Censorship on the internet...say it ain't so!

mjbphotos said:
Whatever you WANT to believe, the facts are that any company (whether private or publicly owned) can set their own rules on what they allow on their media, walls, or websites.

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

In the case of Goofle ( intentional mis spelling) it is not censorship as defined above...but the intentional filtering of results to point the masses in the direction the social media machine wants the masses to go. Anything that points the masses in the wrong direction or doesn't align with their agenda is filtered out making it harder and harder to make a truly informed decision. Nothing to do with offensive, just doesn't align with the direction / path they want the masses to go.

It's disturbing at first glance and frightening as the layers of the onion are peeled back. Far beyond the "doublethink" and "Newspeak" Orwelian world predicted indeed.
 
EU covid summit (long, 3 hours). But worthwhile. Covers things the MSM has censored.
 
Mick Doobie said:
Okay, I've read a bit about it. What I'm getting so far....

Chomsky believes(or believed) that the roughly 2 million(1/4 of the population) deaths attributed to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge is a "lie"(I'm beginning to see a pattern here that supports your worldview being shaped by Chomsky). It is propaganda. In actuality the US government through bombing killed 800 thousand, and the Khmer Rouge only killed 1.2 million. I have no evidence other than what I have read, Chomsky bases this claim on certain author's writings whose source was the Khmer Rouge. It should be noted that Chomsky dismisses the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge as essentially, yeah, revolutions can get messy and shit happens. While relying on author's whose source of information is the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky criticizes authors who rely in part on accounts of Cambodian refugees as spreading propaganda, lies. In Chomsky's view, the US government is primarily responsible for the horrors that occured in Cambodia. As time has passed, with more information becoming available(well fuck me if the ol' "I reserve the right to change my mind as more evidence becomes available" hasn't raised its familiar head...you really are a child of Chomsky, eh?), Chomsky has offered recognition that the number killed by the Khmer Rouge was a bit or significantly more than only 1.2 million. He maybe softened on calling people liars. After those seeking truth were lead around by former Khmer Rouge and Cambodians to all of the mass graves, what's a guy to do?

There's more, but I think that's in a nutshell pretty much it. Chomsky was so eager to paint the US government as the baddest of the bad guys, he played down and made excuses for the atrocities committed by the fucking Khmer Rouge in killing upwards of 2 million or possibly more of their own countrymen in Cambodia. A fucking intellectual blowhard.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand Chomsky's position. Perhaps it is me who misunderstands. But - more importantly - I see that you're trying to make him "wrong" and then tying my beliefs to his is your angle here. "Amiright", as you say?

If that's not what that's about and you have a genuine interest in Chomsky's position regarding those historical events - perhaps you should email him and ask him about it. I have emailed him a number of times over the years and he has always replied in a timely and thorough manner.

His email address: chomsky@mit.edu
 
PorterhouseMusic said:
I think you misunderstand Chomsky's position. Perhaps it is me who misunderstands. But - more importantly - I see that you're trying to make him "wrong" and then tying my beliefs to his is your angle here. "Amiright", as you say?

If that's not what that's about and you have a genuine interest in Chomsky's position regarding those historical events - perhaps you should email him and ask him about it. I have emailed him a number of times over the years and he has always replied in a timely and thorough manner.

His email address: chomsky@mit.edu
Click to expand...

It is at times tedious and should be unnecessary to explain things here in this forum. It helps if people remember things so context is established. It shouldn't be that difficult to follow a sequence of events. However, I will take the time and effort to clear up the confusion.

I did not mention Chomsky out of the blue to take a shot at you. You said earlier in this thread, "Yes! My new go-to sources to understand the world I live in... Tucker and Elon. :thumbs up:" Sarcasm aimed at anyone who might take Tucker & Elon serious in understanding the world we live in. Follow so far? Good. Some time back you and I had a discussion, the topic in part where or what internet source or publication we read or gather news information, information that might assist in our understanding of the world we live in. Remember? Good. You cited Noem Chomsky. In that context, let's consider this also being in context with you recently saying you were among if not the most conservative person you know who posts here. It was some such statement, I could probably find it for an exact quote.

Now, I think it is safe to say for anyone who knows anything about Chomsky, which admittedly I'm not extremely versed on the subject, Chomsky is not what is commonly referred to as conservative, politically Right. Not at all. So, logically, it does not follow that one of if not the most conservative persons in this forum would use Chomsky as a go-to source to affirm their conservative view of the world in which we live. You follow? Good.

Like I said, I don't know an extreme amount about Chomsky. Curious if what I thought I knew was accurate, I did some reading the other night, which essentially confirmed what I thought I knew. The important thing is not about me trying to make you wrong by association. The important thing is you expressing you would be glad to speak more about the subject of Chomsky, but now rather than speak about it, perhaps touch on the whole killing fields in Cambodia under despot Pol Pot and Chomsky's views on the matter, you now provide his email and suggest I speak to him. From what little research I performed, as it relates to Cambodia, he is the equivalent of what one might call a holocaust denier. Not a good look as far as a source to understand the world in which we live. It is my understand that over time he has become less of a denier, yet has not softened his position on other matters pertaining to Cambodia.

A bit of unnecessary typing, but that's it in a nutshell. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, I'm okay with that. It was fascinating reading, but I'm a bit over it myself. Perhaps less defensiveness, more effort towards understanding the flow of context and subject matter. Maybe it's me, I have too good of a memory and often times see things interconnected in a vast web otherwise known as reality.

We clear now?

While I have your attention, what's with the calling me a liar on several occasions? Totally uncool, uncalled for, and inaccurate. To top it off, you do that shit and then go quiet as a mouse. Hit and run. Where I come from, such things are considered cowardly. I say things, most of the time I am right, occasionally wrong. I've said shit I regret, and have in the past offered an apology. But I don't run, from any of it. Liars are constantly running, because it's harder to remember lies than it is to remember truth. Another thing I won't do, I won't say I am prepared to discuss my favorite author who is a major influence in forming my views, and when someone takes me up on the offer duck out and suggest it would be best to contact the author himself. What the heck is that all about?
 
Just for the sake of clarity and to provide context. Emphasis/bolding my own. Honestly, it looks more like a condescending challenge than an invitation to an honest discussion. Perhaps I'm not totally innocent of similar from time to time. But I don't cut and run.

PorterhouseMusic said:
Taking a shot at me by taking a shot at Chomsky. Interesting angle.

I'm curious - do you know anything about Chomsky and Herman's critique of other writers who reported on the US bombing of Cambodia and other atrocities that happened there? I'm not asking what you know about the events - I'm asking have you read their critiques through a lens of understanding what they were getting at? I know subtlety isn't your specialty - but you should read the details if you haven't (I suspect you haven't). Their critiques of some writers, the US government, and the mainstream media messaging about those events at the time remind me VERY much of yours and others' here critiques about government and mainstream media messaging and propaganda.

I've read a lot about it. We can explore that more if you'd like. I find it very interesting. I think you'd find that we are almost certainly more in agreement than not.
Click to expand...
 
If someone hasn't already pointed it out - this video shows to have been on YouTube for three weeks.

Google is biased but as you're already aware it isn't the only option.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top