Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,123 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

ThePublicDiary

 

Blog Traffic: 593

Posts: 7

My Comments: 43

User Comments: 27

Photos: 29

Friends: 2

Following: 0

Followers: 0

Points: 296

Last Online: 2 days ago


 
 

Visitors

No Recent Visitors
 

Farrakhan: Sacrificed

Added: Wednesday, May 15th 2019 at 7:05pm by ThePublicDiary
 
 
 

I believe people should be allowed to say whatever they like, save advocating or encouraging violence. If you hear something you don't like then tune out or change the channel. 

Or challenge it!

We're sliding down the proverbial slope.

Facebook, from what I understand, recently banned right-wingers Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer. The definition of a right-winger (and left-winger, for that matter) is subjective, not objective.

Regarding the forementioned individuals:

  • Alex Jones, a silly, harmless conspiracy theorist,
  • Paul Joseph Watson, makes fun of, and mocks, so-called liberals,
  • Milo Yiannopoulos, makes fun of, and mocks, so-called liberals,
  • Laura Loomer, didn't even know who she was until today when I looked up the correct spelling of her name.

I'm not going to get in to the real reason why these folks were banned, it's already been covered by other people. However, I will say this: Real danger lay in Silicon Valley.

Apparently, Louis Farrakhan was also banned. That is what prompted me to write today. Farrakhan has indeed made numerous remarks in the past that many, i.e. Jews, Catholics, and whites, would most certainly find ugly, vulgar, and offensive. I don't believe he's ever advocated for or encouraged violence (I could be wrong).




Farrakhan mixes factual statements with the typical aggrieved, race-baiting, and victim-pandering narrative where he then loses me. That's not the point.

Free speech (should apply) applies to ideological opponents as well as fellow travelers.

If I were to sit down with Louis Farrakhan for a chat, I doubt we would agree on much. But he should be allowed to express an opinion, no matter how offensive one may find it. Save for encouraging or advocating violence.

In my opinion, Farrakhan wasn't banned for "hateful" or "dangerous" remarks, he was sacrificed. Yes, the disingenuous Facebook needed a fall guy to distract; to placate the cynical, skeptical right side of the aisle. Farrakhan's an easy target.


 



User Comments

Lol if "Alex Jones" were just a silly harmless CIA coined term "Conspiracy Theorist" then why go after him so hard? He existed for a couple decades being dismissed as fringe whacko, so why suddenly the most evil man alive? There are a LOT of silly, harmless CT's, but NONE have received that kind of treatment.

What is the "real" reason for all that's happened to him? I must have missed that.

His politics are on the wrong side of the aisle.

According to who? His politics are right in line with traditional liberty loving conservatives and libertarians. It's the establishment, neocons and progressives on the wrong side of history . The aisle is obliterated at this point.

The aisle is clearly defined. The fanatics in Silicon Valley are purging anyone who poses a threat to their electoral chances in '20. Farrakhan's purging is just a sideshow.

You didn't define the aisle that way, so I referred to it in a traditional sense.

It's about much more than politics and which side anyone is on.

If you're an anti-war leftist, suddenly that makes you on the same side as Alex Jones. These things change all the time. Hard to define the aisle as you're suggesting in the face of that reality.

Seriously? You can defend this violently racist cult leader but not the four independent and mildly exuberant conservatives you listed? I support all of their rights to free speech up to the line that any of them promotes murder, anarchy or revolution. 

I'm not defending his remarks, I'm defending his right to speak...I'm a fan of MILO and PJW - they're slowly being purged off of the internet.

I was planning a post on this. I listen to Farrakhan and he has caused me to investigate some of his views. Free speech is definitely under attack. I don't agree with all of his views, but I think banning him just makes people listen to him more where ever they can find him. I listen to Alex Jones sometimes. I didn't agree with his views on Sandy Hook but I don't think he should have been banned either. Free speech is definitely under attack.

Yes, free speech is definitely under attack. I think most people are OK with it as long as it's someone they don't care for (wait until it's their turn, right?) And yes, when you ban something - or someone - people's interest is raised. 

Yep. Banning someone doesn't make them go away. It is better to engage in dialogue unless that person is abusive or calling for violence against you. I don't see Farakhan as doing those things and again I don't agree with some of his views especially when it comes to women.

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.