As a reminder, it's okay to oppose this deplatforming and dislike Bitchute as a platform.
I'm saying this because I'm personally nervous to share this story on social media because I fear people will suspect I support the content on Bitchute.
Macron recently spoke very articulately about why the speech itself irrelevant to the issue at hand [1]. If you believe in the principles of free speech you must also defend the speech of those whom you disagree with.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. --H. L. Mencken, US editor (1880-1956)
The Nazis openly mocked the democratic principles that they used (abused) to gain power to take freedom away from their enemies. It is a fact of life that sometimes the freedom of one party conflicts with the freedom of another. Every legal system acknowledges that. No freedom can ever be absolute for everyone.
The Weimar Republic was a half baked democracy though. There were too many tiny parties with 1-3% which weakened the main parties, making it easier for the NSDAP to gain mindshare.
Back then powers were not sufficiently separated and the president had more power than he should. Both the president and Hitler wanted a more authoritarian state and worked together. Hitler failed to get a majority but he wasn't satisfied with a coalition. He instead asked the president to arrange an emergency government to buy more time while Hitler used his goon squad to threaten members of the parliament to just quit or vote the way he wants until he finally got the majority of seats in parliament and then used that majority to abolish the parliament entirely.
>If you believe in the principles of free speech you must also defend the speech of those whom you disagree with.
The problem is that some people don't at all - either because they don't think the benefits outweigh the costs (quite a common point of view), or because such a freedom runs against religious dogma and religious law (the view to which Macron is responding), or because they think freedom of speech in its purest form, at least, is a dogma that is hard to justify philosophically (such people know what liberalism is, but reject it for one reason or another - they're not ignorant, and they publish their arguments, just as speech-defenders like Locke and Judge Easterbrook).
It's easy to dismiss religious funamentalists as a reasonable person. It's significantly harder to dismiss the other two categories of people. Whether a right or usage of that right is "worth it" seems to be a personal value judgement of what an individual wants society to optimize for, whereas the philosophy of freedom of speech is a complicated matter sensetive to political factors and the purported function (and actual function in the real world) of speech.
We should have a Godwin's law equivalent for the "think of the children" argument, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter are the home of plenty of child abuse, I've seen it firsthand, shall we ban all social media? Shall we also ban all VPNs and internet companies as well? As well as TOR?
That's the beauty of due process. Once the child molesters get tried, convicted and imprisoned, the telephone company won't be providing them the service because laws say you don't get a phone line in your cell. What is happening now is attempts to replace due process with the "loudest mob wins" where the mob is also allowed to attack the witnesses and defenders of the accused. Economical lynching really.
I think you're getting downvoted because people think you don't support fully open telephone access. I don't quite understand which side you stand on though, good satire being indistinguishable etc etc, but I think you understand what's actually at stake.
I'm not buying it. They're already back online after 90 minutes. What kind of deplatforming is that? Why not say who was responsible or post those juicy, juicy emails?
This is a bad fit for deplatforming and a good fit for outrage farming.
A few corporations have replaced public commons, leading to inverted totalitarian rule by fiat with an illusion of alternatives.
Furthermore, the "liberals" nowadays differ markedly from the liberals years ago who wanted to and encourage debate. Instead, the circular firing squad keeps looking for the next victim to shout-down, take offline, and ignore completely because that's their strength: demolition.
I wish I had archived the chemplayer videos now. I could never find anything else worth watching on that site but it really sucked when they deleted all his videos from youtube. I watch chem demos to fall asleep at night and it works super well and I've already gone through nilered/E&F/dug's lab.
I don't chemistry so most of the stuff I don't even understand, but I too, for some reason, enjoy watching his videos at night before sleeping.
Not really as a sleeping aid, but they are so much different than other stuff I watch that to me it feels like taking a break. I guess it does for me what chick flicks do for my gf... if that makes sense.
Who the hell flagged this? Even if bitchute is an irredeemable dumpster of hate speech this is kind of serious. This is part of the end of personal computers being a tool that extends yourself and the beginning of them being an ankle bracelet that corporations yank you back into line with.
Possibly because Bitchute may have not been "deplatformed"[0].
Bitchute themselves clarified in follow-up tweets that they don't know for certain why things went offline [1].
Is there any evidence for Joe Biden's cognitive decline besides Trump saying it? Donald Trump says a lot of things and has admitted he'll lie when he thinks it helps him.
Is the New York Post story the Hunter Biden laptop story? I've seen plenty of reporting on it and the details seem pretty sketchy.
It's telling that the first two videos are 5 seconds long and barely contain a full sentence. Couldn't find a, let's say, 30-second clip where Biden clearly talks nonsense?
There are also plenty of times when Trump has slurred his words in speeches.
I've also said things that don't make sense. Sometimes I change my mind about what I'm going to say in the middle of saying it. I'm sure this sort of thing happens to lots of people. Lucky for me I'm not talking in front of cameras so people can collect every time I've misspoken.
There are people I'd rather see as President but given the two choices Biden is easily my preferred candidate. I'd also like to see political discussion focused more on substantial issues. I also dislike it when people attack one candidate for something while ignoring their preferred choice doing the same thing.
Do you honestly believe that the reasons you asked about are the only reasons someone would support Joe Biden over Donald Trump? I'm not a fan of Trump but I certainly don't think everyone who supports him does it because they're either crazy or family.
You misspelled a hateful, discriminatory word. Maybe you could do the world a favor by sticking to facts and policies, not people's appearance and attributes?
Before Biden became the Democratic nominee there were concerns about his cognitive decline. For example the young Turks were claiming he was demented and was a bad choice. However, when he won his nomination this all got conveniently memory holed.
It’s easy to Google Biden’s cognitive decline and find some worrying videos. Also, it wasn’t Trump who started saying it - it was democratic operatives in 2019.
I hope he wins, because Trump is fundamentally unfit to be president, but I am worried about cognitive decline nonetheless.
Edited: removed incorrect reference to Clinton campaign from 2016.
> It’s easy to Google Biden’s cognitive decline and find some worrying videos.
Sure, I can find videos of Biden being a gaffe-prone stutterer probably that are older than the internet, certainly I've seen Biden doing that since before his first Presidential campaign, and it's not something that helps himmon the campaign trail.
But it's not evidence of cognitive decline, either.
> Also, it wasn’t Trump who started saying it - it was Hilary Clinton’s team when Biden was in the primaries in 2016.
Biden didn't run for anything in 2016 and so wasn't in any primaries that cycle, so that's obviously false.
> It was in fact the democratic party in 2019. As documented in the link.
Well, sure, it's clear that that, after repeatedly asserting that the
Trump attack is true without evidence, that's clearly the narrative about the Trump attack's origin that Intercept article, but none of their supposed examples actually use anything like the line of attack they try furiously to associate them with. Even as “decide on the narrative and then see why evidence we can try to use to sell it” articles go, that’s pretty weak tea.
“I’m no doctor, and I had a family member whose dementia contributed to his death. I will be the last one here speculating wildly about Biden’s cognitive abilities relative to his age. But his campaign is irresponsible to let this go unexplained — or undiagnosed, if the case may be.”
Not if you're wilfully blind. If you aren't, it's enough to just watch some of his videos from as little as 2-3 years ago, and compare them to today. Dude is out to lunch completely. "Stutterer" narrative doesn't hold any water when he was a pretty good public speaker just 3 years ago, and now he looks like an angry and confused old man all the time. C'mon, man!
Blatant in annotation false or outrageous claims by Trump? Trump claiming victory when votes aren't counted is something to be careful about reporting.
Liberalism works at a international level because it is able to outcompete other alternative governments because it produces better outcomes. But at a national level liberalism is weak because liberalism is let a 1000 flowers bloom and anti-liberalism is about suppressing alternative memes. Liberalism can’t beat illiberalism at a national levels unless people are willingly to stand up and protect unpopular views.
"BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material."
"The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote in 2019 that the site hosts "hate-fueled material", and the Anti-Defamation League wrote in 2020 that "BitChute has become a hotbed for violent, conspiratorial and hate-filled video propaganda, and a recruiting ground for extremists"
The SPLC's entire business model is calling other people racist.
The day they run out of racists is the day they go out of business.
And is you look into their finances, you'll immediately see that their business is extremely profitable.
The whole grievance industry is quite a grift. When one can't find enough racists, one simply creates them out of whole cloth. Either that or get your buddies at Miriam Webster and Dictionary.com to change some definitions around for you. Or simply have sympathetic allies in academia to create a new sociological their of victimhood for you, such as "microaggressions".
The money's so good, I'd consider getting into it myself if I had no ethics. Plus the author of "White Fragility" stole my idea.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is an activist organisation which will label just about anything as "far right" which does not fit their narrative [1]. Using them as a reference for something being related to far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material makes the claim less believable. This does not mean BitChute does not harbour such material - given the fact that BitChute does not censor content it is likely to be present, just like it is likely for it to harbour far-left individuals and conspiracy theorists - but SPLC calling something bad just means they disagree with whatever the something does.
I'm saying this because I'm personally nervous to share this story on social media because I fear people will suspect I support the content on Bitchute.
Macron recently spoke very articulately about why the speech itself irrelevant to the issue at hand [1]. If you believe in the principles of free speech you must also defend the speech of those whom you disagree with.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu0JRs1KrAk