We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – free speech threat edition “Today’s censors wield cudgels with the word ‘information’. Content they don’t like they call ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’. The justification is fake. The protection is faux protection. Pretending to protect people from bad information by means of censorship may be called infaux thuggery. The cudgels are hidden, of course, but it is not hard to see through the pretence and discern the underlying message: knuckle under or we will hurt you.
The UK’s Online Safety Act exemplifies infaux thuggery, as does Brazil’s recent action against X (formerly Twitter). The Australian government is dominated by another gang of infaux thugs. The UK, sadly, not only practices infaux thuggery at home, it tutors the world in infaux thuggery.”
– Daniel Klein
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Are there any examples throughout history when those in favour of censorship didn’t turn out to be the bad guys?
Stonyground – not as far as I know.
As for today – the source of most lies, not all lies – but most lies, is from governments and the corporate organisations that are in partnership with governments.
And, yes, they are the people pushing censorship.
So Daniel Klein and Johnathan Pearce are correct on this matter.
The American election is very clear – it is not about “the economy stupid” (the Bill Clinton campaign of 1992) – the economy is going to collapse whoever is elected President of the United States.
The election is about Civil Liberties – such as Freedom of Speech, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and freedom of action – yes freedom of action.
The United States has reached a stage where government bureaucracies such as FEMA (which did not use to exist) stop people from helping others in time of disaster – because the aid is not from “our preferred vendor’s list” – i.e. it is not from certain corporations who will get taxpayer payment for their “aid”.
The present system, the Corporate State, is totally corrupt – corrupt in everything from election results, to historic temperature records (oh yes they are doctoring them), to inflation numbers, to aid in time of natural disaster – everything.
This system must NOT be place when the economy collapses – because it will use that collapse as an excuse to get rid of what is left of Civil Liberties.
This system, the Corporate State, must go.
“Paul you did not mention that the Corporate State system is created by fiat money – itself a system created by mass theft of monetary gold and the breaking of all contracts public-and-private”.
Well I have just done that now.
If the government were to say it was a sunny day and you looked out of the window and indeed it was, there would be little dissent. However, if the government says it’s sunny and it isn’t, people will say “Hang on a minute…” And that’s apparently an imprisonable offence.
In other words, the free speech debate is ultimately about the government’s desire to lie and not be contradicted.
The very use of the term misinformation is ipso facto misinformation in and of itself.
Just remember that “hate speech” is simply speech that they hate.
Just remember that “hate speech” is simply speech that they hate.
Absolutely. The term no longer has coherent meaning. And by the way, saying that you hate this or that is often necessary, because nobody ultimately gets out of the task of judging evil for what it is, and saying so. Hate is as much a part of our moral reasoning as love.
Johnathan Pearce – the term “hate speech” does (not does not) have a coherent meaning.
“hate speech” means speech that opposes the left, Herbert Marcuse and the other thinkers were perfectly clear (coherent) on this matter – tolerating “reactionary” opinions is “repressive tolerance” because it, supposedly, “harms disadvantaged and marginalized groups”.
K. Harris (the totalitarian Marxist background of Harris is in no way a secret – five minutes research will find it) and Tim Walz have been very clear on this matter for years – as Governor Walz and Mrs Walz were clear about how much they enjoyed (yes enjoyed) the looting and burning (and KILLING) after Mr Floyd killed himself with drugs (and it is quite possible that Mr Floyd would not have returned to drugs if it had not been for Governor Walz’s Covid lockdown – which cost Mr Floyd his job).
They opened the windows of the Governor’s mansion – so they could enjoy the smell of the burning. They said so – they were quite open about it.
Anyone who supports Harris/Walz and then turns round and says they are against totalitarianism, is blatantly contradicting themselves.
Again – there is no secret about any of this, it is out in the open.
True it may not be strict Marxism – these days it is more the Corporate State form of totalitarianism, but that they support totalitarianism is not a secret.
If they are declared elected then what is left of civil liberties will be eliminated. A couple of appointments to the Supreme Court will destroy the Bill of Rights.
International “governance” will be pushed – and it will be very much a totalitarian (total control of ordinary people) form of international governance.
Again there is nothing secret about any of this. For example, the international governance agenda has been out in the open since the Rio Conference of 1992.
Tyranny is not a bug – it is a feature. Establishing tyranny is why these people are in public life.
Tyranny is not some theoretical future prospect in the State where Keith Ellison is State Attorney General.
It is generally known that Derek Chauvin was cut up in prison, much to the amusement of the establishment, after the farcical “trial” – but he was not the only victim.
I find myself unable to remember the name of an Asian police officer (perhaps bobby b will remember his name) – who, when it was found out that he was a Christian, was subjected to savage hatred from the Progressive “judge”.
Being a Christian (a real one – being a FAKE one was fine, indeed Harris/Walz make a mockery of Christianity by going to church) was just about the worst thing the “judge” could think of.
All of the United States will end up like this – if Harris/Walz come into office – indeed it will be vastly worse than this.
It will be “game over” for Freedom of Speech and all other basic liberties.
One of the reasons that K. Harris has not held a Press Conference in 78 days (since her candidacy was announced) is that “You were brought up a Marxist, and you were a Marxist at university – when did you stop being a Marxist?” would be a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
There are other legitimate questions, such as “why did you prosecute people you knew to be innocent?”, that could also could be asked at a Press Conference – but which would not be asked by pet leftist interviewers and debate “moderators”.
Lots of interesting questions could be asked at an open press conference.
Ah, disinformation! Social media made worse by free-speech and ChatGPT… Have any of these people used AI systems. Things like MS Co-Pilot are so tightly self-regulated in case they produce kiddie porn that they are bizarre to use. The MS AI image generator throws a fit if you use the word “frontal” in any context. It also doesn’t like “CRT” or “VHS”.
Why doe this matter except as an inconvenience to me? It matters because the spectre of the “dark web” and AIs out of the Matrix are being used to enact censorship in general.
NickM
Australia has joined the parade – the government there is passing a measure into law that will make it a crime for social media companies to allow dissent. Dissent is to be called “misinformation”, to be defined by an “independent agency” (an Australian version of the British “Ofcom”) – social media companies are to face crippling fines if they allow this “misinformation”.
No prizes for guessing that the “misinformation” will be any opinion that dissents from the left.
The left used to say they were against “economic freedom” (that they supported more government spending and regulations) but that they supported Civil Liberties.
Now the left openly hate all forms of liberty.
As Elon Musk rightly points out – if the left win (or are declared the winners) of the upcoming American election it will be the LAST real election – as they will pack the courts, and destroy 1st Amendment protections for Freedom of Speech.
How can anti leftists win elections if even expressing our opinions is a “crime” – which is what “right wing” dissent is increasingly treated as in most Western countries, including the United Kingdom. Step by step this is starting to happen.
If we are punished for what we say – the left will not even have to rig elections, as we will not be allowed to make our case to the public.
A related threat to Freedom of Speech is the claim that “false claims” do “harm”.
For example, France 24, and other news outlets, frame any discussion about what President Trump (or anyone else they dislike) says – in terms of the “harm” done by their “false claims”. Even if the “false claims” are obviously TRUE – such as President Trump just passing on complaints made by people on the spot, local people complaining, for example, about the terrible “FEMA” organisation in North Carolina and elsewhere.
Talk of “harm” is an appeal to that terrible own goal by J.S. Mill, that gift to censors he unintentionally (unintentional – it was not on purpose) gave to censors, by going for a “harm” principle, rather than a non-aggression principle.
Anything can be said to cause “harm” – because the word is so vague.
And if passing on the complaints of people on the spot (actual local people – who the media could easily talk to, but choose NOT to) is going to be defined as “false claims” then democracy ceases to function, as people in public life will not be allowed to pass on the complaints of ordinary people.
For example, at the entrance to the housing estate I live in, there is a notice (behind a plastic screen – so I can remove it, as I do not have a key to the notice board) advertising a Christmas event.
A bit early for Christmas? No – Christmas 2019.
I have complained about this notice multiple times – but the local officials say it is not there, it is a few seconds walk from me, but it is “not there”.
This is one reason (one of many) that when local people in a town in Ohio say their pets are being killed and the officials deny it – I believe the local people (the pet owners) not the officials (including the police – especially as 911 calls have been recorded).
And I certainly believe local people in North Carolina over the denials of FEMA officials – as FEMA is well known to be both corrupt and very political.
Again if someone in public life is not allowed to report the complaints of local people and the evidence of their own eyes – if this is forbidden as “false claims” that “do harm”, then both democracy and liberty are at an end.
I listened to a discussion between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris recently. Peterson is a pretty logical chap so Harris was pushing him on his illogical religious views. The essence of Peterson’s argument was that without religion society would descend into chaos. Which is to say it is better to lie to the people to keep them in line than tell the truth and risk ensuing chaos. As he said here, “[alluding to Nietzsche] if we allow Christianity to die we will be awash in nihilism and totalitarian bloodshed.” I find this a shocking argument, that delusion and deception is better than truth out of fear of the consequences. And what underlies that is that those in charge should control the narrative to manipulate the population into a “good” end, where presumably they get to decide what “good” means. Again I find this a shocking argument.
FWIW, Sam Harris is no angel here, he has said in the past that obscuring the truth about the Hunter Biden laptop was justified to keep Trump out of the Whitehouse, which is, to all intents and purposes the same argument writ rather smaller.
I should say in full disclosure that I often say I am an atheist but not an evangelical atheist. I don’t try to convert people to my belief system generally speaking because the transformation of a devout religious person to atheism is an extremely shocking and often very damaging transition, something that can really ruin a person’s life, divorce, loss of community, destruction of inner self, loss of hope. These aren’t good things, and not something I would wish on anyone. So I suppose in a sense I practice this personally in my own life. But it is rather a different matter to demur the truth in a personal setting out of care for another verses the systematic suppression of the truth to advance societal goals (where “societal goals”, generally speaking means, advance the power and wealth of politicians and government officials.)
Paul,
I use an AI in Queensland. It is not as censorious as MS Co-pilot/Bing but it is not far off. They generally tend to make Mrs Whitehouse look like a louche Byronic poet. Yet, they are still used to call for more “regulation” – AKA censorship.