Happy Atheist Forum

General => Politics => Topic started by: Recusant on June 08, 2020, 06:36:25 PM

Title: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 08, 2020, 06:36:25 PM
I considered mentioning this topic in the George Floyd thread, where a particular person got some attention. Swiftly discarding that notion, I'm starting a new thread.

I know that some here have expressed positive sentiments regarding Candace Owens, who has successfully got herself into the public eye as a proponent of American political conservatism. She's run afoul of GoFundMe's Terms of Service, and has been suspended--she can no longer use the platform to raise money.

I thought we might discuss this, but also wanted to open up the wider topic, as seen in the thread title. I've followed the public face of this for a while, and what I've seen for the most part is people who've definitely violated ToS agreements being subject to the consequences.

There is a gray area, in which social media platforms label something as "hate speech" on their own definition, but often the offence is less ambiguous: People lose their privileges on the platform for spreading misinformation, or advocating for/inciting violence.

Back to the present instance:

"GoFundMe Suspends Candace Owens After She Trashes George Floyd" | Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/gofundme-suspends-candace-owens-after-she-repeatedly-trashes-george-floyd?ref=home)

Quote
GoFundMe suspended pro-Trump personality Candace Owens from its fundraising platform on Sunday, after Owens raised more than $200,000 on the site for an Alabama cafe whose owner called George Floyd a “thug.”

Owens has become one of the right’s most prominent critics of Floyd and the protests held after his killing, with one video she made highlighting his criminal record going viral on Facebook. Those same remarks appear to have prompted GoFundMe to ban Owens. She later repeated the same attacks on Floyd during a chat with right-wing star Glenn Beck, and that video was then boosted (https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-retweets-glenn-beck-and-candace-owens-trashing-george-floyd) by President Donald Trump.

In a statement, GoFundMe said that Owens, who is black, had spread “falsehoods against the black community.”

“GoFundMe has suspended the account associated with Candace Owens and the GoFundMe campaign has been removed because of a repeated pattern of inflammatory statements that spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods against the black community at a time of profound national crisis,” the fundraising platform said in a statement. “These actions violate our terms of service.”

[Continues . . . (https://www.thedailybeast.com/gofundme-suspends-candace-owens-after-she-repeatedly-trashes-george-floyd)]
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 08, 2020, 07:53:05 PM
I must admit that admire people like Candance Owen, because she doesn't take the liberal narratives for granted. Even though I don't agree with her on a lot of things, I find it very refreshing to hear her different opinions. So far I haven't caught her lying or invoking hate. Yes, perhaps she should have been more "sensitive" regarding George Floyd, but she was right in saying that Floyd wasn't a saint.

I think that we should make it very clear what hate speech is and what is not. Is it something real, like telling people to murder other people because you hate them for a particular reason. Or should we also include speech that might hurt the feelings of other people. Problem with the latter one is that it is practically impossible to have a discussion on social media that doesn't makes someone feel uncomfortable. I ran into these kind of problems myself, because Dutchmen like me are very direct, often snarky and we score very low on the SJW scale. I try to do better than that, but it is hard and sometimes it just feels great to rattle someone's cage (if he/she is annoying).
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 08, 2020, 09:57:15 PM
I agree that it's good to maintain a skeptical approach to liberal narratives. It's a different kettle of fish to promote an alternative narrative that fails to address facts, distorts the facts, or uses outright falsehoods.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: No one on June 09, 2020, 03:08:01 AM
Have you met any humans?
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 09, 2020, 05:12:11 AM
I agree that it's good to maintain a skeptical approach to liberal narratives. It's a different kettle of fish to promote an alternative narrative that fails to address facts, distorts the facts, or uses outright falsehoods.

But that have politicians and the media been doing for ages.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 09, 2020, 04:30:26 PM
Is it censorship when a platform ejects a person who engages in such dishonesty?

Are we expected to just assume that everybody is lying?

Should we defend and excuse those who are lying that happen to be promoting a narrative we find acceptable?

We could get into selective enforcement. First, evidence of such selective enforcement needs to be shown. There's more to it than showing that a particular political element runs afoul of user agreements more often than others. That may be selective enforcement, or it may be that those who make themselves the public face of a particular political element tend to be more willing to play fast and loose with the facts.

Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on June 09, 2020, 04:42:48 PM
Well, tinfoil hat stuff aside, if people break the rules of a private company's service, and they get removed from that service for it, it's not a big deal.

As far has places calling things in the gray area "hate speech", I think they're trying to be safe by erring on the side of not allowing hate speech. It's their platform, I don't see much abuse, so I don't have a problem with it.

Candice Owens did lie and distort the truth, I don't know specifically about the GoFundMe because I didn't see it, but I have heard her lie and distort many time.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: billy rubin on June 09, 2020, 05:57:33 PM
Is it censorship when a platform ejects a person who engages in such dishonesty?

Are we expected to just assume that everybody is lying?

Should we defend and excuse those who are lying that happen to be promoting a narrative we find acceptable?

We could get into selective enforcement. First, evidence of such selective enforcement needs to be shown. There's more to it than showing that a particular political element runs afoul of user agreements more often than others. That may be selective enforcement, or it may be that those who make themselves the public face of a particular political element tend to be more willing to play fast and loose with the facts.

who decides who shall be the arbiter of truth? after that, how do they determine what truth is?

ordinary human speech has always been full of lies, half-truths, and dissembling, and we accept it as the grease that keeps society civil.

facebook regards itself as a neutral billboard, and the content people post as outside its responsibility. but its users treat it as journalism, and get their news from it. should it re-define itself under that model? twitter did, when it decided that it had a responsibility to flag certain opinions.

who decides what opinions merit fact checks and blocking? any private enterprise is beholden to no one but itself when it comes to deciding what points of view to censor. in america, freedom of speech is a right only with respect to interference from government. as a citizeni am free to say anything i want that isn't a direct threat to public safety and skirts slander and libel laws.

not a simple question.

Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 09, 2020, 09:22:31 PM
Should it choose to do so, the platform is the arbiter of truth as pertaining to content its users post. Secondly, online communications are generally in the form of text or images; not the same as ordinary human speech. Text and images posted online allow scrutiny in ways that ordinary human speech does not.

It doesn't seem to me that the issue is platforms' varying approaches to content. The question here regards the repeated, ongoing assertion that there is bias against conservatives across multiple platforms.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: billy rubin on June 09, 2020, 11:44:41 PM
there is definitely bias against certain sides of various issues. i listen to public radio hours per day as i drive a truck, and when i can get past being annoyed that everybody answering a question has to begin their answer with "so . . . " i nbotice implicit bias in how things are worded. american public radio has a definite liberal bias.

one good public radio example is abortion. i frequently hear abortion issues introduced as a question of "women's health." whatever your position on abortion, pregnancy is not a health hazard for most people. couching the question in those terms phrases the discussion in a way that the issue itself does not project.

there are various other routine biases that i hear from reporters in their stories that catch my attention but that i cannot remember because i note them, discount them, and forget them.

in general, there is certainly bias against conservatives in liberal mainstream media. and there is bias agaionst liberals in conservative mainstream media. i scan a variety of news sources during my day, and i see each side slant the news to advance the program of its editorial position.

but i do not see a concerted bias against conservatives unless you purposely avoid certain sources. if all you look at is conservative news, then anything that occasionally intrudes through the bubble will stand out.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 10, 2020, 12:36:07 AM
"Women's health" is accurate, and it seems obvious to me that it's chosen for its neutrality. Pregnancy may not be a health hazard for the majority of women these days, but it is a very important aspect of health care for women. Choices regarding abortion are legitimately made by a woman in consultation with her doctor, and other aspects of the woman's overall physical and mental health bear on the decisions she makes about her body.

What would your choice be for a less "liberal biased" terminology here?

In any case, while bias against conservatives in left of center mass media outlets might be a legitimate line of discussion, the question here relates to the repeated claims that supposedly neutral social media platforms have a bias against conservatives, and that conservative voices are being censored unfairly by those social media platforms.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Dark Lightning on June 10, 2020, 01:52:10 AM
It's a bit of fresh air to see people have a rational discussion about the hot-button issues that I see around other sites where it just devolves into a lot of nastiness! I personally don't have a lot of experience with argumentation, and seldom indulge due to the vitriolic nature of the disagreements. I spent the majority of my life doing extremely technical endeavors. That, and raising a family left me little time to indulge in political discussions. I'm enjoying this discussion! I'll not contribute much, though, because I have little experience in this area of political discourse. I am, however, learning quite a bit.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Randy on June 10, 2020, 02:34:53 AM
I've never been one to follow politics much. I'd listen to what the candidates said and voted accordingly. My brother, on the other hand, will argue for the sake of arguing. He's well informed from the conservative side (Rush Limbaugh, etc.) He's rational about other things but I think he takes the spewing verbatim.

He may have changed in the past three years, I don't know. I'm not up for debates anymore. It is taxing.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: billy rubin on June 10, 2020, 03:15:44 AM
What would your choice be for a less "liberal biased" terminology here?

i dont see a medical issue here at all for most situations. i think referring to abortion as a health procedure is inaccurate until we're talking about a diagnosable health risk, rather than an elective end to pregnancy. if a woman has a real health risk with a continuing pregnancy, and they do occur, then the health issue is obvious. if she is ending a pregnancy for any reason other than a health hazard, then its not a health issue, as i see it.

i would refer to abortion as abortion. whether a woman wants to be pregnant or not is up to the woman who is facing the decision. its her choice as to what happens within her body. no further justification is necessary for her to have access to the procedure..

Quote
In any case, while bias against conservatives in left of center mass media outlets might be a legitimate line of discussion, the question here relates to the repeated claims that supposedly neutral social media platforms have a bias against conservatives, and that conservative voices are being censored unfairly by those social media platforms.

i don't see that in the united states.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: billy rubin on June 10, 2020, 03:23:14 AM
It's a bit of fresh air to see people have a rational discussion about the hot-button issues that I see around other sites where it just devolves into a lot of nastiness! I personally don't have a lot of experience with argumentation, and seldom indulge due to the vitriolic nature of the disagreements. I spent the majority of my life doing extremely technical endeavors. That, and raising a family left me little time to indulge in political discussions. I'm enjoying this discussion! I'll not contribute much, though, because I have little experience in this area of political discourse. I am, however, learning quite a bit.

this sort of thing is how i make up my mind about stuff.

i'm very opinionated about certain subjects, usually those that i think i know a lot about. on the rest, i have opinions, but i'll change them if someone presents a decent reason.

i've had major paradigm shifts in my thinking when someone pointed out that i had my head up my ass.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Dark Lightning on June 10, 2020, 05:28:30 AM
I've never been one to follow politics much. I'd listen to what the candidates said and voted accordingly. My brother, on the other hand, will argue for the sake of arguing. He's well informed from the conservative side (Rush Limbaugh, etc.) He's rational about other things but I think he takes the spewing verbatim.

He may have changed in the past three years, I don't know. I'm not up for debates anymore. It is taxing.

One of my younger brothers was listening to Rush one time when I was visiting, and Rush was spouting off about Obama's "Totalitarian Regime". People actually believe Rush when he says this crap- I know some people in my carving class at the senior center who quote him. Damn.  :???:
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Randy on June 10, 2020, 02:25:17 PM
I've never been one to follow politics much. I'd listen to what the candidates said and voted accordingly. My brother, on the other hand, will argue for the sake of arguing. He's well informed from the conservative side (Rush Limbaugh, etc.) He's rational about other things but I think he takes the spewing verbatim.

He may have changed in the past three years, I don't know. I'm not up for debates anymore. It is taxing.

One of my younger brothers was listening to Rush one time when I was visiting, and Rush was spouting off about Obama's "Totalitarian Regime". People actually believe Rush when he says this crap- I know some people in my carving class at the senior center who quote him. Damn.  :???:
I haven't heard him quote Rush but there was a time when he grew a vegetable garden because Bill Clinton was going to ruin the economy or some such nonsense.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 10, 2020, 06:31:13 PM
I think that Rowan Atkinson summarises very good in this video, why free speech is so important and why it is bad to censor it.

Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Old Seer on June 11, 2020, 03:00:46 PM
I have a hunch that if Owens would have accused Trump of being a thug there would have been no consequences from Go Fund Me floks.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Dark Lightning on June 11, 2020, 03:06:52 PM
I have a hunch that if Owens would have accused Trump of being a thug there would have been no consequences from Go Fund Me floks.

She wouldn't be wrong, as that's not a lie.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Old Seer on June 11, 2020, 03:21:11 PM
I have a hunch that if Owens would have accused Trump of being a thug there would have been no consequences from Go Fund Me floks.

She wouldn't be wrong, as that's not a lie.
As Compared to?
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 11, 2020, 05:00:46 PM
Candance Owens started a GoFundMe account to raise  money for an Alabama Bar that was vandalized during the riots. A co-owner of that bar called George Floyd a thug but later apologized for his remark. Candance Owens herself said that George Floyd should not be used as a martyr figure, due to his criminal history.

In a statement to justify Owen's account suspension, GoFundMe said, Owens "spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods against the black community.". This is top quality, virtue signalling, anti-conservative BS .
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Dark Lightning on June 11, 2020, 05:43:13 PM
I have a hunch that if Owens would have accused Trump of being a thug there would have been no consequences from Go Fund Me floks.

She wouldn't be wrong, as that's not a lie.
As Compared to?

I don't understand your question.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Old Seer on June 11, 2020, 06:26:00 PM
I have a hunch that if Owens would have accused Trump of being a thug there would have been no consequences from Go Fund Me floks.

She wouldn't be wrong, as that's not a lie.
As Compared to?

I don't understand your question.
As compared to, who other would one want for president.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 12, 2020, 05:52:25 AM
The lack of details in the statement from GoFundMe is suspicious to me. It doesn't necessarily follow that their accusation is baseless. I'd have to research the claims she's made on the topic to come to a definite conclusion.

To be plain, I suspect that there may be some basis for GoFundMe's action. Candace Owens is not known for scrupulous honesty, nor for impeccable research. She's a polemicist, not an academic, and studied journalism (but didn't bother to complete her degree). In this post I'm not going to dredge up questionable things she's said in the past, but will look at something she wrote earlier today.

Quote
According to its website Black Lives Matter, Inc is NOT a charity. It is a full-fledged corporation that does NOT have any locations. Can anyone tell me then where the hundreds of millions BLM has raised goes? Can anyone tell me in what state BLM was incorporated & by who?

-- Candace Owens 1:52 PM · Jun 11, 2020 (https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1271062636315193346)

This is inaccurate. Nowhere on their website does it say that Black Lives Matter Foundation "is NOT a charity." That's because it is a nonprofit corporation. In colloquial terms it is indeed a charity. As with similar nonprofit organizations, it's registered as such with the government, and taxpayers may make tax-deductible donations to it.

The conservative/libertarian oriented Capital Research Center's Influence Watch site, which keeps track of "various influencers of public policy issues," has an entry for the Black Lives Matter Foundation (https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/black-lives-matter-foundation/). (So does the charity watch site GuideStar, but you need to create a free account there to look at their information.)

It tells us that the foundation is what is known as a 501(c)(3) organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29%283%29_organization).

In addition, it tells us that the foundation's registered address is in Canyon Country (Santa Clarita), California.

This is an example of "just asking questions." Owens knows full well that her audience will jump on this and believe that the foundation is doing something nefarious with its donations. In this tweet, she's tying in to some rubbish that InfoWars published a couple of days ago, in which it is claimed that the foundation is in fact laundering money for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), specifically donations from outside the US, which it would be illegal for the DNC to accept.

501(c)(3) organizations are required to file returns with the US Internal Revenue Service, and those returns are open to public scrutiny. Income and expenditures are detailed in such returns.

Owens is implying that there is some rather serious malfeasance on the part of the Black Lives Matter Foundation, and asking questions that I think she could easily have answered herself, if she wanted to. Of the three statements of fact that she makes in the tweet, two are false. Call me biased, but I think she's taking a dishonest approach here.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on June 12, 2020, 04:00:26 PM
Candance Owens started a GoFundMe account to raise  money for an Alabama Bar that was vandalized during the riots. A co-owner of that bar called George Floyd a thug but later apologized for his remark. Candance Owens herself said that George Floyd should not be used as a martyr figure, due to his criminal history.

In a statement to justify Owen's account suspension, GoFundMe said, Owens "spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods against the black community.". This is top quality, virtue signalling, anti-conservative BS .
Why is it "conservative" to spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods? And why is bad to oppose that?
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 12, 2020, 05:04:27 PM
Candance Owens started a GoFundMe account to raise  money for an Alabama Bar that was vandalized during the riots. A co-owner of that bar called George Floyd a thug but later apologized for his remark. Candance Owens herself said that George Floyd should not be used as a martyr figure, due to his criminal history.

In a statement to justify Owen's account suspension, GoFundMe said, Owens "spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods against the black community.". This is top quality, virtue signalling, anti-conservative BS .
Why is it "conservative" to spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods? And why is bad to oppose that?

Well, did she spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods? So far, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence for it. Please show me some real examples that she is as evil as GoFundMe claims her to be.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on June 12, 2020, 05:26:42 PM
Candance Owens started a GoFundMe account to raise  money for an Alabama Bar that was vandalized during the riots. A co-owner of that bar called George Floyd a thug but later apologized for his remark. Candance Owens herself said that George Floyd should not be used as a martyr figure, due to his criminal history.

In a statement to justify Owen's account suspension, GoFundMe said, Owens "spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods against the black community.". This is top quality, virtue signalling, anti-conservative BS .
Why is it "conservative" to spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods? And why is bad to oppose that?

Well, did she spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods? So far, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence for it. Please show me some real examples that she is as evil as GoFundMe claims her to be.
You claim to have listened to at least some of what she says, surely there are some shreds there.

Candice tweeted:
Quote
At their discretion, they deemed that funds raised for a conservative business constitutes “intolerance.”

That is a falsehood right there, because GoFundMe did not imply or state any such thing. They didn't ban her for raising funds for a conservative business, nor did they say that that constituted "intolerance".

Unless... conservatism by its very nature is intolerance. And again, why is it "conservative" to spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods? And why is bad to oppose that?
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 12, 2020, 11:17:58 PM
If the co-owner had kept his mouth shut then nothing would have happened. I can understand that if your business gets destroyed by thugs, you'd probably not a supporter of these George Floyd "protesters". Anyway, he apologised for what he had said about Floyd.
 
The reaction of GoFundMe however wasn't justified, because they blamed Owens for spreading hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods. Which she didn't do. Now, if they'd blamed MSNBC or CNN they'd probably made a very good point.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Old Seer on June 14, 2020, 02:46:30 PM
If the co-owner had kept his mouth shut then nothing would have happened. I can understand that if your business gets destroyed by thugs, you'd probably not a supporter of these George Floyd "protesters". Anyway, he apologised for what he had said about Floyd.
 
The reaction of GoFundMe however wasn't justified, because they blamed Owens for spreading hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods. Which she didn't do. Now, if they'd blamed MSNBC or CNN they'd probably made a very good point.
What this means then, is the co-owner should have censored himself before the fact, and Owens should have censored herself before the fact as not to hurt an-other's feelings , or comply to the speech requirements demanded by someone with a specific political point of view or persuasion. Where does that put freedom of speech if we all have to sensor ourselves. And, I find at this point I have an opportunity to voluntarily censor myself in this presentation so not to offend others.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on June 15, 2020, 04:08:06 PM
If the co-owner had kept his mouth shut then nothing would have happened. I can understand that if your business gets destroyed by thugs, you'd probably not a supporter of these George Floyd "protesters". Anyway, he apologised for what he had said about Floyd.
 
The reaction of GoFundMe however wasn't justified, because they blamed Owens for spreading hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods. Which she didn't do. Now, if they'd blamed MSNBC or CNN they'd probably made a very good point.
Ignore everything else and keep repeating the lie. I suppose that works for some people.

In reality though, she did spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and/or falsehoods.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on June 15, 2020, 04:18:45 PM
If the co-owner had kept his mouth shut then nothing would have happened. I can understand that if your business gets destroyed by thugs, you'd probably not a supporter of these George Floyd "protesters". Anyway, he apologised for what he had said about Floyd.
 
The reaction of GoFundMe however wasn't justified, because they blamed Owens for spreading hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods. Which she didn't do. Now, if they'd blamed MSNBC or CNN they'd probably made a very good point.
What this means then, is the co-owner should have censored himself before the fact, and Owens should have censored herself before the fact as not to hurt an-other's feelings , or comply to the speech requirements demanded by someone with a specific political point of view or persuasion. Where does that put freedom of speech if we all have to sensor ourselves. And, I find at this point I have an opportunity to voluntarily censor myself in this presentation so not to offend others.
Wow, some people need to take a civics class.

On one hand, Candice Owens gets banned from a private companies platform.

On the other hand, protestors are being bullied, intimidated, tortured, and arrested by the government.

One of these is an actual attack on free speech the other is not.



I'll give you a hint: Owens can spread all the lies and hurt all the feelings she wants and no one is going to take away her freedom of speech. Every company in the United States can ban her from their platforms and she will still be able to say what she wants. The government is not going to intimidate her, torture her, or arrest her for what she is saying.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 15, 2020, 08:35:23 PM
I listened to the first five minutes of Candace Owens's George Floyd video. I'll probably listen to the rest, but will give my comments on what I've spent the time listening to and checking. First a couple of direct quotes from the video:

Quote
. . . "the family of George Floyd deserves justice for the way that he died. But I also am not going to accept the narrative that this is the best the black community has to offer. For whatever reason it has become fashionable over the last five or six years for us to turn criminals into heroes overnight. It is something that I find to be despicable and it is something that I refuse to stand by any longer and I am not going to play a part in it no matter how much pressure comes from black liberals and black conservatives as some token of people wanting you to believe that this is the only way you can be black is you have to say 'this was wrong' and that this person was amazing. I won't do that."

Quote
"George Floyd is being uplifted as an amazing human being."

I have seen at least one mural using George Floyd's face, and his image has been fairly widely used on protest signs. However I have not heard anybody claiming that he was "the best the black community has to offer." In fact I'd say that is a lie. He's being held up as a symbol of a long-running problem. Black people, black men in particular, receive harsher treatment at the hands of the police, up to and including being killed unjustifiably. Hispanic and Latino people also get the same sort of disproportionate treatment from the police. If anybody doubts that, we can look at statistics that show it.

George Floyd, to the extent that he's become an icon, is not an icon of "the best the black community has to offer." He's an icon of all those in the black community (and other communities) who've been victims of excessive use of force by police. Candace Owens is misrepresenting the situation, claiming that the "black community" is making him into a hero. I don't think she's that out of touch. It appears to me that she's being dishonest.

She claims that the autopsy reports showed Floyd was "high on fentanyl and he was high on methamphetamine." This is inaccurate. The press release (https://dam.tmz.com/document/65/o/2020/06/01/657b9939bb4e46cea274d10f81c662cc.pdf) from the medical examiner mentions "intoxication" only in relation to fentanyl, while describing "recent methamphetamine use." In other words, the level of fentanyl in his system indicated intoxication, but regarding methamphetamines what they found would have been metabolites of the drug. Otherwise they would have said "methamphetamine intoxication." He wasn't "high on methamphetamine."

Her description of the transcript of the call (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@mpd/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-224718.pdf) to the police is sensationalized but fairly accurate, up to a point. She claims that the caller said that Floyd was "acting weird" outside the store. That is false. The caller said that Floyd was sitting on a car outside the store, and appeared to be drunk--"not acting right".  She claims that Floyd's behavior made the caller fearful. I don't know where she got that, but it wasn't from the transcript. She creates a false quote from the call:

Quote
"They, in their police call, said that this person was obviously distorted on drugs."

Again, that isn't what the caller said. They had previously said "he's awfully drunk," and when asked whether Floyd was "under the influence of something" they replied "Something like that, yes. He is not acting right."

She talks about a "baggie of what looks to be like, cocaine, it's a white baggie" that she claims Floyd dropped when he was being arrested, and was already in handcuffs. I've looked at the footage in question, and it does show something falling to the ground, but it's not clear that it came from Floyd. If he had been holding something in his hand when the police put the handcuffs on him you'd think they'd have noticed. Regardless, there has been no claim by the police that they found any drugs during the arrest of Floyd, so this seems to be a detail that she's latched onto to promote her narrative that Floyd wasn't "the best the black community has to offer."

As if that's relevant.

I don't know why Owens does this, but it's a regular feature with her. She doesn't give an honest depiction of events, and it's easy enough to show that, as I did above with a recent tweet from her and am doing here.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 15, 2020, 09:27:46 PM
We know that politicians and the media are "flexible" with truth, both on the left as on the right. No surprises here. So in essence Owens' story is correct, but she gave it a populist spin to it. My main objection to Owens' story is that it wasn't the right time, nor the right thing to do. The sensitivities were/are far too high and some people might have seen it as inflammatory. But, that is freedom of speech and she has the right to exercise that freedom. The same freedom that protects other people when they say all kind of nasty things about Owens, Shapiro and other conservatives.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 15, 2020, 09:49:25 PM
I think there is a clear distinction between the black community "uplifting" Floyd "as an amazing human being" and the black community using his image as an icon meant give a human face to victims of police abuse of power.

It also seems pretty clear that the latter is what is going on rather than the former. To the extent that Floyd has been "uplifted" it's been as a victim of gross injustice, not as an outstandingly moral or righteous person.

The mural I mentioned earlier has Floyd's face along with the names of other victims of police abuse of power. Not the names of people like Martin Luther King Jr or Booker Washington: people who might rightfully be called "amazing".

(https://blackmeninamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/George-Floyd-Mural-1024x683.jpg)

Other murals with his image have words like "I can't breathe" or "Rest in Peace" or "Black Lives Matter / Fight Racism." None that I've seen are glorifying Floyd as an "amazing" person.

It's clear enough that I think the charge of "spreading falsehoods against the black community" has some basis. I would not be surprised to encounter more of the same in the parts of the video I haven't listened to.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on June 16, 2020, 06:10:56 PM
We know that politicians and the media are "flexible" with truth, both on the left as on the right. No surprises here. So in essence Owens' story is correct, but she gave it a populist spin to it. My main objection to Owens' story is that it wasn't the right time, nor the right thing to do. The sensitivities were/are far too high and some people might have seen it as inflammatory. But, that is freedom of speech and she has the right to exercise that freedom. The same freedom that protects other people when they say all kind of nasty things about Owens, Shapiro and other conservatives.
Like the most liars, she pulled in bits and pieces that were true, and added in a lot of things that were not. In essence, she is lying.

Eventually you might want to wonder about why you're defending dishonest people doing dishonest things. Maybe there is a better standard to hold.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 16, 2020, 09:19:58 PM
We know that politicians and the media are "flexible" with truth, both on the left as on the right. No surprises here. So in essence Owens' story is correct, but she gave it a populist spin to it. My main objection to Owens' story is that it wasn't the right time, nor the right thing to do. The sensitivities were/are far too high and some people might have seen it as inflammatory. But, that is freedom of speech and she has the right to exercise that freedom. The same freedom that protects other people when they say all kind of nasty things about Owens, Shapiro and other conservatives.
Like the most liars, she pulled in bits and pieces that were true, and added in a lot of things that were not. In essence, she is lying.

Eventually you might want to wonder about why you're defending dishonest people doing dishonest things. Maybe there is a better standard to hold.

Well, I think you have made a very good point there. I think I fell for her good looks. But you have to admit that it is hard to find honest people in politics. I think that Bernie Sanders comes very close, but I'm not a great fan of him and he isn't so good looking as Owens.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Randy on June 16, 2020, 10:32:40 PM
But you have to admit that it is hard to find honest people in politics.
An honest politician is an oxymoron.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: No one on June 16, 2020, 10:48:23 PM
Now, now, now, not all politicians are bad. Some are dead.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on June 17, 2020, 04:21:35 PM
We know that politicians and the media are "flexible" with truth, both on the left as on the right. No surprises here. So in essence Owens' story is correct, but she gave it a populist spin to it. My main objection to Owens' story is that it wasn't the right time, nor the right thing to do. The sensitivities were/are far too high and some people might have seen it as inflammatory. But, that is freedom of speech and she has the right to exercise that freedom. The same freedom that protects other people when they say all kind of nasty things about Owens, Shapiro and other conservatives.
Like the most liars, she pulled in bits and pieces that were true, and added in a lot of things that were not. In essence, she is lying.

Eventually you might want to wonder about why you're defending dishonest people doing dishonest things. Maybe there is a better standard to hold.

Well, I think you have made a very good point there. I think I fell for her good looks. But you have to admit that it is hard to find honest people in politics. I think that Bernie Sanders comes very close, but I'm not a great fan of him and he isn't so good looking as Owens.
And when the best and/or the ones we support do something bad, we don't have to and we should not defend their bad behavior.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 17, 2020, 10:20:12 PM
Following through on the logic of the first section of Candace Owens's video: Say we accept everything she says as gospel. George Floyd was a criminal who was high on drugs when he was arrested. The black community is glorifying this criminal as an exemplar of what's best about their community.

What reaction is that narrative intended to elicit? If the listener is already inclined to think ill of the black community, I think it would tend to deepen their antipathy toward that community. For some hypothetical neutral person, I think it would tend to arouse suspicion of and distrust toward the black community.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 18, 2020, 05:58:03 AM
Assuming that she didn't do it with malicious intends (I'm sure that Davin disagrees) then a hypothetical neutral person perhaps thinks that
- George Floyd was murdered, but
- people should not hold persons with a criminal history like in him high regards; and
- it is a bad idea to believe in a victimization ideology, which tells black people that they are not to blame for any crimes committed, because the system (and especially white men) are responsible for all bad things in life.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on June 18, 2020, 03:59:46 PM
She outright claims that the black community is making Floyd a hero. That is a lie. She knows that people in the black community aren't going to accept a lie she's told about them, so who is she speaking to? Her primary audience is the Trumpists who already have a low opinion of the black community. She's not doing anything to change that opinion. On the contrary, she's reinforcing their prejudice with her lies.

As for "victimization ideology," yes that's one of her go-to talking points. There is validity to the idea of opposing that line of thinking. Are the George Floyd protests an expression of victimization ideology though?

There is a legitimate grievance on the part of the black community and other minority communities in the US that are disproportionally subject to police abuse of power. Drawing attention to that,  denouncing it and bringing pressure to bear to try to effect change is not victimization ideology in my opinion.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on June 18, 2020, 04:04:42 PM
Assuming that she didn't do it with malicious intends (I'm sure that Davin disagrees)
There isn't much room for anything else. There are parts in her statements that came from somewhere other than the facts, either she heard them from somewhere else and didn't honestly seek the truth of them or she made them up knowing they were false. In the least, she is being intellectually dishonest, we can never determine if she knew she was spreading falsehoods, only that she was spreading falsehoods.

Quote from: Tom62
then a hypothetical neutral person perhaps thinks that
- George Floyd was murdered, but
- people should not hold persons with a criminal history like in him high regards; and
- it is a bad idea to believe in a victimization ideology, which tells black people that they are not to blame for any crimes committed, because the system (and especially white men) are responsible for all bad things in life.
So the intended message (if honest), is pretty stupid and pointless then.

However, if the message is dishonest then she (or the people manipulating her), know what they're doing using these manipulation tactics.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 19, 2020, 05:52:18 AM
The whole George Floyd thing has now become so politicized that I've lost my appetite.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tank on June 19, 2020, 08:44:32 AM
The whole George Floyd thing has now become so politicized that I've lost my appetite.

Just watch him being murdered. The politics fall away then. :(
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on June 19, 2020, 02:58:14 PM
The whole George Floyd thing has now become so politicized that I've lost my appetite.

Just watch him being murdered. The politics fall away then. :(

I've seen that, and I was disgusted by it. I'm even more disgusted by all these politicians and celebrities, who haven't done anything against police brutality in all those decades and are now acting as moral, virtuous, hypocritical dipshits.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Randy on June 19, 2020, 03:53:42 PM
Let's not forget the companies who are taking advantage of this whole thing. An example is Amazon Prime Video where the top row of films is in dedication to BLM. I haven't checked to see if any of them are for rent. In any case, to me it seems they are exploiting this for their gain.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on June 19, 2020, 06:06:47 PM
Obama had the Justice Department overseeing police departments. Most Democrats supported it, most Republicans were against it. Jeff Sessions, under Trump, put a stop to it and the police departments lost all oversight with the power to fix things.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on October 12, 2020, 07:00:10 AM
On Candace Owens. Not an encomium.

"Candace Owens Is a Willing Tool of Republican Racists" | The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-is-a-willing-tool-of-republican-racists)

Quote
Owens gets trotted out when white conservatives want to illustrate their idea of a “good” Black— willing to label Black culture pathologically “broken,” claim Black people are “pretending to be oppressed,” and smear Black Lives Matter as “domestic terrorists.” (And also, to misquote Harriet Tubman in a glorious display of historical ignorance and white supremacist revisionism intent on construing Black folks as their own oppressors.) Owens is the tokenized Black messenger white racists rely on to discredit millions of other Black voices demanding racial justice, whom they had no interest in hearing or heeding anyway. Her transformation into Republicans’ Black mascot just proves that their gestures toward Black voters are always made in bad faith.

None of this is to suggest Owens is without agency or a naive victim of the Republican party. Rather, she seems to eagerly and proactively do white racists’ dirty work, often in ways that conflict with her own past actions. As a teen in 2007, Owens sued and settled with the Stamford Board of Education after charging the district with failing to protect her from racist hate crimes by white classmates. But at a 2019 House hearing on hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism, Owens described the proceedings as Democratic “fearmongering, power and control.” She has called the NAACP, the same group that helped generate the press that likely helped her secure her settlement, “one of the worst groups for Black people.”

[Continues . . . (https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-is-a-willing-tool-of-republican-racists)]
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Tom62 on October 12, 2020, 12:23:32 PM
On Candace Owens. Not an encomium.

"Candace Owens Is a Willing Tool of Republican Racists" | The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-is-a-willing-tool-of-republican-racists)

Quote
Owens gets trotted out when white conservatives want to illustrate their idea of a “good” Black— willing to label Black culture pathologically “broken,” claim Black people are “pretending to be oppressed,” and smear Black Lives Matter as “domestic terrorists.” (And also, to misquote Harriet Tubman in a glorious display of historical ignorance and white supremacist revisionism intent on construing Black folks as their own oppressors.) Owens is the tokenized Black messenger white racists rely on to discredit millions of other Black voices demanding racial justice, whom they had no interest in hearing or heeding anyway. Her transformation into Republicans’ Black mascot just proves that their gestures toward Black voters are always made in bad faith.

None of this is to suggest Owens is without agency or a naive victim of the Republican party. Rather, she seems to eagerly and proactively do white racists’ dirty work, often in ways that conflict with her own past actions. As a teen in 2007, Owens sued and settled with the Stamford Board of Education after charging the district with failing to protect her from racist hate crimes by white classmates. But at a 2019 House hearing on hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism, Owens described the proceedings as Democratic “fearmongering, power and control.” She has called the NAACP, the same group that helped generate the press that likely helped her secure her settlement, “one of the worst groups for Black people.”

[Continues . . . (https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-is-a-willing-tool-of-republican-racists)]

She doesn't come across as a victim to me. That just wonder makes who the author of that article considers to be racists? Anyone who is not on the left?
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on October 12, 2020, 09:38:08 PM
On Candace Owens. Not an encomium.

"Candace Owens Is a Willing Tool of Republican Racists" | The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-is-a-willing-tool-of-republican-racists)

Quote
Owens gets trotted out when white conservatives want to illustrate their idea of a “good” Black— willing to label Black culture pathologically “broken,” claim Black people are “pretending to be oppressed,” and smear Black Lives Matter as “domestic terrorists.” (And also, to misquote Harriet Tubman in a glorious display of historical ignorance and white supremacist revisionism intent on construing Black folks as their own oppressors.) Owens is the tokenized Black messenger white racists rely on to discredit millions of other Black voices demanding racial justice, whom they had no interest in hearing or heeding anyway. Her transformation into Republicans’ Black mascot just proves that their gestures toward Black voters are always made in bad faith.

None of this is to suggest Owens is without agency or a naive victim of the Republican party. Rather, she seems to eagerly and proactively do white racists’ dirty work, often in ways that conflict with her own past actions. As a teen in 2007, Owens sued and settled with the Stamford Board of Education after charging the district with failing to protect her from racist hate crimes by white classmates. But at a 2019 House hearing on hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism, Owens described the proceedings as Democratic “fearmongering, power and control.” She has called the NAACP, the same group that helped generate the press that likely helped her secure her settlement, “one of the worst groups for Black people.”

[Continues . . . (https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-is-a-willing-tool-of-republican-racists)]
Yeah, pretty much nails it on the head.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Davin on October 12, 2020, 09:40:12 PM
She doesn't come across as a victim to me. That just wonder makes who the author of that article considers to be racists? Anyone who is not on the left?

If you're honestly interested, I can help.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Recusant on October 12, 2020, 10:29:43 PM
The author names one prominent white racist Republican early in the article. The evidence of that racism has been readily available for decades.

We can look at Candace Owens in action, using an example provided in the article. The Central Park Five were shown to be innocent of the charges that they were convicted of. The actual perpetrator confessed, and DNA evidence recovered by investigators from the victim and the crime scene show that the confession is legitimate--the DNA is from the man who confessed. That man had no association with the Central Park Five until he met one of them in prison.

Yet Donald Trump continues to insist that the Central Park Five were and are guilty. In Donald Trump's world that's the way it has to be because Trump made a very big production at the time of calling for the Central Park Five to be executed. Trump is incapable of admitting he was so hugely wrong, so he carries on with his egregious falsehood, claiming that somehow the Five are guilty despite the evidence to the contrary.

What motivation might Candace Owens have for pushing the same false narrative as Donald Trump about the Central Park Five?
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Sandra Craft on October 14, 2020, 09:46:07 PM
What motivation might Candace Owens have for pushing the same false narrative as Donald Trump about the Central Park Five?

My guess is she wants to ride a gravy train and is betting everything that Trump is it.
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: xSilverPhinx on October 14, 2020, 11:33:29 PM
On Candace Owens. Not an encomium.

"Candace Owens Is a Willing Tool of Republican Racists" | The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-is-a-willing-tool-of-republican-racists)

Quote
Owens gets trotted out when white conservatives want to illustrate their idea of a “good” Black— willing to label Black culture pathologically “broken,” claim Black people are “pretending to be oppressed,” and smear Black Lives Matter as “domestic terrorists.” (And also, to misquote Harriet Tubman in a glorious display of historical ignorance and white supremacist revisionism intent on construing Black folks as their own oppressors.) Owens is the tokenized Black messenger white racists rely on to discredit millions of other Black voices demanding racial justice, whom they had no interest in hearing or heeding anyway. Her transformation into Republicans’ Black mascot just proves that their gestures toward Black voters are always made in bad faith.

None of this is to suggest Owens is without agency or a naive victim of the Republican party. Rather, she seems to eagerly and proactively do white racists’ dirty work, often in ways that conflict with her own past actions. As a teen in 2007, Owens sued and settled with the Stamford Board of Education after charging the district with failing to protect her from racist hate crimes by white classmates. But at a 2019 House hearing on hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism, Owens described the proceedings as Democratic “fearmongering, power and control.” She has called the NAACP, the same group that helped generate the press that likely helped her secure her settlement, “one of the worst groups for Black people.”

[Continues . . . (https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-is-a-willing-tool-of-republican-racists)]

I don't know much about Candace Owens and why she would be a willing tool of racists, her being a black woman herself, but this fascinates me. Why on Earth would anyone do that? Do they really wallow in so much self-loathing?
Title: Re: Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.
Post by: Dark Lightning on October 15, 2020, 12:50:20 AM
I don't think we have a black perspective to speak of here, so I'd have to guess that she is just hitching her wagon to the "leading" political party. Maybe it's just to make money? I personally can't see selling myself out like that.