"...advance violent ideologies, including anti-Semitism...". Now I'm confused. Is anti-Semitism good or bad these days? It must be really hard to be woke.
"...advance violent ideologies, including anti-Semitism...". Now I'm confused. Is anti-Semitism good or bad these days? It must be really hard to be woke.
"Violent ideologies" is nonsense- speak, intellectual fraud, and the tell that one is being played for a fool.
Approximately everyone believes in an ideology which sanctions violence under some conditions. And that's actual physical forceful violence, not fake Orwellian """violence""".
If you get to pick and choose which violence-ideas get a pass and which get crushed then under such an illusory standard you can go after anyone for any reason at any time. Which, duh, that's what woke always does.
They include the great replacement theory in their list of violent ideologies. This is mainstream enough to have been discussed by Tucker Carlson. Whatever people think of it, it amounts to noticing the decline in white populations by percentage, primarily as a result of mass immigration policies. Observations anyone can make by reading demographic stats.
It is typically the Left making something of it, usually boasting about the decline of whites. Many minorities have done this too.
How do they get away with this? Do you think they actually believe these things are violent ideologies?
It's all part of the political game. If there are categories that the law or a critical mass of socially influential people think are worthy of censoring, then people are going to try to exercise control by claiming to the maximum extent they can get away with that everything they don't like fits inside one of those categories, and everyone they don't like is bad and also worthy of penalty if they tolerate that stuff even in the slightest. There is literally no limit to how much people will distort the definitions of words to accomplish these goals so long as their reference social group allows them to get away with it.
If one is not going to be able to sustain a zero-rules policy then the trouble is finding a way to plant a flag at any other arbitrary point, anchored well enough to resist the inevitable constant pressure to give up yet more ground. The easiest way to do this is to outsource it, for example, to SCOTUS to be in accordance with first amendment law. Substack's statement brings Brandenburg to mind, and that's the hilltop that provides them with the strongest defensive position available.
Hanania has called for like 20% of the Palestinian population to be killed and the entire Gaza Strip ethnically cleansed. I have to think that violates the terms of service (I do not think Hanania should be removed for this).
Interestingly, despite my general extreme distaste for Hanania, I don't think there's an actual solution to the conflict that isn't forcible integration of the population so they cease being radicalized. And I don't know if that will actually work. But it doesn't seem like "hide under the Iron Dome" is necessarily going to work, either, sadly.
I'm in agreement with Hanania, but not the part where 80% emigrates to the west. Either they got to Egypt or 100% die.
I'm simply stating that it's quite obvious that what he's saying violates red lines of even the most liberal free speech codes on such platforms. I would give those red lines up, but if they exist and its enforced selectively then its clearly just who/whom.
If you go on his sub stack there are several essays about Israel/Palestine. His desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza is quite on display.
I don't remember if the 20% figure was in his essays or one of his tweets. He uses his twitter feed for the more outrageous statements he thinks will get ratioed and drive traffic to his sub stack (also you get paid by the click on twitter these days).
"...advance violent ideologies, including anti-Semitism...". Now I'm confused. Is anti-Semitism good or bad these days? It must be really hard to be woke.
"Violent ideologies" is nonsense- speak, intellectual fraud, and the tell that one is being played for a fool.
Approximately everyone believes in an ideology which sanctions violence under some conditions. And that's actual physical forceful violence, not fake Orwellian """violence""".
If you get to pick and choose which violence-ideas get a pass and which get crushed then under such an illusory standard you can go after anyone for any reason at any time. Which, duh, that's what woke always does.
They include the great replacement theory in their list of violent ideologies. This is mainstream enough to have been discussed by Tucker Carlson. Whatever people think of it, it amounts to noticing the decline in white populations by percentage, primarily as a result of mass immigration policies. Observations anyone can make by reading demographic stats.
It is typically the Left making something of it, usually boasting about the decline of whites. Many minorities have done this too.
How do they get away with this? Do you think they actually believe these things are violent ideologies?
It's all part of the political game. If there are categories that the law or a critical mass of socially influential people think are worthy of censoring, then people are going to try to exercise control by claiming to the maximum extent they can get away with that everything they don't like fits inside one of those categories, and everyone they don't like is bad and also worthy of penalty if they tolerate that stuff even in the slightest. There is literally no limit to how much people will distort the definitions of words to accomplish these goals so long as their reference social group allows them to get away with it.
If one is not going to be able to sustain a zero-rules policy then the trouble is finding a way to plant a flag at any other arbitrary point, anchored well enough to resist the inevitable constant pressure to give up yet more ground. The easiest way to do this is to outsource it, for example, to SCOTUS to be in accordance with first amendment law. Substack's statement brings Brandenburg to mind, and that's the hilltop that provides them with the strongest defensive position available.
Hanania has called for like 20% of the Palestinian population to be killed and the entire Gaza Strip ethnically cleansed. I have to think that violates the terms of service (I do not think Hanania should be removed for this).
Interestingly, despite my general extreme distaste for Hanania, I don't think there's an actual solution to the conflict that isn't forcible integration of the population so they cease being radicalized. And I don't know if that will actually work. But it doesn't seem like "hide under the Iron Dome" is necessarily going to work, either, sadly.
I'm in agreement with Hanania, but not the part where 80% emigrates to the west. Either they got to Egypt or 100% die.
I'm simply stating that it's quite obvious that what he's saying violates red lines of even the most liberal free speech codes on such platforms. I would give those red lines up, but if they exist and its enforced selectively then its clearly just who/whom.
Do you have a link to where Hanania said that?
I don't think he ever called for killing 20% of Gazans. This may be a misrepresentation of this: https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1733853263332622413.
You can read his article on the topic here: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/israel-must-crush-palestinian-hopes.
If you go on his sub stack there are several essays about Israel/Palestine. His desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza is quite on display.
I don't remember if the 20% figure was in his essays or one of his tweets. He uses his twitter feed for the more outrageous statements he thinks will get ratioed and drive traffic to his sub stack (also you get paid by the click on twitter these days).