Sacha Baron Cohen's ADL Speech

[diggity]

 

Its pretty long. about 30 min of so. I found it worthwhile so thought I would share.

He makes some decent points and I didn't realize that the Silicon 6 were so closely related. 

 

[Hua Guofang]

Heard this was a banger, look forward to listening 

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

Not interested. Will listen later. But probably not. 

[Mercer]

Good to see him like that speaking as himself. I always knew he'd be a brilliant dude outside of character. That was probably the most compelling speech I've ever heard against free speech.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Mercer

[Guest]

I will watch with expectation he is doing performance art. 

[diggity]

I think he makes a good point that I think a lot of people miss out. 

These are private businesses that are making money off of hate speech, homophobia, whatever. 

 

they have the power to do that but they don't want to lose that market share.

With their algorithms they have the power to help shape opinion for the better and work against racism and bigotry.

[Hua Guofang]

That's right, @diggity it's actually not a free speech issue, @Mercer(I also know the issue of that Chinese blogger, there's zero relationship with what's being discussed here). These are private companies, they can set whatever rules they want for participation, just like Raven can do here.

 

It's also not a free speech issue when the problem isn't so much about people speaking their minds but about fee for service campaigns and algorithms that amplify a particular style of content (extreme and sensational as opposed to factual, constructive or informative).

 

That's not free speech, that's commercial practices and systems settings. Enforcing truth in advertising and using algorithms that don't spiral towards extreme content does not limit anyone's freedom of expression one bit.

[Fist 666]

Worth the watch. It continues to bother me that some of the most sane and rational analyses of the state of the world and humanity come from comedians and not elected leaders. 

 

A few points I disagree with, but overall, baron Cohen 2020.

[Mercer]

This is 100% pushing for the State to mandate "offensive speech" shared on private platforms. Illegal speech like making threats, conspiring to commit crimes is already illegal. What Sasha is advocating for is government speech mandates, targeting "offensive" speech which is obviously a subjective thing to target.

 

The state of Israel drives Arabs from their homes, and have two separate classes of citizens. They even have separate Arab/Jewish  license plates for cars just so they know who to favor/harass on the road. The statement I just made is 100% factual, but no doubt offensive to some. Should government agents show up and arrest me, or raven now? Because that's what this boils down to.

 

Honestly, nothing against Israel, if I had to live in the Mid East you best believe I'd pick Israel for several reasons, generally great people, and a great country for the most part IMO. That's beside the point, the government shouldn't be able to decide what I have to say, regardless of if it offends someone. Again, actual illegal speech like threats, criminal conspiracy are already crimes. If I'm saying it on ___________'s platform, and __________ doesn't like it, it's for them to decide, but the moment the government is controlling that situation they've crossed a line period.

 

This is 100% advocating for the government to use force to control offensive speech. Trying to reframe this argument in any other way violates logical consistency. That's why I posted the video of the police busting into that Chinese lady's apartment, she clearly said something that offended someone online.

 

 

[Ray Velcoro]

Anyone advocating for the government to to limit/control what anyone is allowed to say,  either has 'their' people in power, has reached an isolated status within the system, or has never read a fucking history book.

 

To be fair, I did not, and will not be watching said speech.

 

Celebrities are allowed an opinion, same as anyone else. Their platform & voice can be powerful and relay messages the oppressed cannot, but the overwhelming majority of the time it's a bunch of self-serving bullshit to look good to the masses. Pretty ironic coming from a guy who made his fortune off of trolling and being offensive.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Ray Velcoro

[Fist 666]

@MercerHe's advocating for the same mandates that television, radio, and print media abide by--new technology demands new laws. Yes, that means more government involvement and more laws, I know that is directly counter to ancap ideology, but its demonstrably (I would say inarguably) a failing shitshow to let social media operate in a vacuum without consequence.

 

I think the owner of the platform is somewhat responsible for what is said on it, even here on 12oz. Newspapers will publish lots of letters to the editors, but they will draw the line when social standards are violated. We delete gore and porn here without hesitation, we have defined what is porn v art, and are having conversations about what standards we want to define elsewhere (I would like to get you involved in that, possible thread move to VIP).  

 

I'm not going to touch my opinions on Israel in channel zero, but I think its a bit of a stretch to compare segregation by zionism on steroids with holding zuckerberg responsible for statements made on his platform.  I know this immediately becomes a slippery slope into state run definitions  of socially acceptable behavior, but to me that is hyperbolic and is counter to the necessity of action on social media's part. 

[diggity]

@Mercer News and Television are both private platforms yet are not allow to just blast out what ever they wish. there are limits to free speech. 

 

I don't believe he is advocating against free speech in the least. Him being who he is, and what hes done in the past, its pretty clear he understands the topic, probably better than anyone on this forum. One persons rights end where another's begins. There are alot of things that are not covered by freedom of speech and some could say that those platforms are doing nothing to prevent those things from thriving. In addition to that, the fact that there is no checks and balances or regulation on said sites is a major issue. Typically what is not covered by freedom of speech is hate speech, inciting violence, supporting terrorism, threats, IP,  Defamation of character.

 

Traditional media  is  regulated and i'm sure it started in a similar way.

When I did work for Cartoon Network I found out that there are a ton of advertisers that are not allowed to run on the network. when you first hear that, you think, of course they wouldn't allow pornhub to put a 30 second spot on air. But it actually goes alot farther than that. Shitty food that targets kids is not allow, obviously tobacco and alcohol, etc.  On top of government regulation, they had a set of standards in place for things that they would not allow an advertiser to push or say. 

When I did stuff with CNN, Fox, TRU etc - you can't run political ads that straight up lie. they have to back up facts with legal breadcrumbs. they also have to be transparent in who pays for the ad, this is pretty across the board on all networks.

 

On top of this, movies and television both have a rating system to deal with. 

These things do not exist online. You can hock vape pens to kids on facebook. you can makeup whatever news/lies/slander you wish in your political ad and put out there in advertising or in fake accounts on social media.  You can make threats or encourage others to do harm to others. Encourage others to go out and harm others based on their political views, race, sexual orientation, etc. Freedom of speech doesn't cover the these things. 

 

I don't think this would have been an issue if these tech companies had been more proactive in regulating themselves but I also do not think that it can be avoided. 

This is an interesting time we are living in now. Clearly whats going on with china/hongkong some of these tools can be used for "good" or "evil" depending on which side of the line you are on. 

 

This isn't something that can be solved in one swoop.

It needs to be done in small steps both forward and back until it gets dialed in properly.  mistakes are going to be made and hopefully corrected but we need to start moving in the right direction. 

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, Fist 666 said:

@MercerHe's advocating for the same mandates that television, radio, and print media abide by--new technology demands new laws. Yes, that means more government involvement and more laws, I know that is directly counter to ancap ideology, but its demonstrably (I would say inarguably) a failing shitshow to let social media operate in a vacuum without consequence.

No, he's not. The pre-existing platforms have 100% centrally controlled one way communication. Old media like print/radio/television are systems where control is actually possible. On top of that, almost all of the rules governing offensive/hate speech on those platforms is largely self imposed (as it is now on Social Media). 

 

The state mandating a private company write a (government designed) censorship algorithm to censor individual users is an entirely different matter altogether. It's not only an undue burden to platforms already doing so already, it's simply an idea that won't work well in an environment with rapidly changing technology. Most of the tech used by developers on social media doesn't have a 4 year degree you can learn because by the time you're certified it's obsolete. There's no way something as slow to adapt as legislation could possibly keep up.

 

Besides, I don't see anyone on these platforms advocating for violence, recruiting for hate groups etc. Insisting we violate private ownership rights, to impose a state mandated infringement on free speech is unnecessary at this point, and reckless. There have always been deplorable people, it's just now the curtain is being drawn back. Opening the door for future infringements because we don't like what's on the other side of this now open curtain crosses a clear, and definite free speech line.

 

These laws are always put in place with the best intentions, nobody is refuting that. There's also no denying that once in place, laws like these are always abused. It's not always going to be the people you want running the show deciding what's "offensive" or "hate speech".

 

1 hour ago, Fist 666 said:

 

I think the owner of the platform is somewhat responsible for what is said on it, even here on 12oz.

Yes, responsible is the correct term, but at question here is responsible to who? I wouldn't be on 12oz if it were lame for any multitude of reasons, including a place for hate speech, so in a way 12oz is responsible to me, if they expect my patronage to uphold their own standards.  They also have a responsibility to themselves, and their own judgement on these matters, or the market will dictate their demise. Responsible, and legally responsible are two separate ideas. 

 

1 hour ago, Fist 666 said:

Newspapers will publish lots of letters to the editors, but they will draw the line when social standards are violated. We delete gore and porn here without hesitation, we have defined what is porn v art, and are having conversations about what standards we want to define elsewhere (I would like to get you involved in that, possible thread move to VIP). 

There's a big difference between self imposed standards, and government imposed standards. I'd assume we collectively have enough common sense on here to decide what we will allow as a community. Asking someone from the FCC to sit in on our VIP thread discussing this, and set the rules for us is ridiculous, and basically what you're really advocating for here. Besides, I straight up post images that could be considered gore/porn no problem, again, it's the context that matters, something an algorithm, or even an outsider couldn't judge accurately.  

 

1 hour ago, Fist 666 said:

I'm not going to touch my opinions on Israel in channel zero

Smart move, and you didn't need the government to tell you.

 

1 hour ago, Fist 666 said:

, but I think its a bit of a stretch to compare segregation by zionism on steroids with holding zuckerberg responsible for statements made on his platform.

Being even slightly critical of Israel is almost always condemned as antisemitic by some. I's assume many of them in the ADL, and Sasha's audience when he made that speech would condemn any criticism as such. If humans don't have a consensus on this, how on earth could we expect software to?

 

1 hour ago, Fist 666 said:

I know this immediately becomes a slippery slope into state run definitions  of socially acceptable behavior,

Yes, there needs to be a clear line drawn somewhere that is logically consistent. If we decide to move this line, where will put it once the moving is done? The answer is it will no longer be a clear straight line. We'd have to bend it around what we subjectively feel is acceptable speech, and further blur the line in situations we understand the context, like allowing an offensive joke by Sasha Cohen for example. The line at this point ceases to have any meaning.

 

I feel comfortable sharing a generic anti Israel statement because of this indefinable context, (people know me here, I'm against nazi's, and not white). If Raven designed a (State Mandated) algorithm to detect anti semitism though, I'd probably be fucked now. Systemically punished for a crime that I'm not guilty of. In fact, the crime itself doesn't even exist, because the line on what is, and isn't a crime to say has already been drawn. The line should sit in the most logically consistent place, so protected free speech always implies that even offensive speech is protected. The state shouldn't be in the business of censoring any speech that is't a crime in itself, and I think this sentiment covers politically undesirable speech.

 

1 hour ago, Fist 666 said:

but to me that is hyperbolic and is counter to the necessity of action on social media's part. 

No, that's the very crux of the debate here, it's not if hate speech exists, is a problem, etc. that is not what's being debated here. One side clearly wants to impose limits to free speech, and private property/autonomy rights, and the other side doesn't. It's really that simple.

 

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, diggity said:

@Mercer News and Television are both private platforms yet are not allow to just blast out what ever they wish. there are limits to free speech. 

Reposting original statement I made on this:

 

11 minutes ago, Mercer said:

The pre-existing platforms have 100% centrally controlled one way communication. Old media like print/radio/television are systems where control is actually possible. On top of that, almost all of the rules governing offensive/hate speech on those platforms is largely self imposed (as it is now on Social Media). 

 

The state mandating a private company write a (government designed) censorship algorithm to censor individual users is an entirely different matter altogether. It's not only an undue burden to platforms already doing so already, it's simply an idea that won't work well in an environment with rapidly changing technology. Most of the tech used by developers on social media doesn't have a 4 year degree you can learn because by the time you're certified it's obsolete. There's no way something as slow to adapt as legislation could possibly keep up.

1 hour ago, diggity said:

I don't believe he is advocating against free speech in the least.

Of course, or we'd be in agreement here.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

Him being who he is, and what hes done in the past, its pretty clear he understands the topic, probably better than anyone on this forum. One persons rights end where another's begins.

His own work would be flagged by any algorithm, the fact he's rich, and famous enough to appeal means he probably won't be flagged. I mean you could say "except for comedians, they're not affected" but then any proponent of hate speech needs only to declare themselves a comedian. If he get's what he wants here good luck to any edgy comedians following in his footsteps, they'll never make the cut and come out on top of social media censorship algorithms. This is in a way, kind of a dick move on his part.

  

1 hour ago, diggity said:

There are alot of things that are not covered by freedom of speech

Yes crimes are not covered as free speech, offensive speech is covered. Pretty simple.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

and some could say that those platforms are doing nothing to prevent those things from thriving.

They'd either be wrong, lying, these platforms clearly do censor hate speech.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

In addition to that, the fact that there is no checks and balances or regulation on said sites is a major issue.

No it's not, the government shouldn't control every aspect of public life.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

Typically what is not covered by freedom of speech is hate speech,

Incorrect^^^, how do you think they have Klan rallies in public squares etc? Why aren't Klan members randomly rounded up?

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

inciting violence,

Correct^^^

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

supporting terrorism,

Correct^^^

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

threats,

Depends on the (algorithmically undefinable) context, but for the most part correct^^^

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

IP, 

Correct^^^ (but I'm not down with this either, entirely different subject though)

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

Defamation of character.

Incorrect, you're allowed to say things that defame another's character as long as they're true. 

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

Traditional media  is  regulated and i'm sure it started in a similar way.

Sort of, traditional media regulations started out by the government threatening to censor these industries, if self imposed rules weren't put into place during the early days of radio, and film. Later, some of the responsibility for enforcing these self imposed rules/standards was handed over to the government by the motion picture association. That's not to say every law in place currently is 100% constitutional, just context for the. 

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

When I did work for Cartoon Network I found out that there are a ton of advertisers that are not allowed to run on the network. when you first hear that, you think, of course they wouldn't allow pornhub to put a 30 second spot on air. But it actually goes alot farther than that. Shitty food that targets kids is not allow, obviously tobacco and alcohol, etc.  On top of government regulation, they had a set of standards in place for things that they would not allow an advertiser to push or say. 

When I did stuff with CNN, Fox, TRU etc - you can't run political ads that straight up lie. they have to back up facts with legal breadcrumbs. they also have to be transparent in who pays for the ad, this is pretty across the board on all networks.

I'm not on board with any of this censorship personally, again I argue the content the media company is responsible for in this context is something they can actually control. If I don't want my kids to see what's on cable channel _____, I opt to not subscribe to it, not insist the government prevent everyone from seeing channel ________ . Activities like smoking, bad food, jerking off to porn, etc. shouldn't even be on the governments radar, and left up to the industry, and consumers at large.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

 

On top of this, movies and television both have a rating system to deal with. 

Again, it's completely self imposed.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

These things do not exist online.

Yes, these same safeguards do in many cases. Again, apples compared to oranges here as online consumers can actually publish their own content at will. This wasn't really possible with print, radio, film, TV etc.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

You can hock vape pens to kids on facebook.

Tobacco products are heavily mandated by individual states, if you actually sold one to a minor and got caught, you'd be fucked. It's already 100% illegal to sell vape pens to minors, at least in my State.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

you can makeup whatever news/lies/slander you wish

Nope, you'd be held liable if it can be proven to be false. Newspapers, TV stations etc. are regularly sued for this.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

in your political ad and put out there in advertising or in fake accounts on social media.

Correct, and the actors doing so anonymously in an attempt to cover their tracks will always be able to operate like this. Regardless of whatever totalitarian rules are in place bad actors will always exist. The real harm of State requirements for censoring offensive speech  won't stop a bad actor operating like this, they will be most effective at being used for abuse of individuals going against the sanctioned narrative.

 

1 hour ago, diggity said:

  You can make threats or encourage others to do harm to others. Encourage others to go out and harm others based on their political views, race, sexual orientation, etc.

Incorrect, This is actually a crime. There are several laws in place defining, and condemning criminal conspiracy for assault/murder already.

 

 

Unfortunately if I don't stop typing, responding now and help clean up, my wife will revoke my free speech rights on 12oz.

 

Unfortunately I have to cut this short here. 

[diggity]

@ Mercer

Re: Klan of course its not. unless its paired with an act of violence and then pinged as a hate crime. i was a bit too vague with that. 

 

Re: Defamation -referring to slander here. 

 

Re: Alcohol and Tobacco - when left to their own devices they were urging people to smoke and drink to make their babies smaller and easier to birth. at some point there has to be accountability. they knew the risks. I think cigarette  commercials got cut in the 70s under Nixon. Pretty sure it still exists in magazine although I cant recall the last time I've seen. I don't know where things are with them pertaining to the internet.

 

Re: your last point the Lies Slander comment - yet its happening  and little to nothing is being done to prevent it.  point being its still pretty wild west right now. If they have the ability to over hear me joke about something and then toss targeted ads based on the context of that. they should be able to do more with how they are shaping the culture of their business. using a combined method of AI/algorithms  and people, it should be manageable in some form. there are so many people advertising on their platform, and paying money to do so, yet they don't bother to put in place enough people to even look at whats being put out there until after its reported X number of times.

 

FCC is a government outfit most likely because it is transmitted over the air. cable companies somehow got tied up into that mix after they came along 

 

FCC is pretty reactive to a very small group of people who write into it with complaints this is unfortunate and in someways i feel like helps contribute to traditional cable failing. 

Its really amazing how much one or two people calling into a TV network or writing to the FCC shapes everyone else's world. You would think, its our channel, we should be able to do what ever we want. but there are limits on how much advertising you can do vs how much show.  

 

I hear what your saying about not wanting the government involved in this. I think if they were doing a better job of it, it probably wouldn't have ever come up because the train is moving too fast for any of us to keep up it seems.

The sad part of this is how this is just the beginning of it and its going to branch out deep into business practices at some point. 

 

We're in for some ugly days ahead on this subject. 

Has anyone seen whats being done with facial/voice mapping where they can take like 3 images of a person, some vocal samples and make them say whatever they want?

The clip i watched they took video of trump doing a speech as an example, made him say what ever they wanted. now in all fairness, i'm not a huge fan of that dude. but its also hard to imagine anything that's too outlandish for him to say.could it be used to influence votes at the last minute before an election or house vote. 

Is that performance art? is it free speech? we get to a place where we are unable to trust anything.

[Mercer]

On 11/23/2019 at 9:25 PM, diggity said:

Re: Alcohol and Tobacco - when left to their own devices they were urging people to smoke and drink to make their babies smaller and easier to birth. at some point there has to be accountability. they knew the risks. I think cigarette  commercials got cut in the 70s under Nixon. Pretty sure it still exists in magazine although I cant recall the last time I've seen. I don't know where things are with them pertaining to the internet.

False advertising in this manner is already fraudulent, already a crime, and has been successfully used to win several lawsuits. 

 

Quote

Re: your last point the Lies Slander comment - yet its happening  and little to nothing is being done to prevent it.  point being its still pretty wild west right now. If they have the ability to over hear me joke about something and then toss targeted ads based on the context of that. they should be able to do more with how they are shaping the culture of their business. using a combined method of AI/algorithms  and people, it should be manageable in some form. there are so many people advertising on their platform, and paying money to do so, yet they don't bother to put in place enough people to even look at whats being put out there until after its reported X number of times.

The voluntary system managing this is already in place for the most part, without the government mandates. Perfect? No, but for sure better than a government mandated solution.

 

Quote

FCC is a government outfit most likely because it is transmitted over the air. cable companies somehow got tied up into that mix after they came along 

Radio Act of 1912. First, only intended for the military, emergency responders, police, and entertainment companies that all wanted to be able to get their signals out over the airwaves to the right audiences without interference. Bad ideas sometimes start with the best intentions, there are better technological solutions to figuring this out.

 

The Radio Act of 1912 helped to establish a commission that would designate which airwaves would be for public use, and which airwaves would be reserved for the various commercial, state users who needed them. In 1926, the Federal Radio Commission was established to help handle the growing complexities (encroachments) of the country's free market radio industry. In 1934, Congress passed the Communications Act, which replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission.

 

Quote

FCC is pretty reactive to a very small group of people who write into it with complaints this is unfortunate and in someways i feel like helps contribute to traditional cable failing. Its really amazing how much one or two people calling into a TV network or writing to the FCC shapes everyone else's world. You would think, its our channel, we should be able to do what ever we want. but there are limits on how much advertising you can do vs how much show.  

Police dispatch probably works in much the same way, one neighborhood busy body standing out more than the others.

 

Quote

 

I hear what your saying about not wanting the government involved in this. I think if they were doing a better job of it, it probably wouldn't have ever come up because the train is moving too fast for any of us to keep up it seems.

I'd say they're doing a good enough job for me. Perfect, no. Up to the standards the ADL would set if it were in charge, probably not. The real question is if it warrants giving up free speech, or allowing the federal government to interfere in private companies, or private/public communications between free individuals. I'd say it's not a big enough problem to outweigh the need to protect free speech.

 

Quote

The sad part of this is how this is just the beginning of it and its going to branch out deep into business practices at some point. 

Only if we choose to let it, we won't. What he wants is unconstitutional.

 

Quote

We're in for some ugly days ahead on this subject. 

That's sort of the point. What Sasha is advocating for is at it's core made with the best intentions. But the fallout from it's implementation, and the ugly days that follow are what I want to avoid here.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Mercer

[Kults]

On 11/23/2019 at 9:40 AM, Ray Velcoro said:

Anyone advocating for the government to to limit/control what anyone is allowed to say,  either has 'their' people in power, has reached an isolated status within the system, or has never read a fucking history book.

 

To be fair, I did not, and will not be watching said speech.

 

Celebrities are allowed an opinion, same as anyone else. Their platform & voice can be powerful and relay messages the oppressed cannot, but the overwhelming majority of the time it's a bunch of self-serving bullshit to look good to the masses. Pretty ironic coming from a guy who made his fortune off of trolling and being offensive.

That’s exactly my takeaway. Guy makes a career out of being a racist troll ( gypsies anyone) and now wants to act holier than thou. From what I’m getting by the comments he wants to censor Free speech? Like.. U wut m8 

[Fist 666]

@Kultswatch the speech--if you've taken him as a racist troll you've missed his points. 

[Mercer]

22 minutes ago, Fist 666 said:

@Kultswatch the speech--if you've taken him as a racist troll you've missed his points. 

Have to agree, his characters have all been funny, and he's always kind of used the humor to point out the stupidity of racism/homophobia. He even touches on this in his speech against free speech.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Mercer

[Kults]

23 minutes ago, Fist 666 said:

@Kultswatch the speech--if you've taken him as a racist troll you've missed his points. 

I might.

 

I dont think he’s a troll but his chrs sure are. Borat was hilarious, the entire movie was trolling and had tons of racism in it. Yes of course it’s satire. 

 

I mean it’s pretty ironic to get lectured on racism or censoring what is deemed as hateful or racist  ( if that’s even what’s going on?) coming from the dude who played Borat, no? 

[Mercer]

3 hours ago, Kults said:

I might.

 

I dont think he’s a troll but his chrs sure are. Borat was hilarious, the entire movie was trolling and had tons of racism in it. Yes of course it’s satire. 

 

I mean it’s pretty ironic to get lectured on racism or censoring what is deemed as hateful or racist  ( if that’s even what’s going on?) coming from the dude who played Borat, no? 

That's what I see him advocating for, a system that would have systemically censored him as many of his words could have been easily offensive to someone who didn't get what he was saying. In no way is he racist, homophobic in my book but I guarantee he's offended someone in this way. Nobody would deny this.

 

So if we can't reliably define what's racist/homophobic as humans consistently, how can this be fairly decided by facebook professional snitch agents monitoring literally everything that's posted. I assert humans can't be trusted to decide accurately what constitutes hate speech, this also means we cannot decide accurately through software either.

 

That's the thing with controversy, it's a good thing when tastefully done. The problem is, everyone doesn't have good taste.

[Ray Velcoro]

I'm disgruntled(mostly) out of envy, but fuck celebrities and what they have to say.

 

While I'm sure(someone has to be real right?) some are genuine and authentic, I just can't get past my mental

blockade that it's a crock of shit to look like a 'good guy'. It seems born out of convenience. It's realllllly  easy to

be passionate about people you no longer have to directly interact with or live like. It's really easy to address issues

that won't cause you to change at all. There are things like racism/all the other isms that are never acceptable and

unfortunately are usually indoctrinated into people and they can be hard to shake without real effort.

Not to mention it's easy to say a bunch of shit, and starting a dialogue is the start of fixing almost any if not every

problem, but what is the follow up? Does any participation follow? Does any out of pocket, non-tax credit money

follow? Words can be powerful, and they can be hollow. Actions will always speak louder than vapid acceptance

speeches.

 

That being said, look at all these white cunts calling out white privilege, AFTER they made it. I don't see any aspiring

actors/actresses/etc calling it out, it's only the ones who have made their millions and cemented their place in

show biz. I don't see them giving all their shit/fame back, sure they might make a donation here or there or

put someone on, but if all the whinny bitches calling it out gave their shit up, we'd have equality tomorrow.

 

Look at Lebron James. Calls out issues in America(as he should, they are legit issues), then turns right

around and throws Hong Kong(who is facing ubiquitous state oppression) in the fire because it will cost him

and his buddies millions & billions.

 

Look at Collin Kaepernick(don't even care to look up his corny ass honky name). Dude was raised by adopted

white parents in a suburb, always kept his hair buzzed and never said shit about BLM......then Jim gets fired,

the 49ers turn into a pumpkin, he gets benched for a fucking nobody, and now all of a sudden he grows out

his fro, takes a knee and he's MLK on the football field. The issue he raised is very pertinent and was being

slept on by way too many people because it didn't affect them, but get the fuck out of my face with this

SJW bullshit. Dude knew he would get paid one way or another.

 

People like Bob Dylan, Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders(chained to black people before it was cool) I can take seriously.

But some fucking clown who makes a living from comedy/satire? Nah. I'll pass.

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Ray Velcoro

[Kults]

Woosh. Great post 

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

On 11/22/2019 at 9:29 PM, NightmareOnElmStreet said:

Not interested. Will listen later. But probably not. 

Listened. Was unexpectedly awesome. Some things went over my head but i got the jest. Free speech is such a touchy subject and i’m Not sure where the line should be, if any. I do however, think that the very social media platforms he talks about have to do something about said content and how its regulated. There are definitely certain topics that have no business being slandered about on the internet. Any one of those assholes in silicone valley has the power to fix a whole lot of wrong in the world we’re livin in today but they wont. 

[Mercer]

 

Coming soon to a police department near you.

[Kults]

Next up minority report