Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Forbidden Knowledge

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by jmervyn, May 10, 2019.

  1. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,381
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Preamble: so this is going to be some not-random musings about 'mind control'. It's not drunkenposting (I've nowhere near enough liquor in me & it's only Thursday), and I'll include some titillating content so as not to be purely dry, political, & paranoid. At first.

    I've been idly musing about how certain members of Western society are trying to control the minds of the public. I guess what made me decide it worth sharing was an announcement by this hot k-pop sister act, whose material has increasingly become burlesque in recent years.


    "K-pop?" I hear you sneer. "What does K-pop have to do with mind control?", (or anything else worth reading what I'm writing).

    I'm actually thinking more about the "vehicle", YouTube, whose parent company is (of course) Google. These girls ("Waveya") have 3.37 Million subscribers, have been featured in Maxim, yet have lost their dance studio (they've filmed from their living room or something) & claim trouble w/ medical bills. They're pandering for membership sign-ups on a site other than YouTube, yet they've not even been "demonetized" like so many others. Simply put, they assert that while they are purported to earn $700K a year, their income is less than if they were minimum wage workers.

    "Boo Hoo", you sneer again, "Life's so tough for dancing hotties". Well, I'm wondering if it kinda is, particularly in light of YouTube's... "policies". According to these two, most of their supposed income goes to the copyright holders of the music they use.

    Why? Because YouTube decided that's the rules.
    Why did they decide that? Because YouTube was afraid of lawsuits from copyright holders.
    {record scratch sound}
    Wait, so YouTube was afraid of lawsuits when they incessantly suppress content purely on a whim? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

    Follow the money. YouTube changed their business model to brutally rape their content providers & pocket the proceeds. We can discuss, but it's pretty commonly understood at this point.

    YouTube also demonetized one of my favorite ghostwriters (who also happened to be a dancer), the beautiful & talented Margaret McClennan, purely for political reasons. She decided to de-list her content, and eventually close her accounts, so she wouldn't yield financial benefits for YouTube:



    It's just a joke video of her workout. Yes, that's a colostomy bag. Twitter banned her for saying "Learn to Code".

    "So, several pretty girls who you watch while supposedly working have financial issues? Where's your claim of conspiracy, jerkoff?"

    Well, here are the missing pieces - "Prager University" has had much of their content banned from YouTube because it's supposedly offensive to someone somewhere. Think of them as not-really-lowbrow TED Talks. Initially YouTube banned Prager U. **altogether**, despite Google's blatant lies about not censoring anyone.

    I was actually watching *this* video and caught myself wondering how long it was going to take for this "Learn Liberty" channel to have YouTube curb-stomp them. I'm guessing it won't be very long.



    So...

    how did I get from Kpop hotties to an insidious fascist plot to crush the human spirit & render us all mindless, ignorant drones slaving our lives away for the profit of Progressive Totalitarians (or if you prefer, Bilderbergers)?

     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  2. Noodle

    Noodle Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    9,293
    Likes Received:
    614
    Trophy Points:
    235
    Um. . . . you OK, buddy?
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  3. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,381
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Well, it was a salacious attempt to spur conversation about conservatives being targeted & banished from social media, & whether I ought to put additional tinfoil in my hat or if it's just the market at work.

    In other words, it's not the market at work.

    James Woods got the axe today because he paraphrased Emerson.
     
  4. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,793
    Likes Received:
    469
    Trophy Points:
    208
    Woods was banned for the hashtag #hangthemall, not the paraphrased Emerson quote. When criticising the globalists ... above all things ... be accurate.

    Not that makes one bit of difference - Twitter is hammering conservatives with large followings in readiness for 2020.
    Cos activism. Cos open borders. Cos climate. Cos growing pandemic insanity.
     
  5. superdave

    superdave IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,435
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    475
    james wood et al are free to take their views elsewhere or fund their own conservative platforms.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. superdave

    superdave IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,435
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    475

    ps. it is the markets at work. those that run facebook, twitter and youtube care about one thing and one thing only. $.
     
    Leopold Stotch likes this.
  7. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,793
    Likes Received:
    469
    Trophy Points:
    208
    And when another competing platform starts to get started, players like Mastercard and PayPal deny financial support to the fledgling business.


    If only "The Market" were really *The Market*.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  8. superdave

    superdave IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,435
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    475
    if there is money to be made, it won't take long for Masterracecard™ to incorporate and start processing payments for them.
     
  9. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,381
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    509
    That claim's what I'm finding fault with. If that were true, the presumption would be that everything was cat videos. Just like H'wood churning out superhero movies.

    However, H'wood silences conservative movies to whatever degree they can, & hype the snot out of Progressive garbage. In a similar vein, TwatterFasicstbook let bona fide terrorists say all kinds of things, but the aforementioned belly dancing girl gets perma-banned for saying "learn to code".

    Lozzy already pointed out the weakness of the "let the market decide", just as with Microsoft... ain't it funny how all these MegaCorp types are totes fine with mountains of regulation once they've managed to get on top of the market? Of course, it's because regulation is de facto reinforcement of their monopolies - they have the money & lawyers to navigate or fend off the regulators, while they can get the young challengers literally thrown in jail for shyte they regularly get away with (look up "Microsoft Cookie Jar Accounting").


    PS Thanks for the clarification Loz. It actually reveals just how BS the so-called "grounds" are.
    James Woods Banned from Twitter Amid Silicon Valley’s Conservative Blacklisting Campaign

    PPS Just to keep the discussion broad-based,
    Audit: Google favors a small number of left-leaning news outlets
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  10. kestegs

    kestegs D3 Monk Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    49,684
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    324
    So, what's the solution?

    A few months ago I had a PragerU video pop up in my facebook feed and I liked it (was something about inequality or something I think) I started watching them regularly, but soon realized that some of them were extremely biased towards the right and so I stopped. I'm not saying that they deserve to be black listed from YouTube, but I can also understand why they are.
     
  11. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,793
    Likes Received:
    469
    Trophy Points:
    208
    By that yardstick, CNN should be perma-banned from Twitter and Facebook.

    Unless it is only right-leaning content that is considered "biased"?
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  12. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,381
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Of course. Progressive fascist thought is that of the Establishment, & therefore the norm.

    Just ask the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of their main 'arbiters' of what is & isn't bias or hate.
    The SPLC’s hate map is an outright fraud ‘designed to scare older liberals into writing checks’

    I mistakenly thought I'd pointed it out, at least in part. These companies are abusing both tax free status & loopholes in legal liability on the basis of being non-partisan & non-political. That's what the entire scandal with the IRS slow-walking applications was about.

    As a remedy, #1 would be that Social Media purveyors who are suppressing content are by default <not> providing an open forum. If there's another thing that keeps the demons managing Jack Dorsey & Mark Zuckerberg filled with fear other than the Second Coming of Jesus, it's that their platforms could be deemed Publishers rather than Providers. Up until now, they've sleazed their way through challenges by pretending they don't exercise bias or editorial control, which is such an extreme load of horseshyte that I'm amazed only Ted Cruz challenged it. Then again, the GOP is well renowned as "the Stupid Party" so maybe they're fine with letting the fascists control the U.S. Gov't as long as they can whinge from the sidelines.

    #2 is that tax free status generally relies upon certain circumstances, including non-partisan behavior, proof of abstaining from political contribution, &c. Most of the notables on the Progressive side, & a precious few on the conservative side, openly flaunt that. They exist on the basis of being nominally neutral, despite the obvious truth that they make money from going after causes in a partisan fashion (consider the revolving door for the Sierra Club & EPA). If those bases were seriously challenged & a couple of heads of non-profits spend a couple of decades in "pound-you-in-the-ass prison" or "Club Fed", SUDDENLY the cavalier nature of such corruption will be a lot less commonplace.

    Which ones do you believe deserve to be suppressed? Keep in mind that you can find most Louis Farrakhan speeches on Youtube.

    P.S. Seems like you failed to recognize that you're already being force-fed pure fascist Progressivism, if you thought Prager was extremely biased towards the right.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  13. kestegs

    kestegs D3 Monk Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    49,684
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    324
    For the record, I never said that I thought anyone or any content should be banned. I said I understood why. And yes, CNN is likely equally biased in the opposite direction.

    So you think that fixing tax law (or actually enforcing it) will solve the problem?
    In an ideal world none of them, but we all know it's not that easy. YouTube, FaceBook or Twitter are not required to uphold your first amendment rights, they are a private company. Just as if you handed me a piece of paper with something I disagree with I am not required to share it with other people. Of course that will all likely change soon enough if the liberals get there way, all though I am not sure liberal is even the right word anymore.
    Oh, I'm well aware of being force fed fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or whatever you want to label it. But that doesn't make conservatism less biased toward the right.
     
  14. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,381
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    509
    You fundamentally misunderstood my point. It's ok, I'm generally misunderstood. :rolleyes: It's not tax law (though enforcement would be just great) but libel law.

    Social media abuses their legal standing by claiming to be the same category as an Internet Service Provider, rather than media outlet. An ISP couldn't get away with political bias in providing their service any more than a bakery can get away with refusing to serve people of certain sexual preferences. This, of course, ignores the obvious fact that modern jurisprudence pretends there's no difference between <preference> & genetic predisposition.

    To make sure I'm not simply written off as being antagonistic or obnoxious, imagine Twitter refusing to allow "Black Twitter" (which is a blast, incidentally) because of its ethnicity or even 'word use'. Jack would get fishhooks run through his shriveled testes & hoisted from the Golden Gate Bridge, then beaten with iron rods until his mangled corpse fell into the bay.

    Yet that's PRECISELY the analogous situation to what he & the rest are doing full-scale, with nothing but feeble & dishonest claims about majickal "AI" making these decisions without human intervention. Jack is denying service based on race, gender, religious belief, &c. and getting away with it because he's a special little effin' snowflake, when he really ought to have his smug beardy face repeatedly caved in with a baseball bat.

    Well, it never really was. They falsely staked claim to the term because too few people understood that the word they really meant is "libertine".
    That's like saying weight is biased towards gravity. The left-right spectrum is a falsehood, though we've probably discussed such things extensively elsewhere & hardly need to traipse off-thread rehashing it.
     
  15. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,793
    Likes Received:
    469
    Trophy Points:
    208
    You are partly right here and partly wrong.

    A private company, as a publisher, is protected by the First Amendment but is under no obligation to offer anyone else 1A protections. We agree on this.

    YouTube, FaceBook and Twitter though are not publishers, they each supply a platform. The US Government has said, effectively, that these companies are not liable as publishers for the content on their pages. In that sense, they are more akin to telephone companies who are similarly not liable for the messages that travel down the wires (or wirelessly).

    However, in order to continue to enjoy this privileged position, YouTube, FaceBook and Twitter must not act in an editorial fashion. By removing content, these tech giants are in actual fact acting as publishers. When they do this because the content is hateful, illegal or universally unacceptable, there are few complaints - most reasonable people agree that some content control is desirable. If they remove content because it is right-leaning, anti-narrative, anti-progressive, etc, there are many more complaints and justifiably so.

    With tech giants enjoying governmental protections due to their non-publisher status, it is incumbent on them to observe the tenants of the 1A, in my opinion. Someone else may have a different opinion but then, that someone else really ought to make an argument justifying the protections from prosecution that tech giants enjoy as being mere platform providers rather than publishers.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  16. kestegs

    kestegs D3 Monk Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    49,684
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    324
    That is true, and I agree. I do find myself adhering to that spectrum in my daily thought though, as it is the way we discuss things, even though it is not really something I exactly believe in.


    Very well said, and I agree. So the government and people in general have pushed social media to be more protective by filtering or removing content, which in turn will allow the government to eventually control it the way they really want to.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  17. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,381
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Here's where Loz & I are likely in disagreement. The Gov't isn't pushing these supposedly protective measures; that's purely a product of Progressive fascism (though 40+ years ago there might have been some more of the fascist element to be found in church pews demanding Federal legislation for social issues, like miscegenation laws).

    The Progressives don't run the Gov't, they run the Establishment, & happily those aren't always the same overlap in a Venn diagram. George Soros, media moguls, & other well-heeled Progressive multi-billionaires are the ones 'behind' the warped priorities. They fund groups like Media Matters & Antifa, as well as owning mainstream media, & so were initially quite frightened by the surge in popularity of social media platforms.

    A fun side effect is how they're now welcoming Gov't censorship & oversight, knowing full well that it will actually result in anti-competitive monopolistic perpetuation for their place in industry.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  18. superdave

    superdave IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,435
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    475
  19. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,225
    Likes Received:
    1,105
    Trophy Points:
    416
    (Takes a doll, points at inconspicious parts)

    Look here SD, you will point to here and there and there when being asked, alright? Any further questions?
     
  20. Leopold Stotch

    Leopold Stotch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    13,923
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    488
    Aw I thought this was thread about sharing knowledge that we know about that we shouldn't know about. I was going to share some "forbidden knowledge" about the pleasure points in both men and women but alas this is not that thread and I will keep my dirty little secrets to myself. :(
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.

Share This Page