It's now SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for the aggrieved liberals, social justice warriors and other denizens of the swamp to dredge up social media posts of those they don't like, and republish them so all the world can see that how horrible those racist (etc etc) conservatives are.
Never mind how old the e-mail or tweet or Facebook comment was, or that it was made in confidence, or in jest, if it could possible be construed as offensive, the person who wrote it is guilty, guilty, guilty! There's no Statute of Limitations on "hate crime" and "haters"... right? Or should I say "left?"
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert (which Walt reads every day!) had a very good comment on this today. I trust he won't mind our reposting it.
I hope Scott Adams won't mind our reposting this very succinct explanation of what "social media" is all about. [WWW doesn't make any money out of this. No-one reads the interstitial ads! Ed.]
On a related note, YouTube has banned Sky News Australia. Why? Because SNA was a staunch supporter of President Trump, and, since the fake election, has been trenchantly critical of President Biteme. Can you say "senile", boys and girls? SNA did, so must be silenced!
Cazart! The state-owned Canadian Broadcorping Castration (CBC), the font of endless torrents of liberal (and Liberal) propaganda, admitted today that (1) they do pay attention to comments on the social media, (2) they know thousands of readers/listeners disagree with their constant and cloying "wokeness", and (3) their "journalists" ["stenographers", shurely. Ed.] are cracking under the strain.
In a remarkably self-serving "Editor's Note" published today, Editor Brodie Fenlon complains that some of his poor dears are suffering from stress and anxiety caused by "the vitriol and harassment many of them face on social media platforms and, increasingly, in the field."
He quotes one of his typists, André Picard, who calls "platforms like Twitter...a cesspool of hatred." Then he tells us that Catherine Tait, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada [who probably signs his paycheque. Ed.] "has also written about the increased abuse of journalists on social media, especially women and journalists of colour."
Could it be that some Canadians don't like being talked down to by Toronto-based hijab-wearing Muslims? Could be! But to Ms Tait, attacks on her diverse and inclusive propagandists are nothing less than a "threat...to free speech and democracy." That's pretty rich coming from the head of a media outlet which deliberately denigrates and "de-platforms" anyone to the right of Sleepy Joe Biden!
Am I being unfair to the Corp(se)? After all, by suppressing the criticism of folks like us, they're only trying to protect their sensitive, easily-triggered audience. So says Mr Fenlon, who says it's unaaceptable "for our audience members who try to engage with and discuss our journalism to encounter it on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, where they are almost guaranteed to be confronted by hate, racism and abuse." Horrors!
So what is the CBC going to do to promote social justice, inclusivity, diversity, yada yada yada on the social media? Answer: "beginning on Wednesday and for the next month, we will close comments on all news links and video posts to the Facebook pages belonging to the journalism division of the CBC (News, Current Affairs and Local)."
But why? Try to keep a straight face as you read this.... "As the conversation has degraded on these platforms, we find ourselves limiting what we post there. We know certain stories will draw out obnoxious and hateful comments. The truth is we spend a considerable amount of attention and resources attempting to moderate our Facebook posts. It takes a mental toll on our staff, who must wade into the muck in an effort to keep the conversation healthy for others."
Can you believe it? Facebook sets the standard by silencing Donald Trump, to protect those who still use it from the Donald's hateful thoughts. [He incites riots, you know. LOL. Ed.] So the anti-Trumpers at the CBC (that would be about 99.9% of them) are going to shut down Facebook, to protect readers from pro-Trumpers!
But fear not. In the interests of promoting social discourse, freedom of speech, yada yada, comments on the CBC News website will remain open, subject to "moderation" of course, for any articles that don't involve immigration, refugees, black crime, or the scandals and ineptitude of the Liberal government, which (by the way) funds the CBC to the tune of hunreds of millions of beaverbucks every year.
As I write this, readers were still being allowed to comment on Mr Fenlon's drivel. Here's what two readers had to say:
"Bob Evans" - "This is how dictatorships work. Speech is suppressed and the excuse given is they are 'protecting' people from harmful speech.
"Chantal LeBouthi" - "In 1934, it was illegal to criticize the German government. Even telling a joke about The government was considered treachery. People in Germany could not say or write whatever they wanted. Controlling what news appeared in newspapers, on the radio, and in newsreels. Textbooks are a good example of how propaganda and censorship worked together in the Nazi regime back in the 1930s
I feeling we are going back to this and is extremely scary when is coming from so call democratic nations."
"Davide Richard" - "Perhaps if there was even a whiff of even handedness you may not anger taxpayers who pay for the cbc as much. Constantly presenting biased left wing favouring causes and opinionated news has a way of irritating us centrist thinkers."
"Jacques Untel" - "Maybe if the CBC was less 'woke', less intent on pushing the liberal agenda, you wouldn't be taking so much flak. The many Canadians who are fed up with your editorial stance, but can't comment directly on this website because of the heavy 'moderation', take their shot on Facebook."
Hm. Wish I'd said that! Here's my final comment.
UPDATED ADDED 16/6/21: Rebel News got their hands on some of CBC's internal e-mails showing how the "moderators" of the Comments section on their website. (Comments are not allowed if the subject of the story -- e.g. refugees and asylum-seekers -- is likely to attract anti-liberal feedback.) The "moderators" are now proven to have deleted "negative" comments on such subjects as Donald Trump, Wendy Mesley's use of the "N-word" and the January 6th Capitol "riots". Here's the video.
The website hosts information about the former president and first lady, but and features ways to communicate online with the president. Supporters are encouraged to "share your thoughts" with the Trumps. In the words of the official annoouncement, "President and Mrs. Trump are continually strengthened by the enduring spirit of the American people, and they look forward to staying in touch."
Left-wing Hollywood celebrities are expressing their collective love of Big Brother after Twitter announced that it has permanently banned President Donald Trump. Breitbart News reported that Twitter kicked the president off its platform late Friday because, "After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence."
Yes, the Alphabet people have "deplatformed" the President of the United States, not just temporarily, but forever! They must be afraid that his campaign for re-election in 2024 will start on January 21st, as indeed it will, with or without Twitter!
Someone who knows a lot about being deplatformed is Al Strachan, a journalist and former columnist for the Toronto Sun, the Globe and Mail, and Montreal Gazette. For a time, he was a regular panelist on Hockey Night in Canada, from which he managed to get fired, not once but twice, for ruffling the feathers of the elites. I've just read (and recommend highly) his latest book (of seven), Hockey's Hot Stove (Simon & Schuster 2020). Here's what he has to say about social media.
Social media could have been such a wonderful addition to our lives. It could have prompted the exchange of information. It could have encouraged participation in worthwhile activities. It could have created friendships and promoted worthy causes. Some of those positive attributes were realized -- sporadically. But really, what social media does more than anything is allow for the exchange of vitriol.
No society in history has ever been so adamant in its demands for tolerance -- yet, it seems, no society in history has ever been so intolerant. We are a modern society and have the technology to prove it. But when it comes to social media, the mind-set is positively medieval. Or should I say media-evil?
Suspicion is aroused and someone on Twitter shouts, "Kill the witch. Kill the witch." Moments later, #killthewitch hashtags are springing up all over the site. Backgrounds are hastily researched and alleged witchlike transgressions that occurred twenty-give years ago are being posted and retweeted. Memes appear, Cartoons appear. By the end of the day, the verdict is almost unanimous. The transgressor deserves to be tortured and executed.
The Middle Ages are back. Bring on the Spanish Inquisition. We are repeatedly told by people on social media that we must accept all forms of alternate lifestyles in the name of tolerance. Fine. But anyway who asserts a contrarian opinion is vilified.
All very true. And now, it seems, politically incorrect opinions are not only not tolerated, but not to be expressed. Period. Freedom of speech is dead in Alphabetland. Forget about Twitter. But there is a bit of good news. Consider an alternative, Parler.com. They invite you to "Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being 'deplatformed' for your views. Engage with real people, not bots. Parler is people and privacy-focused, and gives you the tools you need to curate your Parler experience."
And this just in (thanks to Agent 17): Predictably, the usual suspects when it comes to Internet censorship -- Amazon, Apple and Google -- have removed Parler from their app stores, but you should be able to sign up directly by cllcking on the link above
HEADS-UP FROM ED.: Looks like the PC police "Inside Google" have started to keep an eye on WWW. Maybe it had something to do with our "It's cool to be white!" logo? I've taken that down, but if WWW suddenly "goes black" (so to speak) you'll know what happened.
The "greats" of the lamestream media, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, make a big deal out of proclaiming their neutrality when "reporting" (read: writing opinion pieces described as news reports) on American politics. Since last year's presidential election, no-one with any smarts at all believes them, but it's still good to see proof of their pro-Democrat/anti-Trump bias every now and then.
Here, for your delectation, is an excerpt from an "analysis" (read: you have to believe this because I'm smarter than you are) piece by (((Kayla Epstein))) headed "Trump’s Twitter deactivation couldn’t have come at a worse political moment for the platform", published today, 4/11/17. Except for the substitution of "Twitter" for "the platform") in the first line, I have copied it exactly as it appears online. You can look it up. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) raised the question of [Twitter]’s political neutrality during a Senate Judiciary hearing with Facebook, Twitter, and Google on Oct. 31. The purpose of the hearing was to investigate malicious Russian activity on these platforms during the 2016 election, but Cruz took the conversation further. “Given the percentage of news and political information that Americans receive online through social media or through other online avenues, the prospect of Silicon Valley companies actively censoring the speech or the news content is troubling to anyone who cares about a Democratic process with a robust First Amendment,” Cruz told representatives from the tech giants. Cruz cited specific controversial incidents involving Google, Facebook, and Twitter, including Facebook’s Trending news team, and a temporarily suspended Twitter ad by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a candidate for Senate.
Did you catch the play? I'll bet you Ted Cruz didn't mean to say "Democratic" with a capital D. More likely he meant "democratic", as in having a choice between competing ideologies or parties. Lifetime pct .993.
VIDEO ADDED 10/11/17: Chris Wallace (American television anchor and political commentator who is the host of the Fox Broadcasting Company/Fox News Channel program Fox News Sunday) admits that when he says the media are biased against him "Trump may have a point".
Malala's doing it. Hellery Clinton's doing it. Michelle Obama's doing it.
Everybody's doing it. Except Walt. [And Ed. Ed.]
What's "it"? Why tweeting #BringBackOurGirls of course! The reference is to the dastardly kidnapping of close to 300 Nigerian schoolgirls by the Boko Haram.
These guys are Islamic extremists by the way. Walt points that out because the PC media, politicians and pundits seem incapable of saying the words "Islamists" or "Muslims" in referring to these terrorists. Even the CBC's Rex Murphy -- usually a straight shooter -- got through his 5-minute piece on The National on Thursday without once alluding to the religion which Boko Haram claim inspires them.
But I digress. Most of the girls are still "missing", with the Nigerian authorities professing to have no idea where to look for them. Nigeria's head nagger, Goodluck Jonathan, has appeared on TV begging for technology, weapons and, errr, money to help his army rescue the girls. He said nothing about returning the weapons, jeeps or whatever once the girls are found.
Meanwhile, all right-thinking people agree that, yes, Boko Haram are a bad lot, and shouldn't sell the girls into slavery, prostitution and/or marriage. Hence the hashtag. It has become fashionable, in the last couple of days, to scrawl the hashtag on a piece of cardboard, take a picture of yourself holding it, and post it in the social media, which Walt thinks ought to be called the "anti-social media".
Twittering, tweeting, retweeting... whatever you call taking the "action" just described is, you see, Doing Something. Posting a picture of yourself displaying #BringBackOurGirls shows support for them, you see. One cam imagine them seeing all the tweets on their iPhones, somewhere in the middle of the African bush, and being encouraged.
And who knows? Maybe the thugs who call themselves Boko Haram will see that 1000s of people have the courage to put these pictures online, and be motivated by compassion or fear to do what the hashtag commands. But Walt doubts it. For one thing, these Muslim terrorists -- don't forget it! -- don't look very literate. If they can read Hausa, which is written in Arabic script. Seeing signs in English -- the language of "boko" (= "book", = western/Christian education and culture) probably provokes them to fits of anger and/or laughter.
Tweeting #BringBackOurGirls or anything other expression of your "thoughts" on this or any other subject is a weak and futile gesture. It's like adding a few flowers -- possibly accompanied by a teddy bear -- to one of those "memorials" that spring up at the site of an accident or a crime.
You may think you're Doing Something when you tweet or twitter or throw more garbage on the heap, but really you're guilty of "slacktivism" -- making a small, meaningless gesture to show that you "care" and ease your guilty conscience. Why you or Michelle Obama should feel guilty about something which you had nothing to do with, and which has nothing to do with you, is another matter. But if you really want to help, find a better way.
"Like what?", I hear you ask. That's a toughie, but perhaps a donation to an organization like Amnesty International, or a reputable NGO working to educate girls in the third world, would do some good. Meanwhile, please spare us the vapid and ultimately useless tweets.
