awful lot more about the kind of country you would rather live in.

a reply to: Ohanka

Whatever, obviously not allowing the public to use free speech to attack the policies put in place isn't a denial of free speech in your mind.

Critical thinking - it may seem difficult at first, but stick with it.

a reply to: Ohanka

If you want to know just how much the current Polish government defends free speech, educate yourself.....

time.com...

a reply to: uncommitted

Last i checked attacking the police isn’t free speech.

Considering their long history of struggling for their independence, and the horrific treatment of the Poles under their various conquerors, it is understandable to me they do not yield to agents of foreign corporate agendas.

Poland is not yet lost.

These social media giants have bigger worries in my opinion. Playing the people against each other and censoring people based on politics is a good way to breed domestic terrorism. Plus, these tech giants don’t have government security to protect them either. I’d say they are soft targets compared to elected officials.

a reply to: uncommitted

If holocaust denial is the best you have then that’s just sad.

I agree it is against free speech. But it is not an uncommon position for Europe in general and very understandable for Poland given their history.

This does not diminish their efforts to protect the rights of their citizens from foreign corporations and their agendas.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I can only imagine the feeling of moral and righteous superiority for being so enlightened and woke.

I still haven't shut down my FB yet, mostly because someone I like is on there(foolish me, haha), but here's something I read this morning that made me facepalm pretty hard.

"Huge numbers of our population believe in a complete alternate reality. Alternate facts as it were.
But just as intensely as I believe they are deluded, they think I am the one who is deluded. So how can I be confident in my perception? It can be quite difficult.

But, I have found that in times of political confusion, particularly when emotions are running high and creating tunnel vision, the presence of Nazis can be an extremely helpful indicator.

If I am attending a local demonstration or event and I see Nazis — neo-Nazis, casual Nazis, master race Nazis, or the latest-whatever-uber-mythology-Nazis — I figure out which side they are on. And if they are on my side of the demonstration? I am on the wrong side.

It is tough to argue moral equivalence when I am standing next to a Nazi. Look to my right. Is there a guy wearing a 6MWE (6 Million Wasn’t Enough) t-shirt? I am on the wrong side. Look to my left. Is that guy wearing a Camp Auschwitz hoodie? Wrong side. Are speakers being applauded for referring to things that Hitler got right? Wrong side.
Team-spirit face paint and hat with animal horns? This is actually an unclear indicator that could mean anything, but safest to keep my distance from that guy anyway, even at a football game.

However, I can always, always, always rely on the presence of Nazis as a guiding light through a fog of disinformation.
Some things are relative, and politics can absolutely have its opposing sides and grey areas. But evil and good are absolute. As are the lessons of history. So, just look for the Nazis, and make your own decisions.”
***Feel free to copy/share... That's what I did."

Now I've learned to shut my mouth on FB because thanks to most of the people I know it's become a liberal echo chamber, and with everything that's happened to me in the last few months of 2020, from a divorce to deaths in the family to losing my hands, I don't really feel like arguing.

With that said, though, two specific phrases came to mind when reading that:

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

and

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I get the point of the post, actual racists and nazi's suck, but most of that is a bunch of psuedo-intellectual moral superiority dribble. Yes, it comes from a good place, but it sounds like they're more than willing to either ignore, or support, totalitarian concepts all because it helps them fight nazi's. They don't seem to care that there's a terrible precedent being set that allows for full-on censorship all because nazi's aren't on their side.

I'm on the side of free speech, and yes, unfortunately nazi's come with free speech. Racists come with free speech. Stupidity also comes with free speech, but all sorts of great things also come from free speech. Great ideas come from it. Wonderful works of art, music, concepts, ideas, etc......so much comes from free speech that it needs to be protected, because once we lose it, who knows if we'll ever get it back.

I can't believe so many people are in support of censorship, all because of their TDS. Even though I know these countries aren't doing this because they support Trump, I'm glad they're speaking out to try and stop this, because if they can censor people in America, it's only a matter of time before they're censored as well. I never thought I'd agree with Merkel, but like that saying goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Y'know what?? I think after I come back from the acupuncturist for my hands, I will share my thoughts with her regarding that post, because that's also apart of free speech. lol

a reply to: uncommitted

The fact you think heads of state should decide who a platform can and cannot choose to ban based on their T's and C's being violated says an awful lot more about the kind of country you would rather live in.

You're not wrong. I grew up in the age of the Fairness Doctrine, in which public media were required to present two (or more) political/social perspectives on the issues of the day, particularly when it came to proposed/pending legislation. No one was allowed to live in an echo chamber. This was also during the heyday of newspapers with their editorials and opinions, which were distinct from the news pages.... which actually reported the facts!

I very much appreciated the Fairness Doctrine and dreaded losing it... because of exactly where we are now. I wanted to hear multiple perspectives on issues. I wanted to consider other approaches and solutions -- sometimes out of the box. I want to know how others were affected -- for better and worse -- by the issues we were dealing with. I wasn't the only one. It was considered a strength and a virtue of maintaining a vibrant and healthy Republic, for the people and of the people and by the people.

So, yes, I find it very disturbing that anyone -- and especially a self-professed purveyor of news and information acting under benefit and privilege of government entitlement via incorporation laws -- would want to shut down someone's speech. But not all such speech. Just the speech they don't like.

Let everyone have their say. No one has to listen. No one has to agree. No has to like it.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: uncommitted


I agree it is against free speech.

Nothing else in your post is of importance is it?

a reply to: Necrobile

I wish I could give you 100 stars for that comment!!!

Thank you for sharing it. That illustrates so well how so many people think, and you nailed it.

I appreciate that people are trying to think and reason through all the disinfo and misinfo, and I do believe the vast majority of us are good people who want to do what is right.

We have a long way to go.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: uncommitted

The fact you think heads of state should decide who a platform can and cannot choose to ban based on their T's and C's being violated says an awful lot more about the kind of country you would rather live in.

You're not wrong. I grew up in the age of the Fairness Doctrine, in which public media were required to present two (or more) political/social perspectives on the issues of the day, particularly when it came to proposed/pending legislation. No one was allowed to live in an echo chamber. This was also during the heyday of newspapers with their editorials and opinions, which were distinct from the news pages.... which actually reported the facts!

I very much appreciated the Fairness Doctrine and dreaded losing it... because of exactly where we are now. I wanted to hear multiple perspectives on issues. I wanted to consider other approaches and solutions -- sometimes out of the box. I want to know how others were affected -- for better and worse -- by the issues we were dealing with. I wasn't the only one. It was considered a strength and a virtue of maintaining a vibrant and healthy Republic, for the people and of the people and by the people.

So, yes, I find it very disturbing that anyone -- and especially a self-professed purveyor of news and information acting under benefit and privilege of government entitlement via incorporation laws -- would want to shut down someone's speech. But not all such speech. Just the speech they don't like.

Let everyone have their say. No one has to listen. No one has to agree. No has to like it.

Quoting in full because it's a very important point. So, incitement to violence against either persons or property, open lies that - given the person who is saying it and the following who will be inclined to believe it - is all fair game to you?

You are on the wrong site because at least one of those breaks the T's and C's of ATS, as does discussion of many topics.

Why aren't you showing your indignation and fury at ATS?

So international leaders are defending President Trump and that’s upsetting to the morons on the left

Why?

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
So international leaders are defending President Trump and that’s upsetting to the morons on the left

Why?

None of the leaders mentioned are defending Trump, please point out where they do? Most listed have roundly condemned him, they are condemning social media platforms that don't want him to use their platform. Whatever you think of the latter, it's certainly not that they are defending him

Easier to post first and read the thread later isn't it.

Sir you hit the nail on the head exactly.a reply to: seeker1963

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: uncommitted


I agree it is against free speech.

Nothing else in your post is of importance is it?

A law forbidding holocaust denial in the country that suffered most of all from the holocaust does not represent a wholesale disregard for free speech by the Polish State.

I am against the law on principle, but it hardly makes Poland the equivalent of North Korea.

It is very strange you are apparently in favour of censoring the President but attack Poland for daring to outlaw holocaust denial. Christ.

a reply to: uncommitted

Sure sure

And why is the left so upset about it?

Oh that’s right.

a reply to: uncommitted

Quoting in full because it's a very important point. So, incitement to violence against either persons or property, open lies that - given the person who is saying it and the following who will be inclined to believe it - is all fair game to you?

Just because you don't have a decent defense for your position, don't put words in my mouth and assume the worst. Asking for clarification or distinctions would have been reasonable. Assuming the absolute worst is not.

You are on the wrong site because at least one of those breaks the T's and C's of ATS, as does discussion of many topics. Why aren't you showing your indignation and fury at ATS?

I have. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
So international leaders are defending President Trump and that’s upsetting to the morons on the left

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are defending him -- not all of them anyway! -- but they are calling out the gross overreach and injustice of the de-platforming and general efforts to silence him.