Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Dear Everybody: Stop acting like you need to be protected from opinions

Published

on

Dear Everybody Stop acting like you need to be protected from opinions

As columns go, this will probably be hated more than most of mine. It will get panned by social media, ignored by mainstream media, and even most conservatives will distance themselves from it. But after seeing the sharp increase in censorship around the internet, particularly on social media, I feel compelled to tell the “vulnerable” that they should be insulted by any company’s attempt to shield them from other people’s thoughts.

Before I get into why nobody needs protection from opinions, it’s important to note what should count as unacceptable on social media, in comments, and pretty much everywhere else online. There are the obvious ones such as real threats, doxxing, and calls for criminal activity to be perpetrated against any person, group, or organization. This falls under the same basic tenets of free speech in the real world. Anything that can lead to harm of others should not be protected.

True hate speech should be grounds for censorship. This is where we get into gray area. So much has been labeled as “hate speech” that it’s almost impossible to recognize sometimes. Racial slurs are considered hate speech, yet they’re okay when used in movies, art, and song lyrics. They might force a warning or a particular rating to inform parents, but they’re accepted otherwise.

I know it’ll never happen, but I would be okay with allowing this type of hate speech. I would never invoke bigotry myself; I’ve never used a racial slur in my life. As a legal immigrant and minority, I realize this would open me up to racist insults. That’s okay with me for one reason: Racist comments used towards me are not a reflection of me. They’re reflections of the bigots speaking against me.

Is it wrong? Of course. But I think we’d be surprised by the self-policing that would come from it. For every idiot who used a slur referencing my Asian-American heritage on social media, dozens of others would come to my defense and berate the bigoted attack. I don’t need Twitter or Facebook to ban a bigot on my behalf. Maybe they’ll learn something when I explain why their racial arguments are a sign of ignorance.

No, I’m not condoning hate speech. All I’m suggesting is we can and should be able to take care of ourselves. It’s not just about racism, though. I see a future where everything becomes so tightly controlled that we’re not only prohibited from the obvious types of hate speech, but we also have to be careful about anything that might offend anyone for any reason.

Is it hateful to tell someone they’re ugly? Yes. Eventually, that won’t be allowed.

Is it hateful to tell someone their shirt in a picture they post is ugly? Maybe, maybe not. Eventually, that won’t be allowed.

Is it hateful to tell someone their shirt in a picture they post would match better if they wore jeans instead of trousers? No. As hard as it is to believe today, eventually, that won’t be allowed. Why? Because somebody’s going to get offended, and when people get offended, social media companies start changing their rules.

To be clear, companies like Twitter and Facebook have every right to censor anyone for any reason. When they censor or even ban people, as they did recently with Meghan Murphy and Laura Loomer, people often invoke “free speech” as an argument against these companies. As long as they’re referring to the concept and/or human right of free speech, the argument is sound. If they’re referring to the 1st Amendment, they’re missing the point. These are private companies. They can ban or censor anyone they wish.

It’s important to understand that because I’m definitely not calling on government to interfere in this at all. I can imagine some well-meaning politician crafting the “Free Speech in Social Media Act of 2019” or something like that. Please don’t. The people, the users, we’re the ones who must pull these social media sites back from the brink of rampant censorship due to overbearing rules.

I do not condone hate speech. Anyone who reads this article and comes away with that conclusion completely missed the point and that’s likely my fault. But I don’t believe social media sites need to protect us from it. That should be on us.

Sticks and stones may break my bones…

…but opinions will never hurt me

I appreciate getting words of encouragement in comments on my articles or social media posts, but what really gets me pumped up is when someone doesn’t agree. I’m not the argumentative type, though my wife would disagree. I’m a discourse guy. Any disagreement is an opportunity to teach something, learn something, or both.

I had a mini rant on Twitter that got the wheels turning in my head prior to writing this article.

 

Not surprisingly, there were very few comments at any of the social sites on which I posted this rant. Our society as it’s reflected through social media has become so accustomed to finding reasons for others to be banned that we rarely consider the possibility that they shouldn’t have been banned even if their words were hateful.

People don’t need protections dished out by social media companies. If they need any support at all, it should come from their piers. I believe most people don’t need support at all when hate speech is used against them. They can be offended. They can argue back. They can block people, repost the remarks made against them to highlight the idiocy of the person attacking them, or simply ignore them altogether. Bigots don’t learn from being banned. They’ll learn from being ridiculed. They’ll learn from other people pointing out the foolishness of the hatred they espouse.

With all the protections and rules being made by social media companies, it’s no wonder we’re seeing a young generation of snowflakes emerge. They don’t handle bigotry themselves or with friends. They just get people banned. It might make them feel good, but it does nothing to help them in the real world if they’re ever face-to-face with bigotry.

Racist comments used towards me are not a reflection of me. They’re reflections of the bigots speaking against me.

My perspective would probably be different if I didn’t foresee this turning into a debacle if it’s not reined in now. If I thought the hate-speech-label could be limited to only the most blatant, I could understand wanting to keep those rules in place for the the sake of civility. But we’re already seeing valid opinions being labeled as hate speech.

  • You can’t ask why a transgender woman isn’t a man.
  • You can’t make a joke about election day being on Wednesday.
  • You can’t say sharia law is an offense to women, homosexuals, and minorities.
  • You can’t say anything about George Soros.
  • You can’t refer to someone using a pronoun they don’t claim as theirs.
  • You can’t speak out against vaccines.
  • You can’t call climate change a hoax.
  • You can’t say people who cross the border illegally are illegal immigrants.

The thought police are manifesting faster in social media than anywhere else. I oppose true hate speech, but the definition of the term is a moving target now. Soon, we’ll only be entitled to opinions that fall within a very narrow scope set by idiots.

Image via Mr Fish at Truthdig.

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Elizabeth Pipko: Democrats ‘supported one anti-Semitic comment after another’

Published

on

Elizabeth Pipko Democrats supported one anti-Semitic comment after another

Racism is real in America and there’s a push to attach it to President Trump. Anti-Semitism is among the hot topics being discussed by legacy media, especially after the President went after Jews living in America who vote Democrat.

Despite the left’s cries to make the GOP, President Trump, and all of his supporters seem like racists, the truth is starting to come out. Much of this is at the hands of “The Squad,” who ironically attempt to use the race card at every turn. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley have gone so far as to call others racist while demonstrating their own bigotry in the same sentences.

Jewish activist Elizabeth Pipko was part of a panel of Fox Nation discussing the recent press by Democrats to reverse the anti-Semitism narrative back onto President Trump. As their party seems to be pulling further and further away from supporting Israel while attaching to the much larger worldwide Muslim population, it’s becoming increasingly clear they are at a crossroads. Today, most Jews are Democrats, but as the party embraces anti-Semitism as their new normal, how long can that support continue?

As Pipko pointed out, politicians must either condemn or support a stance. Silence is viewed as acceptance, and as Democratic lawmakers are conspicuously silent on “The Squad’s” anti-Semitism, we must take this as their measure of supporting it.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

How many times is the left going to claim the ground is shifting in the gun debate?

Published

on

By

How many times is the left going to claim the ground is shifting in the gun debate

While Cory Booker is channeling George Orwell, once again the ground has supposedly shifted on Liberty Control.

Good news, the Left has come up with some ‘new’ memes in their synthesized self-righteous condemnation of Liberty in the midst of a ‘Serious Crisis’. Anyone on social media will recognize this all too familiar pattern that will begin the moment the news breaks of a tragedy they can exploit:

  • The Left will immediately politicize the pain of others – while projecting that on everyone else.
  • ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ are then mercilessly mocked.
  • It will be said that the defenders of Liberty ‘have blood on our hands’.
  • Then the calls to ‘do something!’ – anything, whether it will solve the problem or not.
  • Further restrictions on civil liberties are the made by opportunistic politicians.
  • Demands for laws that already exist on Background checks or Civil commitment.
  • While other Leftists make more demands for gun confiscation.
  • As emotions subside, entreaties for compromise emerge.

This is usually the end stage of the crisis sequence, after all of the juvenile invectives hurled by the Left, after all of the demands that we ‘turn in our guns’, after all of the exposition on how our basic human rights are to be controlled – by them. The national socialist left will realize they won’t be able to bully us into giving up our basic civil liberties. Hence, they will look to exploit something – anything – out of the ‘crisis’, they will try to force us into a compromise whereby they give up nothing and we move down the slippery slope to gun confiscation once more.

Afterwards, any ‘compromises’ or ‘bipartisan’ agreements that restrict the human rights of the innocent will inevitably fail to work. Then when another tragedy takes place the whole sequence begins once again. Existing laws will be ignored in lieu of new laws that do the same thing – while denigrating liberty in the process. This is ‘progress’ to the national socialist Left, seeing each ‘serious crisis’ as an opportunity they can exploit for political gain while never addressing the true causes of these tragedies.

The ‘new’ momentum meme addition to the same old crisis exploitation of the left.

A ‘new’ aspect of the debate has the ground shifting more than the San Andreas Fault. Leftists love their euphemisms, using every kind of synonym for confiscation they can muster. The ground shift meme is no exception, with endless variations that essentially try to exploit the same idea over and over. The problem is that the ground shift meme is only viable once. Then it becomes just one more piece of useless rhetoric thrown out into the ether. The ‘blood on hands’ accusation was the same at one point, now it’s just a pathetic attempt by the left to exploit a crisis they created.

From December 2012 [7 years ago]:

December 17th, 2012

Capitol Hill ground may be shifting on gun control .

New polls suggest elementary school shootings may be changing public opinion.

From last year:

March 1, 2018
Fla. Dem: ‘The ground is really shifting’ on gun control.

Apr 9, 2018
Pa. legislature becomes test bed for shifting sands on gun control.

December 26, 2018
2018 Brought A ‘Tectonic Shift’ In The Gun Control Movement, Advocates Say.

Then this year:

April 24, 2019
Democrats Shed Fear of Gun Control in Momentous Shift Entering 2020 Election.

August 4, 2019
Dayton and El Paso Shift Focus to Gun Control and Racism.

August 20, 2019
The political battle lines on guns are shifting.

It getting to the point that these pieces are merely wishcasting by the Liberty Grabbers hoping to move something that isn’t there.

Cory Booker channeling George Orwell.

It’s one thing to reuse the same meme over and over while trying to pretend it’s brand new, it’s quite another to try and sell socialistic slavery as ‘freedom’. Yes, there is nothing like taking away some people’s basic human rights to make them ‘free’.  In this case it’s everyone’s favorite political ambulance chaser from New Jersey, Cory Booker, trying to sell the idea that fear is supposed to justify the restriction of the common sense civil Liberty of self-defense. Eliminating fear from modern life would of course be impossible and there is no end to the rationalization of government control that could be used with this absurd pretext.

Apparently he thinks that the government and criminals having a monopoly on the use of force will serve to protect liberty because reasons. Since we all know how criminals and governments scrupulously follow the law, he has the perfect solution to the problem. Sadly because of what the left has done to the culture, we are witness to some more of these tragedies. Statistics show that thankfully these are decreasing and there are ways to solve the problem without restricting Liberty.

Unfortunately, the left has a very myopic view of the situation, only seeing opportunities for them to exploit rather than problems to be solved. Perhaps it is time to leave them out of the conversation and consider real reforms that will save lives instead of destroying Liberty.

One final word.

We of the Pro-Liberty Right need to start using one word when it comes to the Authoritarian Socialist Left’s demands that we incrementally give up our common sense human rights. We have compromised over and over without so much as an acknowledgement or thanks from the left, much less any type of compromise on their part.

There are ways to solve this problem without punishing the innocent and confiscating their private property. These need to be considered to solve this societal problem instead of focusing on inanimate objects. As for the Left’s incessant demands that we give up our basic human rights, we only need this one word response: NO!    [Repeat as many times as necessary]

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Media’s silence regarding Christian genocide in Nigeria is deafening

Published

on

Medias silence regarding Christian genocide in Nigeria is deafening

From January to June of last year, 6,000 Christians, mostly women and children, were slaughtered by Fulani radicals in Nigeria. If you get your news from legacy media in the United States, you probably have no idea this is even happening. It’s a nonexistent story for three reasons:

  • It’s happening in Africa, the most under-reported continent on Earth next to Antarctica, and even that’s debatable.
  • The violence is being perpetrated against Christians.
  • The violence is being perpetrated by Muslims.

These three factors mean the best legacy media will do is yawn. The worst they’ll do is cover it up as the death toll becomes so inconceivable, their silence is becoming unjustifiable, even by American media standards. How many people have to die to catch legacy media’s attention? This is “pure genocide” according to a press release by church leaders in Plateau State.

According to World Watch Monitor, “The Fulani were early adopters of Islam, participating in holy wars, or jihads, in the 16th Century that established them as a dominant social and economic force in Western Africa.”

As @ZionistGirl18 noted on Twitter, the criteria to spark media coverage is completely detached from reality.

Over the last year, things have gotten even worse. The Fulani have formed squads with the sole purpose of going from village to village raping women, murdering men, and kidnapping children. It’s barbarism at the highest level possible for humanity and it’s happening every day. But to get news about it, you have to search high and low for local sources and the occasional Reuters write-up.

Several hundred Christians killed, villages decimated as merciless wave of militant Fulani attacks sweeps northern Nigeria

Hundreds of Christians lost their lives in the first half of 2019 alone as a wave of attacks by heavily-armed, mainly Muslim, Fulani militants continued to gather momentum in an agenda of “religious cleansing” that is aiding Boko Haram’s attempts to establish an Islamist caliphate in north-eastern Nigeria.

Barnabas Fund contacts described the situation as “horrifying” for Christian communities in a recent report that outlined a spate of murderous attacks across at least six regions in 2019, costing several hundred lives, as well as destroying homes and decimating communities. The carnage has gone largely unchallenged by the Nigerian Federal Government.

But there’s another reason this isn’t getting any media attention. There’s a strong delusion hiding the Islamic caliphate that’s spreading across western and central Africa. More attention is paid to the Middle East for obvious reasons, but to the west the disparate Islamic militant groups are quickly forming a powerful force in the form of Boko Haram. Approximately 250 groups operate across the region with little coordination but spreading their terror using the same tactics and with the same goals. This is an ethnic cleansing, a true genocide.

Compared to the Islamic State, Boko Haram seems to be smaller. But that’s only because of the dispersion across the disparate militant groups. When they unify, and they will, Boko Haram will no longer be a group of approximately 15,000 Islamists. They’ll have the population of a small nation with the firepower to cause much more damage than the Islamic State at its peak.

It’s long past time for Americans and the media to pay attention to the atrocities being committed against African Christians. Boko Haram is quickly becoming what the Islamic State only wished it could have achieved.

Image Source: SCMP

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending