Posts Tagged ‘looters’

Twitter IS a Hate-Group

Thursday, June 4th, 2020

Conform or Die

On Sunday morning, and again Monday evening, I sent out a couple of tweets, including one aimed at President Trump, among others, suggesting that the old traditional policy of shooting rioters and looters on sight be adopted. Twitter suspended my account some time overnight on Monday because, they claimed, I was advocating harm to some specific person or persons. This is naturally absurd. By the standard they have applied, I cannot advocate for a whole class of murderers, for instance, to receive capital punishment. Some might even argue that being jailed is harm in and of itself.  Therefore, one mustn’t go on Twitter and advocate for incarceration.  Of course, the preposterous part of all of this is that I wasn’t talking about specific persons. I was addressing an entire class of persons known as “rioters” and “looters.” I’m not aware of any way by which Twitter’s prohibition against wishing harm on others is violated. All of this leads me to believe that Twitter’s management and corporate culture is one of extreme political bias. Instead of confronting actual hate, in pursuit of real threats and incitements to violence the likes of which they’ve been tolerating through the last week as rioters and looters use their platform to coordinate attacks, Twitter has thrown in with the devil, and has become a hate group.

Here are the “offending” tweets:

Violation of Twitter Policy?

You might disagree with my sentiment here, but I think we need to ask if this is really covered by Twitter’s policy, as described here:

Wishing, hoping or calling for serious harm on a person or group of people
We prohibit content that wishes, hopes, promotes, or expresses a desire for death, serious and lasting bodily harm, or serious disease against an entire protected category and/or individuals who may be members of that category. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Hoping that someone dies as a result of a serious disease, e.g., “I hope you get cancer and die.”

  • Wishing for someone to fall victim to a serious accident, e.g., “I wish that you would get run over by a car next time you run your mouth.”

  • Saying that a group of individuals deserve serious physical injury, e.g., “If this group of protesters don’t shut up, they deserve to be shot.”

Obviously, the first two aren’t covered. They’re undoubtedly hanging their hat on the third, but let’s examine that: “Protesters.”

You’ll note that I very carefully specify “rioters” and “looters.” Both of those are criminals. Protesters ARE NOT. The behavior for which I’m seeking a potentially lethal remedy is already criminal conduct. In most states, defending one’s person and property from rioters is already eligible for lethal force. If rioters and looters find themselves committing crimes and mayhem on my property, they will undoubtedly be confronted with lethal force. Lots and lots of it.

How about this one: “Child molesters and rapists should be sentenced to death.”

Will that pass the Twitter test?

Or for that matter, what about: “Murderers with Special Circumstances in Texas should receive the death penalty?”

If this last one doesn’t pass muster, we’d better call Greg Abbott and Bill Paxton to let them know that the Lone Star State had better never tweet about its capital punishment statutes. We wouldn’t want the State of Texas being placed in Twitter Jail.

What I’ve noticed is that Twitter is very one-sided. They have no problem with the monstrous advocacy of abortion all over their platform. The generally have no problem when the leftist throngs descend upon Twitter en masse to wish death and mayhem on conservatives, and seldom does a complaint result in real action against a leftist. There have been many instances of real threats, even aimed at the President, which most often go unnoticed(or at least without action) by Twitter. Meanwhile, if you’re a law-abiding American who happens to believe that only the severest possible penalties will act as an effective brake on the lawlessness to which we’ve been witness for more than a week, you’re the bad person, and Twitter will give no quarter.

I firmly believe that when the rule of law is itself under direct attack, when government at all levels is facing a naked insurrection that threatens the lives and properties of its citizens, government ought to rise to their defense with all the same tools to which the citizenry is entitled, and that means lethal force.

I guarantee you that if the rioters and looters breech the White House grounds, you’re going to see lethal force employed by the Secret Service. It will be ugly. The president of the United States is entitled to a full defense of his life and of his residence, no matter who the president may be at the moment, whether we collectively like him or hate her. We, the people of the United States, are no less deserving of that level of defense, and it is in fact the whole purpose for the existence of all legitimate government.

I don’t care what @Jack Dorsey of Twitter says about it. I don’t care what the leftist enforcers on Twitter say about it. There’s nothing wrong with advocating policies that would “cause harm” to people who are causing harm. What all of this evinces is the crass political bias that social media platforms impose on users, and too frequently, it’s all one direction. I am not in support of making threats against individuals, but I’ll also point out that my advocacy has never been about individuals, or even broad classes of people defined by anything other than behavior, i.e., lawlessness and criminal conduct. If we can no longer advocate on behalf of law and order on Twitter, then why does Twitter have rules for conduct? After all, they stress that their rules of the road are meant to prevent the platform from descending into chaos. I have no problem with that, but what is their remedy? Ultimately, you can be sentenced to Twitter-death, which means to be kicked off the platform entirely, your accounts closed and your access denied.  Twitter seems not to have a problem with a virtual death penalty on their own platform, but it’s also obvious that they tend to issue that severest of penalties primarily to conservatives. What does Twitter hate? Conservatives. What does Twitter hate? Republicans.  What does Twitter hate? Law and order.

I’ve created an account on Parler.com in order to begin moving away from Twitter. As more conservatives find themselves banned and suspended, I hope the migration will continue in earnest and that new platform will grow. It’s the only way to overcome Twitter’s hate.

 

Advertisements

So You Want to Spread the Wealth?

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

Spreading the Misery Equally

In a recent discussion with an acquaintance, who was interested in my recent article on the nature of the people who are rioting in London, and elsewhere around the world, the question was posed to me: “How can you expect to convince young people who’ve never really had to struggle for anything that they shouldn’t be handed everything for free?”  This question is about the entitlement mentality that now seems to be spreading in pandemic proportion and threatens the foundations of our constitutional, representative republic.  It’s true that it’s a difficult thing to explain to somebody who has convinced themselves that demands, and not hard work, are the road to personal prosperity.  I was considering the problem on my way home when a thought crossed my mind: One of the reasons I fight so hard against socialism is because I’ve already experienced its oppressive boot on my neck.  I know from personal observations how it cripples the ability of individuals to prosper.

The problem with most of the people who demand more and more at the expense of others is that they have no skin in the game.  Since many of these people have never been on the paying end of the socialist monstrosity, I’m inclined to believe they simply don’t understand it, and won’t, until they’re made to pay, somehow.

I hope you’ll forgive me, my patient readers, as I propose something in order to make a point, because I think we can make the notion of having “skin in the game” as literal as any dare suffer to imagine possible.  Consider now, if you will, my own modest proposal for the ultimate entitlement program, designed to fulfill a basic human need, to promote self-esteem, and otherwise “spread the wealth around,” albeit of another kind.  Before I make my proposal, let me start by saying that money, property and wealth are just extensions of one’s person, so that if any of these are up for grabs to the mob in the name of “the public good,” it is truly an assault on the individual.  For this reason, and in order to demonstrate the immorality of socialism, I therefore propose a new entitlement program aimed at giving every person in our society the chance to feel better about themselves.  It’s predicated on the notion of the “public good,” and will doubtless reduce the incidence of violent crimes and relieve the poverty of spirit with which so many now suffer.  I therefore give you: “S-GROPE“:

Sexual Opportunity Resource Equalization Sponsorship Act of 2011 (SORES)

S-GROPE” is an acronym that stands for “Sexual Gratification and Recreation Of People Everywhere.”  This program will be administered by a new division of the Department of Health and Human Services, to be called “SCROOME.”  (That’s: Sexual Conjugation Resource Office Of Managed Ecstasy”, in case you hadn’t guessed.)

S-GROPE will be enacted to ensure every American equal access to sexual gratification and fulfillment.  We’ve learned through intensive study that this is an important part of human behavior and social development.  Too many people have been forced by the selfishness of others to endure endless long nights alone with no hope of human contact.  In order to ensure fairness, every American will be assigned an S-GROPE account number, and all Americans will be entered into a shared pool.  This will ensure fairness to all, but more importantly, it will be carried out safely within the confines of officially approved SCROOME Centers.

Commencing on the first Monday of the New Year, couples will be selected at random, with notifications sent out to all participants with the name, address, and time of their conjugal visitation.  Upon receipt of said notification, participants shall have not more than five days to schedule and fulfill their obligations under the program. The only exemptions shall be for minors and dependent adults, Congress, and other Federal officers and officials.  This program will be administered in the  most fair and humane manner possible: There will be no discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, condition of disability, or other factors.  Pairings will be selected at random, within the 25 mile geographical range of the participant’s home of residence.

When contacted by notification from SCROOME, participants should understand this to be a mandatory activity for the good of society.  Failure to appear, or any attempt to leave the premises after arrival at the officially designated SCROOME Centers will result in strict criminal liability, up to and including not more than 10 years of incarceration at a Federal SCROOME rehabilitation center…

Now, every person who reads my blog knows that this is entirely in jest, and is even now thinking up their own clever acronyms, but I would suggest you ask all those you know who suffer from delusions of redistribution: “If you can demand my wealth, my earnings, and my property at the point of a gun, and threaten me with imprisonment, why not my body too?  Why not yours?  Why should you get a choice about when or if to engage in sex, or with whom?  After all, it can be clearly demonstrated to be in the public interest according to some research clinician’s study.  No?  You don’t want this? What else could be the possible meaning of a federal mandate to purchase health-care insurance?”

“If you don’t want this, then how dare you demand the wallets or bank accounts of others?  If you don’t think this a proper use of Federal power, what makes you think it a proper use of Federal power to force me at gunpoint, under threat of incarceration, to fund the food on your plate or the roof over your head?  Is it because I have a bit more money at the moment than you?  Do you think that justifies it?  Well, the sad fact is that somewhere there is somebody with even less than you, who will eventually look at your wallet as you’ve been looking at mine.”

“If you think the notion is absurd when it is applied as in my offered piece of legislation above, what in the world would make you think it’s any less absurd, in logic or morality, to propose the same notions with respect to my labor?  When you demand my wallet, you’re demanding a share of all the labor that went into filling it with what little it contains.  When you demand that government pay for this or for that, you’re demanding that citizens be strapped to a table in your SCROOME Center for your own pleasure and purpose.”

These are the questions you should ask of anybody who contends they have a right to a full belly at the involuntary expense of others, because that person is morally capable of all of this and more.  You cannot claim the labors of a millionaire or a billionaire, or even a dirt-poor horse farmer without committing the same essential crime:  You’re guilty of demanding that others live for your sake, or else.  You’re demanding they live for your satisfaction, or else.  You’re seizing their work and the means to the attainment of their own dreams and aspirations.

One can pretend this hadn’t been the case, but the truth is much worse than most care to admit: Programs for the redistribution of wealth are merely a form of enslavement, just as the bizarre program I’ve proposed offers the same logic in service to the same preposterous ends.  You cannot claim to want freedom while demanding entitlement to the efforts and wealth of others, just as you cannot claim a right to sexual fulfillment by a spree of government-coerced rapes.  By definition, none of these things can be a right, because they negate the rights of others to their own lives, liberties, and property.  It’s time to stop pretending that socialism isn’t what it so clearly is, and if my vulgar little proposal  assists you to better explain the crass depravity of the entitlement mentality, so much the better, for if the person with whom you’re discussing it refuses to understand, it can be safely said that such a person has abandoned humanity already.