it's not just that (certain conservatives / republicans) wanted to vote in another republican, for 2020; it's that, those constituents wanted trump specifically back in office

so with this, and with all the other transgressions and aggressions happening: how can others not view this as anything else besides actual Acts of War?

what is these people's End Game?

. . . . .

how can we help but not view those whites who are staunch and fervent on advancing so-called "republican / conservative ideologies & goals," ultimately, as being those who also support,

• white supremacy
• Person-of-Colour Enslavement
• Poor Person Enslavement

?

---

how are poor blacks (in particular), with their already-limited means and access, "defrauding" anything?
or are they still considered "3/5 humans" whose voices should not be counted?

The endgame is to have only people who look, and think, and act like them: a "pure" world with no diversity that strays outside the accepted lines.

I only want to comment on this one thing... you do realize this is exactly the same criticism and fear that many folks have of the Left? It's why we have "Cancel Culture" and people too afraid to say what they think for fear of losing their jobs, etc...

Dominus tecum

We need to discuss this at some point as, for one, those most loudly proclaiming they've been "canceled" never seem to have a problem reaching their audience. As for the latter, I'm not sure how to address it properly.

I was raised to be polite, so if someone asks me to use a particular name or pronoun, from my perspective, it is only polite to do so. If someone asks, again, not to use a particular word or phrase around them because they find it harmful or upsetting I, again, try not to do so out of politeness.

Outside this rather limited nebulous of general politeness, I have no understanding at all. It's not that I can't imagine having thoughts that run in certain directions--I certainly do--it's that I can't imagine wanting or needing to say them to other people, particularly to those that I'd know they'd hurt the most.

People who are famous often can manage losing out on certain venues without too much personal suffering. It's the rest of us who do not have a wide support base who are worried and who have the most to lose from this. People who cannot afford it have lost their jobs because of things they said were considered offensive by one segment of society. You don't hear about them as often because the more famous people are the ones that get attention. It's not conservatives who are the ones doing this either as you well know.

I believe in politeness too. I also believe in being charitable toward others and also letting everyone have a chance to say what they think even if I don't like it. You cannot be tolerant if you make everything you don't like impermissible.

Dominus tecum

I have issues when policies go so far as to remove or replace words and ideas in older books. I think that, if it's known to bother people now, some sort of forewarning would be appropriate but the content should remain unchanged. As for social media, we all are at the mercy of various administrators and I've more often seen BLM or GLBT+ voices silenced than conservative ones, but that's probably because of whom I follow.

I'm not able to guess at what you're worried about saying. Or, rather, all the things I can imagine don't really work well with what I've known of you. I can't imagine you wanting, for instance, to say anything racist. You've already mentioned not wanting to talk about it, and I'm not going to ask you to, but you need to know I really have no clue what you're talking about.

Here's a recent article from Real Clear Investigations highlighting the censorship and canceling that have happened to many conservative comedians and satirists: https://www.realclearinvestigations.....nd_766416.html

I haven't had time to ponder any further responses yet, but I figured I'd share this at least before I forgot.

Dominus tecum

I'm not that surprised. Lots of folks on Tinder had their accounts suspended for supporting BLM. Sites aren't (usually) the US government and so are not bound by the First Amendment.

This, I think, also goes back to the rights of individuals to deny services as we've discussed before. I am certainly not okay with it because of how it usually ends up, but if we're to support an individual's right to not provide a service, we can't start protesting because we happen to be on the side of the person on the receiving end. A Church site should not be forced to allow non-members to post, but if it starts silencing LGBT+ congregants issues start. Similarly with these sites. We either support their right to make and hold their own TSA or we don't. I know only too well I'm guilty of supporting LGBT+ voices whenever I feel them being silenced even while ignoring other issues.

I'm not really commenting on the comedy part because I know only too well that sometimes satire backfires. However, I also think there are situations that can be avoided by considering ones audience. If one is telling jokes to a group primarily made up of one ethnicity or religion, it'd be in rather poor taste to start telling jokes that insult them unless you're sure they'll find them funny.

But the issue goes both ways here. You want to turn this into a critique of conservatives saying a business can turn folks away for any reason (that's been the libertarian position but not the conservative position by the way) so we shouldn't complain when it's done to a conservative. There's many instances in which that's understandable (think of the Suess estate lately deciding that six of his books won't be available anymore because of problematic imagery; no conservative would suggest that they are not within their rights to do so).

However, the issue is that many of these sites want to be platforms and not publishers which means they aren't supposed to be favoring one form of political speech over another, but that's what they end up doing with selective enforcement of their community standards. The point that gets missed on the Left is that conservative speech gets penalized while much more violent and offensive speech on the Left gets ignored or praised.

And have you actually read anything from the Babylon Bee?

Dominus tecum

I'm not saying that it doesn't. As much as I'd love for people to abide by the rules they make, even when it's something they disagree with, people are ultimately emotional and end up selectively enforcing things. This is always where corruption starts, but I don't know there's a good remedy to it.

To me that last point, again, seems more both ways. There are people who praise the attack on the capital just as there are people who praised the more violent acts during the BLM protests. I know I have my own particular issues with both in different directions which I think only reinforces the point that one can be more ready to forgive people one feels aligned with than those one is opposed to even if the actions of both are similar.

I can't say I have, but on checking it out it looks a bit like the Onion. Again, in comedy context is important. It's too easy for someone to get in trouble for something taken out of context or put into the wrong one.
"Bean Dad" was a good example of this. John Roderick decided to post on Twitter "in the voice" of a stereotypical 'pedantic' dad when his young daughter didn't know how to use a can opener-- meant as a funny caricature much like Carroll O'Connor's Archie Bunker. What he didn't make clear was that it was an act. People with abusive parents got genuinely upset because his posts reminded them of their own childhoods. Worse yet, Roderick had made racist jokes in his past--jokes he now deeply regrets making--but these were dredged up and added fuel to the fire. You can read his apology here, but it's the best example I can think of to show how this sort of thing can go bad very quickly. (That and Mr. Peabody's Apples by Madonna.)

This isn't to say we shouldn't be able to tell jokes or make satire or so on, but we also need to be sure we're clear it is a joke or satire--because there are some people who will say similar things in all seriousness. We need to keep in mind that we don't really know what other people have been through and respect their feelings enough to avoid doing something harmful by accident. And for things taken out of context, I don't know what repairs can be made. I think we need, very early on, to teach both reasoning and deductive skills. To make, as much as is possible, our first instinct to investigate something rather than to take it at face value and reshare it immediately.

Selective enforcement is exactly the issue that conservatives have been trying to raise. Honestly, that's all we're asking to see come to an end. It's why there have been attempts to make other platforms where we can have that kind of fairness because we don't find it on the mainline ones.

Tribalism is something we must all fight against. It's far too easy to give into it. I wouldn't keep pointing out these moments with you if I didn't see that you do try to recognize that in yourself. *hugs*

Babylon Bee advertises itself as satire. But as far as context... how many liberals treated material from "The Daily Show" as serious news over the years? It's explicitly a comedy show that engages in satire (and I have laughed a lot at what it has done even when I don't agree with it). But Snopes and other Fact Checkers have gone after the Bablyon Bee in a way they never would against the Onion, even though both advertise themselves as satire; Babylon Bee explicitly notes in each of its "stories" that it is all satire.

I'm all for being thoughtful and considerate of what others have been through. But that's not what's actually happening here.

Dominus tecum

As have liberals. No one likes it when someone gets away with something because of who they are/know. All anyone wants is fair treatment, whether on sites or in real life, but that seems to be the hardest thing to get.

I have been trying to get better at it, and also wrestling with my own prejudices.

I honestly don't know how many people take "The Daily Show" seriously. I would hope none, but I know only too well that some people will take something figurative as literal no matter how much it's pointed out as being in error. I'm actually interested in that since both Snopes and Fact Checkers usually do pretty good jobs (or it seems to me) of checking things, so it seems odd they should target Babylon Bee more than other satirical sites.

Certainly, but I would hope you'd agree that the BLM is much along the same lines as conservatives being blocked and thus something both sides need to address.

---

As an addendum, I cannot argue in favor of allowing fascists in any way shape or form. I do not see this, as some do, as a contradiction of freedom of speech but rather like keeping a plague out of ones home. Nothing good has, or can ever, come out of fascism due to its nature.

Babylon Bee often makes fun of the Left, and a lot of folks on the Left cannot stand being made fun of. That's why they target them, because far too many of us have lost our sense of humor or the ability to laugh at our own absurdities.

As for your addendum, you tread on dangerous ground. "Fascism" is something being tossed around to mean lots of different things, most of which have nothing to do with actual historical Fascism as conceived by Mussolini and Hitler. I've seen moderates like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine accused of being Fascist. Whose definition of Fascists would be used to deny folks their first amendment rights? Yours? Mine? Somebody else? I'm pretty sure we're not going to agree there. What you suggest there could be used as a weapon by the powerful to silence those who oppose them.

Dominus tecum

I suspect it's because everything seems so life and death and it's so easy for someone to tell Schrodinger's Joke: something said in earnest that's passed off as a joke if few people find it funny.

I mean it as in the sense of Hitler and Mussolini. I do not like it when people use it so casually, nor when they use the term 'Nazi' in a similar way. Using the Odal/Othala Rune or 6MWE and trying to say it's not what everyone is thinking is just gaslighting.

But as to First Amendment concerns, we have a choice: we either allow privately run forums and sites to do what they want when it comes to barring people or we constrict them to comply with the First Amendment even when this goes against things in the forum or site.

If you're going to go with the latter, all our conversations regarding religious beliefs vs secular demands are moot. A baker would have no more right to refuse to make a gay wedding cake on religious grounds than a forum would to bar someone consistently saying everyone is going to Hell for their sins since both would be considered some violation of the First Amendment. Forums or sites designed for victims of rape could be invaded by rapists or rape apologists who harass those using it and could not be silenced for violating terms of service because such terms would be deemed against the Constitution and so on.

There's a distinct difference in the law between a platform and a publisher, and a forum dedicated for particular interests is more a publisher and does have the right to police its content shared. I'd never argue otherwise. The issue is that certain companies try to have it both ways, calling itself a platform to avoid legal responsibilities and privacy protections, while acting in the capacity of a publisher to promote particular agendas and silence others. I'm perfectly capable of seeing nuance here and recognizing that not all cases are going to be clear cut. That's not making our previous conversations moot. That's recognizing distinctions and seeing that there's a variety of services and activities to consider here.

Dominus tecum

I admit these places that try to have things both ways confuse me and seems like a good way to be a hypocrite.

Just look at companies that freak out and Virtue Signal over debatable issues here in the States but then cozy up to China and refuse to ever say anything happening over there is even troublesome. Hypocrisy is everywhere and it just goes to prove that the line between good and evil is not between parties, countries, etc... but in every human heart.

Dominus tecum

this subject is complex, and very prone to easy muddling.

it, thusly, is important to make clear distinctions in these matters.

i'd like to presume, accordingly, people's acting in accordance with human decency (ordinarily) transcends "party lines," and "disposition" — and does so with relative simplicity.

---

i was going to write a bunch of stuff for you to consider matthias; i just decided against it though

my gut tells me, the domain of cancelship / censorship isn't the exclusive domain-of-incurment, for those who undertake the mantle of "republican" / "conservative" — their ostracizations just get publicized more (?)


• i also believe, there has to come a point when one should not punch down against those who cannot defend themselves against someone's (unfounded) criticisms / jabs — there are many more people who won't make an attempt at civilized discussion (like i am, with you, at present), but would rather run with any-old-thing someone says

with no attempts made at critical thinking, or made towards considering people's individual circumstances

• some stances and statements made just, patently, are indefensible — and (again) their problematicness gets multiplied, because not everyone has the capacity of (nor the willingness to) accounting for nuance, circumstance, context

• some things should not be "joked" about — in certain cases, i'd rather a person not hide behind that façade of "just kidding," and own that they really feel "XYZ" adverse sentiment about something / someone

• steven crowder—who certainly seems neither "canceled" nor "censored" to me—has had at least one of his hour-long presentations pop up as ads on youtube several times now

recently.

randomly played during other videos that, i'd not natively presume, were created by people who'd ordinarily support someone like steven.

randomly brought to me during other videos **I** was watching.
on my account.

my account in which i rarely-ever knowingly seek out conservative / republican content.

(PragerU also intermittently pops up too — by the by.

{maybe this happens, because of my proclamation i'm a "moderate"?})

steven's AD — change my mind: black lives matter is a domestic terrorist organization.

indagare's already shared some of his thoughts about this.
so have i.

this was the title of steven's presentation.
http://prntscr.com/10ewvwr
there are a couple other gems of his, in this screencap i've excerpted.

i haven't cared to check for this, but.. ..has steve-o ever made a similar video about the ku klux klan?
i'd reckon, this is also a domestic terrorist organization ..... or is it, the potential terror of all blacks (and other groups the kluxxers have expressed distaste for) doesn't matter, either?
i checked steven's youtube, and i don't see a clearly-marked video decrying January 6th in the ranks there.

are the whites who acted a fool, that day, above reproach, matthias?

i should reckon, 2 months in.. ..steven's silence, on one of his main platforms in which criticisms on black american / black causes & concerns remain easily findable, contributes significantly towards the implicit testimony of how he really feels.

steve's one of those individuals you were envisioning, when you referenced "canceled / censored" republican+conversative voices ... is he not, matthias?

• while i'm at it: gina carano hasn't been silenced either.
she is free to work with others who say they're right-sided, to publish further content.
(republicans certainly should have more than enough money to fund whatever endeavours gina pursues!)

• it is as indagare says: you guys can't cry about reserving your right (as private entities) to deny business / service to whomever you desire.. ..then turn around and cry again when you experience that same treatment.
it's only a shame, that this "denial" doesn't happen to more of the privileged folk — it's almost always we plebeians who are impelled to endure the brunt of the shit, since our individual paths-of-({meaningful} legal)-recourse tends to be nil.

• concurrently: "freedom of speech" still does not confer with it "freedom from subsequent consequences"

kathy griffin got "canceled" for a few years — did she not?

she got canceled, for her depiction of a beheaded monster who (thereäfter), by his actions just from his previous "presidency," has directly lead to the deaths of at least one other innocent, undeserving person.

(i'm just referencing the covid-thing — not the insurrection thing.

regarding the covid-thing: if you, matthias, unironically believe *rump's response to The Pandemic was more-than-adequate, and correct.....)

i definitely didn't agree with her outcome.
yet, what did i do?
i probably bitched about it 1 - 3 times on social media, and'd left it at that.

kathy held up the fake, bloodied head of a person who ... isn't that great of a human.
this wasn't the head of a random plebeian, and much-certainly-not the head of someone who was ever rightfully-venerated — whose contributions to society far outweighed any wrongs they might have ever committed.

did you feel outrage against kathy, though?

---

i said i wouldn't write too much but, i guess i lied.

at any rate, you're always free to reply here as you see fit, or not reply at all.
anything, as long as you don't instead opt to do anything "behind the scenes," in response, that'd end up hurting me or anything i have a vested interest in.


how's that?

Why would I do anything behind the scenes? I don't take offense at anything you've said.

I'll state that I have ability to either defend Steven Crowder or PragerU since I don't watch them or see them come up in my Youtube content (mainly because I rarely watch political stuff on Youtube probably). I have seen others talk about them and I think the general idea behind Steven Crowder's approach is (or at least originally was) geared toward getting people to talk and think about issues that most wouldn't touch. And that's probably a good thing in general. I'm pretty skeptical of the Wisdom of the World given how often humanity messes things up, so we should be questioning the prevailing thoughts of our day.

One thing I do know is that Steven Crowder has been kicked off various platforms in the past. But yeah, he survives because he has sufficient following in order to do so. It's why guys like Joe Rogan aren't going anywhere even if he does piss off a lot of people who'd like to see him driven off the air; he's just got too big a following.

And yes, Kathy Griffin did get kicked off for a while for what she did; but she's been rehabilitated and even now many on the Left seem to think she didn't do anything wrong (I hope I'm wrong there).

But the real point which I think often gets missed is that it's not the famous who are most in danger of being canceled. They're just easier to notice. But that's also what means they'll be able to bounce back. It's folks like me who have no following or powerful friends who get canceled and can see their livelihoods destroyed.

It's why I'm not going to comment on many issues at all on this site anymore, or anywhere on social media. And that's an atmosphere none of us should ever have to live in, an atmosphere of constant fear that one wrong word in the wrong ear can see everything we have spent a lifetime building up torn down in a moment. I don't want that to happen to me, and I don't want that to happen to you.

Dominus tecum

Foreword / Forewarning: I really don't often go on-and-on like this. You'd think I'd post more journals here, given my penchant for verbosity.
Yet..
..I do not.

So, try to figure that one out rattyboy.



~||~

(i live in a world, where backstabbing / sabotage is quite within the realm of my personal, daily possibilities
a world where i, myself, feel impelled to be perpetually mindful on whether someone might take that extra step to deal with "a problem," without expressly making this known to his opponent.
{which is, indeed, a fair tactic to employ, in the sort of warfare that one engages in, to totally defeat said adversary.
even if this style might not be one which i, or you, ourselves, ´d take up.}


it is fair enough, on this occasion at least, you'd not behind-the-scenes me.
but... ...what if i had offended you?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiTiHA32FUc
this showed up as an ad for me, earlier-this-very-morning, on youtube: right when i was watching someone's transducted twitch gaming streama gaming stream, expressly not political
i couldn't make this stuff up even if i wanted.
(dennis'd released this only four days ago on his channel, too.)


yet, this circumstance does not take away from your (and my) point: the privileged don't really have to worry about the consequences.
we plebs do.
(or is it rather...
...does this plight more befall those who find themselves in the "middle" of things: those who—within their never-ceasing string of irony—have more to lose, than those who flank either side of the socio•economic scaling?)

---

i'd like to assert, indagare and i don't particularly echo•chamber each other; there already are a couple of identified areas-of-difference that he and i have, as it so happens.
yet, i overlook these (and, i believe, so does gare), because—again, my presumption—overall, he and i just want the needless suffering to stop

he and i want the needless suffering to stop though, his and my approaches to this directive also may differ.
my disposition on this might bear out more militantly: but this is only because, i remain convinced that the sheer level of evil this world contains cannot (and will not ever) be dealt with, by simplistic platitudes, "prayers and thoughts," and the like.

my nominations on dealing with this bullshit.. ..well, they'd probably render me "canceled" too.
(in a sense, i kinda already have been.
i've already been the black sheep of general society: and not just because i am a not-heterosexual, introverted, diminutive, nerdish, demure-black man.)
a shame, because while i'm busy being ignored and disregarded, millions (if not billions) continue suffering every day.

every day, i'd bet at least 10,000 are being trafficked, in order to fulfill the base desires of abominable people — some of whom, of course, are rich or even wealthy.
some of these desires, indeed, include the eventual murder. Of An Innocent.

i speak out about this stuff on facebook, yet among my 400 - 500 "friends" there, basically no one gives a shit.
no engagement.
no likes.
definitely no comments.

---

that said, matthias: in a way, i don't want you to feel like you can't ever speak on stuff either.
hell.
it's not like i'll always be correct with every-single-thing that comes out of my fingers / mouth
i won't always espouse opinions that pleases most people who (themselves presume) they're "innocents" who don't "bother" anyone.

i'll give you two of them:

1.) i don't see how legalizing hard recreational drugs / legalizing "recreational" use of pharmaceuticals can possibly be a good thing.
1a.) i'll go one step further on it, and tell ya that, so far as i am concerned, alcohol and tobacco as well should be banned.

i say this, knowing it'll never happen and it'd not be viable anyway.

(in turn: anyone who'd argue with me, "why don't we ban vehicles too?" is someone whom i'd deem functionally retarded.
as there is no way in hell these two categories are at all comparable — vehicles are a{n unfortunate} societal necessity; drugs—especially for recreation—are largely optional.)

2.) this kind of goes along with my general sentiment / preference of steering away from (needless) showiness/flamboyancy: "live and let live" and all, but i can live the rest of my li—. . . . .
. . . . .
well.
before i finish that thought, i feel like i had better practice what i preach, by making my-own-self be fair: periodt, i'd rather not be subjected to goofy, extreme shit whilst i am out in public, in a public space. that which "disturbs the reasonable peace."
(in a private space, among the usual "consenting adult" crowd — and especially if it is clearly advertised-as-forewarning to any outsider: then, i really have no say in whatever legal thing transpires.)

no matter who it is.

all of that, to tell ya matthias: as i don't really wanna be subjected to loud, chatty, screeching drag queens ... i'm not really "for it" with cis-women engaging in that behaviour either.
i don't want to be shopping somewhere, to then randomly find myself endangered by 3 - 10 "hot" guys, regaled in 'conservative' cloths, engaged in an all-out brawl: busting up the joint, and especially chucking miscellaneous storefront items around in some wanton attempt to injure a co-brawler.
i don't want to be out shopping somewhere, to then find myself sharing space with some full grown man (bonus points if i don't happen to find him visually-attractive) who feels the need to wear an adult-sized diaper.
(further bonus points, if this diaper bears an unapologetic bird stain, visible through.)


i feel like.. ..you and i might, either, share this viewpoint or (to my surprise) you'd be that guy with the pigtail wig, skimpy magical girl outfit, and full-on drag queen makeup.



not as a dare, but as a regular part of your day (when not dealing with work, or interacting with family).

(it's not like i would i know otherwise.)

you could be..
..i'm not.

but if you were, i'd still have to deliberate: i'd not spend a lot of time worrying about it.
you're not (technically) hurting anyone — though you may have to deal with some parents / guardians who don't want to have to explain to their charges, what they're seeing.

---

that was nice of you, i'll own: you wishing that for me.
in spite of all the things i have said thus far, to you / regarding you.

😳

i don't want to imply, we can never bear differing opinions.
i also don't want to be left to deduce, "being a decent human" and "being conservative / republican" are irreconcilable.
and the reality likely is, "a minority"—as always—"keeps ruining things for the silent majority."

yet, some matters simply cannot be up for debate.

those who find it easier to actively target obvious / known LGBTQ people, yet can somehow maintain much silence / inaction on murderers, traffickers, ("heterosexual") rapists, and even the Greedy Executives / C-Suites?
just for the hypocrisy alone, are they themselves condemnable.
for the harm they then go on to cause: furtherly-enforces their unforgivability for me.
=====
those individuals are, after all, part of the reason i don't feel comfortable "telling everyone" i like men.
they are definitely responsible for the indirect consequence of making it harder for me to [link up with dudes on "the apps"] — so many, too afraid to show their faces at all, due to their own fears (which are valid, probably half the time) of reprisals & repercussions.(´not counting those who are Cheaters; are on to set up a future robbery; or are on for other nefarious, anti-lgbtq reasons)
i don't really feel like taking chances on blind dates.
=====
that's an example of that which i can bear no "plausible deniability" for, mon'frere.

Thanks for sharing all of your thoughts on this. I smiled as I read your words, because they are authentic and while I doubt we're going to agree on everything, I can see you speaking from a desire to do good and right by others. I just want to live my life without fear. We're a better country than that. We are not perfect, but we are a better country and those who would make others live in fear should be called to account. I try not to speculate too much on what that would look like because I see in those moments terrible thoughts that do not belong in my heart.

I'm honestly not sure what else to say here, but thank you.

Dominus tecum

i thank you for indulging me, mate.

(´wasn't expecting to be able to put a smile on yer face!
though, for the ... few hours of my life i've dedicated to this pursuit, i'll gladly accept it as reward for my efforts)

---

i'm tired. this much, i know.

it brings me no joy, to even entertain thoughts of culling the population.
if i knew of a more peaceful solution, i'd advocate its implementation instead.
however: fire must be fought with fire, matthias.
at this current rate of progression, we're heading towards this regardless — a reality that so many people have warned us about (and continue warning us about) for decades now.
a reality which, naturally, some have made their own profits off of, through literary / cinematic depictions.

feeling powerless to do anything to stop the madness is fairly frustrating.
isn't it?

🍻

I find that if folks sit down and listen they can learn a lot more.

And yes, it can be frustrating. But I also try to remember that I'm probably not put on this Earth to single-hoofedly stop these things. I have my part to play and the little lives to touch along the way.

Dominus tecum