I see "the good" (to call it something) in the latest news about Alex Jones.
Not only have the media conglomerate put themselves in the position of defining what is "hate speech" (which not only is undefinable syntactically and semantically, but it should be part of one's own private business), but I think they are making a crass political mistake.
They will be not only discrediting themselves even more and reducing their customer base in number and kind, but their decision is silly because, technically speaking, Alex Jones can go ahead and start his own site (that is cheap and easy). Then, what would come next? Are they pushing USG to take it from there? Will USG then officially and openly become thought police? Would that not only be unconstitutional (well, whatever is left of that sacrosanct Constitution), but "unAmerican"?
I very much doubt USG has the brains and spine to heed some sort of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_...m_Prohibitorum
to the chapter, page and paragraph as the Catholic Church did for 10 centuries (which, incidentally, was very industrious to business after the invention of the printing press). In those times they didn't have such things as cell phones, the NSA and FISA courts. So, they actually had to read and think about what all kinds of stuff "heretic minds" were writing about (including Giordano Bruno's and Galileo's preposterous ideas about the earth being round). The officers of the Index even gave them the right to legally and openly defend their points. Galileo's case was extreme because he was vertically making fun of the status quo in ways no one had ever dared and the Catholic Church in those times was politically stronger than USG has ever been. Of course, the NSA does the technical work for them, but it would really be a funny show if they actually start persecuting people for such things as "hate speech".
Alex Jones is some character:
https://www.infowars.com/about-alex-jones/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
https://www.theonion.com/search?q=alex%20jones
and, of course, not all he talks about are "conspiracy theories". If you spend decades freely talking about all kinds of stuff relating, among many other things, to covert and disinformation operations by USG you will, statistically speaking, say a few things that will be more than half way off, like what he was saying about the Sandy Hook school, fake Moon landings and that pizza parlor in Washington DC serving as front for a child abuse business and of the millions of users and fans he has there will always be some who would take what he says too seriously.
But here is the thing, doesn't USG use the media and all kinds of actors, including "celebrities"?, don't they deceive people in all kinds of ways people can’t even begin to imagine? Are those folks in Washington DC so morally pure? Is child and all kinds of crass abuse really unheard of by USG?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_a...ss_destruction
and the most important aspect would be: would the U.S. media touch any of those issues with a 10 foot pole? I mean even the NY Times would not explicitly mention his name while vaguely talking about Snowden’s revelations and that is definitely effective:
// __ Government Surveillance: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
~
What I think is really happening here is the reaction of the media who are losing ground in irreversible ways. I think one of the reasons why people chose Trump is because they have been conditioned to hate U.S. media. Gringos say to the British: "don't judge us based on our media and we won't judge you based on your royalty", but actually those are not such irrational ways of judging one another. I had always heard that lies are tools, then I discovered in the US lies are actually industries.
The most interesting thing is how will USG bring about and enforce laws and regulations relating to their role as thought police when they can't even keep up with all that "Vladimir Putin" nonsense?
Ben Shapiro, not exactly an Alex Jones enthusiast himself, was giving a good example of why such things as "hate speech", which are essentially interpretative, you can't realistically codify and enforce, as moralistically self-righteous as you think yourself as being. He uses the example of he, himself, not saying to someone who biologically is a man and wants for other people to believe he is a woman and, among many other things force people's language usage. He asks: will they tell me that is "hate speech" and even possibly prosecute me for that? Even if you cut your pennies, ball, inject whatever to look like you got some boobs, ... want to be called "she", "legally" change your name, ... you are still a man who cut his pennies, ball, ...
I have worked for a shelter in Harlem, NYC. At times women (actual women should I say) come to us asking for shelter and we can't take them in even during a gelid winter night even though we have had beds. I don't like to do that (I was raised by a single mother), but, "per regulations", I have to. They tell us to give them a sheet with addresses of shelters for women in NYC. Now, I have nothing against that particular person I am using that case as a concrete example of what Shapiro is talking about. That could be seen as "hate", not PR, not quite kosher speech: there is a man there cross-dressing and acting as if he was a woman (which to me, even though very weird, is basically a mild and unimportant kind of delusion, probably mental illness). He wants to be called "she" and even go by a girl’s name. Now, why doesn't "she" then go to a shelter for women? I have wondered about it, but I guess this very basic question could be deemed "inappropriate", "hateful", . . . when to me it is entirely appropriate, very basic and just. In one of my previous posts I asked a very simple question: "why doesn’t USG ‘freedom-love’ China?" Now, even though I am talking about "love" as USG does (yes, in my case, sarcastically), they could say and have said, that I am really "talking" about hate ...
Let me repeat and in no ambiguous terms that, as Shapiro, I really don’t give a **** about what people do with their very rear ends, it is theirs after all; but when we start calling a man a woman, a tree a bird, a gun some flowers, ... we won’t ever be able to solve any actual issues and politicians will be the only ones profitably exploiting that game.
Not only have the media conglomerate put themselves in the position of defining what is "hate speech" (which not only is undefinable syntactically and semantically, but it should be part of one's own private business), but I think they are making a crass political mistake.
They will be not only discrediting themselves even more and reducing their customer base in number and kind, but their decision is silly because, technically speaking, Alex Jones can go ahead and start his own site (that is cheap and easy). Then, what would come next? Are they pushing USG to take it from there? Will USG then officially and openly become thought police? Would that not only be unconstitutional (well, whatever is left of that sacrosanct Constitution), but "unAmerican"?
I very much doubt USG has the brains and spine to heed some sort of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_...m_Prohibitorum
to the chapter, page and paragraph as the Catholic Church did for 10 centuries (which, incidentally, was very industrious to business after the invention of the printing press). In those times they didn't have such things as cell phones, the NSA and FISA courts. So, they actually had to read and think about what all kinds of stuff "heretic minds" were writing about (including Giordano Bruno's and Galileo's preposterous ideas about the earth being round). The officers of the Index even gave them the right to legally and openly defend their points. Galileo's case was extreme because he was vertically making fun of the status quo in ways no one had ever dared and the Catholic Church in those times was politically stronger than USG has ever been. Of course, the NSA does the technical work for them, but it would really be a funny show if they actually start persecuting people for such things as "hate speech".
Alex Jones is some character:
https://www.infowars.com/about-alex-jones/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
https://www.theonion.com/search?q=alex%20jones
and, of course, not all he talks about are "conspiracy theories". If you spend decades freely talking about all kinds of stuff relating, among many other things, to covert and disinformation operations by USG you will, statistically speaking, say a few things that will be more than half way off, like what he was saying about the Sandy Hook school, fake Moon landings and that pizza parlor in Washington DC serving as front for a child abuse business and of the millions of users and fans he has there will always be some who would take what he says too seriously.
But here is the thing, doesn't USG use the media and all kinds of actors, including "celebrities"?, don't they deceive people in all kinds of ways people can’t even begin to imagine? Are those folks in Washington DC so morally pure? Is child and all kinds of crass abuse really unheard of by USG?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_a...ss_destruction
and the most important aspect would be: would the U.S. media touch any of those issues with a 10 foot pole? I mean even the NY Times would not explicitly mention his name while vaguely talking about Snowden’s revelations and that is definitely effective:
// __ Government Surveillance: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
~
What I think is really happening here is the reaction of the media who are losing ground in irreversible ways. I think one of the reasons why people chose Trump is because they have been conditioned to hate U.S. media. Gringos say to the British: "don't judge us based on our media and we won't judge you based on your royalty", but actually those are not such irrational ways of judging one another. I had always heard that lies are tools, then I discovered in the US lies are actually industries.
The most interesting thing is how will USG bring about and enforce laws and regulations relating to their role as thought police when they can't even keep up with all that "Vladimir Putin" nonsense?
Ben Shapiro, not exactly an Alex Jones enthusiast himself, was giving a good example of why such things as "hate speech", which are essentially interpretative, you can't realistically codify and enforce, as moralistically self-righteous as you think yourself as being. He uses the example of he, himself, not saying to someone who biologically is a man and wants for other people to believe he is a woman and, among many other things force people's language usage. He asks: will they tell me that is "hate speech" and even possibly prosecute me for that? Even if you cut your pennies, ball, inject whatever to look like you got some boobs, ... want to be called "she", "legally" change your name, ... you are still a man who cut his pennies, ball, ...
I have worked for a shelter in Harlem, NYC. At times women (actual women should I say) come to us asking for shelter and we can't take them in even during a gelid winter night even though we have had beds. I don't like to do that (I was raised by a single mother), but, "per regulations", I have to. They tell us to give them a sheet with addresses of shelters for women in NYC. Now, I have nothing against that particular person I am using that case as a concrete example of what Shapiro is talking about. That could be seen as "hate", not PR, not quite kosher speech: there is a man there cross-dressing and acting as if he was a woman (which to me, even though very weird, is basically a mild and unimportant kind of delusion, probably mental illness). He wants to be called "she" and even go by a girl’s name. Now, why doesn't "she" then go to a shelter for women? I have wondered about it, but I guess this very basic question could be deemed "inappropriate", "hateful", . . . when to me it is entirely appropriate, very basic and just. In one of my previous posts I asked a very simple question: "why doesn’t USG ‘freedom-love’ China?" Now, even though I am talking about "love" as USG does (yes, in my case, sarcastically), they could say and have said, that I am really "talking" about hate ...
Let me repeat and in no ambiguous terms that, as Shapiro, I really don’t give a **** about what people do with their very rear ends, it is theirs after all; but when we start calling a man a woman, a tree a bird, a gun some flowers, ... we won’t ever be able to solve any actual issues and politicians will be the only ones profitably exploiting that game.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2KL0PrM
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire