The meaning of conservatism is not that it impedes movement forward and upward, but that it impedes movement backwards and downwards – to chaotic darkness and the return to a primitive state.
jonolan on New Client, New Problem: “😆 I’m always going to advocate for both. It be too hypocritical for me to do otherwise.” Sep 21, 07:03
Tyler, the Portly Politico on New Client, New Problem: “My top two from this exquisite collection: 1.) https://i0.wp.com/blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/nggallery/need-new-shirts/08.jpg?ssl=1 2.) https://i0.wp.com/blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/nggallery/need-new-shirts/12.jpg?ssl=1 I can’t figure out the winner! Tuscan bouffant or…” Sep 20, 18:59
jonolan on Bikini Interlude 92: “At the risk of poorly extrapolating your position, I’d say that you prefer a more natural, less worked at /…” Jul 28, 08:50
Freedom is freedom, after all. Hence, if we are forced to allow filth to desecrate our flag and/or the flags of our allies, burning the Hamas flag must be A-OK too. That just makes sense. You can’t have laws protecting some but not others, right?
Wrong, at least functionally wrong for the average American citizen. While various ever-so-educated legal pundits and scholars will claim from the rarefied safety, comfort, and isolation of their ivory towers that, in the absence of other factors, these are each protected acts of symbolic free speech, on the ground this isn’t the truth at all. In any Leftist controlled zone – geopolitical or digital – there are almost always those other factors. And, few if any normal Americans have the means or wherewithal to contest either the State or the platform when they are imprisoned or otherwise censored.
I mean, sure, if you burn the Hamas flag at home where nobody can see you do it, you’re “protected.” But, if you burn it where the things support Hamas can see it, you’re likely to be arrested, suspended from school, and/ or deplatformed. Conversely, they can do pretty much whatever they desire and the police will protect them, even up to using lethal force against you if you try to stop them.
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 3rd, 2023 at 11:00 am and is filed under Politics, Society.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
It’s a sad thing, but this is how the queer freaks and their nigh on mindless enablers really think and how they want to react and act in response the the SCOTUS’ opinion upon Creative LLC v. Elenis.
They truly believe that the SCOTUS has decreed that businesses can refuse to serve people et al simply because they some form of minority, in this case LGBT+ sorts. And, of course, they’re hysterical over it and indulging in masturbatory fantasies about refuse to service various, more normative Americans.
But… like with almost every erosion of special privilege that any minority group faces, both their complaints and fantasies are just wrong and based upon their own ignorance and demands for special treatment.
The SCOTUS’ opinion upon Creative LLC v. Elenis in no way, shape, or form – not even by implication or “penumbra” – say that any business may refuse customers who possess some specially protected trait, e.g., being non-White, non-Christian, or Queer. Indeed, the Court’s opinion is predicated upon the owner of 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith’s uncontested assertion that she is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,” and she “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation.”
No. The Court’s ruling is that the State cannot compel expression – read as Speech – that goes against one’s religious views. Hence, they cannot compel Creative LLC to make a wedding website for a queer couple, but they could penalize them for simple refusing to provide their services to Queers just for being queer. Similarly, a Muslim-owned company could not be compelled by the state to provide creative/expressive services for a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah. One could, thanks to this ruling even refuse to provide such services for #BlackLivesMatter and/or #MAGA events, if one decide that either or both groups espoused behavior that goes against one’s firmly held beliefs.
But, what’s both sad and casus belli is that these freaks don’t make a distinction between what they want to do and what they are. If people will not support any and every one their actions, they see it as a direct attack upon their very identity and existence. And, they want to create a world where everyone is compelled to do so.
This entry was posted on Monday, July 3rd, 2023 at 11:00 am and is filed under Politics, Religion, Society.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
There’s a lot of times when this seems like it should be the message one gets when the thought police at Facebook decide to censor someone. Sadly, they don’t even have a need for it though. They can and have repeatedly applied whatever interpretation and scope of their existing rules to silence individuals that they and/or the Democrats find problematical. And, unless one has enough clout and reach to make a public spectacle out of it, there’s no recourse. Also, and even worse, is that limiting the reach of someone’s opinion, e.g., shadow banning, is “shadowed” for a reason. It’s a silent death of thought since it’s very hard to recognize that it’s happened to a particular victim in most cases.
This entry was posted on Sunday, January 15th, 2023 at 5:00 am and is filed under Announcements.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Yesterday, April 25, 2022, Multi-billionaire and the richest single individual in the world, Elon Musk outright purchased Twitter for roughly $44 billion. When your net worth is $264.6 billion USD, you get to do that, and the Democrats’ government can’t do much about it and is unlikely to even try. 😉
Twitter As We Know It Is Over… Maybe
So, if Elon Musk does all, most, or even a significant fraction of what he claims his plans are for renewing and rebirthing Twitter – and, since he’s taking it private, there’s nothing stopping him from doing so – the Twitter that we either love or loath is likely over.
Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated. I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.
Read Musk’s statement very carefully. Three words in the 1st sentence of it are very, very important, and firmly grounded in US case law. Those words are, “digital town square.”
As I’ve written before, the SCOTUS has already ruled twice that social media platforms are the modern age’s public or town square and are, as such, bound by the restrictions of the 1st Amendment.
Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.
So, Twitter is now poised to be transformed into an actual platform for the free exercise of speech… if Mr. Musk actually follows through on his pledge. And truly, the only real thing that could prevent him from doing that is if the market will not bear it and Twitter’s federally limited number of stockholders find this too painful to tolerate. That seems more than little unlikely given people’s addiction to social media in general and Twitter in specific.
Now, it’s true that word of Musk’s now essentially fulfilled intent to buy Twitter spurred certain sorts of users, including some high-profile ones, to “say” #GoodByeTwitter, we’ve all seen, heard, and/or read about that sort of promised exodus before. 😉 So I doubt there will be much in the way of financial fallout from the buyout and proposed changes.
So, the ball is in Elon Musk’s court. Elon Musk’s new platform will largely be whatever he wants it to be. He owns it after all. I’ve some hope for it, but that hope is seasoned by long experience.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 26th, 2022 at 10:10 am and is filed under Society.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Google E-A-Ts Freedom, free speech, and free thought by using its algorithm to down-list – effectively de-listing and therefore silencing – many sites and articles in potential readers/viewers search results. And, make no mistake this is a deliberate act on their part to perform both social engineering and kingmaking/regime change upon the world at large.
What Is E-A-T And How Is It Used Against Us?
Canonically, E-A-T stands for Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. This concept originates from Google’s Search Quality Rater guidelines and it became well known if poorly understood after the infamous Medic Update in August 2018. E-A-T is one factor that Google uses to evaluate the overall quality of a web page.
Now supposedly Google is only being strict with applying E-A-T to what they define as YMYL (“Your Money or Your Life”) sites, articles, and/or webpages. But, as can be seen below, what Google considers YMYL is very broad, comprehensive, and includes most topics that people might have differing views upon and/or those topics which are in contention.
Google’s Definition of YMYL Content (Click to Enlarge)
As you can see, E-A-T is used by Google to control the reach of a vast swath of what many people, groups, and organizations would normally write about and almost all of what they would consider important to write about.
Expertise
Expertise comes down to how knowledgeable or skillful someone is perceived by Google’s algorithms when it comes to the particular subject that is the main content (MC) of that is being graded. Essentially, it is posting content that Google’s systems agree with as being accurate, informative, and engaging.
Authoritativeness
Authoritativeness is Google’s way of defining whether or not a content creator/publisher has the proper credentials or associations to write upon the topic in question.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is Google’s composite measure of how transparent your site in general is and how good its reputation and the reputation of any cited sources are among viewers.
~*~
So, Google is now using a combination of variants of the Genetic Fallacy, Ad Hominems, and the Association Fallacy in order to quasi-demand that YMYL content adheres to their chosen variety of Argument From Authority. And, of course, failure to abide by their Magisterium means that your content will not be seen by many people at all, keeping your ideas, positions, and viewpoints “safely” out in the empty wilderness where they won’t cause issues for the orthodox or popular ideas that Google supports and promulgates.
Hence, I’m telling you, those few individuals that will be able to find this article, that Google E-A-Ts freedom, of speech and of thought by actively denying voices they disagree with the reasonable chance of an audience. And by denying that potential audience access to “dangerous” ideas.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 2nd, 2021 at 3:09 pm and is filed under Society, Technology.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Announcement
Due to issues between the latest version of WordPress and my gallery plugin, galleries are currently broken. As a workaround, right-click gallery thumbnails and choose Open in New Tab or New Window.
Tyler, the Portly Politico on Trump Won: “America is back, baby!” Nov 6, 18:29
