Dave - it is news now on at least conservative news site:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/f...mp;cvid=a2d70f3639dd49e3bb5f2a66b6cefe78"Deplatforming" is a funny turn of phrase which I've never heard before. They're private companies, obviously, and can do as they wish around content, and argument you've no doubt heard before. That leads to a tangential enquiry around the extent of their influence, which i'm concerned about, and equally so in respect of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
iggy - I don't know many of the facts you've cited, but I can't disagree with a thing you've said in tone.
I saw that Trey Gowdy broadcast live when it aired, and I was angered by Gowdy's jumping on the bandwagon without really digging into the facts of the evidence and how the judge oversaw the trial.
I first heard the term "de-platforming" around 2018, but the term was around several years before I first heard it. It is basically what the Left wants to do to the Right. They can't win over the masses to their ideology, so they prefer to silence their opposition, or even put their conservative opposition's speech in the category or "hate speech" or "nazi", or "inciting violence" or "insurrectionist", so as to put conservative speech in an illegal category.
A related, if not synonymous term, is "cancel-culture". I assumed these terms were universally used throughout the English-speaking world and Europe, wherever socialist/radical-leftists are seeking to usurp power, but maybe not. I've also seen that cancel-culture, beyond the U.S. and the broader West, is similarly occurring in nations like Brazil and Argentina. Their tentacles are virtually everywhere. The globalist/socialist Left is making a full-court press in nations worldwide to overthrow democracies, and replace them with one-party authoritariaan socialist governments.
And this is their chosen weapon.
Even as the Democrat/Left deceitfully mischaracterize all visibly peaceful free speech of conservatives as "inciting violence".
With delicious irony, they simultaneously relentlessly
incite violence against conservatives, as I've quoted and shown video clips of from : Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Ayanna Pressley, Cory Booker, Elizabeth "Pocaahantas" Warren, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters, on and on.
Several Antifa activists a year ago shot up Border Patrol and ICE agent bases, and were verbatim screaming A O-C's rhetoric at the agents they were trying to kill as they unleashed IED's and AK-47 fire.
A O-C --
of course !-- had no comment and refused to answer questions about it.
But of course, very few in the media (who are all radicalized leftists themselves) would even venture to ask her about her responsibility for those Antifa/BLM attacks.
Liberal pundits and reporters in broadcast and print news media are just another front in the Bolshevik-Left's closing pincer movement. And of course, that rationalization for their violence against conservatives is the mindset among all followers of Black Lives Matter, and Antifa.
In their mindset, conservatives are so detestable and evil that you don't try to reason with them, you just punch them in the face and beat them down. You shout them down, you silence them,. You kill them. (See any number of
Project Veritas videos.)
And many more:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=project+veritas+campaign+ And the Democrat-Bolshevik party at its center and core is completely on board with that.
KAMALA HARRIS: "They're not stopping before election day, they're not going to stop after. They will not stop, and they
shouldn't stop."
She added even more emphasis by donating money to a fund to bail Antifa/BLM violent rioters immediately out of jail, so they could commit even more violence, arson and looting.
Likewise police and military are rationalized to be justified targets of violence and Molotov cocktails from BLM and Antifa.
Or as Tucker Carlson terms it
"conservatives' free speech is violence, but see their own ACTUAL VIOLENCE as free speech".I noticed even Fox News in their coverage just followed the mainstream media rhetoric, and completely ignored how the judge excluded exculpatory evidence for Jones, and permitted irrelevant and incendiary anecdotes and testimony that prejudiced the jury verdict. The question isn't whether Jones is a likeable guy, the question is whether Jones is guilty, or was railroaded in an unfair trial.
This lawyer was the only one I saw make a case for Jones' innocence, and the increasing Orwellian corruption of our legal system.
