AOC says that censorship is necessary

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: pianopraze

Marxists aren't satisfied with only controlling 90% of the media.

They are enraged that they haven't yet conquered the remaining 10%

Agreed.

At what point did Democrats become Marxist authoritarians?

They used to be more libertarian/freedom oriented.

All current Democrats in power seem to be pushing for absolute authoritarian control.

So much so former Democrats are now running Republican - Vivek, Kennedy, Gabbard… even Trump.

originally posted by: pianopraze
a reply to: BingoMcGoof

Did I assume anything?

I asked for clarification on your position.

Thank you for providing it.

I think moderation on ATS has been superb. I read that posts as the mods are frustrated and will act in manner they list. I always try to avoid attacking individuals. Sure I haven’t been perfect in heat of moment. I’ve taken breaks from ATS in the past for my own mental health when I get overly frustrated.

You are welcome for that clarification. Much like you I have always tried to avoid attacking individuals who post on this website and am hopeful that you have not considered that I was attacking you in that post you have just replied to. If you like, you can go back and read it again to help assure me that I did not

As for AOC I really am neither here nor there on her, the space she takes up in my thoughts is minimal and in reality, what I have posted here today I just looked up and have done my best to state facts as I found them.

a reply to: pianopraze

Democrats has turned into globalist; they worship the power behind it, in order to bring the globalist ideals into the US, they have to become authoritarians and get rid of the US constitution, right now is not as easy as it seems, that is why they are invading the nation with illegal immigrants that do no cherish or respect American values.

a reply to: pianopraze

Depends on your bias.

I would like to play a game using the website Mediabiasfactcheck.com.

The sites rated are as follows:

The Gateway Pundit, CNN, Newsweek, Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, The Hill, Conservative Treehouse (The Last Refuge), Breitbart, Slate, Huffington Post.

Can you match them up?




On censorship. Don't support it, but also think bias and faulty reporting should be made more known and their misleading politicking more common knowledge, without it being some kind of "Ministry of Truth" type thing.

They don't have to call themselves out, but I do wish for a culture that can pause (and fact check) before something fake (meant to piss them off) sends them over the edge as planned.

The danger isn't the freedom, but how it's being politically leveraged and made belligerent and uncontested. Progressively more detached and angry. (E.g. Haitian dog eaters)

Of course there's always saying, "Well, Media Bias Fact Check needs to be fact checked for bias!"

And they have been.

newsliteracy.psu.edu...

Nobody needs to believe that, but it should be more known what is deliberately pissing people off.

a reply to: pianopraze

Now that AOC has been introduced to the honeypot of skimming dollars from programs and initiatives, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has stopped complaining about how little she is paid. ($190,000) She used to whine constantly.

She has joined those who want to silence citizen investigators, like Nancy Pelosi tried to do in 2020, as word spread about the Covid-19 corruption/plan and her role in it.

Pelosi the traitor self-protecting: pelosi.house.gov...

ALL who are skimming our taxpayer dollars, or selling U.S. secrets (like Menendez & Biden), or attempted to overthrow President Trump (Hillary, Obama, Comey, MSM heads, etc) will face a DOJ/MIL justice system that is being expanded just for them, beginning in 2025.

"I've caught them all!" -DJT October 2020
😡💣

Isn't it odd that leftists never want to censor leftist disinformation?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Isn't it odd that leftists never want to censor leftist disinformation?

How can they, when is their version of the truth, hell no.

a reply to: Degradation33

Right. Fact-checker MARY sees the outlets totally different than Fact-checker BILL. Even though both claim to be unbiased fact-checkers.

a reply to: pianopraze

Flat out telling of lies has a sketchy history.

We have defamation laws
Libel (spoken lies)
Slander (written lies)

The thing is: Is it only bad to lie or bear false witness if someone can afford to hire an attorney, take many days off from work, convince a judge that they have been materially harmed?

That seems somewhat slanted to favor the rich over the poor. And what if the harm is such that dollar signs aren't directly involved?

a reply to: network dude

But in this thread, the issue is she is going directly against the first amendment and for some reason, that has become a popular position.

Can you explain who should monitor and decide which speach is allowed? Or do you not agree with her on this point?

Sure, she skirted the the accepted boundaries of free speech by even bringing up this issue of misinformation. Yet, from listening to that recording I did not find that she suggested that it should be her, or anyone specific that should set the boundaries of free speech. What I heard was her saying it needs to be looked into, needs to be addressed. On that I agree with her. Do you?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Isn't it odd that leftists never want to censor leftist disinformation?

That is one reason ONE REASON why there can be no "meeting in the middle" or working together. I don't want to have anything to do with those who believe in murdering human babies, changing your child's sex, putting boys on girls teams, forcing me into an electric car, raising prices 20%, then lowering them 5%, and telling me I should be thankful.

I want people who think like that removed from positions of authority. Not to "work with them".

I wonder how far they would take it.

Forget politics for a minute, they could censor religions for saying it's the wrong way to worship God.

a reply to: Astrocometus

Anyone favoring censorship, let them start with themselves.

Self censorship?
I do that a lot.

I even refrain from telling the truth a bit more than I am comfortable with. But what is comfort compared to fitting in with a subculture, an in group?

Reminder that the current administration argued in Federal Court that your thoughts are "Cognitive Infrastructure" that they need to regulate.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Isn't it odd that leftists never want to censor leftist disinformation?

Thats exactly why those who hate freedom of speech damn well
don't deserve it.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: pianopraze

Marxists aren't satisfied with only controlling 90% of the media.

They are enraged that they haven't yet conquered the remaining 10%

There's a plan for that, too...

Left-leaning billionaire George Soros is trying to recruit the Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission to help fast track his takeover of the nation’s second-biggest radio network.

Soros, 93, pumped $400 million into Audacy in February, a network which reaches 165 million monthly listeners and includes a handful of conservative shows from hosts including Sean Hannity, Dana Loesch, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson.

But their influence is likely to be muted if the billionaire takes over and imposes his agenda, as has happened with other media acquisitions.

However, to take control Soros Fund Management needs help from the FCC as the money funneled into buying the bankrupt network comes from abroad.

Under existing FCC rules, foreign company ownership of US radio stations is not allowed to exceed 25% — but a filing acquired by The Post details Soros’ asking the commission to make an exception.

In the past two years, Soros Fund Management — a rep for which said they do not comment on ongoing transactions — has made big moves into American radio.

It brokered Univision’s $60 million sale in 2022 of 18 mostly conservative Hispanic radio stations including right-wing powerhouse Radio Mambi.

That same year, Soros invested another chunk of cash into the liberal podcast network Crooked Media, home of “Pod Save America.”

[nypost.com...]

It's unfathomable to me that any citizen could be for government control of all information in light of how many times the Amerrican people have been lied to and deceived.
The Russia hoax and the Hunter laptop would never, ever have been exposed under government information control. Neither would such nefarious experiments such s MK Ultra, the Tuskegee Experiment, mandatory sterilization of indeginous people, etc.
The list is long, and if past proves future there will be no way to ever find the truth or hold the government accountable again.

The liberal stance seems to be 'All citizens are inherently bad and therefore the government needs total control over every aspect of their lives-even what they say'.

Shouldn't the focus be on where all these 'bad people' coming from and what's causing it?

We have a heavily split society now; those who are productive, and those who are not. Our country has been flooded with migrants bringing their home cultures that are 180* opposed to American values and rather than assimilate they demand-and are catered to.
We have rampant poverty, homelessness, gangs, drugs, etc. and while it's obvious where the heart of the problems lie our government continues to throw money at the symptoms.

There was a time when people would ignore and avoid the loose canons in society; now we elect them in perpetuity to political office.

Silencing the people who can actually see the elephant in the room is the coup de grâce for America.

originally posted by: Astrocometus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Isn't it odd that leftists never want to censor leftist disinformation?

Thats exactly why those who hate freedom of speech damn well
don't deserve it.

It's just a self-protection thing. They don't really care about "free speech" one way or the other. Democrats use a lot of terminologies to protect themselves from illegal activities. Constitutional Crisis, Equity, Democracy Destroyer, blah blah blah...doesn't mean squat the way they uses those terms.

a reply to: network dude

In the public discourse. Yes we should allow free speech.

But, here is the dilemma. If someone is knowingly spewing disinformation in order to try to skew an election in a candidates favor. Is that still considered free speech? What if someone is unknowingly or knowingly paid by Russia to spew disinformation. Do we allow that? Where do we draw the line between public discourse and or disinformation/foreign interference?

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof

...
For instance you say '' In fact it's usually the opposite''. Certainly THAT is an opinion and not a fact, that is unless you have some really impressive statistics to back it up.

One can't see beyond the veil of this room of deception, by believing in other parts of the deception.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: network dude

In the public discourse. Yes we should allow free speech.

But, here is the dilemma. If someone is knowingly spewing disinformation in order to try to skew an election in a candidates favor. Is that still considered free speech? What if someone is unknowingly or knowingly paid by Russia to spew disinformation. Do we allow that? Where do we draw the line between public discourse and or disinformation/foreign interference?

Do you mean like the constant screed of "Threat to Democracy"?

How about a staged photo op along a fence claiming to to be crying "for the children locked up by Trump"?

Maybe the pending National Abortion Ban if Republicans win?

Or, perhaps, the imminent implementation of Project 2025?

Every one a lie. Every one constantly spewed by those that want to limit the right of free speech.