Reply To: Covid: pick a side

Home Forums Discussion Forum Covid: pick a side Reply To: Covid: pick a side

josh R


“Just for the sake of clarity josh R is presumably not J?”

One moniker says “josh R” and one says “J”, that ought to be all the “clarity” you need, unless you’re working on some outlandish conspiracy theory.
[‘rolling eyes’ emoji]

Regarding “This report shows…”, I commented above how I don’t favour having some self appointed “Truth Nanny” tell me who or what I can consider or engage with.
I don’t know a lot on the subject, but I imagine there’s a fact checker out there for whichever political or establishment bias you favour.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s not someone on-the-line right now, being told that is:

“an internet blogger who “describes himself as a “journalist in new media”.

Whatever that may involve” & hosts conspiracy theories debunking firmly established & “fact checked” Skripal narratives”

An alternative reading of the 4 points you cite could just as easily demolish their validity as reinforce it:


“absence of moderation”

I think many, on either side of a political conversation, have been “moderated” out of sight at some point, on pooTube, Twit or the virtual Face. Seeking an alternative does not necessarily infer a penchant for goose-stepping.

I appreciate that it must be a difficult job to keep threads on some sites, such as this one, civil & navigable, but that unquestionably involves practicing some exclusion & bias.
That might make sense on a privately run website more so than it does on a universally inclusive & self defined “Free Speech” website.

“willingness to host hateful content is the unique selling point of the platform”

Or maybe a “willingness to host all content” is their unique selling point?
Haven’t gone to the home page to read their “about” page, but I doubt they list their “selling points” in such an inflammatory way.


“dominated by content and producers….removed from other platforms”

So if pooTube & the Face have determined something is ‘verboten’ then it must be?


“Our research has identified 114 videos in support of proscribed terrorist groups” blah blah blah

114 out of how many videos on their site?

& I guess “proscribed” would be Hamas & Hezbollah, the Iranian army, let alone the plethora of environmental or domestic ‘terrorists’ being added to the list in increasing numbers.
And “support” can be?…… well, anything you want really where a statement doesn’t include “they’re the Evil ones!!”

Saying that, looks like I’m only a ‘hop, skip & a jump’ away from being part of a “proscribed terrorist” group myself:

ooops! did I cite The Guardian !?! shouldn’t they be consigned to the dustbin for their bias, fake news & conspiracy theories? Let me link to the original & perhaps more ‘politisch korrekt’ source:

oh, but then what about Greenwald-Biden Laptop?? it’s all sooooo confusing, guess I ought to check with ‘Nanny’, oh, but wait! what’s that grey stuff lurking between my ears? what could that possibly be there for??

Could I possibly be capable of agreeing with someone on one subject but disagreeing with them on another? or…Must….I…Conform…..??….Must….I…..Inform…..On….Unconformers….???? Do….Not…Interact…Do…….Not……Interact…..
(said in a Dalek voice) :-)))

“no sentient human being should ever agree with any other on absolutely everything – if you do, one of you is not actually thinking.”
— CM


“…actively promotes conspiracy theories and misinformation.”

& if you’re unaware, by now, of how those 2 accusations can be politically manipulated, then nothing I can say will be of much interest to you.
Let alone the undeniable ‘fact’ that too many “mainstream press” sources, with all their “subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not”, are forever promoting more ‘palatable’ & ‘established’ bull sh!t.

But at the end of the day, aside from my nit-picking & thinly veiled, dismissive contempt of your reasoning, I guess my ideological intransigence precludes our finding very much to agree on with regards to this subject (even where underlying ‘agreements’ may well exist).

I’m starting to feel a bit old fashioned when the following ideological ‘pillar’ still appeals to me:

“if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”
— Noam Chomsky

“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
— Voltaire

Incidentally, all these attacks on those whose opinions you deem despicable are, in the digital age, just a fruitless effort of sticking your thumb in the dyke.

As an open access progression from the telephone & the telly, the internet is infinitely capable of circumventing authoritarian attempts at censorship & providing a space for everyone.

The law is fully capable of prosecuting threats of violence, libel, slander, incitement to riot, etc. I don’t think just telling people to “shut up!” is a useful or sensible suggestion, otherwise the police would just do that – stand on the corner telling everyone to shut up & hitting them over the head with a billy club if they don’t…..hmmmmm, reminds me of some less seemly communities I’ve come across around the world….

And ultimately, if you’re so happy to silence others, don’t be surprised if one day it is you being consigned to the ‘verboten’ dustbin.

Good luck with the ‘fact checked’ contributions (SA +2….or 3?). It doesn’t go unnoticed & I can see a lot of time & effort goes into it, I’m sure someone appreciates it,,,, somewhere.