My bad Juan, Im fucked. On Sat, Mar 24, 2018, 11:17 PM juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 13:07:15 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:09:54PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:57:40 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your suggestions as to recourse?
No point in talking to people who do not listen. LIKE YOU.
So when you let me know that you actually read and thought abpit what I wrote to you, I might continue.
I think grarpamp reactively missed your apropos rhetoric "Your recourse against scum like metzger or any other censor is...what...use a FREE channel?" - perhaps since you emboldened the word "FREE" and so he missed that you were NOT doing reverse psychology and simply pointing out the obvious irony that now he's using a free (uncensored) comms channel.
Yes, maybe he missed that point. It's actually a rather 'technical' and factual issue.
We know there's censorship in metzger's list because that information can be freely communicated here. But if we follow the 'logic' of 'private' censorship, and all media are controlled by the alleged 'owners' then we would never know about censorship or about being in the matrix...
Likewise, arguments with censors are meaningless since the censors can control what their opponents say.
Which is in fact the solution, and yes, which grarpamp seems to be missing - The Ministry's programming is so powerful, that even "logical" thinkers like grarpamp miss the obvious (I'm guessing he still wants censorship, does not want the responsibility of being a censor himself, so wants someone else to do the censoring, but wants them to censor in just the way he wants the censoring to be so censored - namely, that he personally does not get censored).
If you listen to fake libertarians they love to rant about how there's only 'property rights' and hence no free speech.
It's a sophism that's convenient for lazy people. If you own your house, then people in your house can only say what you want to hear. LOLWUT. Oh yes, because "your house, your rules" again, lolwut.
It's just conservative garbage, but people have been brainwashed into believing it's a 'sound argument'. When in reality, it is technically a non-sequitur.
From "house ownership" it doesn't follow "you have the right to dictate what people in your house say"
Just like, if someone is standing in your lawn and tresspasing, it doesn't follow that you have the right to execute him in 'self defense'. etc.
Yes, it is hilarious.
Grarpamp could start a brissdowner fork, with his royal self the censor to show how censorship should REALLY be done - He only needs a great title to give authority to His Royal Self so the plebes bow low, massa, very low!
How about
Grarpamp, Royal Hilarion of Sublime Censorship