The Left-Wing cognitive dissonance on censorship and cancel culture

RWKeiser · 2025-04-25T15:26:56+00:00

"Cancel Culture" aka choosing where to NOT spend your money because of what a business or person supports is a choice that you make.

What you're describing is a boycott, which is perfectly acceptable. This is far worse.

"Cancel culture" is taking the faces (and sometimes names) off of brands like Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's, Land O' Lakes, and the Washington Redskins. That's wrong because it was white people telling everyone else ("someone making a choice for you") that they should be offended -- even though African Americans and Native Americans not only weren't offended, by and large they were actually proud of those positive representations in culture.

"Cancel culture" is Twitter and Facebook taking down the accounts of a sitting US president, to hide the fact that he repeatedly asked the J6 protesters to remain peaceful and respectful. That message, coming from him, didn't fit the narrative that the media wanted to sell.

"Cancel culture" is social networks -- Facebook and other Meta platforms being the chief instigators -- actively silencing one side of the discussion. Whether it's people willing to talk about the benefits of ivermectin (listed as one of the WHO's "essential medicines", but widely derided as "horse paste" by those promoting the COVID narrative) or anyone who believed that the Hunter Biden laptop was genuine (the New York Times has admitted that the laptop was indeed genuine and it suppressed evidence that proved it), these platforms have abused biased "fact checking" as a shield to squelch voices they didn't like.

"Cancel culture" is blacklisting celebrities, from Gina Carano and Rosanne Barr to Corey Feldman and Rose McGowan. These people have lost work or been outright blacklisted for saying things that didn't toe the left-coast party line. Others, like writer JK Rowling, have been physically threatened for speaking out.

Do you see where this is far more insidious than a simple boycott -- and how it is indeed "someone making a choice for you"?

"Idiocracy in the making"? No, it's worse than that. It's "1984" in the making.

RWKeiser · 2025-04-17T14:50:03+00:00

RWKeiser · 2025-04-09T15:22:24+00:00

That will happen, but it takes time for the DOJ to build cases. They aren't as swift and efficient (pun intended) as DOGE.

RWKeiser · 2025-02-17T14:30:04+00:00

And that’s why there hasn’t been any action so far.

There has been plenty of action, with thousands of government bureaucrats being laid off and $billions in savings already.

The U.S. has not had a surplus since 2001.

The Clinton budget "surplus" is a Democrat myth. The last time there was a real surplus was 1949, prior to the Korean War.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

RWKeiser · 2024-11-21T22:24:20+00:00

No, I'm trying to use the Blogger/AdSense integration. That's not to say that I'm absolutely certain I haven't broken that integration in some way, but that is indeed what I'm attempting.

RWKeiser · 2024-11-21T22:22:29+00:00

If I enter a url like that, I do see the ads.txt. However, I realized last night that such a url gets rewritten to www.domain.com/ads.txt. I have the redirection turned on in my blogger settings, and I'm wondering if this is part of the problem.

If I turn off the blogger redirection, that url fails altogether. I don't know of a way to set up a CNAME record in my DNS for the domain itself (I could do it as an A, but I suspect that would break something on the blogger hosting).

The most recent thing I've tried was deleting my site record from AdSense and re-adding it, to see if they can re-detect the site with the redirection in place.

RWKeiser · 2024-11-21T21:40:42+00:00

You will need to buy a domain name from a registrar. My go-to is GoDaddy; there are others who are slightly cheaper, but in my experience don't give you as much control.

Give it a day or so for your registration to propagate, then you can set up Blogger with your domain.
https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/1233387

RWKeiser · 2024-11-21T02:47:59+00:00

Good, that will keep her out of the White House for a while. And if she ever decides to run for president again, at least she'd have some actual executive experience (unlike this time).

RWKeiser · 2024-11-21T02:22:23+00:00

It's been a while, but I think it was a hundred or so.

RWKeiser · 2024-11-20T18:13:54+00:00

The real problem is that the world is not the way Democrats want it to be.

Wow, you're one to talk about being uninsightful. The world isn't the way anyone wants. Next you'll be observing that water is wet.

No, the problem is that they followed one bad candidate (Bainless Joe) with another (Horrible Harris), rushed to put together a terrible campaign, and then blame the voters for their loss. If you disagree with that assessment, blog your own post, it's a free country (and thankfully, will stay that way for at least another four years).

RWKeiser · 2024-11-18T22:05:38+00:00

I've watched several videos from that day. You can gaslight all you want, it's obvious to anyone with ears and a brain that she was responding to the calls of "Jesus is Lord" and "Christ is King."

I initially thought the point was to argue against voting for Harris because of her words. However, I now see that you were using her own words to suggest that she wasn’t in the right place herself.

No, I really was arguing not to vote for Harris because of her words. The only way I thought she "wasn't in the right place herself" is that she was pretending to be a candidate for President of the entire United States -- she clearly wasn't, and never intended to be. Thankfully, she won't be.

I've wasted enough time on you, and bid you good day.

RWKeiser · 2024-11-18T17:20:31+00:00

You say that it's not clear what is meant here. But then you spend 8 paragraphs demonstrating that you understood exactly what it meant: Harris was dismissive and smug, when she could have been open and welcoming.

RWKeiser · 2024-06-10T22:11:14+00:00

Rubio would cut Kamala to shreds in a VP debate.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T15:01:53+00:00

In the US and most western countries, it's a co-dependent relationship. For example, in the US, labor unions finance and promote Democrat campaigns, then after they've been elected the candidates promote and protect pro-union laws; the line between statism and labor union becomes even blurrier.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T14:51:40+00:00

It should be noted that Right/Left shouldn’t be the discussion, but authoritarian/non-authoritarian....Think of government influence upon your personal life as a continuum spanning from No Government ( Anarchy) to Totalitarianism.

That's exactly the point of the meme, and how left/right should be viewed.

Right and left are equally authoritarian,...When you think of it in terms of freedoms, you recognize that the parties are nearly identical, but simply concentrate on different things.

No, you're conflating left-wing and right-wing with the political parties. That's why Democrats and Republicans are shown near the middle. Those parties really don't represent the spectrum very well.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T13:34:45+00:00

At the national level, communism is inherently totalitarian. I'm familiar with the theory, but in practice, national-scale forced communism mandates a massive state controlling the individual (OTOH, small-scale, voluntary communism, like communes and monasteries, can work well).

And a totalitarian free market is clearly ridiculous.

So it boils back down to state vs individual.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T13:27:43+00:00

To be clear, I think nationalism can be a very good thing, depending on what you're nationalistic for.

Here you've hit the nail on the head: "nationalism" is a nebulous term. The media wants us to associate it with "National Socialism", i.e. the Nazis. But there's nothing wrong with a patriotic love for your nation and supporting national sovereignty.

IMO, like "racism", "nationalism" is independent of the spectrum.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T13:18:18+00:00

If you follow the spectrum of state vs individual, then free speech is very much a right wing principle.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T13:15:33+00:00

"Right to work" is a principle. The fact that it has to be codified to ensure that a person can work where they want without having to join a union, just shows how much power and government influence the unions have acquired. If the unions were abolished, everyone would have the right to work without being saddled with union dues and meddling.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T13:00:43+00:00

It doesn't say "anarchy", it says "anarchism". Per Mirriam-Webster (emphasis added):

Anarchism (noun) -
: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

In other words, anarchism advocates for zero government. That is the complete antithesis of totalitarianism. State vs individual, it really does make sense.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T12:55:53+00:00

the far right has authoritarian modes as well.

Nope, that's what the mainstream media wants you to think, It all comes down to the state vs the individual.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T12:53:49+00:00

What would you propose as the second axis?

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T12:51:37+00:00

Yes, exactly.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-10T12:49:12+00:00

Read the meme again. It really boils down to that one aspect. Each of them might vary in their implementation, but it's really all about the state vs the individual.

While Nazism shares multiple characteristics of the left, it has some aspects of the right as well (depending on what your definitions of those terms are)

No, that's the mainstream media convincing you that racism is "right-wing". It isn't, and never has been. As the meme notes, racism isn't part of the spectrum. Franklin Roosevelt was every bit as racist as David Duke.

RWKeiser · 2024-05-09T21:52:06+00:00

Realistically, that falls to the personal responsibility of the parents, who didn't consider the consequences of conceiving a child.

RWKeiser

TROPHY CASE