Elon Musk promotes free speech...then did THIS! Shocking.

Post Reply New Topic

No one ever said WP was a free speech site. There is no such thing as freedom of speech at places unless you go to I2. But you will never be free from consequences when you have freedom of speech for real.

Also he is banning people who post left wing stuff and criticize what he is doing. This shows how fragile he is. He even banned someone for knowing what plane he flew and where he went because they tracked it on a website that shows flights and where they are going.

Meanwhile on this forum, you only get in trouble for posting racist and nazi s**t and homophobia and anti senitism and of course when you criticize republicans and conservatives or call someone out on their racism. They protect the other side as well and their feelings. f**k human rights. To fight for human rights, you have to call out the other side that is causing harm. At least on reddit we can do this other stuff and we don't have to be nice about it if someone is racist or a misogynist. They're not going to change their minds anyway so no point in being nice about it when calling them out by disagreeing with them and telling them why you disagree with their view. But here, it's breaking a rule either way no matter how nice you are about it.

But on WP, that's something I can grudgingly understand. I have my own theories about that I've already written about ad nauseam. But here there's an overwhelming sense of victimhood that can to some extent be justified. I remember a former WP member who constantly bemoaned being victimized by rednecks and blacks as the reason he couldn't find a girlfriend. And no matter how much I'd tried to reason with him that he could either leave or that he should give redneck girls a chance, I think all I ended up doing was making him feel worse. Things are different in WP because dealing with things among autistics can become more sensitive than elsewhere. It's important to respect that, and something I'm prone to forgetting. People on reddit have thicker skin.

I'm just not clever enough to post on reddit. I lack that gift. I enjoy reading reddit, though. I've found a lot of information about things I'm interested in, and the reddit community is most helpful.

I am convinced many of these people left. Many of them went to an alternate forum. I think it's called right planet. They couldn't handle the talk about human right issues here and topics about racism, criticism about Trump, etc. They all felt attacked and thank god it's not against the site rules to criticize ideas and views and opinions. But many people still see those as attacks because those views are tied to them as a person. But to me these are all choices and it's no different than criticizing people not returning shopping carts. I have never seen anyone feel attacked about it. But still reporting these users because their feelings were hurt was still them trying to do censorship but meanwhile they would complain about censorship on this forum as well when they were guilty of it themselves. Reporting someone because your feelings got hurt with their opinion when it went against your view is you trying to do censorship as well and wasting the moderator's time. This is why we always go through so many mods and why they quit.

Guess what I have done with other users here when they hurt my feelings, I ignore them, I do not talk to them because arguing with them is pointless and a waste of my time. Unless it becomes obvious they are trying to bait me and provoke me because I am not speaking to them, then that is when I do report them to the mod because that behavior does go against WP rules. Both these users have left this site that tried it with me.

On May 2, 1963, in Birmingham, Alabama, more than 1,000 Black school children march through the city in a demonstration against segregation. The goal of the non-violent demonstration, which became known as the "Children’s Crusade" and "Children’s March," was to provoke the city’s civic and business leaders to agree to desegregate.

Martin Luther King Jr., among the civil rights leaders who organized the protest, said: “We are definitely starting a stepped-up campaign to lay our grievances before the conscience of the community.”

Police arrested nearly 800 demonstrators, including a 6-year-old girl, mostly for parading without a permit. Teachers shouted encouragement to hymn-singing students as police made arrests. School buses took those arrested to jail.

“Several thousand curious white persons and Negroes watched from behind hastily set up police lines,” the Associated Press reported. “Firemen laid out high-pressure hoses in a two-block area as one large group of Negroes surged downtown. The hoses were not brought into play.”

The next day, the children marched again. But the Birmingham police response sparked national outrage. On orders from police chief “Bull” Conner, law enforcement officers doused peaceful demonstrators with water hoses and turned loose yapping dogs.

In Washington, U.S. attorney general Robert Kennedy said the “continued refusal to grant equal rights and opportunities to Negroes makes increasing turmoil inevitable.”

After meeting with civil rights leaders, Birmingham leaders eventually agreed to desegregate businesses and free all those who were jailed during the demonstrations.

Democrats jumped ship and became Republican because the Democratic Party had taken a solid turn against individual rights and embraced collectivism...

President Harding condemns lynching, Oct. 21, 1921

On this day in 1921, President Warren Harding delivered the first speech by a president condemning the lynching of blacks by Southerners. Harding spoke out against these illegal hangings — committed primarily by white supremacists — in Birmingham, Ala., amid increasing racism and racial violence throughout the Deep South.

Large population shifts in the wake of World War I had raised racial tensions throughout much of the country. As the 1920 Republican presidential nominee, Harding had advocated civil rights for blacks, despite evidence of wide opposition among white voters. At the time, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People reported that lynchings claimed the lives of, on average, two blacks every week.

In Birmingham, Harding voiced support for anti-lynching bills pending in Congress. Legislation seeking to curb the practice was initially sponsored in 1918 by Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-Mo.); Sen. Charles Curtis (R-Kan.) sponsored a companion measure in the Senate. They called for $10,000 fines to be levied against any county where a lynching occurred, for the prosecution of negligent state and county officials in federal courts and for the lodging of federal murder charges against participants.

Although the House approved the bill in 1922, a phalanx of Southern Democrats mounted a successful filibuster against it in the Senate. Efforts to enact similar legislation languished on Capitol Hill until the 1930s, when Sens. Robert Wagner (D-N.Y.) and Edward Costigan (D-Colo.) took up the cause. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, refused to back their bill, fearing it would cost him Southern electoral support and jeopardize his 1936 reelection bid.

It took 42 more years for Congress to enact broad civil rights legislation that, among other provisions, protected blacks against officially sanctioned discrimination. In 2005, the Senate passed a resolution formally apologizing for its repeated failure to enact anti-lynching bills.

Well, yeah…I mean, white collectivists considered blacks a underclass who couldn’t fend for themselves and required the civilizing effect of the slavery institution. So it was justified by saying whites and blacks are better together with whites being a master race and blacks being a slave race.

And you’re right, it’s not surprising in the least. Nobody is surprised by it. It’s not about that, anyway. There is cultural and political pressure to maintain this sense of victimhood and perpetuate a collective identity as an underclass...

...If I want to see CRT succeed in anything, it’s that black people will see through the facade of liberal do-gooders and recognize them as the problem. That will at least shed a light on the lies of CRT...The only thing white people can do to help black people as a people is LITERALLY nothing.

If you can convince the lowest heterosexual cisgendered White Man that he's better than the best LGBTQ+ person, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.

The difference between Mr. Wilson and myself is fundamental. The other day in a speech at Sioux Falls, Mr. Wilson stated his position when he said that the history of government, the history of liberty, was the history of the limitation of governmental power. This is true as an academic statement of history in the past. It is not true as a statement affecting the present. It is true of the history of medieval Europe. It is not true of the history of twentieth-century America.

In the days when all governmental power existed exclusively in the king or in the baronage and when the people had no shred of that power in their own hands, then it undoubtedly was true that the history of liberty was the history of the limitation of the governmental power of the outsiders who possessed that power. But today, the people have, actually or potentially, the entire governmental power. It is theirs to use and to exercise, if they choose to use and to exercise it. It offers the only adequate instrument with which they can work for the betterment, for the uplifting of the masses of our people.

The liberty of which Mr. Wilson speaks today means merely the liberty of some great trust magnate to do that which he is not entitled to do. It means merely the liberty of some factory owner to work haggard women over-hours for under-pay and himself to pocket the profits. It means the liberty of the factory owner to close his operatives into some crazy deathtrap on a top floor, where if fire starts, the slaughter is immense. It means the liberty of the big factory owner—who is conscienceless, and unscrupulous—to work his men and women under conditions which [inaudible] their lives like an [inaudible]. It means the liberty of even less conscientious factory owners to make their money out of the toil, the labor, of little children. Men of this stamp are the men whose liberty would be preserved by Mr. Wilson. Men of this stamp are the men whose liberty would be preserved by the limitation of governmental power.

We propose, on the contrary, to extend governmental power in order to secure the liberty of the wage workers, of the men and women who toil in industry, to save the liberty of the oppressed from the oppressor. Mr. Wilson stands for the liberty of the oppressor to oppress. We stand for the limitation of his liberty not to oppress those who are weaker than himself.