The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Will Randos Rule the Internet if Elon Musk Wins?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Washington Post opinion section:

Elon Musk wants ‘free speech’ on Twitter. But for whom?

With Musk’s looming takeover, the future of Twitter’s content moderation is uncertain. Experts say women and people of color could suffer the most.

By Pranshu Verma

Pranshu Verma is a reporter on The Washington Post’s technology team. Before joining The Post in 2022, he covered technology at the Boston Globe. Before that, he was a reporting fellow at the New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

May 6, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. EDT

Elon Musk’s successful bid to buy Twitter and turn it into a free-speech hub has roiled company staff, polarized its user base and become a flash point in the broader culture war on what people should be allowed to say in public spaces. …

It’s noteworthy how often people with names like Pranshu Verma are contemptuous of Anglo-American traditions such as free speech.

South Asians in the U.S. are often compared to Jews, another articulate group. But, in contrast, Jewish-Americans born a century ago tended to be free speech fundamentalists, as reflected in their hyper Anglo-American first names: e.g., Milton (as in Milton Friedman) is borrowed from the great poet John Milton, who more or less invented the “marketplace of ideas” argument in his Aeropagetica. (Jewish-American first names tended to be borrowed from Anglo-American writers and actors, such as Sidney — Elizabethan poet Sir Philip Sidney — and Irving — American story story writer Washington Irving and English actor Sir Henry Irving, who was famous for the dignity with which he invested Shylock).

Twitter is a rare platform allowing ordinary people to directly challenge those in power, mobilizing protests and amplifying dissent. At the same time, it has grappled with hateful speech for over a decade, often targeting women and people of color. Now, with Musk’s looming takeover, the future of the moderation systems the company has painstakingly engineered for decades is uncertain, leaving many to wonder what the platform will look like and who could suffer the most.

To learn more, The Washington Post talked with Michael Kleinman, the director of Amnesty International’s Silicon Valley Initiative and an expert on Twitter harassment, along with Joan Donovan, the research director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy and a disinformation scholar.

“The more that people are harassed, the less likely they are to speak out,” Kleinman said. “What I fear is the voices that we most need to hear, the voices most impacted by structural inequalities or racism, it’s those voices that will be silenced.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

If Elon Musk gets his way, what do you think Twitter will be like?
Kleinman: The short answer is we don’t know. Trying to predict what Elon Musk is going to do is a dangerous game. That said, based on his comments to date, we are incredibly concerned that Twitter as a company will start paying a lot less attention to issues of hateful, abusive and violent speech on the platform. Twitter already has a tremendous problem with the scale of hateful and abusive and violent speech on the platform, especially speech directed at women and Black and Brown communities. …

Donovan: … So, to figure out what speech is illegal would mean that someone would have to be arrested and caught. I don’t think the rules that he’s setting up or is imagining would be put in place are ones that are conducive to a very healthy public discourse.

Who will get harassed on Twitter the most?

Kleinman: In 2018, we did a study of 778 women who use the platform — activists, journalists, and politicians in the U.S. and UK. What we found, looking at 1.1 million tweets that mentioned this panel of 778 women that we studied, was that 7.1 percent of tweets sent to the women in the study were problematic or abusive. Women of color — Black, Asian, Latinx, mixed-race women — were 34 percent more likely to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets than White women. And finally, Black women are disproportionately targeted, being 84 percent more likely than White women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets. It’s exactly this population that I think stands to bear the brunt of any changes that Elon Musk makes.

With moderation so political now, will Twitter do less of it?

Donovan: Undoubtedly, it already has started. So one of the most important people in the story of Twitter’s shift to Musk is Vijaya Gadde. Musk very quickly called her out using Twitter. She was one of the decision-makers that made the important decisions about the New York Post article about the Hunter Biden laptop being removed, as well as Donald Trump’s account.

So him, calling her out publicly on the platform, has an enormous chilling effect across the entire organization, where other employees are less likely to speak up or less likely to want to advocate for these content moderation policies knowing that if they do catch the eye of Musk, they could be in the public crosshairs.

Calling her out could have a chilling effect on her censorship policies for which she gets paid \$16 million per year!

Gamergate was a seminal moment for Twitter and online harassment. What’s the impact of that been like?

Donovan: So, with Gamergate, you have a bunch of people using Twitter to express their politics in a cultural war which is: Should women and feminists be gaming at all. What harassers were able to do with Twitter was to create networks of fake accounts that would then harass and impersonate other people, which caused a lot more confusion. This triggered a response from Facebook where they did bring in women who are being harassed to try to learn more about cyber harassment and cyberbullying on their platforms.

Gamergate in 2014 was due to white guys (and others with white guy senses’ of justice) finally getting peeved over corruption in the video game reviewing industry.

This to me was the genesis of the idea that persists today that these platforms are somehow left- or liberal-leaning because they were concerned about women’s experience in technology. And this angered a lot of young men, especially men in gaming. Men who posted on Internet message boards that believed that they own the Internet. They didn’t think that harassment was harassment, they thought it was an abridgment of their free speech.

And you can see it in the meme style of Elon Musk which is to say that he tends to reshare memes from certain Reddit communities like r/conspiracy and r/memes. And it’s those kinds of signals in the culture war that really emboldened people who follow Elon Musk to imagine that Twitter is now their playground again.

What’s the impact of getting harassed on Twitter?

Kleinman: Twitter is one of the very few places in the world where anyone can speak and have a global audience. The more that people are harassed, the less likely they are to speak out, especially on issues that could be construed as controversial, or on issues where they run the risk of facing this kind of massive blowback. So then, what you’ll see is that the global debate no longer has contributions from a diverse set of communities and voices. And what I fear is the voices that we most need to hear, the voices most impacted by structural inequalities or racism, it’s those voices that will be silenced.

“Harassed” = publicly losing arguments because your data and logic are stupider than those of Internet randos.

 
Hide 165 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Mike Tre says:

    “South Asians in the U.S. are often compared to Jews, another articulate group. But, in contrast, Jewish-Americans born a century ago tended to be free speech fundamentalists”

    Of course Jews 100 years ago were what you call free speech fundamentalists. That’s because at the time the ideas they had were unpopular and largely un-American – Frankfort School, Marxism, Communism, interventionist, anti-nationalist, etc. As usual, they exploited a high trust system to their advantage.

    But fast forward to today, when Jews now control the narrative, they are as big on censorship as the Hindus who come here.

    I think that’s a profound distinction that needs to be pointed out.

    “as reflected in their hyper Anglo-American first names”

    Most of them just changed their names. It was a great deal back then: They got American names while American males babies got their penises mutilated.

  2. AndrewR says:

    Twitter allows the most vile hate speech against whites to proliferate, while censoring the mildest critiques of protected classes. And these media demons all know this.

    As Teddy Dalrymple has pointed out, the point of communist propaganda is not to persuade. It’s to humiliate. They get off on forcing the peasants to accept their lies.

  3. AndrewR says:
    @Mike Tre

    “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”

    This really has been a scorpion and the frog scenario.

    • Thanks: Mike Tre, Escher
    • Replies: @G. Poulin
    , @Getaclue
  4. G. Poulin says:
    @AndrewR

    True. They worry that they will be silenced —as if they’ve ever had to shut up for five minutes. Meanwhile they have been silencing everyone who disagrees with them for at least a generation.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
  5. The people at Twitter are all out of their minds if they pay \$16 million a year to some woman or a man company lawyer to head up their censorship department. So you can do that job for one year and then retire and live in wealth for the rest of your life?

    The first thing Musk-rat should do would be to institute some reasonable pay scales at Twitter so that the people who work at Twitter are forced to stay in touch with normal life.

    Perhaps that will change the kind of people who want to work at Twitter.

    What will actually happen when Musk takes over Twitter will be that it will carry on just about the same as it was before as far as most people are concerned. Life will go on.

    Twitter will still have to comply with laws such as the European Digital Services Act. Probably in the Mississippi Delta it won’t even be allowed to mention abortion.

    Newspapers and media reporters will continue to source their stories from handy quotes on Twitter.

    If Twitter changes from being supported by advertising to being supported by subscriptions, this will be a form of censorship anyway, as it will lean towards a more establishment clientele and corporations.

    Either Twitter will manage to turn a profit, or it won’t. Who cares? If people like it it will continue to be popular, and if they don’t they will move to some other platform.

  6. With Musk’s looming takeover, the future of Twitter’s content moderation is uncertain. Experts say women and people of color could suffer the most.

    Speaking of horse racing, a trifecta!

    “Free speech” in quotes

    “Experts say…”

    “women and people of color suffer the most”

    • Agree: Nicholas Stix
    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
  7. TNC says:

    The journos and subject “experts” represent a priesthood that must not be challenged while our historically accepted system of adjudication is of course attacked by said priesthood (when inconvenient to their belief system)

    The sooner people realize voting is futile the better (but if they haven’t by now…)

  8. @Jonathan Mason

    Probably in the Mississippi Delta it won’t even be allowed to mention abortion.

    Have you ever logged on Twitter in the Mississippi Delta? Or on plannedparenthood.org in the Mississippi Delta?

    Do you know how anything works?

    • Thanks: Charon
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  9. anonymous[446] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve noticed the similarities b/w Ashkenazi women and high caste Brahmin women recently. They both seem to be at the vanguard of the PC censorship brigade.

    Both seem to be motivated by a vile personality, particularly in their hatred of hot Blondes. They use schoolmarm tactics to disguise this.

    Both races are verbally fluent and presumptuous in their uncouth determination to destroy their host population. Both tend to be extremely ‘plai ‘, one rarely sees a porn star attractolive level in either race. My theory is that their ancestors sacrificed good looks and athleticism for high verbal fluency and a vicious in-group incestuous loyalty They seem to be kinda the opposite of thevleggy scandinavian blonde with well-defined face and shapely tight butt.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    , @Anon
  10. Anon[155] • Disclaimer says:

    Search YouTube for the Joe Rogan clip with them Twitter censor chick explaining why they cracked down on “#learntocode” — she doesn’t come off too well.

  11. Travis says:

    The leftist media always pushes the narrative that Twitter is banning hate speech and blacklisting those who spew hatred….yet they are notable for banning doctors who opposed mandating vaccines and banning people who questioned the efficacy of wearing masks or people who questioned the CDC. All the prominent people banned from twitter are republicans, and none of them were banned for so-called “hate Speech” nor were these people banned for harassing other users. The NY Post was banned for Tweeting one of their news stories, not for hate speech, but for the sole reason that the story made the Biden family appear corrupt.

    I suspect the blacklisting of so many conservatives has actually harmed Twitter earnings. Banning Trump had to have cut their advertising revenues. If Musk want to help Twitter earn more money he should stop blacklisting people. They could still ban specific tweets. but I do not trust Musk to be a friend to free speech. His net-worth is built on deception and government subsidies. He is a leftists who takes billions from US taxpayers by selling carbon credits and getting cash incentives for his customers to buy his cars.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  12. Gamecock says:

    it has grappled with hateful speech for over a decade, often targeting women and people of color

    Criticizing government Covid lies targeted women a POC, so it HAD TO BE BLOCKED!

    Washing Post false characterization.

    Now, with Musk’s looming takeover, the future of the moderation systems the company has painstakingly engineered for decades is uncertain, leaving many to wonder what the platform will look like and who could suffer the most.

    For decades? You just said one decade. And ‘moderation systems’ and ‘platform’ is an oxymoron.

    To learn more, The Washington Post talked with Michael Kleinman, the director of Amnesty International’s Silicon Valley Initiative and an expert on Twitter harassment

    Maybe the narrowest specialty I ever heard of.

    • Replies: @Gamecock
  13. ex-banker says:

    And finally, Black women are disproportionately targeted, being 84 percent more likely than White women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets.

    My informal observation is that Black women are 342% more like to tweet something worthy of ridicule, so it looks like they’re not really disproportionately targeted.

    • Replies: @New Dealer
  14. Altai says:

    South Asians in the U.S. are often compared to Jews, another articulate group. But, in contrast, Jewish-Americans born a century ago tended to be free speech fundamentalists

    Because it was a century ago and speech they liked that they felt benefited their group tended to benefit from freedom of speech and speech they didn’t tended not to benefit as much. If the Indians had shown up in the US at the time they would acted the same.

    There was an interesting article in Tablet which detailed this. The former long-time ACLU leader Ira Glasser was interviewed. And though you don’t have to read too deeply between the lines for the ‘who/whoming’, they never explicitly state it.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick

    Glasser and his friends rarely encountered anybody who wasn’t Jewish, much less Black, within the 12-block neighborhood of East Flatbush that comprised the world of their childhood (New York City, he says in the film, was less the fabled “melting pot” of popular American sentiment than “a collection of insular segregated tribes”).

    No American minority had reaped more from its faith in the country’s professed commitment to pluralism and tolerance than the Jews, a gift they repaid many times over by supporting the institutions—the universities, the Democratic Party, the ACLU—which upheld them. In the same way Lenny Bruce classified Ray Charles and fruit salad as Jewish (while claiming that “Evaporated milk is goyish even if the Jews invented it”), so the ACLU was seen as scrappy, authentic, and emblematic of an underdog quality. As Bruce might have put it: the ACLU, Jewish; the McCarthyite American Jewish League Against Communism, goyish.

    Not that they ever pulled punches. Debating the constitutionality of flag burning on Firing Line, Buckley told Glasser something to the effect that the “average American” has a visceral reaction to the desecration of the Stars and Stripes

    Were the ACLU today confronted with a lawsuit similar to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, Glasser doubts the group would take it. (Tellingly, in an essay collection celebrating its most important cases published on the occasion of the group’s 100th anniversary last year, the ACLU neglected to include that seminal litigation).

    Rather it appears Glasser had internalised ‘freedom of speech’ as absolute morality even as his attraction to it was entirely ‘who/whom’, his view of the world has been crystallised and stuck in the past so he doesn’t understand that if he had been born a generation or two later he’d like the new ACLU.

    Asked why his organization was willing to further violate its tradition of political neutrality, Faiz Shakir, a Democratic Party operative then serving as the ACLU’s national political director, was brutally honest. “People have funded us and I think they expect a return,”

    But it is the group’s attitude toward the First Amendment, the ACLU’s bread and butter, that has been most concerning. In 2004, The New York Times revealed that Romero had consented to sign a grant agreement from his former employers at the Ford Foundation, included at the behest of pro-Israel activists, stipulating that any recipient of the foundation’s largesse “agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state,” a vaguely worded contravention of free speech principles. Not only did Romero initially refrain from informing the board about the controversial agreement, but he also neglected to mention that he had helped draft it, allegedly recommending the Patriot Act as a model.

    For instance, whereas Glasser avoided wooing the wealthy, under Romero the group enthusiastically caters to the whims of ultrarich partisan donors whose support for its traditional mission is tenuous.

    It’s much like another Jewish intellectual, Israel Shahak, born in Poland but now living in Israel. He struggles with the idea of wanting both Israel as a ‘Jewish state’ and wanting to make it ‘open and pluralistic’. Essentially he has internalised the Jewish diaspora clamoring for ‘open society’ and ‘multiculturalism’ as abstract moral ideas and not a ‘who/whom, but is it good for the Jews?’ notion. When he moves to Israel he is disgusted with ‘but is it good for the Jews?’ tending to make Israelis sound like far right nationalists in Poland. Essentially he wants for Israel to have no barriers to becoming an open pluralistic multicultural society but for nobody to take them up on the offer.

    This clash between group strategies when in a minority diaspora and when settler colonising nationalists was noted by many Israeli figures, particularly early ones. But we see a similar one to some extent between Jews in the US who remember being ‘outsiders’ (Or were given that feeling by their parents) and those who grew up being the ultimate insiders.

    Ira Glasser looks at the ACLU wanting the same ends as he did but using very different means due to the different relationship to power of the ideas and speech and group interests he supported. But to Glasser it’s too painful to admit this or perhaps he still fears a backlash and or is content to merely disarm the dominant group of a sense of it’s own ethnic interests. Either way he is disingenuous and doesn’t want to peal the moral superiority off himself.

    There were genuine abstract free speech movements in the US but they were often driven by Quakers in the early 20th and late 19th century.

    • Replies: @FPD72
  15. Thirdtwin says:

    He should move Twitter HQ to Little Rock.

  16. @The Anti-Gnostic

    Do you know how anything works?

    I am projecting a little bit into the future.

    As you may have heard, that is a strong possibility that the Supreme Court might overturn the Roe versus Wade ruling on abortion.

    Already some of the more atavistic swampy States are planning to introduce laws that would not only ban abortions, but also seek extra territorial powers to prevent their residents from obtaining abortions outside the state.

    From there it is only a small step to introducing state laws that would block the Internet advertising of morning after pills and abortifacients, or the advertising of surgical abortions in other states.

  17. Stogumber says:

    In a way, Jews are destroying their own brand. They will get difficulties. Can you have a “Brandeis University” if L. Brandeis is rather irressistibly connected with O.W. Holmes and free speech.

    Amnesty International is destroying its brand, too (but they perhaps are too stupid to even see this) – some time they will be known as “More political prisoners International”.

  18. Quote from the blog:

    “Harassed” = publicly losing arguments because your data and logic are stupider than those of Internet randos.

    Thank you, Steve Sailer, that is very true in so many cases.

    An incredible amount of contemporary censorship boils down to fearing HBD realities becoming publicly acknowledged.

  19. Arclight says:

    Steve’s last line in this post is exactly what was in mind as I was scrolling through – Twitter has been a vehicle for a lot of not very bright people who have the right melanin content or genitals to say dumb things while Twitter ‘curates’ the responses. Joy Reid is a good example, or nearly anyone who is an op-ed writer for the NYT.

    • Replies: @Charon
    , @Jim Don Bob
  20. Bill H. says:

    The modern idea that a person can be “harmed” by having words aimed at them never fails to astonish me. Anyone who feels that they have been “harmed” by “abusive Twitter posts” doesn’t need Twitter censorship, he/she/it needs mental health counseling.

    • Replies: @Dave from Oz
  21. Charon says:
    @Arclight

    Yes. And the MSM are always saying things like this:

    Experts say women and people of color could suffer the most.

    This is even better:

    Kleinman: Twitter is one of the very few places in the world where anyone can speak and have a global audience.

    Classic tone-deaf ruling-class minion. What he means [but may not even realize] is that Twitter is a place where he and everyone he agrees with about “important stuff” get to say whatever they like–even inciting violence–while people they don’t like are suspended, shadow-banned, or permanently blocked. Especially if they have persuasive, well-grounded arguments.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  22. Anonymous[649] • Disclaimer says:

    Hindus who side against Trump/Musk in America frequently also side against Modi and Hindu nationalists in India.

    They’re the Oreo modern-day continuation of people like Gandhi. Useful idiots who destroy Hindu culture by importing the most degenerate woke ideas.

    Vijaya Gadde, supported by Parag Agarwal and Jack Dorsey, allowed some frightful censorship of right wing politicians in India. The average Hindu nationalist hates Twitter with a passion, and is thrilled that Elon Musk is taking over.

    Steve, with your exceptional powers of noticing, I’m sure you’ve picked up on this.

  23. Altai says:

    Gamergate in 2014 was due to white guys (and others with white guy senses’ of justice) finally getting peeved over corruption in the video game reviewing industry.

    Due to the lower sense of professionalism among ‘games journalists’ (Now a dying breed due to YouTube resetting the enthusiast press back to year zero) people often complained about them being hacks and corrupt, particularly as YouTube led to an advent of new enthusiast press that hadn’t become so corrupt or corruptible. (Don’t like that one guy who sold out? Okay, here are 100 others for you to watch who aren’t corrupt or maybe you’d like to start your own channel. Though as the platform has matured it has become home to shills too.)

    Then in 2014 the ex boyfriend of the woman in the middle of all it, Zoe Quinn, made a blog post detailing all the horrible things she had done to him. One of the things he mentioned was that she had slept with 5 men, all of whom had been in positions to help her career, including her direct boss but also several games reviewers. This was picked up by the already existing community of people who hated games journalists and they set about trying to work out who they were.

    Then the topics were nuked on reddit. This only intensified the interest in the scandal. Eventually things were revealed like there was a ‘journo-list’ where all the games journalists would basically talk and collaborate or conspire. (A similar thing exists among mainstream journos) Ultimately it took on a life of it’s own. The corrupt group of fuckups running games journalism called in help from other media to paint the situation how they wanted and so it expanded in scope and meaning. It went from being just another, albeit serious, scandal in games journalism into something that looked like a cultural war as the games journos defamed anyone complaining as really being politically motivated. You have to remember this is before ‘SJW’ was a common word, before any of the modern culture war stuff has started to come out and before white male nerds were assumed to not only not being on the progressive side but it’s most hated group. This created the modern white male nerd counter SJW culture which so scares them.

    Because ‘gaming culture’ is on the internet people were able to fight back easily and so the long march into the institution was never able to really work. In this sense the broader scope for online debate of what is or isn’t in the Overton window is now similar.

    But this goes broader into what happened. People like Zoe Quinn, cluster B, mostly BPD fuckups have become powerusers on the internet and their influence and promotion of Tumblr nonsense (Which has then been taken up by conformist teenage girls and young women who aren’t like them but who have no strong alternative world view of their own) have set off a destabilising moral panic. It is something entirely new that our culture has never had to contend with.

    It started to seep into the subculture of ‘games journalists’ prominently a few years before Quinn. Leading to observations like this.

  24. JimDandy says:

    I think pro-choice speech should be banned from Twitter. It’s a proven fact that that kind of rhetoric gets members of the most marginalized, systematically-oppressed group in America killed very single day.

    • Agree: Slugsmagee
  25. Tony_k says:

    Could there be something lacking in women and people of color causing them to suffer the most from virtually everything?

  26. The harassment trick is a major tool for censoring widely held opinions that are unwelcome to the elites. They don’t worry too much about actual fringe views, because they’re fringe. What they are going after is popular views that clash with elite priorities.

    They act like they’re just trying to stop the KKK, but what they really want is to stop common-sense statements like “Bruce Jenner is a guy who dresses like a woman” (angle: harmful to trans) or “The COVID vaccines are far from perfect” (angle: harmful to the unvaccinated) or “It’s wrong to abort a full-term fetus” (angle: harmful to women). 80% of the public may agree with these statements but they must be suppressed.

    You saw it when Musk criticized the deplatforming of the NY Post over the Hunter Biden laptop. The proper people saw right away that they could make it into “white guy harassing woman of color” (the Indian lawyer responsible for the decision.) Perfect example of using the harassment trick to shut down criticism of elite behavior.

    They’re just preventing harm! Everyone is against harm. Don’t you want to prevent harm? They have their human shields and woe betide anyone who hurts them.

    • Agree: Mark G., Almost Missouri
  27. J.Ross says:

    If your response to “free speech” is “for whom,” you have no place in this country.

  28. Anonymous[658] • Disclaimer says:

    One way to improve womens experience in technology is to import millions of Indians and Pakistanis from the subcontinent….

    Groups well known for their salutary views on the equality of women right from conception to birth and marriage.

    • LOL: Paul Mendez
  29. Stogumber says:

    By the way; I had to look up the meaning of “rando” and I am deeply disappointed. Had the vague hope that it might mean something like “a Rambo without the power to use his lips for articulation and who instead must turn to use his tongue”.

  30. @Mike Tre

    “Of course Jews 100 years ago were what you call free speech fundamentalists. That’s because at the time the ideas they had were unpopular and largely un-American – Frankfort School, Marxism, Communism, interventionist, anti-nationalist, etc. As usual, they exploited a high trust system to their advantage.”

    Most American Jews 100 years ago weren’t those things. As for the “Frankfort School” [sic], it didn’t even exist in Frankfurt 100 years ago.

    The Frankfurt School was founded in Germany in 1931. As its founders were Jews, they fled Germany two or three years later, after the Nazi takeover, and traveled to New York City. Once the Allies won The War, most Frankfurt School leaders returned to West Germany.

    What Frankfurt School ideas and works destroyed America? That was a rhetorical question. You’ve never read their works, and know nothing about them. All you know about the FS is that it was founded by Jews, and you hate Jews. You’re an anti-Semitic imbecile; end of story.

    • Agree: Erik L, Pixo
    • Disagree: BB753
    • Thanks: Corvinus
    • LOL: Mike Tre, Dream
    • Troll: AndrewR, JimDandy
  31. @Jonathan Mason

    And the current or outgoing if you will board owns less than 0.5% of the outstanding shares but are all making these huge salaries. So where is their motivation to do anything driving long term value? That’s the exact opposite from a reasonable staking and compensation scheme for a board of directors

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
  32. FPD72 says:
    @Altai

    In the same way Lenny Bruce classified Ray Charles and fruit salad as Jewish (while claiming that “Evaporated milk is goyish even if the Jews invented it”), so the ACLU was seen as scrappy, authentic, and emblematic of an underdog quality.

    I remember during the days of the Soviet Union that the commie bastards took credit for inventing a number of things that were popular in America, including powered flight. Lenny Bruce seems to have engaged in the same activity. In the US, evaporated milk was invented by Gail Borden, a hero of the Texas revolution and the early days of the Republic. There is a sparsely populated county in west Texas named after him, Borden County, of which the county seat is the town of Gail (population around 200).

    He was granted a patent for his process in 1856. His first two ventures to sell his product failed but his third was a smashing success, thanks to the Civil war. Eagle Brand condensed milk and Borden Dairy Company are his commercial offspring (the latter after being first purchased and later spun off by Dean Foods).

    Borden’s philanthropic activity toward Christian missions and churches would seem to rule out his being a Jew.

  33. @Altai

    Who else can explain gamergate? I know nothing about it, and the Wikipedia article doesn’t really explain why this inane online fight within the indie gaming community became an issue of national concern.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Jon
  34. “Anglo-Saxon-American” Should have been written in that topic sentence.

    Germans and Scandinavians were also a huge presence in American pioneering. To the point that the German language lost the contest for the U.S. official language by a narrow margin.

    It’s all in Thomas Sowell’s “Ethnic America: A History”

  35. SFG says:
    @Mike Tre

    It’s a mixed bag actually; a lot of the remaining unwoke liberals and IDW people are Jewish too.

    From a purely strategic point of view free speech benefits groups with higher verbal ability. But the studies I’ve seen on Jews and support for free speech are contradictory (some say more some say less).

    • Replies: @Nero
    , @JimDandy
  36. Anon[175] • Disclaimer says:

    A lot of fighting on the internet occurs because young women are terrible at ferreting out the truth. They always side with whoever they’re biased for, which is normally determined by whoever did them dirt in their own life experience.

    They can’t judge an internet quarrel in an abstract way without projecting their own biases onto the situation, which warps their judgment.

    I used to hang out on a board that had a ‘young female problem.’ All the fights that occurred on the board happened because some young females often took offense at just about everything that was said, and they took everything that was said personally, even though almost nothing was actually being said about them personally. There was almost nothing you could discuss in an abstract way, in which they wouldn’t suddenly flare out in anger and rage that ‘You are oppressing me! ‘

    I suppose they were just women who were mad they weren’t getting enough attention and starting fights so they would get it.

    By the way, if you’ve been paying attention, you will have noticed that the biggest defenders of whoever is in the wrong are always young females, not older females.

    In a traditional society it’s usually the older females who call the shots when a social problem occurs. They don’t let their dumb and inexperienced daughters do it.

    • Replies: @Thea
  37. Manfrog says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    The commenter may or may not be an imbecile; however, anti-semitism is not imbecilic.

  38. Fhjjjjjff says:

    It’s funny that Jews anglicized and Americanized themselves by taking “Christian names” such as Irving Sheldon, and Milton, because whenever I hear those names, I picture someone with a small hat and a big nose.

  39. Stealth says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    To the extent that it has its own distinct culture, the Delta isn’t known to be the most religious or morally strict place in the south. Most of the people there are Democrats, as it’s demographically and politically dominated by black people.

  40. Reminds me of that classic satirical New York Times headline:

    WORLD ENDS TOMORROW
    Women, Minorities to be
    Hardest Hit

  41. Mike Tre says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    “and you hate Jews. You’re an anti-Semitic imbecile; end of story. ”

    But Nick, I like you.

  42. @Jonathan Mason

    The first thing Musk-rat should do would be to institute some reasonable pay scales at Twitter so that the people who work at Twitter are forced to stay in touch with normal life.

    Twitter’s C&B for people like the censorship lady and its C-Suite are totally out of line with its revenues, particularly when compared to companies that produce things that are actually useful. It’s almost as if it was a money-laundering cog in a greater Cabal money-laundering machine.

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
  43. Anonymous[229] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s noteworthy how often people with names like Pranshu Verma are contemptuous of Anglo-American traditions such as free speech.

    I have noticed this pattern, too, going back several years.

  44. Anonymous[229] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    The Frankfurt School was founded in Germany in 1931. As its founders were Jews

    Was Theodoro Adorno Jewish?

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  45. Stealth says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Already some of the more atavistic swampy States are planning to introduce laws that would not only ban abortions, but also seek extra territorial powers to prevent their residents from obtaining abortions outside the state.

    That’s what different states are for. My advice: let red states go their own way. If their people get tired of such shit, they’ll handle it on their own by either getting involved politically or moving to a state that’s more to their liking.

    And if you’re mad about this because you’re a blue person who moved to a red state to avoid high property taxes (or whatever crappy Democrat BS you don’t like), you can always move back to blue America and give your money to the local school district so that other people’s kids can have their LGBTG recruitment staff and Olympic swimming pools.

    I’m on team red, but I cannot for the life of me understand my political tribe’s jihad against abortion.

  46. Hodag says:

    Nowadays a lot of Jewish guys are named after Dr. J.

  47. get a load of Steve trying to dunk on these people while he’s been blocking my factual, accurate posts for the last couple years now, yet allowing total trolls to post at will. what a hypocrite. Steve loves censoring his small part of the internet. he does the same exact thing as the people he’s trying to dunk on.

    Mr. Who? Whom? himself doesn’t like it when you point out that it’s the (Kleinman) and (Shorenstein) people who are doing all the censoring, and the indians are just their latest allies.

    (Paul Singer) is the person who put Parag Agrawal in charge of twitter.

  48. Thea says:

    Does anyone actually read woke or even ordinary Twitter? Clearly they enjoy bloviating, but reading?

    Seems doubtful they even read each other’s posts as they claw their way to to top of the tediously boring influencer heap.

  49. peterike says:

    But, in contrast, Jewish-Americans born a century ago tended to be free speech fundamentalists

    Yeah, that’s because those Jews were smut peddlers, seditionists and Communists. Hell, Jews are proud to have been at the forefront of breaking down obscenity laws, getting rid of the Hays Code, etc. And naturally, Communists peddling Communism in an anti-Communist country would be in favor of free speech at all costs.

    This was all part of Jews consolidating their cultural power. Once that was done, the wheel started to turn and now speech codes, censorship, etc. are the new cool thing. Mostly Jewish controlled social media is just the latest propaganda mechanism: they’ve controlled Hollywood, the airwaves and the printed press for more than a century.

    Of course, on-the-make Asians latch on to this because they can smell the power balance from half-way around the world, and know exactly what side will put ghee in their pan. The amazing thing is that you have a fair number of Asians who take the opposite side, but they don’t get bylines in the NY Times.

  50. Why is it not possible to have a platform that is wide open to commentary, but at the same time have individual access profiles that can be customized to not display the offending content that an individual finds triggering?

    It seems to me that the basic architecture of the internet suggests a wide-open system, that might have a few things that are per se, out of bounds (e.g., child porn.) Other than those few subjects – everything should be trafficked at will. If a feminist is particularly offended by certain speech, certain words, certain people, why couldn’t she, in her access profile, specify those things she takes offense at, and have the triggering content shielded from her individually, not all the other users of the platform who have no such sensitivities?

    It has to be possible.

    • Replies: @jsm
  51. Pixo says:

    “as reflected in their hyper Anglo-American first names”

    While we now need a period of net negative immigration (more deportations and voluntary exits than admissions), the adoption of English names is a good sign about an immigrant group.

    Indians and Muslims almost never give their US born children English names. Non-Muslim Africans also rarely give their children English names.

    Filipinos and East Asians choose English names at about a 100% rate. I have a feeling however that as wokeness becomes more prestigious, the small number of left wing NE Asian women who ever have children will start picking Asian or maybe African names.

    Hispanics I think it is about 70%, and the rest of the time it is at least Western European. In Latin America itself, English names are popular.

  52. Nero says:
    @SFG

    Amy Wax comes to mind, the Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania. She’s a Jew from NY who called India a “[email protected]”.

  53. MLG says:

    Twitter has been moderating comments ‘for decades’. The company is only 16 years old! Hopefully, he will put that in a tweet and one of those veteran Twitter moderators will flag it. Purely, as an investment I think I would rather have my money in a slimmed down Twitter then Tesla and maybe Elon is thinking the same thing.

  54. JimDandy says:
    @SFG

    Studies, eh? I’ll bet those studies would show that Jews like Bari Weiss support free speech.

    • Replies: @SFG
  55. Please define “problematic” speach. When teachers’ unions picket in from of a school board members house or pay for advertizing in support of their agenda that’s good free speach, but going on Twitter and stating your opinion about public education is “problematic.” Never been on Twitter, is this how it works?

  56. zundel says:
    @Mike Tre

    lol “Frankfort

    because when i think of sheeny negative dialectics i certainly think of milton friedman, and henry schultz — and total flaming hebolas like henry george

  57. OTish…

    A negro with good teeth is promoted as the new Doctor…

    Ncuti Gatwa: BBC names actor as next Doctor Who star

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61371123

    The world won’t end, of course; it’ll just be a little darker.

  58. In 2018, we did a study of 778 women who use the platform — activists, journalists, and politicians in the U.S. and UK. What we found, looking at 1.1 million tweets that mentioned this panel of 778 women that we studied, was that 7.1 percent of tweets sent to the women in the study were problematic or abusive. Women of color — Black, Asian, Latinx, mixed-race women — were 34 percent more likely to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets than White women. And finally, Black women are disproportionately targeted, being 84 percent more likely than White women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets.

    Twitter does not require photos, so if certain subcategories of women get “harassed” (whatever that means,) it happens because of what they write, not because of who they are.

    • Replies: @Recently Based
  59. NaSa says:
    @Mike Tre

    But fast forward to today, when Jews now control the narrative, they are as big on censorship as the Hindus who come here

    You are generalizing about the “Hindus who come here”. I lived and worked in the US for 10 years and am back home in India now but you are grossly generalizing here..

    Pranshu Verma sounds like your average white leftist who is constantly whining about how minorities in America are under systemic attack.
    . When you work out of New York, Philadelphia and Washington DC what exactly do you expect from such a person?

    Most Indians that i came across in my 10 years barely knew American politics and for good reason.. most of us were already sick and tired of Indian politics.. identity politics is something we have all tried to avoid given the harm it caused tens of millions of Indians in the last 70 years

    People who lived through Indira Gandhi’s Emergency of 1975 know the true value of free speech and the few brave men in the Indian English press who stood up to her authoritarianism.

    I would suggest that the free speech problem in America today is a deep symptom of how corrupt US academia has become..the biggest and most powerful enemies of free speech are white liberals themselves.

  60. Getaclue says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    Liar. Easy to research the Frankfurt School Jewish Supremacists and the great fraud they pulled – they seeded thousands of unqualified Phds and “teachers” throughout Academia as they got control of green lighting their bs qualifications – from there they changed things to what we have today – Communist BS “CRT”, “hate Whitey”, homosexual “rights”, Transgender lies – LIES as truth – anti-Semitic was admitted by a high level Israeli Politician to be nothing but psychological warfare to shut up criticism – GTFOH!

  61. I’ll admit I never used Twitter, but how can one be “harassed” by strangers on an app?

    Every week I read about someone being driven to silence, nervous breakdowns, PTSD, even suicide by mean tweets. How is that possible? Maybe if you’re a teenage girl bullied by schoolmates you see every day. But an adult? Bullied by people they don’t know?

  62. Anon[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    “also seek extra territorial powers to prevent their residents from obtaining abortions outside the state.”

    Are there concrete plans here? They always deny wanting to punish the woman. The whole thing seems driven by magical thinking, they seem to believe all those questions about how it’s enforced can be brushed aside by name-calling and don’t need to be thought about.

  63. “Pranshu Verma”

    I thought Pranshu was a girl’s name.

  64. “Experts say …”

    Experts have corrupted expertise. Offer these scamsters a booger sandwich in lieu of cash.

  65. And finally, Black women are disproportionately targeted, being 84 percent more likely than White women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets.

    Translation: Black women are 84% more likely to say something so stupid that it’s mock-worthy.

    • Agree: Patrick in SC
    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  66. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:

    Sidney Hook’s rules for democratic discourse:

    Nothing and no one is immune from criticism.
    Everyone involved in a controversy has an intellectual responsibility to inform himself of the available facts.
    Criticism should be directed first to policies and against persons only when they are responsible for policies and against their motives or purposes only when there is some independent evidence of their character.
    Because certain words are legally permissible, they are not therefore morally permissible.
    Before impugning an opponent’s motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.
    Do not treat an opponent of a policy as if he were therefore a personal enemy or an enemy of the country or a concealed enemy of democracy.
    Since a good cause may be defended by bad arguments, after answering the bad arguments for another’s position present positive evidence for your own.
    Do not hesitate to admit lack of knowledge or suspend judgment if evidence is not decisive either way.
    Only in pure logic and mathematics, not in human affairs, can one demonstrate that something is strictly impossible. . . The question is always one of the balances of probabilities. And the evidence for probabilities must include more than abstract possibilities.
    The cardinal sin, when we are looking for truth of fact or wisdom of policy, is refusal to discuss, or action which blocks discussion.

    From his essay “The Ethics of Controversy” reprinted in Sidney Hook on Pragmatism, Democracy and Freedom: The Essential Essays

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  67. Anonmous says:
    @Paul Mendez

    It’s called “mind fuck” in the military. Don’t dismiss it.

    Yes, it’s important to resist it. But don’t think it doesn’t exist.

  68. Anon[385] • Disclaimer says:

    An image search on Joan Donovan reveals a gigantic homely parody of a LGBTQ-being.

  69. Escher says:

    Trump/Musk for 2024.

    • Replies: @Muggles
  70. @Hypnotoad666

    84% of those tweets will involve Diane Abbott.

  71. Farenheit says:

    Translation: Black women are 84% more likely to say something so stupid that it’s mock-worthy.

    ….this doesn’t bode well for Whoopi and the sistas on “The View”

  72. Dennis Dale says: • Website
    @Mike Tre

    Yes. Whenever someone talks about the “good, old” ACLU kick them in their stupid little balls.

    These Indians may not have any genuine love for free speech, but they’re taking all their cues from Jewish leadership.

    What’s being revealed is not the greater respect for speech of Jews over Indians, but that Anglos stand alone in revering it.

    • Agree: JimDandy
  73. Off Topic, but semi-relevant to Steve’s recent posts on sprinting: it appears that white guys may simply be late bloomers in the sport.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  74. Mr. Anon says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    What Frankfurt School ideas and works destroyed America?

    The Frankfurt School was founded, consciously, to promote Marxism.

    Herbert Marcuse is often described as the father of the New Left (he himself merely claimed to be the grandfather of the New Left).

    Walter Benjamin promoted “cultural zionism” (his words) who wrote “My life experience led me to this insight: the Jews represent an elite in the ranks of the spiritually active … For Judaism is to me in no sense an end in itself, but the most distinguished bearer and representative of the spiritual.”. There’s a lot of Tikkun Olam wrapped up in that. Tikkun Olam has not been good for me or my people.

    Franz Neumann was a soviet spy. He also wrote a study on anti-semitism for the American Jewish Council. Yeah – I’m sure that wasn’t used to smear people or push an agenda.

    Those are just some examples. A lot of the FS seem to have been influential in the OSS, so perhaps the modern CIA owes a lot to them. I don’t exactly view the CIA as boon to me or my people.

    As the old saying goes: Ideas have consequences. The FS promulgated a bunch of foreign ideas – foreign to America and its national character. Many of these ideas were narrowly ethnically motivated, despite being dressed up in impenetrable theoretical jargon. It’s true I’ve never read any of their books (who has?). I haven’t read Das Kapital either, but I’m familiar with some of the ideas therein. And some of the ideas are not wrong. But the agenda of the book and its author certainly proved to have been disastrous for humanity.

    You’re a good guy, Nicholas. You’ve done important work and have shown yourself to be a defender of the Truth. But if you’re trying to persuade us that the FS was not a pernicious influence on America – well, sorry – I’m just not buying it.

    • Agree: Getaclue, Ben tillman
    • Replies: @vinteuil
  75. Mr. Anon says:

    Joan Donovan probably considers it harassment to compare her to Jabba the Hutt, whereas in reality it is simply a plain statement of fact:

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  76. Experts say women and people of color could suffer the most

    It’s amazing that newspapers still say this without a hint of irony. Don’t they know that we make fun of them for saying this? Are they just that clueless, or is everything about who/whom?

    • Agree: Paul Mendez
    • Replies: @Getaclue
  77. @Paul Mendez

    I’m always surprised by how thin-skinned some people are.

    Some years ago I corresponded briefly with a nationally-recognized author who, for a time, was a regular on CNN. By virtue of having written a best-selling book that had been massively hyped by the media, he was regarded as the leading authority about a particular event.

    (In my opinion, he was – and still is – totally full of shit.)

    This guy was such an attention whore that he went around to random blogs writing gushing thank-you notes to people who praised his book.

    I wrote a few posts on an obscure message board mocking him and his book. He’s gay, so naturally I made a few comments about his predilection for fudge. (At no time did I call him a fag.)

    Someone else on the board told me that he was deeply offended by my comments. (Note that he didn’t contact me directly; he contacted someone else to complain about me.)

    I felt bad about it, so I sent him an e-mail. He responded quickly.

    He said, “You people don’t realize that you can reach right through the monitor and *hurt* me.” (Emphasis his.) He justified his media-whoring by claiming that he had gone into debt to write the book.

    This guy was a published author whose magnum opus received laudatory reviews from the likes of Time magazine and the New York Times. His book became assigned reading in many schools and he traveled the country to promote his views before adoring crowds.

    I was – and am – a total nobody. And yet I was able to *hurt* him by virtue of making a few dumb jokes on a message board frequented by a couple dozen or so losers.

    That brief correspondence solidified my contempt for him. Why couldn’t he just laugh it off? Because he’s a gay narcissist, I guess. The narcissist cannot abide the existence of even one person who doesn’t think he’s absolutely wonderful.

    I did make an effort to be a little nicer for a while, but then I started up again.

    One time, he tweeted that his book would make a great Christmas present. In response, I created a mock Amazon page with “five-star” reviews. (“This book was so gripping that I didn’t even notice when my thirteen-year-old neighbor escaped from my basement! Fortunately, I was able to recapture her before she could alert the police.”) Under the heading of “People who bought this book also bought…”, I put pictures of a jumbo-sized vibrator, a copy of Mein Kampf, and a teddy bear in bondage gear.

    I kept this up for a couple of years. But eventually I became bored with the board. I grew tired of mocking him and his stupid book. So I stopped.

    Shortly after his book came out, he gave an interview in which he whined about his adolescent struggles as a closeted gay youth, yadda yadda yadda. “Oh, the agony of hiding my craving for c**k! It almost drove me to suicide!”

    In high school, I was an obese nerd with horrendous – and I do mean horrendous – acne. My face looked like something out of a horror movie and my back was even worse. I didn’t have any friends, and I never even contemplated the possibility of sex or romance. And things really didn’t get much better as time went along. But you don’t see me whining about it.

    To me, the whole point of having money and fame is being able to say, “If you like me, I’m glad. If you don’t, go f**k yourself.” If I ever make it big, I’m not going to spend one minute of one day worrying about what other people think about me. (Currently, I spend perhaps 30 or 45 seconds a day thinking about that subject.)

    • Thanks: Muggles, Jim Don Bob
  78. Ralph L says:

    it has grappled with hateful speech for over a decade, often targeting women and people of color.

    We wish they had.

  79. Muggles says:
    @Paul Mendez

    The real driver behind much of the Internet censorship craze, promoted by corporate “social media” is the feminization of public discourse there.

    It has long been well known that Twitter mobs are largely youngish left females (or sometimes allied gays) who are all about their “feelings”. Thus often incapable of actual argumentation involving facts and logic.

    Part of this is a basic biological difference between men and women. Remember the book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus ?

    Some of that is basic hormonal differences related to child birth and rearing and the male role of hunter and warrior/protector.

    So when female leftists and Wokies can’t or won’t respond to “attacks” or criticism, they whine about “danger” and aggression.

    Those in long term relationships with females understand the limits of discussion or argument here. Such “triggered females” demand that those who hold differing opinions must be shut down.

    Men are used to verbal battle. Women tend to resort to nasty gossip, which if turned on them they label as male aggression.

    Lots of biological determination here. And no, you can’t simply change clothes and inject hormones (or suppress them) and become someone you were not born to be.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  80. South Asians in the U.S. are often compared to Jews, another articulate group. But, in contrast, Jewish-Americans born a century ago tended to be free speech fundamentalists …

    Steve, i think there is a legit HBD/cultural difference here.

    The Ashkenazi Jews are an outsider middle man group, while these Indian noisemakers are overwhelmingly Brahmins who while doing some of the same clerical “scribe” type work, were simply the priestly caste of their society. I.e. Brahmins are not “outsiders” in mentality, but insiders. Much more oriented to arguing for upholding the prevailing narrative.

    But the biggest difference is not them, but us. I.e. the biggest difference is the state of America then vs. now.

    When the “Great Wave” Jews came, America was already the most prosperous nation in the world and either near or soon to be the richest and most powerful–with our own very successful American culture, norms, traditions which the Jews had nothing to do with and which did not include them. A culture and tradition, Jews–the ethnic champions and the leftists wreckers–immediately set to whining about, critiquing and seeking to delegitimize and replace. Ergo: “free speech”.

    In contrast, when any significant numbers of Brahmins got here, the reigning orthodoxy was already Jewish minoritarianism, which provides a ready avenue for the Brahmin to complain about his terrible oppression while grabbing up American goodies and comfy sinecures. Minoritarianism is the orthodoxy, so the Indians are comfortably pro-orthodoxy. Hence anti-free-speech.

    Note, that though there are significant numbers of “free speech fundamentalists” Jews, the majority of Jews have undergone a free speech conversion, since minoritarianism became established orthodoxy. Now most Jews think that simply critiquing minoritarianism–much less suggesting it’s Jewish origin–is beyond the pale, “racism!”, “nativism”, “Nazism” and should be silenced.

    Who-whom pretty much covers the 95% of the territory here.

  81. Gamecock says:
    @Gamecock

    it has grappled with hateful speech for over a decade, often targeting women and people of color

    After further review . . . note that this is 2/3s of the population. Verma and the Post are SHOCKED that hate speech targets MOST of the people. GAHH!

  82. @Jonathan Mason

    Do you know how anything works?

    I actually don’t understand Twitter. I understand/understood comment sections and I used to have a blast on them back before most of them closed down. Is Twitter a satisfactory alternative to those? I have a tab open right now to an article at thehill.com. I see a “twitter” button. I push it and, ok, I can now say something. But who’s going to see it?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  83. @Arclight

    I sometimes see clips of Joy Reid on Tucker and the woman is astoundingly stupid, like Maxine Waters level stupid. Evidently she went to Harvard.

    • Replies: @Arclight
    , @The Craw
  84. Gamergate had nothing to do with not wanting women in gaming It was about activist access media lying and ruining games primarily.

    Male gamers certainly want more female gamers. Just as male boxing fans want female boxingfans.

    If a lot of activist people in the media started a huge(er) push for boxing to be made less masculine and violent male boxing fans wouldn’t like it.

    There are activitues that attract one gender over the other. There is nothing wrong with that.

    Just like if a man is allowed to join a feminist reading book club, he is not likely to make many friends by suggesting they read some Tom Clancy novels next time.

    Whatever your gender, don’t join a community oriented about enjoying a certain thing and then start complaining about that thing. It is a dcik move.

    • Agree: Ola
  85. @International Jew

    Twitter is a bit like YouTube.

    Well known people have Twitter channels, and if you search for their name, then you can subscribe to their channel, will automatically be sent any new tweets that they write, and will be able to write comments on them unless the owner of that channel blocks you.

    So, for example, you might subscribe to the CDC or BBC Twitter feed, and anytime they have anything to say you get notified.

    Just about every organization or newspaper or famous person has a Twitter account.

    Often tweets are used to provide short videos or links to longer articles elsewhere, or to PDF documents. The short videos may often show a golfer holding out from a bunker, or a soccer player scoring a goal in an important match, or something of that kind.

    You can also start your own Twitter channel, but you probably won’t get many followers unless you are exceptionally interesting to a particular domain of Twitter followers.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  86. @Muggles

    The real driver behind much of the Internet censorship craze, promoted by corporate “social media” is the feminization of public discourse there.

    I don’t believe our core problem is the “woman problem”.

    But I do think the West has run this experiment of pretending “women’s voices” should be treated equally–or even prioritized–and women should be leaders. And the experiment is disaster. Well, ok, if it was just an “experiment” the experiment was a success. We know the answer. It’s the result that is a disaster.

    I think we now know, that the old wisdom was correct. Men, while prone to some really stupid decision making–i.e. unnecessary, ill-advised war–have an evolved package of psychological traits for decision making that at least can–with rational discussion and feedback–generate sane, responsible policies, that maintain and reproduce a civilization. Women, not so much.

    I think the Chicom’s screw up way, way too much. (We’re lucky they do.) Their current Covid screwup and like a Monty Python sketch. But it’s notable that despite from Maoist sex equality push, the current Chicom leadership is very male. (One female politburo member.) And they’ve seen the insanity that has descended upon the West, and I’m sure, they have analyzed it and are taking steps to make sure it does not start there and any outbreaks will be stomped upon.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  87. Kleinman said, … “[T]he voices that we most need to hear, the voices most impacted by structural inequalities or racism, it’s those voices that will be silenced.”

    Kleinman means, those voices will be silenced if persons like Unz’s readers are allowed to speak—by which he really means, shut up and let me humiliate you some more, white man!

    Kleinman seems to be admitting that he has lost the argument. Interesting.

    Even more interesting however is the bad faith with which Kleinman abuses and even inverts the participle “silenced.” Also the pronoun “we.” In fact, almost every word in his quote. No, I do not think that I want Kleinman silenced; I would like him to continue publicly to discredit himself, rather. He’s doing fine.

  88. @Hypnotoad666

    Japanese TV recently featured a 90 year old who they filmed racing sprints. Of course, he wasn’t fast, but still.

    For those interested, they showed what he usually ate–tonkatsu and salad–basically, Paleo diet.

    Drugs like Rapamycin are going to push back the age decline for serious athletes who take care of themselves.

  89. Mickey Kaus recently lamented how much he and Coulter trolled leftists when Twitter was new. That is a valid point–if randos are going to rule with better arguments, they need to treat the elite blue checks with kid gloves or the butthurt blue checks will leave and the randos won’t be able to influence them.

  90. Joe862 says:

    Facebook had an algorithm to automatically delete hate-speech regardless of the target. 90% of what it deleted was against whites and men. That’s who the objective hate-speech is targeting. This, of course, can’t be allowed to stand as it should be ok to hate those groups.

    “One April 2020 document said roughly 90 percent of “hate speech” subject to content takedowns were statements of contempt, inferiority and disgust directed at White people and men”

    From what I’ve seen on message boards, the moderation has to be tilted in favor of leftists or debate dries up. They can’t compete in a fair fight so they leave. One board I hang out on was sold to a member who leans right. He let the cat out of the bag by saying which members are the biggest tattle tales. He stopped giving them special treatment in moderation and they left. It’s amazing how leftists can relentlessly spew hate and still report lots of complaints to the mods.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/11/21/facebook-algorithm-biased-race/

  91. Rob says:

    I wonder if the elite dislike for free speech is partially driven by the dumbing down of the elite. Not only are there more black “elites,” the people scoring 1400 on the SAT are not nearly as smart as the ones scoring 1400 thirty years ago. Coupling that with schools discriminating against white men, snd there are a lot of people outside the elite who are a lot brighter than the “elite” and at least mildly resentful.

    Also, as the left has decided that their political goals are actually ethical requirements, they are very bad at arguing their positions. Because they only talk to each other outside of Twitter, their “arguments” against, say, immigration restrictions have declined to just say that people who disagree with them are part of the outgroup. This argument does not work well on Twitter. When someone says, “yes, I am part of the outgroup, and we are right” the wokies have little ability to respond. Being challenged causes the woke distress, which they then interpret as having been harassed.

    On Twitter, you can block people who disagree with you, but then you can’t see their Tweets, either. So, you have no idea what they are saying! Thus, blocking your “harassers” can be more stressful than being “harassed.” Take the Babylon Bee ban on Twitter. Trans women have moved from, “we (kind of) look like women, so you should use female pronouns to we are women. The science is settled. Saying transwomen are men is harassment.” problem is, the science is settled, and they are men. It’s kind of strange that one prof won a lawsuit against his college that forcing him to use female pronouns for transwomen violated his religious freedom. Shouldn’t we also have “science” freedom, where we can say things like changing sex is impossible and blacks have lower average IQ? I’m sure blacks don’t like hearing this scientific fact, but it is a legitimate response to “blacks are (under) over-represented in x” to say “how do they compare with whites of the same IQ”? The thing is “blacks under-represented, therefore racism” does not convince everyone, but “blacks are more likely to be shot/beaten by police than white criminals with equal IQ scores” would actually change minds.

    [MORE]

    In college, prog profs snd prog students have decided to cast conservatives (which now includes liberals who do not keep up with the trends) into the outer darkness, so they don’t get pushback in school when they should be learning both how to defend their positions and why other people hold theirs.

    It’s kind of telling that progs stopped making advances when they stopped trying to convince people. Banning arguments does not stop people from believing them. Like black intelligence. You are not allowed to mention it in polite company, yet everyone who has dealt with very many blacks knows it’s true. “Police treat blacks worse even accounting for poor black behavior” is a narrower claim than po-po be raciss,” but could actually bring hbd-types over to the police reform side.

    Twitter being free-speechy will be good for cons for a while, but it might be good for progs in the long run. There’s also the matter of how long Musk will hold out. A full-time full-court press from the media against Twitter will be a hard thing to resist. It could taint his other companies by association. Newscasters won’t be all, “Teslas are amazing and the future of transportation.” They will say things like, “Teslas are a niche product produced by the most over-priced company in history.” Expect to hear a lot of any complaints of Tesla’s black employees getting lower performance reviews amplified, among other things.

    • Agree: Getaclue
  92. Getaclue says:
    @Stealth

    It’s murder. Further, by the time it all shakes out most all States will still allow it during the first 3 months and for medical reasons/Mother’s Health thereafter–no worries California and New York will allow it up to birth and even thereafter. So much lying and hysteria–Demonic.

  93. Muggles says:
    @Escher

    As you probably know, Elon isn’t constitutionally eligible since he isn’t a native born American.

    Also, I doubt if Trump will win re-nomination.

    He won’t draw many new Rep voters for the ticket and may drive away others.

    Too old, too narcissistic.

    I think the smart play — in theory — is to let him play at that for a while, totally unhinging the Dems over that. Then as 2023 comes looming, find much better candidates (Rand Paul, Ron DeSantis, etc.) and have Trump “decide” that he will stand aside.

    So Dems have worked up the Magic Hate Campaign and get the old bait-and-switch.

    Dems will fratricide amongst dottering Bernie, Hillary, Big Chief Warren and perhaps other newcomers like Beta O and the gay, female or whatever mixed mutt of the month.

    People are pretty sick of Trump (even me) and all of those ancient crones and drones of the Dems.

    It all depends on how defeated the Woke Dems get after November. And how rational either party can manage to become.

    • Agree: Thea
  94. AKAHorace says:
    @Paul Mendez

    Every week I read about someone being driven to silence, nervous breakdowns, PTSD, even suicide by mean tweets. How is that possible? Maybe if you’re a teenage girl bullied by schoolmates you see every day. But an adult? Bullied by people they don’t know?

    People with few friends besides the ones they know online ? There are a lot of lonely people online.

  95. @Stealth

    I don’t disagree with you in general, except that Louisiana is now proposing legislation that would define abortion as homicide, and I believe that people who are alleged to have committed a homicide can be extradited from other states.

    So you could end up with kind of Dred Scott type situations, and remember that homicide has no statute of limitations

    I am perfectly happy to let each state make up its mind as to whether it will allow legal abortions within its borders, but I don’t think States should try to prevent people getting abortions out of state, or getting chemical abortions in the mail. If you don’t want abortions in your state, fine, but be reasonable and accept that not everybody agrees.

    The next thing will be that you can’t cross the state line to buy gasoline, because that is state tax evasion.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    , @Curle
    , @Curle
  96. Getaclue says:
    @ScarletNumber

    They don’t care–it’s all about the “Hate Whitey” Agenda 24/7

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  97. Getaclue says:
    @AndrewR

    ACLU is a case on point as to this-now that Lefties/Commies are in power they have dropped the “Free Speech” part–the fact is they never believed in it other than as a way to power–same with Jewish support of it in the past–just bs used for their projects/power grab-we are all seeing the truth now–F-em!

  98. “Jewish-Americans born a century ago tended to be free speech fundamentalists”

    The operative word here, is “tended.” And the question to be asked is, what happened? Why do Jewish-Americans born within the last half-century tend to be strongly anti-free speech fundamentalists? For the most part, they certainly aren’t as gung ho about supporting free speech in the public realm of ideas anymore.

  99. Anonymous[213] • Disclaimer says:
    @Spangel226

    It was an attempt by SJWs to do to video games what they had already done to comics, sci-fi/fantasy, cartoons, and every other popular form of YA entertainment: turn it into a platform to preach their ideology, even if this kills the product.

    It was unusual in that, unlike in these other cases, there was strong pushback by the fan base.

    The quarrel between the Quinn woman and her critics was just a pretext.

  100. Now, here’s another thing about free speech. Laws differ so much between jurisdictions.

    Here’s an example. A few years ago there was a prominent trial in England of a very well known soap opera actor named Michael Le Vell, who is or was an alcoholic.

    He was charged with raping a 6-year-old girl, who was about 13 or 14 at the time of the trial. He was found not guilty by the jury. Part of the reason for that was possibly that on medical examination the girl was found to be a virgo intacta.

    Now, under English law nobody is allowed to publicly name that girl. Ever. On pain of going to prison.

    I know the name of that girl who lied her ass off in court. I know the name of the girl’s mother. I know why they lied.

    Using Google plus deduction it was very easy to find out. And yet if I publish that name on Twitter, I could theoretically be sent to prison in the UK.

    No doubt there are thousands of laws all over the globe that make it illegal to publicly post certain information. So whatever kind of social media site do you have, you must have censorship or face breaking the law.

    If you want to find out the name of Le Vell’s accuser, you could probably do it in 10 minutes, but you can’t post it.

  101. Anon[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stealth

    “I’m on team red, but I cannot for the life of me understand my political tribe’s jihad against abortion.”

    Virtue signaling, mostly.

  102. jsm says:
    @Ned Pondry

    Because it’s not *about* protecting the little dyke’s sensitive feelings. It’s about PREVENTING any reasonable, normal, sensible people from hearing the very good arguments that the non-woke generate.

  103. @Undocumented Shopper

    That paragraph is so typical of Cathedral drivel, e.g.,: “Black women are disproportionately targeted, being 84 percent more likely than White women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets.”

    1. Who defines “problematic”? Anything can get slipped under that rug.

    2. How much do you want to bet that blacks are disproportionately the ones sending the “abusive or problematic” tweets to these women?

    3. Note that there is no attempt to control for the behavior of the of the person receiving the tweets, e.g., their tweeting behavior (do you think it’s conceivably possible that black women might be sending more provocative tweets?) or the people with whom they are connected (see point 2).

    You know, web properties have this crazy unheard-of thing called A/B tests, which you could use to reliably measure the causal effect of being black on receiving abusive tweets. Note they haven’t done that here.

    The argument presented in these studies is always of the form: “Here’s a bad thing that happens to some group. It must have just fallen on them like the rain, and if you ask about their role in this you’re a racist misogynist.”

    • Replies: @Undocumented Shopper
  104. “Jewish-Americans born a century ago tended to be free speech fundamentalists”

    Steve, every group that doesn’t have power is a free speech fundamentalist, an attitude they jettison if and when they achieve power. The Jews are exemplars par excellence.

  105. Thea says:
    @Anon

    Message boards, and Twitter, are going to attract far more females than males. It’s just the nature of the format. Musk has an intractable problem to untangle, Twitter needs men to post controversial and interesting content but many are bored by it. Women love to post but get their knickers in a twist often plus most people aren’t interested in what we say.

  106. As says:

    I don’t think Jewish people are in favor of free speech.

    It was just a tactic they welded when the left did not have cultural power.

    Is the aclu pro free speech? Is corporate media pro free speech?

    And they’ve always controlled what people are allowed to say about them. For example, they scream at people who are highly pro Jewish and who pay Jews compliments about their accomplishments. They also chastise people who use Holocaust analogies for anything not strictly Jewish related as a form of anti semitism, diminishing the unique suffering of the Jews.

    That said, Indians are terrible in politics.

  107. @AnotherDad

    I refer you to John Knox’s excellently titled little piece
    “The First Blast of The Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women”.
    Still available on Amazon.
    and, of course, Aristophanes’ “Assemblywomen”.

  108. Anonymous[126] • Disclaimer says:

    “South Asians in the U.S. are often compared to Jews, another articulate group”

    The Ashkenazi and east Indians have a lot of similarities: strong verbal skills, a long history of endogamy, an overwhelming leftist political orientation (at least in their diasporas), with many seemingly afflicted with an inborn superiority complex.

    But unlike the Ashkenazi who number maybe 12 million worldwide, high caste Hindus are likely many times that number (remember India’s huge 1.2 billion population; even if only 5% are high caste Hindus we’re talking ~60 million people). The Ashkenazi also lived alongside gentile Europeans for over 1,000 years, adsorbing many of their genes (at least during their founder period), so for better or worse they are part of the package deal when it comes to the modern European population demographics. Most of them also immigrated here prior to 1947 when they were technically a stateless people.

    However the same however cannot be said of high caste Hindus who have the whole India subcontinent for themselves. If it happens to be a overpopulated Third World sh1thole, that’s not my problem or fault or the problem/fault of any other white Westerners. Mass Indian immigration should be shut down post haste and all these “temporary” H1B visa holders repatriated. If a subset of the few million verbally slick Askenazis can pose such a challenge to the West, imagine what high caste Hindus (who are likely many times their number) can do.

  109. @Jonathan Mason

    Both Scalia and Ruthie G said that Roe versus Wade was wrongly decided.

  110. @Stealth

    I’m on team red, but I cannot for the life of me understand my political tribe’s jihad against abortion.

    It’s complicated. On the one hand, it’s arguably bad parents removing themselves and their bad kids from the gene pool, as should have happened here:

    https://nypost.com/2022/04/28/father-of-lily-peters-accused-teen-killer-is-convicted-pedophile/

    On the other hand, it’s deeply misanthropic and degrading to the larger culture. I don’t know if it’s ultimately dysgenic or eugenic.

  111. @anonymous

    “They seem to be kinda the opposite of thevleggy [sic] scandinavian [sic] blonde with well-defined face and shapely tight butt.”

    You’re in the wrong chat room.

    • LOL: Old Prude
  112. @Getaclue

    “it’s all about the ‘Hate Whitey’ Agenda 24/7”

    I don’t get it. Whitey is so accommodating and good looking. We’re great. I’m starting to think the peoples of colour are jerks.

  113. Censors get paid \$16 million per year?

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  114. @Thea

    “Women love to post but get their knickers in a twist often plus most people aren’t interested in what we say.”

    People would become interested in what you guys say if you became interested in interesting things.

    • Replies: @Thea
  115. @GeologyAnonMk5

    Yeah, they’re flagrantly breaching their fiduciary duties. They’re are at least 100,000 lawyers who would do this job better — including the partisan censorship — for less than 5% of \$16 million.

  116. @Anonymous

    Was Theodoro Adorno Jewish?

    Not halachically. His father was Jewish (converted to Christianity), His mother was Italian Catholic.

  117. @Anonymous

    Sidney Hook’s rules for democratic discourse:

    Also a Jew.

  118. Arclight says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    Yes, but as iSteve readers know, if you are black and got into Harvard it’s almost certain it wasn’t on intellectual merit. Reid is a perfect archetype of the human that prog policies seek to elevate despite regularly demonstrating they don’t really have the intellectual firepower to earn their position on even partial merit.

  119. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    I agree with your comment. This makes what Amy Wax said VERY INTRIGUING , she was extra critical of Brahmin women specifically (as opposes to all Indians in general).

  120. @Recently Based

    2. How much do you want to bet that blacks are disproportionately the ones sending the “abusive or problematic” tweets to these women?

    I don’t know about black women, but white women have complained in my presence about women being much more meaner to each other than the men are. So it is likely that women (black or any other race) are overrepresented among those who criticize black women.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  121. @Ben tillman

    Censors get paid \$16 million per year?

    I would have thought that’s the first thing they would censor.

  122. Thea says:
    @SunBakedSuburb

    I’m sure you’re right but like the scorpion and the frog, it’s just our nature.

    Hmm, I should probably shut up now

  123. @Jim Don Bob

    And Laurence Tribe and Benjamin Wittes and Cassie Sunstein and a lot of other left-wing lawyers.

  124. Goodluck Libs freedom of speech is your worst enema..or enemy…November is now!

  125. According to Washington Post writer Pranshu Verma, Michael Kleinman is “an expert on Twitter harassment”, and Joan Donovan is “a disinformation scholar”.
    I wonder how Mr. Verma came to this conclusion about their expertise and scholarship. How might I acquires these same qualifications?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  126. @Stealth

    Agree w/ ya. As for the abortion obsession, I think the pro-life movement has taken on a mystic, sacramental quality over the years. It’s also one of the few issues modern Christians are permitted by clergy to aggressively crusade for, and since they are pretty hapless and ineffectual in addressing other social-cultural issues, A LOT of energy gets directed towards abortion. The drama of it all might even be indirectly boosting church attendance.

  127. J.Ross says:
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Apparently being a “highly recommended disinformation expert” requires actively spreading easily debunked misinformation and posting tiktok videos singing about being “evil.”

  128. @Thea

    Believe it or not, Twitter is one of the few social media sites that has more male users than female users. Reddit is likely more male than Twitter but it is also more heavily controlled (with far fewer controversial discussions on their most popular message boards) due to weirdo, draconian moderators, many of whom are transgenders. Twitter could be worse.

  129. @Jonathan Mason

    Thanks, that was a great answer! I should have figured that out myself. But I didn’t, so thanks again. Maybe what makes it a little counterintuitive is that unlike Facebook, where you follow (“friend”) people you like, on Twitter I need to follow people I don’t like (but wish to irritate).

    Now the difficult decision of whether I want to burn up multiple hours a day on this obviously addictive activity.

  130. hyper Anglo-American first names: Irving

    Irving comes from Gaelic. It’s a variation of Irvine.

    Uikipeid: Irbhinn

    American story story writer Washington Irving

    Here is a fun, translacunar reversal:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Washington

    It’s noteworthy how often people with names like Pranshu Verma are contemptuous of Anglo-American traditions such as free speech.

    Pranshu Verma = Parvenus harm.

    …one of the most important people in the story of Twitter’s shift to Musk is Vijaya Gadde.

    Vijaya Gadde = Add a gay jive.

  131. @International Jew

    Before Twitter banned me, I only followed people I liked (or people who wrote interesting things, even if I didn’t find it explicitly likeable), but still, generally in the replies, I found people I felt obliged to argue with. I somewhat followed Steve’s rule of only commenting if I had something new, funny, and—given Twitter’s constraints—pithy to say, and I was never uncivil or offensive, yet Twitter banned me anyway for logically humiliating one too many self-appointed guardians of The Narrative.

    And yeah, it was kind of addictive. There are, or at least were, some funny/interesting/witty tweeters out there once you hook yourself into the right streams.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  132. SFG says:
    @JimDandy

    That’s exactly the problem. I saw one by Pew claiming slightly more than the average Jewish support for restrictions on speech and one by Epigone using the GSS claiming slightly less, but I can’t find them now.

    • Agree: JimDandy
  133. The Craw says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    “Evidently, she went to Harvard.”

    Where, according to Wikipedia, she majored in Film Study.

  134. Jon says:
    @Spangel226

    Any explanation of GamerGate should include a link to Depression Quest, the “video game” that kicked the whole thing off. It’s basaically a choose-your-own adventure book, but posted on a website. The whole schtick is that, because it is about depression, the best choices to make at each fork in the story are usually crossed out as usable options because … you are too depressed to choose them. See here: http://www.depressionquest.com/dqfinal.html#2n.1e.4s

    Calling it a video game at all is a stretch, so it’s not surprising that giving it a good review blew the lid off corruption in gaming journalsim.

    • Replies: @AKAHorace
  135. @Almost Missouri

    I’d like it if I could filter out retweets. That is, I’m interested in what certain people actually have to say, but less interested in the second-order stuff.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  136. “…The future of the moderation systems the company has painstakingly engineered for decades is uncertain…”

    Good. The moderation systems are in hands of silly, vengeful ninnies, who’ve painfully engineered a threat-analysis process of painstaking stupidity.

  137. @Mike Tre

    This is correct. Jews favored free speech when they were on the margins busily undermining and overthrowing Western civilization. Now that they are firmly in the driver’s seat (just look at Biden’s cabinet) they’ve already tacked their sails.

    Herbert Marcuse of Frankfurt school fame laid it out in the 60s with his oxymoronic “Repressive Tolerance”. In his future utopia, any “Fascists” (as defined by him and his minions) would be denied all rights to speak, assemble, or even breathe.

    https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html

  138. Kylie says:

    “People would become interested in what you guys[women]say if you became interested in interesting things.”

    Women generally seem interested mainly, often even exclusively, in the personal. This is understandable as a biology imperative but that doesn’t make them any more interesting. Thus, so often I see women online saying they just love some piece of music (usually a love song) because “It was playing the night my husband proposed to me and we’ve been married nineteen years!”. Very nice but what about the music?

    They also have a fondness for rom-coms, the most vacuous of all genres. Why not the films of John Ford instead? Many if not most of his films are all about the importance of women to their families and their communities. This is why he filmed plain women like Jane Darnell and Mildred Natwick to make them look luminous, showing the inner beauty behind the plain faces. But no, Ford’s movies are only westerns and we all know how the vast majority of women feel about them.

    In short, most women seem interested only in what very directly and explicitly affects them. It’s such a big world and there’s so much of interest in it. The only time I’m ever bored is when…!

  139. @Jim Don Bob

    Both Scalia and Ruthie G said that Roe versus Wade was wrongly decided.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that Roe versus Wade should have been based not on the right to privacy, but on the right to equality.

    This was exemplified by a case in which a female Air Force officer in Vietnam was told that she could either have an abortion or she should leave the force.

    The woman in question wanted to use her accumulated leave time to deliver the baby, and then have the baby adopted. (What-ever!).

    Bader Ginsburg argued that this was unfair discrimination against a woman, because the same ultimatum could not be issued to a man.

    It seems to me that whether you regard it as a matter of privacy, or sex discrimination, or some other constitutional right, this is not a very good way of looking at a practical issue.

    Lots of other countries around the world have various kinds of abortion laws without trying to underpin it with some kind of theoretical human right.

    It would be far better if the nutcases and squabbling jabberheads in Congress could crack their heads together and come up with a reasonable abortion law–one that would allow first trimester chemical and surgical abortions fairly freely, but make much more rigorous demands for later term abortions.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  140. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:
    @Undocumented Shopper

    I wonder if a contributing factor to the hysteria against men, in general, is the fact that they cannot openly say this about other women. Misdirected anger, IOW.

  141. Free speech is for everyone. You can choose what you want to listen to and that is the point. Even so called hate speech needs to be included under free speech. Hate speech is not to be defined by the government or anyone else in a free society. The left has defined Conservative speech as hate speech in order to suppress knowledge of Conservative ideology and protect their failed and abusive socialist control freak totalitarian ideology. My parents taught me a simple remedy for hate speech, “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me” That doesn’t need legislation unless you are a snowflake or are looking to define hate speech to suit your own purposes. We already have laws against making terroristic threats of violence, inciting riot or endangering the public by shouting fire when there is none. Free Speech is the building block, the foundation stone of a free and civil society and should be celebrated for whatever it reveals.

  142. @Travis

    I certainly do not trust Musk to be a friend of free speech….but agree that blacklisting conservatives and anyone who questions the narrative is hurting the potential earnings of Twitter. So Musk would be smart to end the Blacklisting of conservatives to increase revenues. Banning Trump from Twitter was a foolish business decision.

  143. @Patrick in SC

    The robots are getting upgraded or the humans are getting degraded.

  144. @Altai

    Yes. And it can keep on happening more often and in more places and these people on the top know it is only a matter of time before they are homeless bums if they didn’t find an honest financial manager.

    See Charles Barkley and any number of guys who once were zillionaires and now they have to work.

  145. @ex-banker

    Too lazy to look it up, but I believe that someone showed that by far the greatest abuse of Blacks on twitter is by other Blacks. There is that word they like to call each other, for example. I suspect that if you control out intra-racial abuse the disparity becomes trivial.

  146. Calling her out could have a chilling effect on her censorship policies for which she gets paid \$16 million per year!

    I say:

    Call me out and chill my beer, and give me \$16 million a year.

    Musk Must Go To Middlebury, Vermont, And Deliver His Pro-FREE SPEECH Manifesto.

    Musk should purchase two Abrams tanks made in Lima, Ohio, for protection against the ruffian types who hounded and harassed and attacked Charles Murray in Middlebury, and Musk should bring Charles Murray along for fun. Murray can monitor the ruffians from inside the tank and radio for clearance to engage the ruffians if they start to get unruly.

    The ruffians should be told that if they behave, they’ll get copious amounts of FREE BEER from Otter Creek Brewing Company, which is conveniently located in Middlebury, Vermont, along with that school.

    Musk should buy Otter Creek Brewing Company and provide FREE BEER with his pledge to restore more FREE SPEECH to Twitter.

    Musk made some crack about the Freemasons having trouble because they gave away their skills for free, but FREE SPEECH and FREE BEER go together like a horse and carriage as far as I can tell.

    George Washington and Andrew Jackson were Freemasons, so that’s a good sign.

  147. vinteuil says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    What Frankfurt School ideas and works destroyed America?

    James Lindsay’s “New Discourses” channel on YouTube has been, and keeps on, covering this question in endless detail.

    You’ve never read their works

    I have. I spent endless hours on Adorno.

    Every hour wasted. He was an evil freak who couldn’t write for shit. The world would be a better place if he’d been strangled at birth.

  148. AKAHorace says:
    @Jon

    Any explanation of GamerGate should include a link to Depression Quest, the “video game” that kicked the whole thing off. It’s basaically a choose-your-own adventure book, but posted on a website.
    ………………
    Calling it a video game at all is a stretch, so it’s not surprising that giving it a good review blew the lid off corruption in gaming journalsim.

    To be fair, on it’s own terms a it is success. After five minutes playing it I was pretty depressed and pessimistic about my life.

  149. MEH 0910 says:


    [MORE]

  150. @International Jew

    filter out retweets

    Good idea for a future Elon-ized Twitter, but I don’t think it can do it now.

    The smart way to do Twitter is probably via some intermediate software that provides things like retweet filters, and incidentally preserves your content and relationships when Twitter inevitably bans you for unauthorized dissent.

    A lot of intermediary apps exist, but I never took the time to figure them out.

  151. Anonymous[438] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew

    Now the difficult decision of whether I want to burn up multiple hours a day on this obviously addictive activity.

    Therein lies the problem: the social media companies spend a lot of time making their sites as addictive as possible.

    Remember the old experiments where animals were taught to activate a lever of some kind to get food? Social media works in much the same way, but with your brain: every post you read/write is designed to give you a brief dopamine hit. After a while, spending hours a day on social media just seems like the thing to do because you, the user, are no longer thinking, but reacting.

    There are entire careers built on attracting people to social media sites and keeping them there. If you have ever wondered why people feel compelled to set their smartphones to alert them to the latest bit of trivia or fake news from their favourite social media site, it’s because the site employs entire armies of people to make using their platforms as addictive an experience as possible.

    The whole thing is quite insidious, really. I can see why Elon Musk is so keen on Twitter: there is no need to build anything, or consume huge amounts of costly electricity the way Tesla must if it wants to have a product to sell. How much easier to have you, the user, as the product the way Twitter does.

    Twitter is an ideal pastime for neurotic, compulsive people, an ever-growing demographic in the America of 2022. Very much like pulling a slot machine lever in Las Vegas hour after hour.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  152. @Jonathan Mason

    It would be far better if the nutcases and squabbling jabberheads in Congress could crack their heads together and come up with a reasonable abortion law–one that would allow first trimester chemical and surgical abortions fairly freely, but make much more rigorous demands for later term abortions.

    Many Congress critters, especially Rs, don’t want to have to, you know, actually take a stand on abortion and vote one way of the other. They have been able to say for years, “You know, I am staunchly pro-life, but the SC has spoken and my hands are tied. Now, where’s my pro-life check?”

  153. @Emil Nikola Richard

    What happened to Barkley? I thought he liked doing his shtick in public.

  154. @Emil Nikola Richard

    He is working for a corporation for a salary.

    His agent totally ripped off his NBA millions and now he has to work for a corporation and a salary. 40 hours a week. 4 weeks paid vacation per year.

    On the bright side he is now a far wiser fellow.

  155. @Bill H.

    All that Twitter needs is an ability not just to block people who disagree with you, but to subscribe to other people’s lists of vlocked users.

  156. Curle says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    “Already some of the more atavistic swampy States are planning to introduce laws that would not only ban abortions, but also seek extra territorial powers to prevent their residents from obtaining abortions outside the state.”

    Ah yes, back to those pre-Roe years where girls getting abortions in other states were routinely arrested and extradited. It’s almost as if we don’t have an historic example to turn to for reference.

  157. Curle says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    “So you could end up with kind of Dred Scott type situations, and remember that homicide has no statute of limitations”

    You mean a contrived legal controversy set up not by real party opponents but by collaborators? Just like Dred Scott.

  158. @Anonymous

    Thanks to what you just said, I’ve uninstalled the Twitter app from my phone. Inevitably, I’ll view tweets when they’re embedded (for example in comments here), but hopefully I’ll avoid getting sucked all the way in.

  159. Tucker says:

    Nicholas Stix really stepped in a gigantic pile of Kosher manure, in his chutzpathetic denial of the role the jewish infested Frankfurt School has played in the on-going, malicious, pre-meditated with malice aforethought, subversion and degeneration of traditional White Western Christian civilization both here in America, and around the world in literally every other historic White Christian nation.

    Stix has probably never bothered to read the excellent works of Professor Kevin MacDonald – with his excellent dissection of the incredibly negative effects that jewish Cultural Marxism has had on America, in his best book – Culture of Critique.

    As for the on-going, now openly declared war on our First Amendment right to free speech – using such diabolically evil and tyrannical, fabricated concepts such as ‘hate speech’ – it is a verifiable fact that the ADL of B’Nai B’rith has managed to impose anti-free speech, ‘so-called hate speech’ laws on over 15 historic White European nations and they are the #1 most aggressive and subversive organization here in America, pushing to get our corrupt and compromised politicians to bestow upon the jewish ADL the power to be the ultimate arbiters of how our 1st Amendment is defined and interpreted. In essence, jews in the ADL want to be given police state power over the First Amendment and be able to fine or imprison Americans who voice opinions on any topic that the jews do not like.

    Legitimate criticism of jews, based solely on their efforts to undermine and subvert and erase our God-Given, Sacred rights as guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is at the very top of their list of what they want to make illegal.

    Is there any better definition of a group of people who seem to be genetically programmed, i.e., hardwired, to impose tyranny and totalitarianism upon any nation that makes the mistake of allowing them to seize unchecked, unaccountable, political power and influence?

  160. vinteuil says:
    @Mr. Anon

    No reply from Nicholas Stix after 3 days.

    Sigh.

  161. vinteuil says:
    @Mr. Anon

    monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo

  162. MEH 0910 says:

    Pranks Destroy Scam Callers- GlitterBomb Payback

    May 8, 2022

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism