Post New

I'll be posting here instead of at TMF:METaR. The censorship there has become onerous. I posted this story about the murder of the UHC CEO and it was pulled.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...

There was nothing political about it. CMFMints as per usual offered no explanation or recourse. I'll still lurk and like there, but I am done posting there.

You definitely won’t have posts pulled here for political conformity, even if I’m asked the CIA to state an extreme case.

I have posted this on other board but I want to make the distinction between authors expressing ideas and the publisher supporting the idea. There is no relation. This video below can help to clarify.

Noam Chomsky discusses here what free speech really means:
https://youtu.be/4-oV42OMQoE?si=fYW4G-jgozd7Pl1Y

Free speech is no longer possible in the USA and Europe because of the new argument method used about calling anything that the establishment wants to hear as okay, and eveything doesn’t want to hear as “disinformation”.

You can say what you want in a bedroom, or in private discussion over dinner, but you can’t say what you want in the public discourse at large, such as an opinion column that guarantees publication prior the paper reading the column.

But all boards at Shrewd’m will remain be a safe haven.

In the video above, Chomsky had to make what should be an obvious distinction:
1. Supporting the right to express an idea.
2. Being in support of the idea.

1 and 2 have no relation.

But because information is so heavily censored today, many today are beginning to make the mistake of thinking that 1 as even partially implies 2. So that is the first thing to really understand about free speech. They have no relation.

The second key point he makes, in my opinion, is at 6:30. I would watch the whole video, but 6:30 is useful as it covers the real basics. He asked “Are you in favour of free speech for views that you like? I mean, Gobels was in favour of free speech for views he liked .. if you are in favour of free speech, then that means you are in favour of free speech precisely for views you despise.. otherwise you are not in favour of free speech. There are only two positions on free speech, you can decide which position you want”

I will go further and remind authors that if what you write is controlled, then it follows suprisingly closely that what you *think* - the very limits of your caprice and debate with others - is also controlled. The idea of controlling people’s thoughts is literally disgusting to me, so I will definitely allow people to write what they think, and protect that publishing power as far as I’m a capable.

- Manlobbi

My father - a blue-collar Depression kid on his own at age 16 - after combat in the Pacific became an early beneficiary of the GI Bill. He passed the notoriously difficult California Bar exam on his first go in I think 1951.

He distilled common law into two apothegms, which he repeated (and repeated...) during my time growing up at home:

1)"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"

and

2) "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it"

About covers it, I think

--sutton
not sure the talking heads ever heard these growing up

There was nothing political about it. CMFMints as per usual offered no explanation or recourse

Yes, I had one pulled there yesterday as well. It was humorous comment about the assassination of the UHC CEO. Intercst had opined something about how this might change the trajectory of health care decisions at insurance companies (don’t know if that comment has been pulled too), and my comment was something like

“Amazing how the appearance of pitchforks clarifies the thinking.”

It was meant to be sardonic, possibly even humorous. Apparently not everyone shares my taste. Oh well.

apothegms

Apparently, he also passed on a love of language. I had to look that one up.

Good on both of you.

Eric Hines

Whatever was being posted at TMF was milquetoast mild compared to Redit

https://www.yahoo.com/news/medical-subreddit-delet...

There was nothing political about it. CMFMints as per usual offered no explanation or recourse. I'll still lurk and like there, but I am done posting there.

There was an explanation, although you might have missed it and able to see it currently. Yours was the sixth new thread on the same topic that morning, so your thread was locked and responses were redirected to the main thread. Then your post was auto deleted after two hours (IIRC).

The main thread on your topic is still active has 68 replies and over 350 views.

Thanks for the update.

I posted this story about the murder of the UHC CEO and it was pulled.

I'm pretty sure it was pulled because there were already 4 threads about this topic, and they removed 3 of them and left the first one (that I happen to have started). I wonder why they didn't tell you that???

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.