When lies are used to censor truth

Tucker Carlson does a good job of outlining how fact checkers use falsehoods that gives companies like Google an excuse to create a false narrative. And using false authority to do so.

We are not discussing censorship. We are discussing right out replacing the truth with blatant falsehoods. And hiding the truth.

The example used here is the weapon carried by Rittenhouse. The narrative he carried a weapon illegally.

Here's one example. Just days after Rittenhouse was first arrested, that was back in August of 2020, a pro-censorship organization called PolitiFact published what it called a fact check of the case. In a posting on its website, PolitiFact claimed that Kyle Rittenhouse had committed a crime by carrying a firearm in the state of Wisconsin. Here's the quote. "It is against the law in Wisconsin for someone younger than 18 to possess a dangerous weapon. Period." 

www.foxnews.com...

The weapon carried by Rittenhouse was legal for him to have in his possession.

But, based on the falsehood by PolitiFact, that gives the excuse of removing actual truth as misinformation.

So PolitiFact disagrees with what you're posting, then you are, by definition, spreading misinformation and you must be silenced. That's how it works.

What Is strange is YouTube interrupted live streaming of the trial by people giving commentary.

Just minutes after the judge in the case dismissed the gun charge, YouTube, which is owned by Google, censored the video streams of several independent legal experts who were commenting on the trial in real time. These were knowledgeable attorneys, many of whom were critical of the obvious weaknesses in the prosecution's case. 

I tried to verify the above. And why video streams were interrupted. The stated reason why is rather bazaar?

YOUTUBE SUSPENDS INDEPENDENT STREAMS OF RITTENHOUSE TRIAL DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS

www.outkick.com...

Rekieta Media tweeted at YouTube and said, “This is a PUBLIC HEARING and there is no copyright issue. You’re suppressing.

YouTube is obviously a strange choice of platform for any manner of political spectatorship and commentary given their trusted partnership with censor friendly administrations. Independent broadcasts require independent technology.

The main tool of the left is disregarding the rule of law and silencing those who enforce it. It's the only way they can win. The left does not want rules. They want reactionary lawlessness. Basically chaos mob rule where the leaders can kick back and watch their army of terror destroy their enemies.

a reply to: neutronflux

The false fact-checks are incredibly dangerous. People kind of breath a sigh of relief if/when these "factcheckers" walk back a false claim, but the damage is already done.

The Rittenhouse trial has been rife with this. Leftist talking point after talking point are getting knocked down by witnesses and even the prosecution. I've seen high-profile talking heads even start to admit that they were wrong.

Another pretty big example that is waking some up is the "lab leak theory". Regardless of what you believe and if it is or isn't true, in the early days people were banned all over the place for suggesting it. Those people don't get unbanned when the opinion finally becomes "acceptable" to the corporate media. Over the past few years especially the same cycle will happen:

An "unacceptable" theory gains traction
-> Leftist "factcheckers" will "disprove" it by simply saying it's false
-> People will get banned, lose monetization, gain account strikes for mentioning the theory
-> The theory will be unarguably proven true
-> Corporate media walks their statements back, changes definitions, and stealth-edits factchecks
-> Those silenced for the theory remain silenced and the overall public discourse has lost untold more free thinkers for the next discussion

This is disproportionately felt by small-scale businesses and individual people, not large organizations that have the resources to defend themselves.

Pretty sure 2+2 = 5

Ya know if P then Q.

Ergo, Rittenhouse is guilty.

Did I get that right?

Don't know what's worse, the fact that it happens, or the complacency.
Part of me longs for a very strong EMP, and for people to remember who did what to them...

a reply to: 2Faced

With Rittenhouse. And the weapons charge. No one quested how a person under 18 legally hunts in state?

a reply to: TzarChasm

We know you are all for censorship . Most of us aren’t . Hence why you feel lost here

a reply to: neutronflux

Ok well for starters he was NOT hunting in the traditional sense and was NOT 18 at the time. So yes he was illegally carrying his weapon. I don't really understand how that is hard to grasp. I mean it's not a big charge, regardless still against the law. Fairly simple stuff here dude.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

I didn’t make any claim Rittenhouse was hunting.

Why did the judge drop the charge.

Where in the state law does it state anything about hunting or sports shooting.

What does the law state concerning youths and long guns. And how was the weapon in Rittenhouse’s possession not the proper length to be considered a long gun which can be in his procession. If Rittenhouse violated the law, then why was the charge dropped?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Allaroundyou

I didn’t make any claim Rittenhouse was hunting.

Why did the judge drop the charge.

Where in the state law does it state anything about hunting or sports shooting.

What does the law state concerning youths and long guns. And how was the weapon in Rittenhouse’s possession not the proper length to be considered a long gun which can be in his procession. If Rittenhouse violated the law, then why was the charge dropped?

It's in the state laws. I don't have time to get the state law to link. I'll be home soon and then update this post with that info.

Make sure you include why the judge dropped the charge.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

No you won't...you will maybe look for it and subsequently not find it then never return to admit you were wrong.

If it was there to find the charge wouldn't be dropped and to add it was the most likely to stick charge out of the bunch so there is no way the prosecution would have allowed the charge to be dropped if it was in the states laws.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Since this was the original wording by PolitiFact was:

"It is against the law in Wisconsin for someone younger than 18 to possess a dangerous weapon. Period."

www.foxnews.com...

And we are discussing exceptions. Then the above statement is not true.

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: TzarChasm

We know you are all for censorship . Most of us aren’t . Hence why you feel lost here

At which point did I praise YouTube for their policy decisions? What I did was say content creators and commentators should take advantage of alternative platforms that don't cater to Google politics so YouTube can't unplug their voice. Reading comprehension is a key skill on message boards.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Allaroundyou

I didn’t make any claim Rittenhouse was hunting.

Why did the judge drop the charge.

Where in the state law does it state anything about hunting or sports shooting.

What does the law state concerning youths and long guns. And how was the weapon in Rittenhouse’s possession not the proper length to be considered a long gun which can be in his procession. If Rittenhouse violated the law, then why was the charge dropped?

It's in the state laws. I don't have time to get the state law to link. I'll be home soon and then update this post with that info.

Are you home yet? Do you have those laws, ands that update for us? We are waiting...

a reply to: visitedbythem

the Wisconsin law concerning underage possession of a dangerous weapon - which covers everything from guns to brass knuckles - is written in a way that it seems to apply restrictions on gun possession only when the person is carrying a short-barreled weapon such as a sawed-off shotgun, less than 12 inches. That is what Rittenhouse's lawyers argued. ...The .223 caliber Smith & Wesson rifle Rittenhouse used in the shootings has a 16-inch barrel.

The problem with mainstream media is that the spread a falsehood nonstop and the sheeple start to take it as truth. When the actual truth comes out, rarely is the record ever corrected with the same fervor as the initial lie.

The sheeple never actually hear the facts or the correction.

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Allaroundyou

I didn’t make any claim Rittenhouse was hunting.

Why did the judge drop the charge.

Where in the state law does it state anything about hunting or sports shooting.

What does the law state concerning youths and long guns. And how was the weapon in Rittenhouse’s possession not the proper length to be considered a long gun which can be in his procession. If Rittenhouse violated the law, then why was the charge dropped?

It's in the state laws. I don't have time to get the state law to link. I'll be home soon and then update this post with that info.

Are you home yet? Do you have those laws, ands that update for us? We are waiting...

No I'm not home yet. But basic understanding of gun laws generally can be applied to most states. Violation of curfew with a rifle at 17yo is infact against the law.
Now wether he gets charged does not negate the fact he broke some misdemeanor class B(I believe) laws.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

The state law makes an exception for 16 and 17 year olds regarding rifles. Unless that 16 year old is a problem to our war on America. Then the law says the state can lie, present photoshopped pictures as evidence and even point a rifle at the jury (just in case they weren’t intimidated yet).