Talk-Polywell.org

You don't need to censor other people's arguments:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/10/ ... -skeptics/
This is just despicable for a major newspaper.

Jccarlton wrote:You don't need to censor other people's arguments:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/10/ ... -skeptics/
This is just despicable for a major newspaper.

Why? It's no different than banning letters from racists or people who think they're Napoleon.

This is why mainstream media is losing viewers by the droves, everybody knows it's Project Mockingbird propaganda. The Presstitutes and War Whores of MSM lost a huge amount of remaining cred over Syria, people are turning to Alt media instead.

choff wrote:This is why mainstream media is losing viewers by the droves, everybody knows it's Project Mockingbird propaganda. The Presstitutes and War Whores of MSM lost a huge amount of remaining cred over Syria, people are turning to Alt media instead.

Errr, why did they lose so much cred?

Seems to me Obama fixed Syria, at least as far as chemical weapons which is all he aimed to fix, nicely. Not a drop of blood shed, not a boot on the ground, not a bomb, not a bullet. They're disposing of their chemical weapons as fast as they can. What's not to like?

You can count coup over the conservatroids. Have fun. I'm more interested in the fact we're not fighting another war and a bunch of chemical weapons are getting destroyed instead of killing more brown babies. Destroying chemical weapons is a Good Thing. When you can do it without killing anyone it's a Great Thing.

I think that this is pertinent:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/ ... isdom.html
It's not good idea, as nice as it may sound to have things that people just don't talk about.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... an_Thinker

Sorry, don't read yellow Libertardian rags.

Obama got rid of the chemical weapons, is how I read it.

Is censorship if everybody does it?
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... ters-times
I have to wonder what they are all so afraid of if they are so certain they are right.

Jccarlton wrote:Is censorship if everybody does it?
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... ters-times
I have to wonder what they are all so afraid of if they are so certain they are right.

Me and Mother Jones don't get along. I'm not defending anything they said. I won't disown it if someone else I trust said it, but I won't take them as a single source.

Jccarlton wrote:Is censorship if everybody does it?
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... ters-times
I have to wonder what they are all so afraid of if they are so certain they are right.

It's a standard thing - stifle and conceal any hint of dissent. Don't allow anyone who disagrees to have even the faintest idea there are others who feel the same way. Keep them isolated, and you can keep them controlled. If they find there's others - then they could get together and gain power.

And that's one of the things that the internet changes. As much as they'd like to be able to isolate people who dissent from their line of thought those horrible dissidents can find others of their ilk with little trouble - and actually research things for themselves instead of listening to what Pravda tells them.

When people can see that 2+2=4, instead of 5 as Pravda says - well... it brings a lot of things into question, doesn't it?

Yep, like global warming denial, and smoking cancer denial, and things like that.

JLawson wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Is censorship if everybody does it?
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... ters-times
I have to wonder what they are all so afraid of if they are so certain they are right.

It's a standard thing - stifle and conceal any hint of dissent. Don't allow anyone who disagrees to have even the faintest idea there are others who feel the same way. Keep them isolated, and you can keep them controlled. If they find there's others - then they could get together and gain power.

And that's one of the things that the internet changes. As much as they'd like to be able to isolate people who dissent from their line of thought those horrible dissidents can find others of their ilk with little trouble - and actually research things for themselves instead of listening to what Pravda tells them.

When people can see that 2+2=4, instead of 5 as Pravda says - well... it brings a lot of things into question, doesn't it?

Funny thing, lately I've seen better stuff on some topics from Pravda than the NYTimes. Go figure. New works better when you don't have agenda to push.

JLawson wrote:It's a standard thing - stifle and conceal any hint of dissent. Don't allow anyone who disagrees to have even the faintest idea there are others who feel the same way. Keep them isolated, and you can keep them controlled.

40 Baez Points: 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Number 33.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html