Maher panel blasts 'cancel culture': It's a form of 'social murder'

  
Via:  1776 Traditional American  •  2 months ago  •  50 comments

By:   Joseph A. Wulfsohn

Maher panel blasts 'cancel culture': It's a form of 'social murder'
"What strikes me about it is the pushback is coming from liberals and almost everyone who signs this letter ... is a liberal!" Maher exclaimed. "Bari, the fact that you -- they call you a centrist or right-winger! I mean, if a hip, millennial, Jewish bisexual girl living in San Francisco is not a liberal ... who is these days?" Weiss called the open letter a "warning cry from inside the institutions" and linked cancel culture to "social murder."

Sponsored by group The Donald on Newstalkers

The Donald on Newstalkers

The woke cancel culture and political correctness is a cancer on a civil society and a blight on dialogue and tolerance for diversity of opinion and belief.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



'If conversation with people that we disagree with becomes impossible, what is the way that we solve conflict?' Bari Weiss asked


4 hours ago


Former New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss and Harper's Magazine columnist Thomas Chatterton Williams appeared on "Real Time with Bill Maher" on Friday to explain the open letter they penned decrying "cancel culture."

Earlier this month, Chatterton spearheaded a letter signed by prominent liberals including "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling, political activist Noam Chomsky, and feminist icon Gloria Steinem, all defending open debate without fear of repercussions for expressing a point of view.

As Bill Maher noted, the letter faced heavy criticism from the left.

"What strikes me about it is the pushback is coming from liberals and almost everyone who signs this letter ... is a liberal!" Maher exclaimed. "Bari, the fact that you -- they call you a centrist or right-winger! I mean, if a hip, millennial, Jewish bisexual girl living in San Francisco is not a liberal ... who is these days?"

Weiss called the open letter a "warning cry from inside the institutions" and linked cancel culture to "social murder."

BARI WEISS: TWITTER NOW 'EDITOR' OF NY TIMES, PAPER 'LIVING IN FEAR OF AN ONLINE MOB'

"What we're trying to say with the letter -- and what Thomas did in forming it -- was saying what's happening now with this growing culture of illiberalism is different from criticism," Weiss explained. "Thomas and I, you, Bill, we're used to criticism. Criticism is kosher in the work that we do. Criticism is great. What cancel culture is about is not criticism. It is about punishment. It is about making a person radioactive. It is about taking away their job."


"Cancel culture ... is about punishment. It is about making a person radioactive. It is about taking away their job."
— Bari Weiss, journalist

"It's not just about punishing the sinner, it's not just about punishing the person for being insufficiently pure. It's about this sort of secondary boycott of people who would deign to speak to that person or appear on a platform with that person. And we see just very obviously where that kind of politics gets us. If conversation with people that we disagree with becomes impossible, what is the way that we solve conflict?... It's violence."


"If conversation with people that we disagree with becomes impossible, what is the way that we solve conflict?... It's violence."
— Bari Weiss, journalist

Weiss went on to claim that politics has become a "religious identity" for many Americans, pointing to the "worship" of those who support President Trump and how on the left "to be anything less than 'Defund the police'... makes you something like a heretic."

NEW YORK TIMES GUILD MOCKED FOR REQUESTING 'SENSITIVITY READS' IN ITS PUBLICATION PROCESS

"That's an enormous problem because what it's meant is the collapse of moderates. It's meant the collapse of the center and the retribalization of this country and the whole deal with this country, the reason that it's exceptional with all of its flaws is because we depart from history," Weiss told Maher. "We say that clannishness, tribalism, that we can overcome that, that there's something bigger than lineage or kin or the political tribe we belong to. And I think what we're seeing right now, and it's a very scary moment, is a kind of returning to the mean of history. And I think it is up to us to defend the ideas that made this country unique and a departure of history."


Chatterton stressed that "cancellation" isn't about "bringing down elites back to earth" but what he describes as an "onlooker effect" that stifles open discussion.

He went on to trash so-called anti-racism books by Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi, which he suggested will only increase the racial divide.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"We are in danger of really reinvesting in the idea that race is real and that it cannot be escaped, that it is a fundamental category that defines us, that White people are essentially different from Black people," Chatterton said. "And we're in danger of making people living today -- we're creating a world where everyone alive today is a representative of thoughts and misdeed and circumstances of their ancestors. And that's not a world that I want to create."

Weiss later praised Trader Joe's, which recently responded to a petition calling for the renaming of products deemed offensive by flatly rejected the demands, calling the company's response a "profile in courage."

"You're right. That's what we need more of," Maher agreed. "Being able to speak freely is the lifeblood not only of democracy, of really just our way of life."


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
MAGA
1  seeder  MAGA    2 months ago
"If conversation with people that we disagree with becomes impossible, what is the way that we solve conflict?... It's violence."
— Bari Weiss, journalist

Weiss went on to claim that politics has become a "religious identity" for many Americans, pointing to the "worship" of those who support President Trump and how on the left "to be anything less than 'Defund the police'... makes you something like a heretic."

NEW YORK TIMES GUILD MOCKED FOR REQUESTING 'SENSITIVITY READS' IN ITS PUBLICATION PROCESS

"That's an enormous problem because what it's meant is the collapse of moderates. It's meant the collapse of the center and the retribalization of this country and the whole deal with this country, the reason that it's exceptional with all of its flaws is because we depart from history," Weiss told Maher. "We say that clannishness, tribalism, that we can overcome that, that there's something bigger than lineage or kin or the political tribe we belong to. And I think what we're seeing right now, and it's a very scary moment, is a kind of returning to the mean of history. And I think it is up to us to defend the ideas that made this country unique and a departure of history."

Chatterton stressed that "cancellation" isn't about "bringing down elites back to earth" but what he describes as an "onlooker effect" that stifles open discussion.

He went on to trash so-called anti-racism books by Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi, which he suggested will only increase the racial divide.

"We are in danger of really reinvesting in the idea that race is real and that it cannot be escaped, that it is a fundamental category that defines us, that White people are essentially different from Black people," Chatterton said. "And we're in danger of making people living today -- we're creating a world where everyone alive today is a representative of thoughts and misdeed and circumstances of their ancestors. And that's not a world that I want to create."  

https://thenewstalkers.com/release-the-kraken/group_discuss/9405/maher-panel-blasts-cancel-culture-its-a-form-of-social-murder

 
 
 
MAGA
1.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  MAGA @1    2 months ago
 
 
 
MAGA
1.1.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  MAGA @1.1    2 months ago
 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2  Thrawn 31    2 months ago

Honestly, I read the letter and out of everyone who signed on, only 1 person has a legit gripe IMO. And that is Salman Rushdie. A lot of it was just bitching that people are allowed to openly disagree with you, or that your employer may no longer want to be associated with you after you say racist or homo/transphobic shit, to which I say grow the fuck up. 

But Rushdie, that is a different matter entirely. Out of all of them, he is the ONLY one to have a government literally put a bounty on his head and call for his murder. THAT is cancel culture. What the Chinese government is doing to the Uyghurs is cancel culture. Everyone else, suck it up you pussies. You can say whatever you like, and the rest of us can disagree and your employer can say "well, this doesn't look good for the business, bye bye". The cancel culture whining is annoying as hell, take responsibility for your words and actions. 

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2    2 months ago

So all sorts of silencing and persecution short of literal death is ok?  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  MAGA @2.1    2 months ago

I support the US Constitution as well as the concept of a capitalism. As long as the government is not silencing you, your constitutional freedom of speech rights are intact. At no point does the US Constitution state that the right to the freedom of speech applies to private businesses. If your employer doesn't want you to publicly say/post x, y, or z and you do it anyways, then you are perfectly free to find another job. 

Your right to free speech ends on private property, kinda like how my freedom to throw a punch ends at your face. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.1.1    2 months ago

So, if in some alternate universe corporations are as aggressively right wing as they are left wing in the one we inhibit, you'd be fine anyone who publicly states, 'black lives matter' gets fired?

That would be a healthy society to you?  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.2    2 months ago

They are within their rights.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.1.3    2 months ago

I asked if that would be a healthy society. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.4    2 months ago

A fluid term that leads into a much greater debate as to what is "left" and what is "right" and what is "healthy". I cannot give you a simple answer.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2    2 months ago
Everyone else, suck it up you pussies.

Personally, I think when companies immediately move to fire someone or some random loudmouth on Twitter calls for someone else's job simply because they disagree with them about something, I think those people are the pussies. Not everyone is going to agree with you in life, so stop whining about it and let people be who they are. If people have to stage a protest or boycott, or start screaming every time they hear something they don't like, I think it's time for those people to grow the fuck up.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @2.2    2 months ago
Personally, I think when companies immediately move to fire someone or some random loudmouth on Twitter calls for someone else's job simply because they disagree with them about something, I think those people are the pussies.

I am not saying that employers don't overreact, of course they do. They would do well in 90% of cases to take a step back, give the situation a week or so, then evaluate the PR situation compared to what the employee delivers to the company. The immediate firing of people in a lot of situations is kind of a chicken shit reaction and not good business sense.

Not everyone is going to agree with you in life, so stop whining about it and let people be who they are.

Yet again there is this strange phenomenon... we....agree.... What the fuck is happening here? Do we actually know each other IRL and are work friends? What state do you live in?

If people have to stage a protest or boycott, or start screaming every time they hear something they don't like, I think it's time forthose peopleto grow the fuck up.

I agree. Many situations do not require screaming or boycotts, but some do. Systemic racism is one that does.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.1    2 months ago
They would do well in 90% of cases to take a step back, give the situation a week or so, then evaluate the PR situation compared to what the employee delivers to the company. The immediate firing of people in a lot of situations is kind of a chicken shit reaction and not good business sense.

Exactly this. Our society has become so judgmental, and administrators so cowardly. We like to proclaim that we are a forgiving people, but we aren't. And it's hypocritical. I think if any of us had our whole lives evaluated and made public, the internet would demand "action" against us all.

Many situations do not require screaming or boycotts, but some do. Systemic racism is one that does.

Absolutely. When you have some kind of persistent injustice like that, we should get together and demand change. I just wish we would save the impulse for real problems instead of doing it just to show others how woke we are.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.2    2 months ago
Exactly this. Our society has become so judgmental, and administrators so cowardly. We like to proclaim that we are a forgiving people, but we aren't. And it's hypocritical. I think if any of us had our whole lives evaluated and made public, the internet would demand "action" against us all.

I mean if an employee walks in with a shirt that has a swastika on it or says kill all rich people, then yeah fuck you, you are done on the spot. But if an employee comes in with a MAGA or Bernie hat then the appropriate reaction is to tell that employee that they cannot wear that while in the business because we are remaining neutral and customer friendly. Seems to me there should be no problem there (of course people are fucking idiots and will make a problem where none exists). 

What is the saying, if we are all judged justly then we are all condemned to hell.

I just wish we would save the impulse for real problems instead of doing it just to show others how woke we are.

I do think this is a real problem. The statistics repeatedly show that blacks are arrested more frequently and sentenced more harshly than their white counterparts. That is systemic racism, and the results of those arrests and prison time have long-term, generational consequences. The problem needs to be addressed. 

And it isn't just racism, the police in this country need to be reigned in generally. When you raid an apartment and kill a nurse because her boyfriend was eating ice cream and watching TV, and amazingly stood up when the door was kicked in, and the real target was 10 miles away? Fuck you, prison pure and simple, that mistake is absolutely unforgivable. We need to hold law enforcement to a higher standard. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.1    2 months ago
I am not saying that employers don't overreact, of course they do. They would do well in 90% of cases to take a step back, give the situation a week or so, then evaluate the PR situation compared to what the employee delivers to the company. The immediate firing of people in a lot of situations is kind of a chicken shit reaction and not good business sense.

I think your point of view is rather disturbing for a number of reasons but mostly for this. Cancel culture is creating an inordinate amount of power for employers and activists. For instance, if a reporter came and asked me a question about BLM, I would decline to answer out of fear of saying something like "all lives matter" would get me fired. It would not be a lack of good business sense on my employer's part but, rather, the suppression of free speech. While the company cannot legally put out a policy telling me what I can and can't do politically, they don't have to. Anyone paying attention to what's going on knows employers are now being allowed to fire people simply because of their political views. 

And concerning activists, it is the employment of blackmail as a political tool. Employers don't care about political issues as far as it concerns their business. They want to make money. Activists know this so they blackmail the employer into carrying out their political will or face a smear campaign against the employer. 

This is not some small, insignificant issue. This is something straight out of George Orwell's 1984 . If you watch this clip, you might see a rather alarming similarity to what is going on today. It is depressingly easy to find vids of just such behavior happening today. Understandably, no employer wants that directed at them, so it's easier to just fire the problem rather than stand for what is right. Namely, that people should have the right of free speech. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.4    2 months ago
Cancel culture is creating an inordinate amount of power for employers and activists. For instance, if a reporter came and asked me a question about BLM, I would decline to answer out of fear of saying something like "all lives matter" would get me fired. It would not be a lack of good business sense on my employer's part but, rather, the suppression of free speech.

1.1 Where in the Bill of Rights does it state "private businesses" or "employers" or "activist groups"? Already covered, done.

While the company cannot legally put out a policy telling me what I can and can't do politically, they don't have to. Anyone paying attention to what's going on knows employers are now being allowed to fire people simply because of their political views. 

1.2 Refer to point 1.1. Done.

And concerning activists, it is the employment of blackmail as a political tool.

1.3 I agree, but it is not illegal.

Employers don't care about political issues as far as it concerns their business. They want to make money.

Yuuuup. And again, I refer you to point 1.1.

Activists know this so they blackmail the employer into carrying out their political will or face a smear campaign against the employer. 

Yuuuuup, I refer you point 1.1.

This is something straight out ofGeorge Orwell's 1984

Nope. Start your own business and allow and encourage all of these behaviors. It is your right and you are free to do so. The government will not stop you on constitutional grounds. Your rights are intact. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.6  r.t..b...  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.1    2 months ago
Systemic racism is one that does

Great commentary, 31. Thank you.

Like learning a new language, it starts with a basic vocabulary to be followed with putting those words into context, and after continual usage, a basic form of communication is established. Fluency will take time and effort, but this is a necessary dialogue that when everyone can listen, hear, and eventual talk together in complete understanding, we will all be richer for the effort.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.7  Drakkonis  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.5    2 months ago
1.1 Where in the Bill of Rights does it state "private businesses" or "employers" or "activist groups"? Already covered, done.

Um, no, not done, unless it is your position that "private businesses" or "employers" or "activist groups" do not fall under the Constitution or Bill of Rights. 

The first amendment allows the right of free speech, yes? Is it your position that this only applies only in the citizen/government relationship? Is it your position that I don't have right of free speech where my employer is concerned? 

1.2 Refer to point 1.1. Done.

Um, no again. Do you really think that employers have the constitutional right to stifle my free speech or punish me for exercising it? (and I'm assuming we both understand that I'm not talking about while an employee is actually at work)

1.3 I agree, but it is not illegal.

No, just immoral.

Yuuuuup, I refer you point 1.1.

So, you're saying I lose my first amendment as an employee?

Nope. Start your own business and allow and encourage all of these behaviors. It is your right and you are free to do so. The government will not stop you on constitutional grounds. Your rights are intact. 

So, the only way I can keep my first amendment rights is to be an employer? They don't apply to employees? And, as an employer I can suppress first amendment rights of my employees? Is that in the constitution? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.8  Drakkonis  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.7    2 months ago
If your employer doesn't want you to publicly say/post x, y, or z and you do it anyways, then you are perfectly free to find another job. 

I missed this. Apparently, you do believe I lose my first amendment rights as an employee. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.7    2 months ago
The first amendment allows the right of free speech, yes? Is it your position that this only applies only in the citizen/government relationship? Is it your position that I don't have right of free speech where my employer is concerned?

You absolutely do not have the right of free speech on private property. If you walk into my house and shout "Heil Hitler; you will be lucky if you have any teeth remaining. Yes I will be arrested and possibly go to prison for beating the shit out of you, but I will face zero charges for impeding your first amendment rights, because I didn't. I am not the government.

Your employer and place of business is their house. Laws apply to them yes, but the US Constitution, not at all. The US Constitution does not apply to ANY place of private ownership, Laws yes, the Constitution no. Do I need to be any clearer on this point?

Um, no again. Do you really think that employers have the constitutional right to stifle my free speech or punish me for exercising it? (and I'm assuming we both understand that I'm not talking about while an employee is actually at work)

They absolutely do have that legal/constitutional  right, and if you try to fight them you will lose 9-0 in the SCOTUS. You can say whatever the fuck you want on or off the job, but you employer is not obligated to keep employing you. 

No, just immoral.

Agreed.

So, you're saying I lose my first amendment as an employee?

Within the company, you never had it to begin with.

So, the only way I can keep my first amendment rights is to be an employer?

Ultimately yes. 

They don't apply to employees?

Unless you are a government agency (different rules there) no, you can impose whatever speech limits you want upon your employees as long as they are within the law (Constitution and Law are different, but that is a whole different thing).

And, as an employer I can suppress first amendment rights of my employees? Is that in the constitution? 

Its not NOT in the Constitution, which has historically meant "go for it!"

Just watch out for those pesky federal and state laws, like I said, they are totally different things.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.8    2 months ago

Within the company you never had it.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
2.2.11  Drakkonis  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.9    2 months ago
They absolutely do have that legal/constitutional  right, and if you try to fight them you will lose 9-0 in the SCOTUS. You can say whatever the fuck you want on or off the job, but you employer is not obligated to keep employing you.

Nice try but, nope. We aren't talking about what is done in the place of employment, but rather, outside it. You know this. The issue, as you well know, is about people expressing their opinions outside the place of work but facing workplace consequences because of it. If you can't debate this honestly, why bother? Do you think I will be fooled?  

They absolutely do have that legal/constitutional  right, and if you try to fight them you will lose 9-0 in the SCOTUS. You can say whatever the fuck you want on or off the job, but you employer is not obligated to keep employing you. 

Okay. I see what this is. You know you're wrong so you attempt to define a narrow situation and think you're making some relevant point. Make it about what is said on the job. That isn't the issue and you know it. 

Within the company, you never had it to begin with.

Untrue. I still have it. But like anything, the manner in which I am able to exercise it is situationally dependent. 

Ultimately yes.

Explain? 

Unless you are a government agency (different rules there) no, you can impose whatever speech limits you want upon your employees as long as they are within the law (Constitution and Law are different, but that is a whole different thing).

Again, not much point in this statement unless you explain what you mean. Give an example, in other words.

But to get back to the point, cancel culture is about suppressing free speech and the ability to have one's own opinion. I'm sure you've heard of Doxing and that is what this is all about. Not arriving at truth by conversation or evidence, but rather, suppressing opposing views through intimidation. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.2.12  pat wilson  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.10    2 months ago
You absolutely do not have the right of free speech on private property

People can't seem to understand this. It's pretty basic.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.13  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.11    2 months ago
Nice try but, nope. We aren't talking about what is done in the place of employment, but rather, outside it. You know this. The issue, as you well know, is about people expressing their opinions outside the place of work but facing workplace consequences because of it.

And your employer has every right to terminate your employment based upon what you say outside of work. The Bill of Rights does not apply to them. Unless they violate federal or state laws, they are in the clear. You can say whatever you like, and your employer can say "fuck you".

Okay. I see what this is. You know you're wrong so you attempt to define a narrow situation and think you're making some relevant point. Make it about what is said on the job. That isn't the issue and you know it. 

You are making this more complicated than it needs to be. You can say and do whatever in the fuck you want, on the job or off, but your employer does not have to keep you employed. Period. That is it. There is no Constitutional protection within a privately owned space, the US Constitution ONLY applies to the US government, state government, and federal/state agencies. 

Untrue. I still have it. But like anything, the manner in which I am able to exercise it is situationally dependent. 

Seriously? I will give you a second shot at this.

Explain? 

As an employer you get to set the speech standards for your business.

But to get back to the point, cancel culture is about suppressing free speech and the ability to have one's own opinion.

Cancel culture is people being bitches and throwing tantrums about things they don't like. It has nothing to do with free speech. Assholes just attached "free speech" to it to make it seem like it is actually important. The government is not cancelling any shows, is not censoring your internet searches, and doesn't give a shit about what cam girl you were talking to last night.

COMPANIES may be kicking people because they feel like it might hurt their profits, but that IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. Fuck, I keep having to repeat the easiest shit, are you all my employees?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.14  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.13    2 months ago

I let a employee go because he had a Obama sticker on his car didn't want it polluting my property. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @2.2.14    2 months ago

And you were probably within your rights, definitely not violating the US Constitution. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.16  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @2.2.14    2 months ago

Come on MUVA, you have to bait me better than that.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.17  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.16    2 months ago

Not baiting agreeing I have let people go because of things they have done of the job and said off the job.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.18  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @2.2.17    2 months ago

If they suck at the job, let'em go.

 
 
 
MAGA
2.2.19  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.11    2 months ago

That is the bottom line, silencing through intimidation and if that doesn’t silence us then the cancel us.  I’ve been doxed before 16 years ago.   Had the other side try to contact people I dealt with back then to get at me personally for opinion expressed on line.  

 
 
 
MAGA
2.2.20  seeder  MAGA  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.12    2 months ago

It is interesting watching progressive leftists attacking liberals for standing up for free expression and exchange of ideas while opposing the further lefts cancel culture by signing that Letter that was in the magazine.  Bill Maher and his panel were correct on this issue.  

 
 
 
MAGA
2.2.21  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.18    2 months ago

People don’t suck at the job because they disagree with us on a political issue. 

 
 
 
MAGA
3  seeder  MAGA    2 months ago

At least Trader Joe’s contrary to initial reports is not caving to cancel culture and is going to keep their merchandise in their stores as is.  👍👏🇺🇸

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1  Tacos!  replied to  MAGA @3    2 months ago

Is that true? I'm glad to hear it. I actually wrote them a note on their website urging them not to change anything. So . . . you're all welcome. jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Tacos! @3.1    2 months ago

A big thank you to all who engaged them in that effort!  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  MAGA @3.1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Adam_Selene
4  Adam_Selene    2 months ago

Direct link to the letter.

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.

Like the Szilárd Petition that never made it to Truman, this letter appears to be written by decent men and women who fear the consequences of the November election and are calling for restraint.

Sadly, there will be no restraint - which ever side wins.

We are now committed  to a  zero-sum game in the control of our government.

It's good to know, however, that there are thoughtful people in the wings when eventually their voice will be appreciated and needed.

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Adam_Selene @4    2 months ago

We always need thoughtful people who can tolerate a diversity of opinion. use comity in any discussion of ideas, and be civil toward the other side no matter what side they are coming from themselves. It’s just common decency.  

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.1  JBB  replied to  MAGA @4.1    2 months ago

Except, willful misinformation is not valid opinion. It is a purposeful effort to disinform the public. Newspaper editors choose what to print and what not to. Social media managets must do the same because if social media does not regulate itself then regulation must be imposed upon it. This includes honoring their obligations to the public to not knowingly spread harmful misinformation or rank foreign propaganda crafted to cause harm to our American citizenry. 

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.2  seeder  MAGA  replied to  JBB @4.1.1    2 months ago

It’s not up to you to determine what is willful misinformation or a non valid opinion.  You or me as obvious partisan polar opposites are in no position to dictate that for anyone else.  

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.3  JBB  replied to  MAGA @4.1.2    2 months ago

Me? No! I never said that...

Butt, it is the job of the management of social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and even The News Talkers to exercise professional editorial control over the content they disseminate to the public in order to protect their reputations, their owners financial interests and to fulfill their obligations to their public trust. It isn't a free for all. Our nation's enemies have no right to spread disinformation to the American people. That includes the KGB, the KKK and especially the goddamn republicans...

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.4  seeder  MAGA  replied to  JBB @4.1.3    2 months ago

No it’s to censor and content control conservatives while letting liberals say and express anything they want because that’s the way the lamestream media works.  

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.5  seeder  MAGA  replied to  JBB @4.1.3    2 months ago

We have seen how the SPLC goes about trying to destroy individuals and legitimate conservative and Christian on line and actual organizations over nothing more than disagreements over political and policy issues.  They are a domestic hate organization than enables terrorists to attack their opposition and they use their connections to social media to call them hate groups when its really the money laundering misogynistic racists that run the SPLC that are the real bigots and haters.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5  Thrawn 31    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
5.1.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1    2 months ago

What are you talking about?  

Weiss later praised Trader Joe's, which recently responded to a petition calling for the renaming of products deemed offensive by flatly rejected the demands, calling the company's response a "profile in courage."

"You're right. That's what we need more of," Maher agreed. "Being able to speak freely is the lifeblood not only of democracy, of really just our way of life." 
https://thenewstalkers.com/release-the-kraken/group_discuss/9405/maher-panel-blasts-cancel-culture-its-a-form-of-social-murder#cm1374184

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  MAGA @5.1.1    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
6  seeder  MAGA    2 months ago

Maher is really out there on a lot of issues.  Way to the left of anything I believe and anti religious, but on the threat that Islam is to the world and on free speech rights, he is right.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  MAGA @6    2 months ago

[DELETED]

Just wanna throw out my real feelings before I get suspended again. 

 
 
 
MAGA
6.1.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1    2 months ago

Thanks for sharing....

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Dulay
Kavika
CB
Gazoo
JohnRussell


43 visitors