d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Political Censorship Thread
Prev15354555657124Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Feb 28 2019 07:45pm
Quote (cambovenzi @ 1 Mar 2019 02:27)
No, you are unhinged.

I said make your argument for why its terrible and is or should be illegal.
I didn't say something has to be illegal in order to be criticized. Thats not a reasonable assumption.
If you want to make a case for why this terrible horrible censorship should be legal but is still horrible, feel free to do that.


You time and again accuse me and others of being shills and then want to say i make it personal.
No, you are the scumbag who makes it personal and always attack the person instead of making an argument.

Like I said, make your argument and i will address it.
Dont piss and moan about your delusions of what you think my comment is saying


you apparently don't even notice it anymore, but you've been insulting and attacking me ever since you read my post. i didn't even mention you, but your very first reply to me would be perfectly summed with "nice leap in logic / bad faith 'argument' / anti-intellectual scum" - ironically the very things you later projected onto me. talk about 'unhinged'...

i'll ask again: please explain to me how singling out specific journalists that asked inconvenient questions is a good thing to you. why did it trigger you so much that i pointed that out?

will you ever address the topic again, or will mindless insulting followed by declaring 'victory' be your go to move from now on?

Quote (Handcuffs @ 1 Mar 2019 02:27)
I'm unfamiliar with "press pools" and confused about the timeline spelled out in the article. How close in time were the first series of questions, in which I believe they included questions about Cohen, and Trump's interactions with Kim? If they were back-to-back or occurred at the same time, then it doesn't really seem like the time or place for such questions.


if the article confuses you, i urge you to watch the video in the article (the first three minutes concern the exclusion of 4 specific reporters), it addresses many of your questions, including the fact that it's absolutely NOT unusual that the white house press pool asks about domestic issues on international meetings - and it was just one reporter who did that anyway as far as i understand.
Member
Posts: 38,137
Joined: May 28 2006
Gold: 0.00
Mar 1 2019 10:47am
Quote (Goomshill @ Feb 27 2019 06:15pm)
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/02/27/facebook-insider-leaks-docs/

O'Keefe got a leaker from facebook that detailed some of their algorithmic censorship.
Their censors have powers to flag users as 'trolls' based on criterion like 'vocabulary' or behaviors like "meme creation/distribution" and "red-pilling normies" and will quarantine them, hide their comments, etc
They also silently 'deboost' livestreams by hiding them from viewers.

The leaker claims to have looked up historical uses of these censorship tools and found zero or next to zero uses on left-wing platforms like TYT, but was common on conservative media. Even the facebook guideline's example video was Lauren Chen criticizing social justice.


Member
Posts: 21,989
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 2,421.66
Mar 1 2019 03:02pm
Quote (fender @ Feb 28 2019 05:45pm)
if the article confuses you, i urge you to watch the video in the article (the first three minutes concern the exclusion of 4 specific reporters), it addresses many of your questions, including the fact that it's absolutely NOT unusual that the white house press pool asks about domestic issues on international meetings - and it was just one reporter who did that anyway as far as i understand.


In watching the video, I do, at least initially, feel that that setting wasn't the appropriate one to be asking about a domestic issue (Cohen's testimony).
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Mar 1 2019 03:31pm
Quote (Handcuffs @ 1 Mar 2019 22:02)
In watching the video, I do, at least initially, feel that that setting wasn't the appropriate one to be asking about a domestic issue (Cohen's testimony).


obviously your right to 'feel' that way, but like i already explained, it's not unusual - unlike the singling out and exclusion of reporters for asking inconvenient questions. that IS unusual (at least it was under previous administrations).
btw, the reuters reporter who was excluded did ask about north korea and not about cohen.

anyway, do you think the exclusion of reporters is justified, just because trump and others might feel they are too critical or 'inappropriate'?
Member
Posts: 21,989
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 2,421.66
Mar 1 2019 03:45pm
Quote (fender @ Mar 1 2019 01:31pm)
obviously your right to 'feel' that way, but like i already explained, it's not unusual - unlike the singling out and exclusion of reporters for asking inconvenient questions. that IS unusual (at least it was under previous administrations).
btw, the reuters reporter who was excluded did ask about north korea and not about cohen.

anyway, do you think the exclusion of reporters is justified, just because trump and others might feel they are too critical or 'inappropriate'?


Perhaps. I'm altogether unfamiliar with the precedent behind this entire situation.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Mar 2 2019 10:43am
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/01/politics/ilhan-omar-engel-statement/index.html

Quote
The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee called Friday for freshman Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar to apologize after insinuating that pro-Israel groups are pushing "allegiance to a foreign country."

Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel's demand comes after a bookstore event Wednesday where Omar argued that critics labeling her as an anti-Semite looked to silence a necessary conversation.
"I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,"
Omar said, according to The New York Times.

In a fiery statement Friday night, Engel, a New York Democrat, took Omar to task for yet another controversial comment over the political influence of pro-Israel groups on politicians.

"I welcome debate in Congress based on the merits of policy, but it's unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the US-Israel relationship," Engel said in the statement. "We all take the same oath. Worse, Representative Omar's comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur."

"Her comments were outrageous and deeply hurtful, and I ask that she retract them, apologize, and commit to making her case on policy issues without resorting to attacks that have no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives," he added.

Omar's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Engel's statement.

The Democrat from Minnesota earlier this month faced criticism from both sides of the aisle and subsequently apologized for tweets insinuating that the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, was effectively buying off American politicians.

Omar had responded to a tweet by journalist Glenn Greenwald that reads, "GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans."

Omar replied, "It's all about the Benjamins baby," followed by a musical notes emoji.

Batya Ungar-Sargon, the opinion editor of the Forward, replied, tweeting, "Would love to know who @IlhanMN thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, though I think I can guess. Bad form, Congresswoman. That's the second anti-Semitic trope you've tweeted."

Omar responded to the tweet and wrote, "AIPAC!"

She later apologized after Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and other members of House Democratic leadership said anti-Semitism had to be called out "without exception."
"Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes," Omar said in a tweet. "My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize."


Two new congress people said that allegiance to a foreign county is allegiance to a foreign country and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee calls for their censorship to suggest that a thing like dual loyalties should be discussed.

GOP will attack the rights of Americans to speech to protect foreign powers from criticism now?

Thumbs down conservatives.

This post was edited by Skinned on Mar 2 2019 10:45am
Member
Posts: 70,459
Joined: Feb 3 2006
Gold: 28,296.70
Mar 2 2019 10:48am
Quote (Skinned @ Mar 2 2019 09:43am)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/01/politics/ilhan-omar-engel-statement/index.html



Two new congress people said that allegiance to a foreign county is allegiance to a foreign country and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee calls for their censorship to suggest that a thing should be discussed.

GOP will attack the rights of Americans to speech to protect foreign powers from criticism now?

Thumbs down conservatives.


Free speech (and the misuse of it in conversation) has always just been about them being able to be openly racist without push back

any criticism of anything close to home and they are delicate snowflakes that want to shut the other side down just like their political equivalents on the left that they pretend they are standing against, they all just snowflakes in the end

Member
Posts: 51,547
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,400.67
Mar 2 2019 11:00am
Quote (Beowulf @ 2 Mar 2019 17:48)
Free speech (and the misuse of it in conversation) has always just been about them being able to be openly racist without push back

any criticism of anything close to home and they are delicate snowflakes that want to shut the other side down just like their political equivalents on the left that they pretend they are standing against, they all just snowflakes in the end


Member
Posts: 70,459
Joined: Feb 3 2006
Gold: 28,296.70
Mar 2 2019 11:07am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Mar 2 2019 10:00am)


It's something even moderate conservatives tend to agree with me on

most people (often hypocrites) yapping about free speech do not understand what it is and misuse it in conversation constantly. This applies to right and left

The far/alt right likes to say offensive and racist things and do not want social consequences for it. Which of course has nothing to do with free speech. Then they turn around and have a history of trying to do the exact shit parts of the left have now started doing to them. So even in their misuse of the free speech argument they still manage to be hypocrites
Member
Posts: 38,137
Joined: May 28 2006
Gold: 0.00
Mar 2 2019 11:35am
Quote (Skinned @ Mar 2 2019 06:43pm)
[GOP will attack the rights of Americans to speech to protect foreign powers from criticism now?

Thumbs down conservatives.


?

Eliot Engel - Political party Democratic
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev15354555657124Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll