please be advised.....
3 responses | 0 likes
Started by GunterK - June 7, 2019, 9:48 p.m.

please be advised that youtube now considers any criticism of illegal immigration as "hate speech". Such posts/uploads will be removed.

I believe, Facebook has already instituted such controls. They also don't allow members with "conservative" leanings to express their views.

"First they came for the 1st Amendment and I did not speak out....."

oooops... I shouldn't paraphrase these famous words, written by Mr. Martin Niemoeller.... this could be considered plagarism

However, the handwriting is on the wall....

By metmike - June 7, 2019, 11:45 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Gunter,

I'm not sure what to make of it.  I see all sorts of examples about hate speech in areas that usually don't comprise much space( maybe I just never go to sources like that and am underestimating it) but  I didn't find anything about alot  of hate speech that exists least the way it seems to me directed at Trump.

YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

"YouTube announced plans on Wednesday to remove thousands of videos and channels that advocate neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies in an attempt to clean up extremism and hate speech on its popular service.

The new policy will ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,” the company said in a blog post. The prohibition will also cover videos denying that violent events, like the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, took place."

metmike: I really like the idea of getting this crap off the internet because(and I'm serious) it appears to me as if peoples brains have been changed in the last decade............ where they will believe anything they see or hear if they are already predisposed or inclined in that direction. 

It's how the fake climate crisis has been imparted as solidly into some brains as the law of gravity is in the world of science. 

But what about the MSM and the sneaky way that they impose their hate Trump belief system on people? Freedom of the press prevents any accountability. Democrats screaming for impeachment, their leader for prison for crimes that they can't even identify when asked?

I guess a white male, republican president that every body hates is ok to attack with hate speech. 

By metmike - June 8, 2019, 12:11 a.m.
Like Reply

Let's be fair on my statement about MSM's hate speech aimed at Trump.

On social media, there are some sources that are way out of control like Raw Story. 

With the MSM, it seems like mainly CNN and CNBC and especially certain individuals that step way over the line:

I provided this example last night, where CNBC did a segment titled: "denier in chief"

The derogatory term denier was invented to connect  people who are skeptical of the climate crisis with people who deny that the  Holocaust  ever happened. It's a very hateful name meant to put down the other person as being dumb and anti science. 

So here is my post from yesterday that points out the hate speech directed at Trump at CNBC.:


Bill Nye doesn't miss an opportunity as he compares climate change to D-Day. But Chris Matthews actually made me feel embarrassed that a network news anchor could be so wrong about facts, that he would trash the person that he hates for stating something accurately.  

Bill Matthews led into the interview by playing a clip of Trump making some statements about tornadoes and other things......  then bashed him for not having a clue about what he's talking about."somebody is feeding him this bs/crap"...............titling the segment "denier in chief".

Here's the thing about this segment/interview. It had to have been planned out well in advance. For one thing, they had to arrange for Bill Nye to come on their show. They had to tape the interview with Trump on climate change and review it, you would think more than once and by numerous people who picked out and edited the parts they wanted to play in front of this segment with Bill Nye. When they picked the title "Denier in chief" they obviously believed the part of the interview they were playing was evidence that Trump was a "climate denier" and  was making bs statements.

So what did Trump say about the weather that Matthews criticized him for?  Here's one thing that he said:

"40 years ago, we had the worst tornado binge that we've ever had"

So Trump didn't say it perfect but he's obviously been educated by somebody that knows or done some homework on the science or how else would he have known that violent tornadoes peaked in the 1970's during global cooling,  when we had the "tornado binge"?

Him saying that "we had our worse hurricanes in the 1890's" was not scientifically correct. Even though he had the right idea(hurricanes have not increased in number or strength, despite global warming and many of the worst ones occurred back then), he did a Donald Trump by saying it wrong. 

Trump says so many things wrong and has made me cringe  before when he talks about climate change or weather because it usually shows that he doesn't understand it that well and he is usually a horrible spokesperson to represent  skepticism in a climate crisis.  

However, this was an exception and I was mildly impressed for once. 

By metmike - June 8, 2019, 12:24 a.m.
Like Reply

Were the examples below considered hate speech?

How CNN And MSNBC Made Shakedown Artist Michael Avenatti A Household Name

"Avenatti was interviewed on broadcast and cable news networks 214 times from March to November 2018"

Michael Avenatti Appeared On CNN And MSNBC Over 100 Times In 10-Week Period In 2018

Michael Avenatti Faces 36 New Counts and Up to 335 Years in prison.

michael avenatti

And that's in addition to their round the clock  falsely painting Trump as a traitor and law breaker for colluding with Russia for 2.5 years. ..........was that hate speech?

What about all the attacks on attorney general Barr?

What about Judge Kavanaugh last year? 

Is that and was some of that hate speech?  Most of it was made up or unsubstantiated/speculation but it was all political and intended to smear and destroy the opponent. 

Trump had the affair of course but at what point does the coverage go to such an extreme where its the top story for months and used in a manner that amplifies its significance ten fold to smear somebody qualify it  as hate speech?