Since you asked (via my email address), you could discuss "How the American Right co-opted and weaponised the Conspiracy Movement in their regressive culture wars". That would be helpful to a lot of listeners, I think.
Also "How anti-P.C. narratives work to block human empathy and embolden bigots". That could be especially good if you traced some of those narratives back to their sources and uncovered how totally benign events are transformed and twisted into outrages over "political correctness gone mad".
And finally, you could look into parallels between the wildly overstated claims about paedophilia that come from the Conspiracy Movement, and claims about the Jews that circulated around Europe in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Again, I think that would provide some valuable perspective for a lot of your audience.
And when you use the term "discuss", does it mean "take the time to look into, consider carefully and then share informed perspectives on"? Or is it more like "Take a bunch of off-the-cuff potshots at these ideas without making any serious attempts to research them, because they just don't 'feel right' and what 'feels right' is the ultimate arbiter of truth"?
I really would like to feel confident that it's the former rather than the latter.
Well, to be fair, it's a call-in show so we dedicate more time to hearing what people have to say themselves so feel free to come and give your perspective. We'll certainly do our best with limited time and resources though. If we neglect anything feel free to comment and we'll address any issues on further shows.
Rush Limbaugh? I've never listened to him. Did he have a call in show? Are you against call in shows? Personally I'm for them as people should be allowed to voice their opinions freely.
I'm not against them, but I never listen to them. Not really my thing.
In terms of people being allowed to "voice their opinion freely", there are plenty of opportunities for them to do that. They've got friends and families, they've got social media (including YouTube, Tik Tok etc.), they've got various forms of artistic expression ... they can even go to websites where they can choose from thousands of petitions, some of which get sent to actual government authorities and a few of which affect policy. Even a lot of 'traditional media' websites allow comments these days, and some (especially Murdoch publications) cobble together entire 'articles' composed almost entirely of the tweets of private individuals.
The truth is, people have NEVER had as many ways to express their opinions as they do now.
I do worry, though, whenever I see someone promoting their thing with any kind of slogan that resembles "giving a voice to the unheard" or "all opinions welcome". And certainly anything advertising itself as a "platform for free speech" has to be regarded with the utmost suspicion, especially if it's linked to rhetoric that highlights how "PC" the world has become.
There was a time - and really not that long ago - when you could use phrases like "voice your opinion freely" in a neutral way, because those phrases meant nothing more than what they said. Nowadays, unfortunately, this is not the case. That language has become code. And the subtext is generally something like
a) Come over here and talk if you're a total bigot and want to share your ideas with like-minded bigots (see Gab, Parler etc.); or
b) Come over here if your head is swimming with terrifying psychotic thoughts about the Rapture, the lizards or the robot mosquitoes ... or indeed about how Bill Gates (a lizard, naturally) is going to deliver vaccines to you via robot mosquitoes to bring on the Rapture. We'll be your friends if you can't find a bus stop to yell at.
What surprises me is your position, personally, on this coded language. I mean, you use it all the time, but I don't see why.
For a start, one of the two categories above doesn't apply to you at all - which is to say that, apart from a couple of slightly unsavoury offhand remarks that I heard you make ages ago about immigrants in London, I've never known you to be bigoted. And, y'know, everyone has uncharitable thoughts sometimes - you certainly haven't made those thoughts a focus of your life, like the first group of 'free speech code users' has. So I don't see why you would adopt their language as a cover for something which you're not susceptible to.
In terms of the second group, you are pretty immersed in that world a lot of the time ... but see, that doesn't necessarily make sense either, because I would've thought that being so immersed in it would make you more sensitive than the average person to the coded language of that world, not less so.
Given all of that, I can only see a few possibilities: one, that somehow, you've just remained oblivious to the modern, coded meaning of "voicing your opinion freely" and similar phrases; or two, that you're hoping to deliberately attract the sorts of people who would've been writing readers' letters to Fortean Times 20 years ago ... except that back then, far less of those people would've also wanted to hang politicians they don't like, have frequent arguments about the tyranny of gender pronouns, and retweet lies largely cooked up by paid vassals of the fossil fuel industry.
With all of that in mind, it's just WEIRD that you're so into this code.
But it's even weirder that you'd put the code in a message to me, expecting me to think "Oops .. well, you certainly scored a point there" (to quote Vladimir Putin, a hero to many of these Free Speech Warriors) and to feel chastened by your rebuke. I see that language as being like, say, a national currency: outside of the domains where it's normally used, it doesn't have the same transactional value. So it's an odd choice.
Well, I like call in shows because they reflect what real people are thinking rather than the media narratives where we are told what people are thinking. I may not always agree with everything a caller says but in some ways, that's the point.
You say there are plenty of places to voice opinions freely and give youtube as an example. Our last call in chat was taken down by youtube and our whole channel will be taken down if we utter once more that the last U.S election may not have been entirely free of corruption. You can also not question vaccines or covid treatments etc. Even if you are an experienced, award winning doctor. So, there is definitely cause for concern regarding free speech on social media and I would say that is already crossing over to public and professional forums too.
Let's stick with the modern day environment. There's no point comparing today's freedom with the past. In the past you could shout out 'burn her, she's a witch' in public and people would listen. Today we just have different mediums in which to converse. There is a monopoly on social media so it actually makes speech easier to control.
I can't agree that anyone promoting a "platform for free speech" has to be regarded with the utmost suspicion. Sure, there will always be a section of society that have views that are really not something we would like in society but in some ways their existence is at least an indication that we have free speech. When they disappear, either the world has become entirely full of incredibly 'nice' people or speech is being suppressed. I know which one is more likely to happen in the future and I don't think it will be a good thing. Watch 'Pleasantville' or 'Stepford Wives' to get an idea of the result.
There is no 'code'. It's become code for you but nothing has changed. Free speech means free speech for some and a chance to launch into a racist tirade for others. That's always been the case. (to be continued).
Scottsentinel, that is really an extraordinary statement. To me, it shows that you yourself have become an FSW (Free Speech Warrior). I told you it would happen if you hung around these people too much.
Look at the two examples of 'free speech' you've given me: the idea that Biden stole the US election, and the defence of grifters who peddle alternative 'treatments' for the coronavirus. Those are classic FSW (Free Speech Warrior) tropes. It's been really worrying to see your evolution in that direction over the years. When I met you, you weren't like this :-(
Labels, labels, labels. I'm not a labels person. You can decide I am an FSW - but that's on you. I have always been for free speech and have always told you that. Grifters? There was a group of twenty experienced doctors who were banned from giving their opinions about treatments a few months back. Then there was a group of thousands of doctors who were recently banned from social media. Are they grifters? Would you agree they know a whole lot more than you on these matters? Why are they banned too?
Actually there has been only a little evolution with me and a little with you. We simply feel strongly about the same things we felt before. You have always hated association with viewpoints. I have always told you that I don't care about association. If I genuinely like cheese I am not going to pretend I don't like cheese just because a group of nazi collaborators like cheese too. I place the burden on the listener to have a brain and not logically link the two.
Regarding YouTube, they had to make coronavirus disinformation their 'big moment', because after the Christchurch massacre they were in so much trouble over being an extremist incubator (which they still are).
In my view, they haven't gone far enough. If you type the words "The Great Replacement" into YouTube's search window, you get all kinds of scary white supremacist nonsense, some of it coupled with creepy 'Aryan' mysticism about the Daughters of Albion and all this kind of wacky brain poison.
But see, I can't say "They MUST get rid of that stuff", because YouTube aren't compelled to allow or not allow any particular kind of speech on their website. They are still a private company ... and that's where the problem lies. Companies like them play a role that's kind of like a public square while being privately owned, so they constantly find themselves embroiled in these arguments about free speech, censorship etc., when their motivation is purely commercial. So it's a fundamental mismatch.
If you got caught in the middle of that, the reason is simple: they've handled this mismatch really, really badly in the past, and now they're trying (badly) to show that they care. That's especially true when it comes to right wing propaganda that radicalises people, sometimes to the point where they load up their car with guns and go shoot up a Mosque. So to try and take the heat off themselves, YouTube decided to make the current crop of right-wing lies (corona denialism, election theft etc.) the target of a blitz. And you got caught up in that.
Complaining about it is like complaining about the terms and conditions of company you're renting a car from. You might feel they're unfair, but as long as YouTube is a private company, you can't make this a 'free speech issue' - it's about company policy.
Don't misunderstand me here: what I'm saying is not that you should shut up about free speech and YouYube. I'm saying that YouTube probably needs to either be publicly run, or it needs to be banned entirely from hosting political content and replaced by a public authority. If it's the public square, then you can demand your free speech rights. So the fact that it's sort of that but not really is the problem.
In other words, it's not that you're 'being silenced by the Man': you're caught in a media environment that's changed fundamentally in a short period of time, certain corporate actors have come out on top in those changes, and now their role is being questioned. They're reacting in various ways, and one is to try and prove that they don't spread speech and falsehoods that physically hurt people (even though, as I said, they absolutely do). And it's very possible that you're caught in it by accident - meaning that whatever stupid algorithm they set, it won't work perfectly. It will always miss some things that should be thrown off, and throw off some things that should be left there.
On the other hand, maybe you were referred to a human moderator and they decided "Yep, this has to go". In which case, refer above to the whole "YouTube is a private company" thing.
"You can also not question vaccines or covid treatments etc. Even if you are an experienced, award winning doctor. So, there is definitely cause for concern regarding free speech on social media and I would say that is already crossing over to public and professional forums too."
On the other hand, you could look at all the many, many, MANY times when people are allowed to and do question COVID science in public. Here's one from that bastion of political correctness and orthodox narrative pushing, The Washington Post:
This woman has written books with titles like ""Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming Our Reality", and yet, the evil MSM lets her write about COVID and doesn't take it down. The article has been there for almost a year.
It took me five seconds to find. Weird how that happened, in a world where free speech and dissenting voices are being systematically silenced ... dont'cha think?
The point being that maybe there's a better diagnosis for the problem than the 'free speech' narrative. The more you examine that narrative, the more it starts to look like dogma rather than impartial observation.
'I told you it would happen if you hung around these people too much. ...When I met you - you weren't like this'
Terrifying to think the guy that sat and drank Cappuccinos with you in the past - all the time was one of those terrible people that believes in 'free speech'. Ughh.. How repugnant!
He even thinks that it's ok to question whether there were any irregularities in the last U.S elections. But worse than that - he thinks it's ok for groups of medical doctors to give their opinions on the COVID pandemic. Worse than that - he thinks it's ok for anyone to give their opinion on it! Even old fishwives!
Sorry to add some sarcasm here but that's literally what you're saying.
I think you're getting too hung up on all of this. Judge people more by their actions. Did you see me physically assault anyone at all ever when I was with you? Did you see me act extremely rudely at anytime? (Apart from with Janet))) That's a joke - I liked Janet a lot.
You think I am the problem and I have been sucked into a dark web of association. Has it occurred to you that maybe this is what has happened to you? It's cool to hate the conspiracy crowd now.. Bunch of dangerous idiots thinking they're allowed to say anything they like. Bunch of crazies claiming that there might be an agenda behind the whole COVID -19 thing.
What happens if you find out that there WAS an agenda behind the COVID-19 pandemic and that freedom of speech disappears in the future and we are all under blatant authoritarian rule. Will I get an apology then?
"You have always hated association with viewpoints. I have always told you that I don't care about association."
That's kindof true, but I think there's an important distinction missing. You can totally associate with any viewpoints you like. It only becomes a problem when you boost associations between different things by acting as a media outlet. Then your ideas become actions. Ideas that you hold privately have no larger world consequences, but ideas that you propagate in public do.
This is the problem with so much 'independent media'. It's SO critical of the MSM, but a lot of its creators (like yourself) aren't even willing to face the most basic facts about media, which you'd learn in Semester 1 of a three-year journalism course. One of those facts is that pushing associations in people's minds has real consequences.
I've only ever asked you to consider these things and take them into account in the way you present certain topics. That's, like, the mildest possible request, but you've flatly refused every time. I think that's why we end up in these circular conversations.
Hold whatever opinions you like, and hold as many of them in common with Nazis as you like (especially if they're about cheese). And share them, too. All I'm saying is that, when you do this, it's important to reflect on how things might come across, and maybe find ways of saying what you want to say without producing unintended consequences. If you just acknowledge that yes, words can affects people who hear them in ways that you don't mean, and that one should be keep this in mind when talking through a megaphone on the public square, then we can move on to discussing other things, and maybe even find areas of agreement. I'm sure there are some!
"What happens if you find out that there WAS an agenda behind the COVID-19 pandemic and that freedom of speech disappears in the future and we are all under blatant authoritarian rule. Will I get an apology then?"
See, this is the exactly the issue. What you're saying sounds innocent enough, but it isn't if you really think about it.
For a start, there are PLENTY of things to talk about with respect to COVID, and yes, there are inconsistencies in the way it's often presented. I saw an example the other day: some commentator (I don't remember who) said in an opinion piece that we know for sure now that COVID was spread to humans via animal transition, and so we can rule out other possibilities like the idea that it was created in a lab.
To me, that conclusion seems WAY too confident at this stage. For one thing, the biotech industry has a long history of accidental releases, some of which are absolutely jaw-dropping - stuff like people leaving vials of lab-enhanced anthrax on trains, clouds of chemical smoke pouring out of biolabs in apartment block basements, and really wild, dangerous shit like that. It's quite astonishing how bad their record is. I haven't seen anything to definitely prove that this didn't happen with COVD, and I've seen and heard plenty of evidence to suggest that it could have.
Plus there's the whole issue with gain-of-function research, which has been banned or limited in some countries (Obama was dead-set against it, for example), but allowed to continue and intensify in others. So it seems foolish to prematurely rule out a lab release, given what we know about the state of that industry.
On the other hand, I don't have my fingers across the whole of the media or the science, and maybe there has been some research done that I'm just not aware of - research that either proves the origin of the virus was animal transmission, or that rules out the biolab option. This virus has been dominating much of the world's attention, so of course, there's A LOT to know about it. So if I were going to do a show about COVID, my first instinct would be to research, research, research. I'd try to make it so that, by the time I got to air, I'd have a much better grip on the data than I do now, including a reasonable spread of theories and some thoughts as to how reliable each theory might be.
What I definitely WOULDN'T do is privilege narratives about the 'hidden agenda'. For one thing, these narratives are emanating from the usual far-right conspiracy mongers who've been caught out over and over again producing tactical nonsense, so they lose out in terms of credibility. But even ignoring that fact, there are other possibilities apart from the most conspiratorial ones, and a considered treatment of the issue would give a fair hearing to all of them. If you distrust the 'official narrative' (whatever the fuck that is), then research it. Maybe there's something in it that you don't understand. Or maybe there's a mistake in its logic. Or maybe it's possibly but not definitely true. Or maybe the people responsible for that version of events are presenting what they know, but they've missed something which is known elsewhere. Or maybe they are lying for dumb reasons, like they think they can avert a public panic. That's happened in the past. Or maybe there's an element of good old-fashioned incompetence - how can you rule that out, in a world where Boris fucking Johnson is in charge of a whole country?
So all of those are possibilities. There's just no reason to skip right over them and go straight to "hidden agendas", except an in-built pre-disposition towards doing that. So I wouldn't do it.
And the other thing I definitely wouldn't do is go with "What if?" scenarios. "What if there was an agenda behind COVID 19?" Well, what if Kamala Harris works for Pakistani intelligence? What if the Mexican government released the virus so they wouldn't have to pay for the wall? I've got no evidence of those things ... but if I say them on air, then I've planted the thought, haven't I?
Oh, but you'll say "There's no harm in asking questions". Sorry, but that's untrue on an EPIC scale. Questions about politically or culturally charged topics very often contain insinuations, so "just asking questions" about them is a great way to sneakily plant ideas. It's also a great way to get people hooked on 'mystery', even when the mysteries you're discussing contain nothing BUT insinuations. That's how misinformation works.
And btw, it's authoritarian societies who traffic in this stuff the most. If you want to paint a picture of how authoritarian societies work, conspiracies and "What ifs?" HAVE TO be in the picture, because they're right at the heart of those societies. All that Nazi propaganda about Jews being like vermin infecting society and what-have-you? It was entirely rooted in conspiracies, from soup to nuts. And if you look across other authoritarian societies, you find exactly the same kind of behaviour.
So it's ... how can I put this? I d'know, I want to say "disingenuous", but I'm not sure if it's the right word. It's disingenuous, or something like that, to use the word 'authoritarian' in a way which implies that some people getting kicked off YouTube presents a greater spectre of authoritarianism than the kind of conspiracy thinking that NEARLY EVERY authoritarian has used to their advantage throughout modern history.
The point is, there ARE ways to dissent from what you hear on CNN or whatever without descending into questionable territory. But you have to do that in a considered way, or you end up being worse than the MSM, not better.
This goes right back to the origins of 'Truth Sentinel', which was supposed to be about "the truth behind the news". That slogan suggests that the standard of enquiry will be better than standards applied by the mass media ... not that you'll just take any opinion from a guy sitting on a porch in his underpants!
(Sorry, I know that image was a bit dismissive. I just couldn't resist. Plus, who doesn't like sitting on the porch in their underpants?)
(Also, what's a fishwife?)
Anyway ... I could write more, but I think you get the point. Or I hope so anyway.
P.S. In terms of apologies, I offered one but I never got one in return. It seems that one of us is too proud to say "sorry". But we can talk about that another time.
Actually, I only saw your 'sorry' when looking back through a conversation we had on facebook so my apology would be for missing that. Sorry about that and it was appreciated.
However, to be fair, you've accused me of all kinds of things - calling me far right and accusing me of this and that and having severe problems with my views. Then deleting me from Facebook friends and generally having a problem with my viewpoints.
I have no problems with any of your viewpoints until it results in attacking me and have not called you any derogatory names, have not gone out of my way to criticise any of your viewpoints apart from in defense of my own. I can only then say sorry that you're upset about any of this. Unless, I've missed something? Can you explain what I may have done wrong? Ah, yes, you did say that I lured you into being part of shows deliberately under false pretences. I can say 'sorry you felt that way', but it's completely false though - I never did that. So, if there's something else, please let me know and I will be happy to admit my errors.
Next discussion should be about spiritually and the power with in. Remind people we are powerful and we are the change
Yes, I think we're going to focus on that a lot. We are more powerful together too. I hope we can form communities that will help each other.
Since you asked (via my email address), you could discuss "How the American Right co-opted and weaponised the Conspiracy Movement in their regressive culture wars". That would be helpful to a lot of listeners, I think. Also "How anti-P.C. narratives work to block human empathy and embolden bigots". That could be especially good if you traced some of those narratives back to their sources and uncovered how totally benign events are transformed and twisted into outrages over "political correctness gone mad". And finally, you could look into parallels between the wildly overstated claims about paedophilia that come from the Conspiracy Movement, and claims about the Jews that circulated around Europe in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Again, I think that would provide some valuable perspective for a lot of your audience.
I think that last topic whould be fantastic! You should call in on the next show to bring up your personal perspective on this highly debated topic.
Thanks for your comments. We'll certainly discuss these points on the next show.
And when you use the term "discuss", does it mean "take the time to look into, consider carefully and then share informed perspectives on"? Or is it more like "Take a bunch of off-the-cuff potshots at these ideas without making any serious attempts to research them, because they just don't 'feel right' and what 'feels right' is the ultimate arbiter of truth"? I really would like to feel confident that it's the former rather than the latter.
Well, to be fair, it's a call-in show so we dedicate more time to hearing what people have to say themselves so feel free to come and give your perspective. We'll certainly do our best with limited time and resources though. If we neglect anything feel free to comment and we'll address any issues on further shows.
Fair enough ... someone had to replace Rush, I guess ;-)
Who is Rush?
Rush Limbaugh? I've never listened to him. Did he have a call in show? Are you against call in shows? Personally I'm for them as people should be allowed to voice their opinions freely.
I'm not against them, but I never listen to them. Not really my thing.
In terms of people being allowed to "voice their opinion freely", there are plenty of opportunities for them to do that. They've got friends and families, they've got social media (including YouTube, Tik Tok etc.), they've got various forms of artistic expression ... they can even go to websites where they can choose from thousands of petitions, some of which get sent to actual government authorities and a few of which affect policy. Even a lot of 'traditional media' websites allow comments these days, and some (especially Murdoch publications) cobble together entire 'articles' composed almost entirely of the tweets of private individuals.
The truth is, people have NEVER had as many ways to express their opinions as they do now.
I do worry, though, whenever I see someone promoting their thing with any kind of slogan that resembles "giving a voice to the unheard" or "all opinions welcome". And certainly anything advertising itself as a "platform for free speech" has to be regarded with the utmost suspicion, especially if it's linked to rhetoric that highlights how "PC" the world has become.
There was a time - and really not that long ago - when you could use phrases like "voice your opinion freely" in a neutral way, because those phrases meant nothing more than what they said. Nowadays, unfortunately, this is not the case. That language has become code. And the subtext is generally something like
a) Come over here and talk if you're a total bigot and want to share your ideas with like-minded bigots (see Gab, Parler etc.); or
b) Come over here if your head is swimming with terrifying psychotic thoughts about the Rapture, the lizards or the robot mosquitoes ... or indeed about how Bill Gates (a lizard, naturally) is going to deliver vaccines to you via robot mosquitoes to bring on the Rapture. We'll be your friends if you can't find a bus stop to yell at.
What surprises me is your position, personally, on this coded language. I mean, you use it all the time, but I don't see why.
For a start, one of the two categories above doesn't apply to you at all - which is to say that, apart from a couple of slightly unsavoury offhand remarks that I heard you make ages ago about immigrants in London, I've never known you to be bigoted. And, y'know, everyone has uncharitable thoughts sometimes - you certainly haven't made those thoughts a focus of your life, like the first group of 'free speech code users' has. So I don't see why you would adopt their language as a cover for something which you're not susceptible to.
In terms of the second group, you are pretty immersed in that world a lot of the time ... but see, that doesn't necessarily make sense either, because I would've thought that being so immersed in it would make you more sensitive than the average person to the coded language of that world, not less so.
Given all of that, I can only see a few possibilities: one, that somehow, you've just remained oblivious to the modern, coded meaning of "voicing your opinion freely" and similar phrases; or two, that you're hoping to deliberately attract the sorts of people who would've been writing readers' letters to Fortean Times 20 years ago ... except that back then, far less of those people would've also wanted to hang politicians they don't like, have frequent arguments about the tyranny of gender pronouns, and retweet lies largely cooked up by paid vassals of the fossil fuel industry.
With all of that in mind, it's just WEIRD that you're so into this code.
But it's even weirder that you'd put the code in a message to me, expecting me to think "Oops .. well, you certainly scored a point there" (to quote Vladimir Putin, a hero to many of these Free Speech Warriors) and to feel chastened by your rebuke. I see that language as being like, say, a national currency: outside of the domains where it's normally used, it doesn't have the same transactional value. So it's an odd choice.
Anyway, good luck with the call-in show :-)
Well, I like call in shows because they reflect what real people are thinking rather than the media narratives where we are told what people are thinking. I may not always agree with everything a caller says but in some ways, that's the point.
You say there are plenty of places to voice opinions freely and give youtube as an example. Our last call in chat was taken down by youtube and our whole channel will be taken down if we utter once more that the last U.S election may not have been entirely free of corruption. You can also not question vaccines or covid treatments etc. Even if you are an experienced, award winning doctor. So, there is definitely cause for concern regarding free speech on social media and I would say that is already crossing over to public and professional forums too. Let's stick with the modern day environment. There's no point comparing today's freedom with the past. In the past you could shout out 'burn her, she's a witch' in public and people would listen. Today we just have different mediums in which to converse. There is a monopoly on social media so it actually makes speech easier to control.
I can't agree that anyone promoting a "platform for free speech" has to be regarded with the utmost suspicion. Sure, there will always be a section of society that have views that are really not something we would like in society but in some ways their existence is at least an indication that we have free speech. When they disappear, either the world has become entirely full of incredibly 'nice' people or speech is being suppressed. I know which one is more likely to happen in the future and I don't think it will be a good thing. Watch 'Pleasantville' or 'Stepford Wives' to get an idea of the result.
There is no 'code'. It's become code for you but nothing has changed. Free speech means free speech for some and a chance to launch into a racist tirade for others. That's always been the case. (to be continued).
"There is no code"? Seriously?
Scottsentinel, that is really an extraordinary statement. To me, it shows that you yourself have become an FSW (Free Speech Warrior). I told you it would happen if you hung around these people too much.
Look at the two examples of 'free speech' you've given me: the idea that Biden stole the US election, and the defence of grifters who peddle alternative 'treatments' for the coronavirus. Those are classic FSW (Free Speech Warrior) tropes. It's been really worrying to see your evolution in that direction over the years. When I met you, you weren't like this :-(
Labels, labels, labels. I'm not a labels person. You can decide I am an FSW - but that's on you. I have always been for free speech and have always told you that. Grifters? There was a group of twenty experienced doctors who were banned from giving their opinions about treatments a few months back. Then there was a group of thousands of doctors who were recently banned from social media. Are they grifters? Would you agree they know a whole lot more than you on these matters? Why are they banned too?
Actually there has been only a little evolution with me and a little with you. We simply feel strongly about the same things we felt before. You have always hated association with viewpoints. I have always told you that I don't care about association. If I genuinely like cheese I am not going to pretend I don't like cheese just because a group of nazi collaborators like cheese too. I place the burden on the listener to have a brain and not logically link the two.
Regarding YouTube, they had to make coronavirus disinformation their 'big moment', because after the Christchurch massacre they were in so much trouble over being an extremist incubator (which they still are).
In my view, they haven't gone far enough. If you type the words "The Great Replacement" into YouTube's search window, you get all kinds of scary white supremacist nonsense, some of it coupled with creepy 'Aryan' mysticism about the Daughters of Albion and all this kind of wacky brain poison.
But see, I can't say "They MUST get rid of that stuff", because YouTube aren't compelled to allow or not allow any particular kind of speech on their website. They are still a private company ... and that's where the problem lies. Companies like them play a role that's kind of like a public square while being privately owned, so they constantly find themselves embroiled in these arguments about free speech, censorship etc., when their motivation is purely commercial. So it's a fundamental mismatch.
If you got caught in the middle of that, the reason is simple: they've handled this mismatch really, really badly in the past, and now they're trying (badly) to show that they care. That's especially true when it comes to right wing propaganda that radicalises people, sometimes to the point where they load up their car with guns and go shoot up a Mosque. So to try and take the heat off themselves, YouTube decided to make the current crop of right-wing lies (corona denialism, election theft etc.) the target of a blitz. And you got caught up in that.
Complaining about it is like complaining about the terms and conditions of company you're renting a car from. You might feel they're unfair, but as long as YouTube is a private company, you can't make this a 'free speech issue' - it's about company policy.
Don't misunderstand me here: what I'm saying is not that you should shut up about free speech and YouYube. I'm saying that YouTube probably needs to either be publicly run, or it needs to be banned entirely from hosting political content and replaced by a public authority. If it's the public square, then you can demand your free speech rights. So the fact that it's sort of that but not really is the problem.
In other words, it's not that you're 'being silenced by the Man': you're caught in a media environment that's changed fundamentally in a short period of time, certain corporate actors have come out on top in those changes, and now their role is being questioned. They're reacting in various ways, and one is to try and prove that they don't spread speech and falsehoods that physically hurt people (even though, as I said, they absolutely do). And it's very possible that you're caught in it by accident - meaning that whatever stupid algorithm they set, it won't work perfectly. It will always miss some things that should be thrown off, and throw off some things that should be left there.
On the other hand, maybe you were referred to a human moderator and they decided "Yep, this has to go". In which case, refer above to the whole "YouTube is a private company" thing.
"You can also not question vaccines or covid treatments etc. Even if you are an experienced, award winning doctor. So, there is definitely cause for concern regarding free speech on social media and I would say that is already crossing over to public and professional forums too." On the other hand, you could look at all the many, many, MANY times when people are allowed to and do question COVID science in public. Here's one from that bastion of political correctness and orthodox narrative pushing, The Washington Post:
This woman has written books with titles like ""Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming Our Reality", and yet, the evil MSM lets her write about COVID and doesn't take it down. The article has been there for almost a year.
It took me five seconds to find. Weird how that happened, in a world where free speech and dissenting voices are being systematically silenced ... dont'cha think?
The point being that maybe there's a better diagnosis for the problem than the 'free speech' narrative. The more you examine that narrative, the more it starts to look like dogma rather than impartial observation.
'I told you it would happen if you hung around these people too much. ...When I met you - you weren't like this' Terrifying to think the guy that sat and drank Cappuccinos with you in the past - all the time was one of those terrible people that believes in 'free speech'. Ughh.. How repugnant! He even thinks that it's ok to question whether there were any irregularities in the last U.S elections. But worse than that - he thinks it's ok for groups of medical doctors to give their opinions on the COVID pandemic. Worse than that - he thinks it's ok for anyone to give their opinion on it! Even old fishwives!
Sorry to add some sarcasm here but that's literally what you're saying.
I think you're getting too hung up on all of this. Judge people more by their actions. Did you see me physically assault anyone at all ever when I was with you? Did you see me act extremely rudely at anytime? (Apart from with Janet))) That's a joke - I liked Janet a lot. You think I am the problem and I have been sucked into a dark web of association. Has it occurred to you that maybe this is what has happened to you? It's cool to hate the conspiracy crowd now.. Bunch of dangerous idiots thinking they're allowed to say anything they like. Bunch of crazies claiming that there might be an agenda behind the whole COVID -19 thing.
What happens if you find out that there WAS an agenda behind the COVID-19 pandemic and that freedom of speech disappears in the future and we are all under blatant authoritarian rule. Will I get an apology then?
One more quick thing, about this:
"You have always hated association with viewpoints. I have always told you that I don't care about association."
That's kind of true, but I think there's an important distinction missing. You can totally associate with any viewpoints you like. It only becomes a problem when you boost associations between different things by acting as a media outlet. Then your ideas become actions. Ideas that you hold privately have no larger world consequences, but ideas that you propagate in public do.
This is the problem with so much 'independent media'. It's SO critical of the MSM, but a lot of its creators (like yourself) aren't even willing to face the most basic facts about media, which you'd learn in Semester 1 of a three-year journalism course. One of those facts is that pushing associations in people's minds has real consequences.
I've only ever asked you to consider these things and take them into account in the way you present certain topics. That's, like, the mildest possible request, but you've flatly refused every time. I think that's why we end up in these circular conversations.
Hold whatever opinions you like, and hold as many of them in common with Nazis as you like (especially if they're about cheese). And share them, too. All I'm saying is that, when you do this, it's important to reflect on how things might come across, and maybe find ways of saying what you want to say without producing unintended consequences. If you just acknowledge that yes, words can affects people who hear them in ways that you don't mean, and that one should be keep this in mind when talking through a megaphone on the public square, then we can move on to discussing other things, and maybe even find areas of agreement. I'm sure there are some!
"What happens if you find out that there WAS an agenda behind the COVID-19 pandemic and that freedom of speech disappears in the future and we are all under blatant authoritarian rule. Will I get an apology then?"
See, this is the exactly the issue. What you're saying sounds innocent enough, but it isn't if you really think about it.
For a start, there are PLENTY of things to talk about with respect to COVID, and yes, there are inconsistencies in the way it's often presented. I saw an example the other day: some commentator (I don't remember who) said in an opinion piece that we know for sure now that COVID was spread to humans via animal transition, and so we can rule out other possibilities like the idea that it was created in a lab.
To me, that conclusion seems WAY too confident at this stage. For one thing, the biotech industry has a long history of accidental releases, some of which are absolutely jaw-dropping - stuff like people leaving vials of lab-enhanced anthrax on trains, clouds of chemical smoke pouring out of biolabs in apartment block basements, and really wild, dangerous shit like that. It's quite astonishing how bad their record is. I haven't seen anything to definitely prove that this didn't happen with COVD, and I've seen and heard plenty of evidence to suggest that it could have.
Plus there's the whole issue with gain-of-function research, which has been banned or limited in some countries (Obama was dead-set against it, for example), but allowed to continue and intensify in others. So it seems foolish to prematurely rule out a lab release, given what we know about the state of that industry.
On the other hand, I don't have my fingers across the whole of the media or the science, and maybe there has been some research done that I'm just not aware of - research that either proves the origin of the virus was animal transmission, or that rules out the biolab option. This virus has been dominating much of the world's attention, so of course, there's A LOT to know about it. So if I were going to do a show about COVID, my first instinct would be to research, research, research. I'd try to make it so that, by the time I got to air, I'd have a much better grip on the data than I do now, including a reasonable spread of theories and some thoughts as to how reliable each theory might be.
What I definitely WOULDN'T do is privilege narratives about the 'hidden agenda'. For one thing, these narratives are emanating from the usual far-right conspiracy mongers who've been caught out over and over again producing tactical nonsense, so they lose out in terms of credibility. But even ignoring that fact, there are other possibilities apart from the most conspiratorial ones, and a considered treatment of the issue would give a fair hearing to all of them. If you distrust the 'official narrative' (whatever the fuck that is), then research it. Maybe there's something in it that you don't understand. Or maybe there's a mistake in its logic. Or maybe it's possibly but not definitely true. Or maybe the people responsible for that version of events are presenting what they know, but they've missed something which is known elsewhere. Or maybe they are lying for dumb reasons, like they think they can avert a public panic. That's happened in the past. Or maybe there's an element of good old-fashioned incompetence - how can you rule that out, in a world where Boris fucking Johnson is in charge of a whole country? So all of those are possibilities. There's just no reason to skip right over them and go straight to "hidden agendas", except an in-built pre-disposition towards doing that. So I wouldn't do it.
And the other thing I definitely wouldn't do is go with "What if?" scenarios. "What if there was an agenda behind COVID 19?" Well, what if Kamala Harris works for Pakistani intelligence? What if the Mexican government released the virus so they wouldn't have to pay for the wall? I've got no evidence of those things ... but if I say them on air, then I've planted the thought, haven't I?
Oh, but you'll say "There's no harm in asking questions". Sorry, but that's untrue on an EPIC scale. Questions about politically or culturally charged topics very often contain insinuations, so "just asking questions" about them is a great way to sneakily plant ideas. It's also a great way to get people hooked on 'mystery', even when the mysteries you're discussing contain nothing BUT insinuations. That's how misinformation works.
And btw, it's authoritarian societies who traffic in this stuff the most. If you want to paint a picture of how authoritarian societies work, conspiracies and "What ifs?" HAVE TO be in the picture, because they're right at the heart of those societies. All that Nazi propaganda about Jews being like vermin infecting society and what-have-you? It was entirely rooted in conspiracies, from soup to nuts. And if you look across other authoritarian societies, you find exactly the same kind of behaviour.
So it's ... how can I put this? I d'know, I want to say "disingenuous", but I'm not sure if it's the right word. It's disingenuous, or something like that, to use the word 'authoritarian' in a way which implies that some people getting kicked off YouTube presents a greater spectre of authoritarianism than the kind of conspiracy thinking that NEARLY EVERY authoritarian has used to their advantage throughout modern history.
The point is, there ARE ways to dissent from what you hear on CNN or whatever without descending into questionable territory. But you have to do that in a considered way, or you end up being worse than the MSM, not better.
This goes right back to the origins of 'Truth Sentinel', which was supposed to be about "the truth behind the news". That slogan suggests that the standard of enquiry will be better than standards applied by the mass media ... not that you'll just take any opinion from a guy sitting on a porch in his underpants!
(Sorry, I know that image was a bit dismissive. I just couldn't resist. Plus, who doesn't like sitting on the porch in their underpants?)
(Also, what's a fishwife?)
Anyway ... I could write more, but I think you get the point. Or I hope so anyway.
P.S. In terms of apologies, I offered one but I never got one in return. It seems that one of us is too proud to say "sorry". But we can talk about that another time.
Actually, I only saw your 'sorry' when looking back through a conversation we had on facebook so my apology would be for missing that. Sorry about that and it was appreciated.
However, to be fair, you've accused me of all kinds of things - calling me far right and accusing me of this and that and having severe problems with my views. Then deleting me from Facebook friends and generally having a problem with my viewpoints.
I have no problems with any of your viewpoints until it results in attacking me and have not called you any derogatory names, have not gone out of my way to criticise any of your viewpoints apart from in defense of my own. I can only then say sorry that you're upset about any of this. Unless, I've missed something? Can you explain what I may have done wrong? Ah, yes, you did say that I lured you into being part of shows deliberately under false pretences. I can say 'sorry you felt that way', but it's completely false though - I never did that. So, if there's something else, please let me know and I will be happy to admit my errors.