Technology

Mike Solana Wants You To Commit Thoughtcrimes

The Hereticon organizer on deplatforming, tribalism, and why tech dudes and journalists are natural enemies

|

Mike Solana is a vice president at Founders Fund, a venture capital firm that has invested in a number of businesses that you probably know well, from Airbnb to Stripe. He runs the firm's branding, working to attract young investors and companies. He's also an outspoken critic of moralizing, pessimistic tech journalism, a theme he hits frequently in Pirate Wires, his irreverent, pointed Substack.

And he hits bigger themes too. "This whole entire question of what is true has really animated me for the last few years," he says. "High-level, I care about freedom."

"Libertarianism was the animating political philosophy in my life, starting in high school," says Solana. His political journey included a drift into "scary leftism" briefly during college and a brief embrace of anarcho-capitalism, which is how he met Peter Thiel, his now-boss who created Founders Fund.

With some areas, such as foreign policy and concern about China's sometimes opaque influence on tech companies, Solana deviates from traditional libertarian thought. "I don't want [the U.S.] being the police of the world, and yet there is this, I think, very important question of what happens when America does stop being the police of the world," he says. "I think you're going to see the destabilization of power globally, the rise of powers in places like Russia and China. I'm not convinced that's a better world."

He also recently organized and hosted Hereticon, a conference focused on ideas and arguments that have largely been shut out of mainstream discourse. Conceived of more than two years ago, the event was repeatedly postponed due to the pandemic, which Solana says further proved the value proposition. It finally took place in Miami Beach in January.

Solana's interview with Peter Suderman appeared on The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie in March.

Reason: You've been writing Pirate Wires on Substack for several years now.

Solana: The real reason that I'm doing it is probably because I'm allowed to do it. I work for Peter Thiel and he is a little bit anarchist in this way—that's how everything operates under him. He allows people to do weird shit.

I started the Substack as a monetization of my podcast, called Problematic, very much in the thick of the culture war stuff. I started doing a newsletter, just my cut on the tech press, and that got a lot more attention than my podcast did, which was weird, because I thought I was doing a good job with the podcast. The thing grew and grew. Now I consider myself one of many newly emergent countervoices in the tech/political press landscape.

In the world of tech, the whole environment is dominated by people who hate tech and really hate the people in tech. I wanted to be a part of the solution there.

On both your Substack and your Twitter feed, you display what I think is sort of a honed, crafted internet persona. It's snarky and contrarian, perhaps trollish. What's your vibe?

I just don't ever want to be afraid to speak my mind ever again. I understand why you're picking up on perhaps snark or [being] almost troll-adjacent. I don't think I am a troll; what I am is willing to fight back. It's just words on the internet, right? What do we have to be afraid of?

You described Hereticon as "a conference for thoughtcrime." What are you talking about when you say thoughtcrime?

I'm talking about sharing either data—Charles Fort called it "damned data"—that is compelling but no one will look at, or an opinion that you are not supposed to share. We all have an intuitive sense of what the bounds of acceptable speech are, and increasingly in our culture there are consequences for [violating] that. People lose their jobs; people are deplatformed. There are a lot of things we don't say because they're actually bad or wrong. Most people are wrong about a lot of things. I'm wrong about a lot of things. However, all of the new, interesting things in the world throughout history start that way. So if you're not living in a culture that has room for thoughtcrime, then you're not living in a culture that is growing.

It was a celebration of engaging with ideas that make you uncomfortable. Things like geoengineering, which is pretty controversial in the world of science; UFOs; biohacking and your right to your own body; sex work; sorcery; antimaterialism; parapsychology.

That was taken and framed as a sort of Nazi conference by a bunch of crazy lunatics who two years ago had a lot more control of the internet conversation.

I expected it to happen, even though I said nothing about pure politics or all the things that they're obsessed with. There's nothing about race, right? They just see everything through that lens. Their concern is that there are people who don't care about the sort of mainstream institutional narrative.

Hereticon was really explicitly not supposed to be a place where people complained about the lack of free speech. I think that conversation is boring. The idea at Hereticon was: People should just say the thing. If you have a thing that you're afraid to say, just say it.

Hereticon was delayed because of the pandemic. You've also argued that the pandemic made the case for why something like Hereticon was essential, that our lives depend on our ability to communicate unpopular ideas.

There's a broad cultural obsession with policing tone and thoughts. In public health, that's really dangerous. COVID proved the case here, and that is true in two dimensions, one of which is the tech press dimension. When Silicon Valley took the virus seriously early on, they started advising really distancing [and] not shaking hands. They were made fun of in the press.

The bigger story there, I think, is the original doctor from Wuhan who tried to blow the whistle on what was -happening. He has since died. Who knows why or how? We're told it's COVID. That was a thoughtcriminal we should have listened to.

We've seen this play out again and again, everything from the efficacy of cloth masks to why we can't walk around outside to why, when I'm on a plane, I have to mask up between sips of drinks. None of this stuff makes sense.

When Jack Dorsey [left Twitter], you wrote that the legacy of Twitter under Dorsey is a legacy of empowering heretical voices. On the right, they might disagree, citing various account bans, shadow bans, kicking [former President Donald] Trump off the platform, and the decision to not allow people to share the New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop.

Jack Dorsey specifically [has] just done a lot for free speech. He cares a lot about things like decentralization, things like bitcoin. He's obsessed with individual liberty. I think that he did what he could at his company, but his company's a lot bigger than him. And I believe that he was doing his best. He championed things like Bluesky, which is a decentralized social media protocol. His goal was to remove this question of who should be censored from these companies altogether, which was a really radical thing for someone who's in charge to do.

I've been critiquing social media overreach forever. These powerful people who wield more power than any companies really in history, they absolutely are deserving of critique. I just think that the critique that you're getting from most in media is cartoonish and almost beside the point.

A lot of what I talk about in the deplatforming conversation is: OK, if we exist online now, then can these people de facto circumvent our inalienable rights completely? If the internet is a new dimension of our reality that we spend most of our time inside that shapes the physical world, then what do your constitutional rights even matter if a few people in Silicon Valley can just do whatever they want to you and shape conversations like this?

It doesn't seem to me that being deplatformed from any specific social media site is a violation of a constitutional right or anything like it. Deplatforming has led to the growth of alternatives—podcasts, Substack, to some extent Hereticon. You started that because you felt like people needed a place to say things. It seems like something that is solved through different people organizing themselves in different ways.

If you want to run for president right now, and you have tech companies inhibiting your ability to speak on any of the major social media networks or platforms, and even deplatforming [you] from payment processors like Stripe and whatnot, is it realistic that you could win? I think that it's silly to pretend that you can without these tech platforms.

This is one of my problems with libertarians. They always go back to the rules. It's very nitpicky. I totally agree with you that it's not a violation of the Constitution that Twitter banned Trump from the platform. What I'm saying is it was really dangerous that happened, and we don't want to live in a world where that happens.

Trump has started his own social media platform, Truth Social.

This is wrong for two reasons. First, in tech we see these companies all the time. There are endless companies that rise up and say, "we want to be the new free speech alternative to these platforms." The problem is they become right-wing toxic dumps. The furthest extremes go there, because when you have a platform that is only popular for people who have been deplatformed, it just quickly becomes highly political, and there's no network effects, ever. It can never grow. It can never actually be dominant and culturally relevant.

Second, when Trump was deplatformed, he wasn't just kicked off Twitter. He was really frozen out of every single social media [and] payment platform. Amazon Web Services went after Parler [for hosting him].

Really you're talking about maybe like 10 executives in Silicon Valley who worked together to erase a sitting president from the internet. That's a huge, huge, huge problem. And your competitive alternative is also being shut down for not playing by these rules.

Do you really feel like Donald Trump, billionaire, former president of the United States, someone who has massive media access, who can call into any number of radio and television shows pretty much any time he wants and get his message out there, is not able to get his message out?

You're talking about the world of today, not the world of what happened back in January 2021. Things have thawed quite a bit, but what was Trump's reality directly following the industry-wide deplatforming? That was very different. Could he run again if he can't raise funds [or] communicate on any of the major platforms?

Every single one of his surrogates was also deplatformed. He was completely blocked out of the mainstream. If tech chooses to act this way during the next Trump election, he will lose—and that'll be true of any candidate.

Can any one of these people do it by themselves? No, it has to be this sort of confluence of deplatformings, but clearly the power is there. A very small handful of people [having] outsized influence over our elections is a serious problem.

One of your fundamental premises is that a lot of journalists have this idea that people in tech are bad or evil. What do you have against journalists?

I love journalists, honestly. Most journalists are amazing. I'm checking The New York Times every day. I think their coverage of Ukraine is admirable. Their coverage of China over the last two years has been fantastic.

But in this weird world that we live in now, where so much of the stories take place online first, that's where the narratives are shaped, it only takes really a handful of journalists to distort reality. And that's what we saw. Also I think the tech press, because the stories aren't really huge, they're not stories that everybody in the country is reading. They have to do a lot more, I think, to get attention. And so there is quality tech press, and there are quality tech journalists, but there are a lot of people who are just op-ed writers pretending to be journalists. That's what I critique generally.

There are two tribes with two different ways of looking at the world; those tribes are going to be naturally suspicious of each other. Do you think it's just mostly a misunderstanding?

No, I think the people who hate the tech industry are basically rational. They should hate the tech industry, because they're coming from a position of pro-institutional sort of authoritarianism. They're extremely woke. They are pro-authority. They are pro–Washington power. These are people who see, in the technology industry, a subversion of power that, in their mind, destabilizes the country. And I think that the steel man argument for them is that this could all lead to chaos, and from that chaos could come really bad things.

The technology industry is generally empowering of people who don't have power. And so if you're a person with power—and if you work for The New York Times, you have an extraordinary level of power—of course you're going to be suspicious of things that subvert or circumvent that power.

Elon Musk is sending Starlink units to provide internet to the Ukrainian people right now. Microsoft is intervening against malware attacks that are presumed to have come from the Russian government. The tech industry is punishing Russia in a way that almost looks like a form of private economic warfare. How is the tech industry approaching this?

This is a really important question. I think it's the most important question that we should be talking about in the tech industry right now, and probably even more broadly nationally, because this is a new front of war that we've never seen before. Tech companies have never been as influential in history. These tech companies, which are uniquely powerful [with] incredible instantaneous reach around the globe—they've never been tested by war before. I am very nervous about this.

I'm really eager to see whether these companies are talking to our government. We don't actually know. There's no precedent for this. They should not be acting unilaterally.

I don't know actually what the libertarian position would be here. I'm sure it's just sort of anything goes if you're a private company. For me, I believe at a time of escalating war, [when] it could go south at any second, I think that we need to exercise extreme caution and act as one country with one strategy. These people could, worst-case, escalate things into this crazy cyberwar, which could drag us even further down the path of war.

If you're talking about centralizing this through the federal government, doesn't that pose a different risk? Additional federal control over the tech industry? You wrote something very interesting, which was that Russia's governments cannot see private enterprise in the United States as truly private, because in Russia private enterprise isn't private at all.

Americans fundamentally don't understand autocracy. In Russia or China, companies are de facto arms of the state. So they see everything we do as state action, even when it's not.

Your concerns are justified. What you're really talking about is a very old question of how to engage in war in a manner that preserves liberty. This is why libertarians hate war, and [why] I hate war, because I think to win war, there is always going to be some subversion of liberty.

I think that, generally speaking, the government should have no relationship with our private companies when acting abroad. I think in a moment of real danger with nuclear bombs not only on the table, but at a moment when [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is actually threatening to use them, you have to have a lot of coordination between Americans abroad and Americans at home.

This is a huge threat. That is how I think about it in terms of the war stuff. This is one of my departures from libertarianism. At moments of real existential risk, I'm willing to sacrifice liberty. I understand that that is, long-term, really hard to shake, that we could go down a terrible path. We saw this in a very, very small way under COVID—the moment the government [gets] a little bit of extra power, they never want to give it up. I understand all of those concerns, but I think that not being unified in the face of a real threat from a nuclear superpower is worse.

I use technology to get information about the weather, sports scores, and movie times. It helps me get across town, do my laundry, and get dog food delivered. But there's also been this sense that our tech billionaires are actually going to solve all of our political problems. That they're going to fix climate change and leapfrog all of the political dysfunction that has defined Western governance in recent decades.

With the war between Russia and Ukraine, tech companies seem to both be leapfrogging the government and inserting themselves directly in the middle of some serious geopolitical problems. The thing we're circling around here is: What is tech here to do?

The role of technology is to aid human existence, right? It's to do a lot more with less or almost no human labor. The idea is for us to be able to amplify our power with technology to do good things in the world.

It's also something that can be used to apply new scientific knowledge to new purposes. So when you make breakthroughs in genetics, you can use technology to use those breakthroughs in a practical way—an mRNA vaccine.

You're also now talking about people who have made money in the tech industry doing things. And that's a separate question, I think, but they often get sort of jumbled. Because Elon Musk has made a lot of money doing one thing, now he has a lot of money and could start a company that fixes other problems. Right now, he could donate money. People sort of think that technology is there to solve problems via tools, but also to solve problems via the application of money and resources, which are heavily concentrated in the industry right now. Elon Musk is a really good example, because he's the only person who is doing anything even close to the techno-utopian vision, right? And he's succeeding at these things.

People are obsessed with demanding he do more. "You're a billionaire. Solve world hunger. Solve climate change." How many billionaires are in the world? I mean, when's the last time any of them have been asked to solve world hunger? It almost never happens. I believe the reason people go after Musk is not because they hate him but because he's the only person who's even come close to proving that he's capable of doing anything, of solving complex problems, of improving the world in very fundamental ways.

They're not talking to our government, which has far more resources at its disposal, and they're not talking to other rich people, because he's the only one in the room who has done anything. And so they come at it in a sort of angry way, but I actually think he's probably the most popular person in the country at the end of the day.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

NEXT: America’s Families Still Revile USDA-Funded School Lunches

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The tepid assertion that trump was not effectively de-platformed, when there was and remains a cascading campaign to keep orangemanbad from being allowed to use social media is risible. Here's a thoughtcrime for the perpetually offended and aggrieved, if the spray-tanned loudmouth offends you, mute or block him. Or, shut off the computer, walk away for a bit, instead of expecting life to mold itself to your needs. On the plus, Solana seems to have his priorities clear.

    1. So how many people today do you know, who have an internet connection, can NOT freely access ALL of the lies of both Der TrumpfenFuhrer AND Der BidenFuhrer? Is this tempest in a teapot worth nationalizing (or at least micro-managing the snot out of) social media, that does NOT belong to YOU, nor to Government Almighty? ... Section 230 is the antidote to media Marxism!

      1. Regulations are bad, except for the ones you like.

        1. And I like the regulations that LIMIT the powers of Government Almighty! Things like S-230, which are WAAAAY too scarce!

          1. It didn't limit the power of government almighty at all. It supercharged it. It gave them a backdoor to get around the first amendment.

            1. OPEN QUESTIONS FOR ALL ENEMIES OF SECTION 230

              The day after tomorrow, you get a jury summons. You will be asked to rule in the following case: A poster posted the following to social media: “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know!”

              This attracted protests from liberals, who thought that they may have detected hints of sarcasm, which was hurtful, and invalidated the personhoods of a few Sensitive Souls. It ALSO attracted protests from conservatives, who were miffed that this was a PARTIAL truth only (thereby being at least partially a lie), with the REAL, full TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH being, “Government Almighty of Der TrumpfenFuhrer ONLY, LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know! Thou shalt have NO Government Almighty without Der TrumpfenFuhrer, for Our TrumpfenFuhrer is a jealous Government Almighty!”

              Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Hurt Baby Feelings, officials were consulted. Now there are charges!

              QUESTIONS FOR YOU THE JUROR:

              “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

              “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, hurtful sarcasm or not?

              Will you be utterly delighted to serve on this jury? Keep in mind that OJ Simpson got an 11-month criminal trial! And a 4-month civil trial!

              1. "“Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?"

                The only one shilling for government censorship and government regulations here is you.
                So for you that's going to be "True". For everyone else the answer's "False".

                1. Section 230 LIMITS Government Almighty powers, Perfect Liar! Now I hope that they punish YOU for MY words, that You might learn a WEE tad about justice!

                  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

                  1. You've pulled that article out before and we had a whole thread dismantling it when one of the Reasonistas quoted it. Mike Masnick is flat out lying about its observation and effect.

                    Now explain your claim as to how "Section 230 LIMITS Government Almighty powers", because that government regulation doesn't say anything about government power.

                    1. All 230 does is limit users rights to sue. It also has been extended to include violations of the contracts by silicon valley companies.

                    2. Hey EvilBahnFuhrer… No matter HOW many times you tell your “Big Lie”, it is NOT true! You’re part of the mob, aren’t you, gangster? For a small fee, you tell small businesses that you will “protect” them… From you and your mob! Refute the below, ye greedy authoritarian who wants to shit all over the concept of private property!

                      Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

                      In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

                      Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

                    3. Speech-control power-pigs: "If you report the fact that I said 'XYX-blah-ZQW', then you MUST report the ENTIRETY of EVERYTHING that I have EVER said, in my whole life! Else, if you selectively report this little snippet of what I said, you have just exercised 'editorial control'; you are now a “publisher”, and so you MUST allow me to SUE you, for what I have said!"

                      EvilBahnFuhrers want to post evil comments on Reason.com, and then sue Reason for having published THEIR comments!

                      Ka-ching-ching-ching, all the way to the bank, ye greedy power pigs!!!

                    4. You're lying about the conclusion Sqrlsy.

                      In practice, in real life, the government has pressured social media to censor it's political enemies via the Good Samaritan Clause.

                      The Biden administration has publicly bragged about this first amendment evasion. I know that you know about this.

                      But you're lying about our motives and pretending it didn't happen, and I can only think of one reason why. Because you're an authoritarian. You want speech that reflects poorly on the Democratic Party to be censored.

                    5. So now, Marxist Mammary-Fuhrer, HOW MUCH money will You and Your Perfect Lawyers shake down Reason.com, for having published YOUR comments?!?! After You Perfectly Kill S-230?

                      Ka-ching-ching-ching, all the way to the bank, ye greedy power pigs!!!

      2. Solana ascribes way more power to social media platforms than they really have when he says they can make Trump lose an election.

        1. If you ignore half of what he said, it’s easier to minimize it, Mike Liarson.

        2. Agreed! If candidate "Adolf Stalin" can control the "social media platforms" AND have a billion-dollar campaign fund... With an Adolf-ish and Stalinesque platform... And WIN the election, then we have problems WAAAAY larger than a lack of "good laws" around social media AND campaign finds! And "better laws" will NOT save us in this case!

        3. 5% of Biden voters said they would not have voted for him if they knew about hunters laptop.

          Youre an idiot Mike.

        4. I thought the Russians stole the Oval Office from Hillary for about $150K in Facebook ads one time.

          1. The cost of a single 20-second primetime spot, but somehow banning newspapers and public discussion of hard evidence that the Democratic Party candidate may have taken bribes while Vice-President, had no effect.

            White Mike isn't even trying today.

      3. Make money by creating an easy and quick strategy to work part time and get extra 30k or more on the internet. (res55) I earned 30,485 in my overtime in the previous month and am extremely happy with this work now. You can try this now by:-
        .
        Following this information:- https://bestjobshere40.blogspot.com/

  2. This is one of my problems with libertarians. They always go back to the rules. It's very nitpicky. I totally agree with you that it's not a violation of the Constitution that Twitter banned Trump from the platform. What I'm saying is it was really dangerous that happened, and we don't want to live in a world where that happens.

    I like this guy. He gets it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9KBOhPXhds

    1. Why mention Twitter and not Parler?

      We ALL set up our own "echo chambers", to include conservatives! Parler bans liberals... https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/parler-app-ban-free-speech-trump-b1721710.html ... Your ready for Government Almighty to take over Parler to rectify this injustice? You believe in the "rule of law, and not of men"... Right? Right? RIGHT? (Or do you believe only in right-ISM?)

      1. I finally made it off TRUTH Social’s waiting list and got to get on the site and look around. It is an echo chamber, but it’s biggest sin is that it is BORING, BORING, BORING.

        1. Mike Laursen's biggest sin is existing.
          Kill the cancer, or we all perish.

          1. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/15/nyregion/buffalo-shooting

            Nadless Nardless the Nasty NAZI? Was that YOU?!?! Has the right-wing wrong-nut revolution BEGUN now?

            1. Piss off, troll.

        2. It says more about you that you seek out places you can hate on for months just so you can hate it when they finally let you in.

          1. It’s sick.

          2. It's sociopathic behavior.

      2. If you can't see the difference between banning a few extremist loudmouths on the fringes, and banning the de facto leader of the major opposition party, you haven't thought it through fully.

        Sure, it's a private company. And half the users should have canceled their accounts once it was made clear that the private company really didn't care about free speech, the thing it was supposedly set up to facilitate.

        1. Banning Trump was wrong. A fairly SMALL wrong, 'cause Trump can STILL get his messages out, no sweat at all!

          Tearing down Section 230 in reaction to this would be a MUCH bigger wrong! S-230 will NOT be replaced by anything better, in today's dog-eat-dog, tribalistic environment!

          1. Do you think the executive branch of the federal government should tell social media companies who to silence, and have them obey?

            1. Right now, social media companies own their own web sites, still... Thanks to S-230! If the social media companies CHOSE TO, they can let Government Almighty "advise" them on what they might want to do.

              Has Government Almighty yet PUNISHED social media companies for disobeying? Other than by saying, "Y'all are NOT being nice", and by sending mean tweets? If so... Citations please!

              1. Couldn’t answer the simple question. Because you approve of using fascism against your enemies.

              2. No, R Mac, Government Almighty shouldn't be bullying social media companies. Is THAT a satisfactory answer? PS, BOTH parties are guilty of this! See Florida and Texas recently!

                Now, when will you answer MY question?

                Has Government Almighty yet PUNISHED social media companies for disobeying? Other than by saying, "Y'all are NOT being nice", and by sending mean tweets? If so... Citations please!

              3. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/11/texas-social-media-law-reinstated/

                Texas law prohibiting social media companies from banning users over their viewpoints reinstated by appeals court

                An "R" state turns to Marxism to nationalize social media! What a surprise!

                1. Texas law prohibiting social media companies lunch counters from banning users over their viewpoints black people reinstated by appeals court.

                  An "R" state turns to Marxism to nationalize social media lunch counters! What a surprise!

                  1. Finding another web site that does NOT take down your posts is far less difficult or harmful than having to go to yet ANOTHER lunch counter to try to eat at! No one EVER starved for lack of a place to post comments at!

              4. https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/7/1/22558980/florida-social-media-law-injunction-desantis

                Florida’s social media free speech law has been blocked for likely violating free speech laws

                Red states PROTECTING Your Precious Baby Feelings from Mean Tweets!

                1. Oh fuck, now it's Vox.

                  Vox, Salon, the Guardian... is there a single establishment-pink outfit that you don't patronize?
                  You're always insisting you're a libertarian but all your links are from Democratic Party organs and affiliates.

                  1. "Not from MY Sacred Tribe! Thus, it can NOT be true!"

                    Moronic cunt! Read the below and tell me that it MUST mean that Hunter Biden art sales could NEVER be a bribery concern!!!

                    Hunter Biden art does concern me, to be clear about it. However, this is an opportune time to call attention to the hyper-partisans, who will “refute” what you say, by pointing out that your source is “from the wrong tribe”!

                    Leftist media bias by Vox is a fib sometimes! Hunter Biden art…

                    https://www.vox.com/2021/8/3/22601671/hunter-biden-art-sales-walter-shaub “Why Obama’s former ethics czar is highly critical of Hunter Biden’s lucrative art sales … There have been many bad-faith “scandals” linked to the president’s son. Walter Shaub thinks this one should be taken seriously.

                    I wonder if the Trumpaloos will now show up to say that Vox is liberally biased, and can't be trusted? This here “Vox” article MUST mean that Hunter Biden is a GREAT artist, and there are NO opportunities for corruption, here!

                    https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vox-news-media-bias
                    “VOX” rated as far-left as is allowed… The needle is pegged!

                    Mammary-Fuhrer is a hypocritical CUNT!!!!

                  2. Hey now. He also cites The Atlantic.

        2. Mike has no problem with countries like Venezuela banning opposing candidates. I'm sure.

          1. Pure projection! Trump and Trumpanzees (such as Jesse) advocate for a 1-party TrumptatorShit!

            Orange-dick-suckers will NEVER stop sucking orange dick!
            Der TrumpfenFuhrer ***IS*** responsible for agitating for democracy to be replaced by mobocracy!
            https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
            A list of the times Trump has said he won’t accept the election results or leave office if he loses.

            Essential heart and core of the LIE by Trump: “ANY election results not confirming MEEE as Your Emperor, MUST be fraudulent!”
            September 13 rally: “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win,” he said.

            Trump’s constant re-telling and supporting the Big Lie (any election not electing Trump is “stolen”) set up the environment for this (insurrection riot) to happen. He shares the blame. Boys will be boys? Insurrectionists will be insurrectionists, trumpanzees gone apeshit will be trumpanzees gone apeshit, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Trump was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?

            It really should immediately make us think of Krystallnacht. Hitler and the NAZIs set up for this by constantly blaming Jews for all things bad. Jew-haters will be Jew-haters, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Hitler was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?

            1. Oops, CNN as well. I forgot you're a bigtime CNN aficionado too.
              CNN, Vox and Salon. You may as well post straight off of the DNC website.

              1. "Not from MY Sacred Tribe! Thus, it can NOT be true!"

                Again!!! Come op with NEW lies, PLEASE!!!

                1. The fact that all your sources are party organs for one tribe indicates just how tribal you actually are.

                  1. I cite Fox News from time to time. Are they now Demon-Craps, hyper-partisan fanatic?

            2. I won't say literally no one, but definitely no one here has advocated for a Trump dictatorship. Just because someone thinks the election wasn't on the up and up doesn't mean they are calling for such.

              Fucking disingenuous as all fuck.

              1. https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
                Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

                The above is mostly strictly factual, with very little editorializing. When I post it, the FACTS never get refuted… I only get called names. But what do you expect from morally, ethically, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt Trumpturds?

                Totalitarians want to turn GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dicktatorshit).

                1. No matter how many times you post that fucktarded Salon article, it’s never going to be true.

                  1. Wow! What an utterly egg-headed refutation!

    2. He is right. There is a subset of libertarians who think encroachment on liberty only comes from government and ignore even when government attempts to limit freedom through corporations or the market.

      1. "...even when government attempts to limit freedom through corporations or the market."

        Threats, never implemented. The bum under the bridge says he is gonna hold his breath till Government Almighty takes over my web site, and I am stupid enough to surrender control of my web site to the bum? Whose fault is THAT? WHEN did Government Almighty actually ever DO this? WHICH "Big Tech" company actually got taken over, by threats from Government Almighty? As opposed to their "woke" employees?

        Hooray for Netflix! https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainment/netflix-tells-employees-quit-offended-culture-memo

        1. Your one of those i describe sarc.

            1. Wow, you're REALLY flaunting your high-falutin' edumacation today!

          1. I still think if sqrls is sarc, then he some kind of savant.
            Sarc is a moderate left libertarian with some kind of inadequacy issue. Sqr is a far left statist who were he a real person should never leave the asylum.
            I don't get why he would want to play both characters for a decade. Maybe you're right though?
            I think it's far more likely that bards, r Mac and the guy that randomly changes handles while spouting the most vile shit he can think of are the same guy, but even if it's true, who cares?
            Disclosure: I used to post as aint nunya way back and changed my name when I returned and saw there was someone else named nonya.
            You all need to spend half as much time bullying tony, mike and chemjeff and even sqrl as you do sarc.

            1. Not sure who bard is, but I’m not him or whoever changes their name all the time.

              The reason sarc gets so much shit is because he begs for it. He has a victim complex. Also, when he had his first break and flipped out, he accused me of saying a bunch of nasty shit about his daughter, which I never did. I made one comment about his parenting skills when he randomly stated his daughter keyed a car.

            2. They both exist to thread shit.

        2. When you've got the biggest guns, you rarely have to use them.
          It's not just threats of anti-trust action or splitting up companies -- it's the President's press secretary unleashing the online mobs with a wink and a nod. And there's also a carrot -- big government contracts for IT infrastructure and security, if your company plays along.

          1. Agreed! Sad to say! The REAL solution (as usual) is to limit Government Almighty in size, to do ONLY what it MUST do!

          2. It is also the billions in federal dollars provided. Government contract agencies are now implementing forms of ESG during review.

  3. From the article...

    "The bigger story there, I think, is the original doctor from Wuhan who tried to blow the whistle on what was -happening. He has since died. Who knows why or how? We're told it's COVID. That was a thoughtcriminal we should have listened to."

    Yeah, this is an OLD story! Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and more, were "thoughtcriminal(s) (that) we should have listened to." We only listen to them AFTER they die! (Else, if we turn them into living heroes, they might steal all of our women!)

    Due to tribalism and “do-gooder derogation”, the anti-tribalists are the thoughtcriminals today!

    The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!

    “Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .

  4. Good morning Peanuts! Did you know the Biden economy is the best in US history? You would if you stopped paying attention to wingnut.com disinformation and started listening to liberal capitalists like me and Warren Buffett. Seriously, fire your financial advisor if you're not seeing record-breaking growth in your portfolio every single month.

    #TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug

    1. Also, the price of oil will drop soon because demand is up.

      1. Well, that makes sense since the Biden Administration is keeping supply artificially low.

        When he wins again in 2024, he can release all of the leases that they've been holding and claim that they've lowered the price of gas by 50%. Nevermind that it's currently up 250% from his predecessor.

        See their unemployment claims or deficit spending 'reductions' for reference.

    2. Just wondering if shrike is going to correct his post from yesterday regarding the shooter. For not being a leftist he sure was quick to push the incorrect leftist narrative surrounding the shooting.

      1. Payton Gendron will become the right's latest hero much like Dylann Roof, the New Zealand mass murderer, the Norway mass killer, and many others who push Aryan Supremacy. Even Tim McVeigh is getting his fan club revival.

        This is sad. But as long as the right sees political revolution as a "2nd Amendment" remedy it will go on and on.

        https://reason.com/2022/05/14/americas-families-still-revile-usda-funded-school-lunches/?comments=true#comment-9494229

        1. Damn, forgot about the italics break

        2. I wish I could view the whole manifesto. I did manage to see a few snippets from him where he described himself as growing up full on communist, but had moved a bit right and considered himself moderate left. He also cited Dylan Roof and Brenton Tarrant as personal inspirations to him.

          1. Nazis weren't socialists!!!!

            This will be memory hiked or simply replaced with Tucker pulling the trigger.

            If it was a minority shooter it would headline as "gun discharges into crowd." Or dozens of articles about "don't blame BLM" like the Dallas guy who shot a group of cops.

            1. Give the left what they want.
              Make their psychotic fantasies of the danger of modern life true.
              We're absolutely fucked if we keep falling for their tricks, one of which is to manipulate people into docility by exaggerating the threat of violence.
              Fuck that. There are no peaceful solutions. Stop letting them take your life degrees at a time.

            2. Fascism is on the right!!!

        3. It's funny because Dylan roof wanted more gun control and McVeigh was a socialist

          1. I thought mcveigh was a sovcit?

            1. He was both. His manifesto was all about Marx though

      2. "...quick to push the incorrect leftist narrative surrounding the shooting."

        No informed and sensible or sane person could deny that the shooting was racially motivated.

        So then the question becomes, is racism leftist or rightist? Yes, extreme leftists can be racist, with extreme "affirmative actions" and "reparations". But who can deny that rightists can be racists as well? I give you The Donald and "shithole nations" and "need more blue-eyed immigrants from Norway"! https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-referred-haiti-african-countries-shithole-nations-n836946

        Trump referred to Haiti and African nations as 'shithole' countries
        President Donald Trump referred to African countries, Haiti and El Salvador as "shithole" nations during a meeting Thursday and asked why the U.S. can't have more immigrants from Norway.

        Assholes of ALL kinds can be racist!

        1. Someone hasn’t paid attention to leftist/progressives for the last 100 plus years….

    3. Someone needs to temporarily fill in for Ken.
      Where is he?

      1. Mother's Lament is keeping him shackled up in Her Mom's Perfect Basement, for NOT supporting Mother's Lament's calls for wrong-thinkers to commit suicide!

        Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death, will now SPEAK! HARKKK silently and RESPECTFULLY, all ye lowly heathens, as She Directs Death, and announces WHICH few of us MIGHT deserve to live, and WHO all deserves to DIE-DIE-DIE!!!

        https://reason.com/2022/01/25/did-these-three-officers-willfully-deprive-george-floyd-of-his-constitutional-rights/?comments=true#comment-9323626
        “You should really join ᛋᛋqrlsy, ᛋᛋhrike. You two goosestepping fascists offing yourselves would definitely be a mitzvah.”

        -Quote MammaryBahnFuhrer the "Expert Christian Theologian"

        1. ^ I'm pretty sure that the first part is ᛋᛋqrlsy's new fetish, ever since boredom and curiosity took him into the manlove section of Pornhub a while back.

          I still recommend you take an unaided flying lesson, ᛋᛋqrls.

          1. Once you descend into fecalphelia there’s no telling what twisted fetishes will follow.

  5. "The role of technology is to aid human existence, right? It's to do a lot more with less or almost no human labor. The idea is for us to be able to amplify our power with technology to do good things in the world."

    Except that anything that one person or group claims is not just good but imperative, and then imposed, will be seen as undesirable if not evil by others. "Doing good" is the clarion call of fundamentalists, from progressives on the left to theocratic nut jobs on the right. If you have a utopian vision with an agenda, can you claim to be any type of libertarian?

    How about a vision for technology that enables each person to live as they choose, while also supporting NAP?

    1. If technology means tools for production of goods and services, then, yes. Social media is not technology, the proof is in the name, though, technology is used for social media, and some folks use it for work. Not an argument you were making, but suderman seems stuck on on it, aging Beltway hipster that he is. To your points, there are still some who are able to not impose their viewpoint as being an imperative or an ethically superior, thus the necessary approach. Call them those who will not append prefixes to justice, if you like. Your last point, yes, for the love of the skies, and soon.

      1. In my libertarian fantasy, we would all live as we choose, including banding together and interacting--or not. And we would be overseen by entities, call them angels, whose only function would be to immediately stomp on those who violate the NAP. Otherwise, angels would not act, including responding to people who wish for assistance or guidance.

        1. AI, since the better angels of our nature never seem to coalesce. We can get all the dishonest, rhetoric-spewing, self-aggrandizing resentful perpetually offended grievance addicts one might ever need. But, rational, qualified leadership? I can name the few I have known in the last 30 years. Again, leadership =! the angels that you mention, but philosopher sheriff not beholden to corporations or politicians is a bit of a mouthful.

    2. How about a vision for technology that enables each person to live as they choose, while also supporting NAP?

      AR-15

      1. That is a viable solution, but I think most of the folks pushing the NAP seem to prefer a rosier tinted worldview. Speaking personally, I like shades of grey.

  6. Oil industry groups counters Bidens assessment that there was no interest for leases for the exploration leases he canceled.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/industry-disputes-interior-departments-rationale-for-canceling-alaska-offshore-lease-sale

    1. "Oil industry groups counters Bidens assessment that there was no interest for leases for the exploration leases he canceled."

      We're adults here; 'Bidens lie' will do fine.

    2. Hey Buttplug, I know you're lurking here right now. You want to try and justify this? I'm interested in hearing your excuses.

      1. Too easy.
        turd: "It's Trumps fault"

      2. Any one else notice that as soon as the pedo/kiddie porn cunt got nominated to the Supreme court spb is posting at reason alot less?

  7. He's as blind as can be:

    I'm checking The New York Times every day. I think their coverage of Ukraine is admirable. Their coverage of China over the last two years has been fantastic.

    The NYT has not changed since Duranty, and probably since before. You cannot condemn their bias in one area while approving their coverage elsewhere. It is one of my pet peeves with ENB's morning links; too many NYT and WaPo sources. I automatically discount any link to them for Ukraine coverage or especially anything related to China.

    I know there's a meme name for this practice of recognizing their fallibility and/or duplicity in topics we are familiar with while trusting them in areas we are ignorant in; we are all guilty of it one way or another. TDS is a fine example. Trump did a lot of things right, but he did a lot wrong too, and people who like how he upset the swamp folk refuse to see the bad. This guy is just another example.

    1. Hey now its not like the wapo runs ccp propaganda on a weekly basis

    2. I know there's a meme name for this practice of recognizing their fallibility and/or duplicity in topics we are familiar with while trusting them in areas we are ignorant in; we are all guilty of it one way or another.

      I believe this meme is called "journalism". Someone a couple of years ago posted a comment which stuck with me where they noted that when one is highly familiar with a topic and the read an article in the newspaper about it, you immediately spot holes, bias, incorrect facts, mischaracterization etc. But as soon as you turn to an article that you're not familiar with, you immediately return to the comfortable place of feeling like you're reading solid journalism.

      1. Several of us have commented on this; I don't recall who originally, but I remember at least once it came up during a discussion of 2A, gun control, and effective control when the irrational banning sorts had zero comprehension of any of the topics they were discussing. I can say, in terms of journalists and activists making assertions in areas that I have decades of working knowledge, they typically lie, and when called on it, lie more in an attempt to cover. Then provide excuses a la racism, sexism, disparate impact so forth. It comes down to a complete lack of scruples, and willingness to be completely unethical, up to depriving others of their livelihood, in order to advance their agenda.

      2. gell-mann amnesia

  8. Peter Thiel's mouthpiece, Mike Solana, is just another diaffected right-winger masquerading in garish, unconvincing libertarian drag.

    1. Kirkland's not even in unconvincing libertarian drag. He's wearing shiny jackboots and a snappy black uniform designed by Hugo Boss.

      1. When has it ever been? It brags about its success, about the suffering that will come to those who oppose the views it holds. It supports and has supported nothing but policy and law that degrade civil liberties and erode individual right. For the kicker, for all it's whining about racial slurs, not once has it stood up for any policy or law that would have significant impact on the disadvantaged, poor, or ethnic minorities. AW(F)L.

        1. He's another that if he were real should be locked away for life. No way Kirkland isn't a active measure agent.

          1. I used to think it was a troll account, but no, from the overweening smug bs, it's just another ignorant & stupid AWL that never leaves the AWL enclave. It sure as fuck doesn't run it's cakehole to regular working people of any sort about how it's their better, and open wide. Active measure, maybe. Stupid, ignorant, biased, dishonest, bigoted, and in the end, just noise. So, like quite a few of the hard line progressive types who comment regularly.

    2. Asshole bigot shows up to defend attempts to limit speech. Always on the losing end of the argument, aren't you, shitpile?

      1. I -- with the rest of modern liberal-libertarian mainstream -- am on the winning side of the American culture war, the right side of history, the prevailing side at the marketplace of ideas, and the majority that continues to shape American progress against the wishes and efforts of right-wingers.

        Carry on, clingers. But just so far as your betters permit, as always. Your continuing compliance is appreciated. And you get to whine, whimper, mutter, and sputter about it as much as you like!

        1. Asshole bigot shows up lying and to defend attempts to limit speech. Always on the losing end of the argument, aren't you, lying pile of commie shit?

          1. Where "attempts to limit speech" = government censorship of private companies.

            No wonder you dumbasses are getting stomped to irrelevance in the culture war.

            1. Now lying asshole bigot tries misdirection.
              Fuck off and die, commie shit

  9. China's sometimes opaque influence on tech companies

    There's nothing opaque about it silicone valley is bought by the chinks for the purpose destroying the US

  10. Insightful piece from AP describing Republican strategy for the midterms. Since Biden is doing so well, all they can do is lie.

    Republicans aiming to retake control of Congress have blamed Democrats for high inflation, expensive gas, migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and violent crime. Now, the baby formula shortage is becoming the GOP's latest attack on President Biden.

    Literally everything there is false — except for the fact that Biden opened our borders, which is a good thing.

    #LibertariansForBiden
    #BlueWave2022

    1. Those awful Republicans, always attacking the poor Democrats just for fucking up a little or doing something fascist.
      Kind of like the "mean girls" here who pick on Jeff and Shrike just for lying a little or advocating something fascist.

      1. I think the operative word here is "pounce".

  11. "This is one of my problems with libertarians. They always go back to the rules. It's very nitpicky. I totally agree with you that it's not a violation of the Constitution that Twitter banned Trump from the platform. What I'm saying is it was really dangerous that happened, and we don't want to live in a world where that happens."

    It's not even the rules of libertarianism. I'm not an American, the American Constitution is irrelevant to me in my general life. For a libertarian anywhere you don't censor the speech of others by hampering their ability to communicate in the public square, period.
    It doesn't matter if you're a church, business or government, it's morally wrong from a libertarian philosophical viewpoint. Whether one country's law allows it or not is completely irrelevant to the libertarian view.

    1. Ya know Mormons wanna ban neurodiverse folks like you from speaking in the town square.

      They round up kids like you and put them in abusive institutions and camps.

      ML the lying aspie incel

      1. Still ban-evading, huh?

        1. I didn’t dox anyone. They shut down streets for his corpse and the local news reported on him. The family and church wants all the attention and sympathy it can get. As far as I know I wasn’t banned.

          https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/procession-beaverton-police-sergeant-covid/283-4619ac86-44ff-44e5-b60c-ae0548bef36f

          https://www.koin.com/local/washington-county/beaverton-police-officer-dies-from-covid-19-complications/

          1. Beaverton and his town are now safer that he’s burning in hell.

          2. Yet you change your handle once a week or more often. Seems like you might be banned. Maybe you should find some rednecks to pick a fight online with, er, I mean kill.

            1. It’s the same account. I got really baked/drunk and woke up the next day with this as my handle. I like it.

  12. So another far-right white supremacist mass killing in Buffalo yesterday - inspired by Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck's "Replacement Theory" CT occurs and wingnuts are scrambling to distance themselves from their anti-Semitic racist bro - Payton Gendron. Unite the Right!

    A former leader of the KKK celebrated Tucker Carlson 'finally' sharing the white-supremacist 'great replacement' conspiracy theory
    Former Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader David Duke said Tucker Carlson has "finally" started promoting the "great replacement" conspiracy theory, which is associated with white supremacy.
    The "great replacement" theory alleges that white people are being systematically and intentionally replaced by people of other races through mass immigration, according to Media Matters for America, a left-leaning non-profit organization that tracks right-wing media.

    https://www.insider.com/tucker-carlson-replacement-theory-david-duke-kkk-trump-2021-10

    Payton Gendron:

    Anti-Semite
    Anti-Black
    Anti-Immigrant
    Aryan Supremacist
    self described "fascist"

    Just your typical far-right nutjob.

    1. "Just your typical far-right nutjob."

      You mean the same Payton Gendron who self identified as a leftist in his manifesto? He's not the first Democrat to be racist. It's the party's hallmark.

      1. Exactly which leftish position did he espouse in his manifesto?

        Don't make shit up like you usually do.

        1. turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a scum-bag kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
          If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
          turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

          1. SmegmaLung, this is NO way for you to earn yourself a SQRL necklace! NO SQRL necklace for YOU! BAD dog!

        2. He called himself a leftist. It wasn't a "position", it was his identity, his self-description.

          But since you are desperate for bone, I'll play along.

          Anti-Semite
          Anti-Black
          Anti-Immigrant
          Aryan Supremacist
          self described "fascist"

          Would you like me to demonstrate how the Democratic Party is and has been all those things?

          1. And he even stated that he was a communist who moved slightly right.

            Shrike just has to push leftist lies. It is what he does.

            1. Be fair. Retarded brains usually hold preconceived ideas (we could even call them "beliefs") that have nothing to do with facts.

          2. Name one dem that has pushed for racial segregation.

            1. Has not* fixed it. Because then I can't.

            2. Joe Biden. He was against bussing because he didn't want black kids in white schools

            3. Most of them?

          3. All the things you listed are associated with the far right you aspie incel.

            1. Why don't you go hang out at the site of the next mass shooting?

              1. Love. Not hate

        3. All of the things you listed are hallmarks of progressivism you piece of shit.

      2. You mean the same Payton Gendron who self identified as a leftist in his manifesto?

        Oh. Well. Is THAT all it takes?

        Then by your own standard, since I self-identify as a libertarian, I expect you to accept that characterization of myself uncritically and without debate. No more calling me a "leftie" or a "proggie" or a Nazi. I'm a libertarian, that's that, end of the story.

        After all that is the same standard that you are applying to Payton Gendron here.

        Sound good to you?

        1. Let me guess, you blame Tucker as well despite him attacking fox in the manifesto?

          We know you're not a libertarian as you support the leftist state, believe an elite oligarchy, are a globalist removing power further from the jndividual, and have to yet to find a critical theory or post modernist view you have not defended.

          This guy we have his tweets and his manifesto. They say he started as a communist and shifted slightly right to the authoritarian left. The left is the current biggest generator of racial derision. Both in publicly using racial epitaph against conservative minorities to supporting segragation. That is what filled his manifesto you ignorant fuck.

          1. We know you're not a libertarian as you support...

            Stop right there. By YOUR OWN STANDARD, applied to Payton Gendron, none of that other stuff matters. Payton Gendron is a leftie because he says he's a leftie. Period, end of story. So, I insist that you apply that same standard to me. I am a libertarian, because I say I am a libertarian, period, end of story.

            You of course won't, because having a consistent standard is beyond the abilities of a mere junkyard attack dog such as yourself.

            1. For this line of sophistry to be effective, you would need to demonstrate that gendron had, like you, stated he identified as one thing, but held positions that were not congruent to the beliefs that one would expect were he that thing. Folks here like to fuck with you because you tend to support, and argue for policies that left-leaning or progressive hivemind types, not notorious radical individualists, go for. And because you will, 85% or more of the time, engage in the most pedantic sophistic bullshit while yammering about meaningful discussion.

              1. Folks here like to fuck with you because you tend to support, and argue for policies that left-leaning or progressive hivemind types, not notorious radical individualists, go for.

                Name one time I have supported a policy that "left-leaning or progressive hivemind types" support that isn't also a libertarian-oriented position. Just one.

              2. And in the case of Gendron, it's obvious: his racial hatred and his advocacy for great replacement theory nonsense. That is a hallmark of alt-right thinking.

                As for me, I am a humanist libertarian. Around here that gets labeled as "left-wing proggie" because I don't believe in, say, using hunger as a weapon to teach kids a moral lesson about government dependency if they show up to public school without a lunch.

                1. No it is not you retarded fuck. Many of bidens own administration discussed replacement theory from a pro black standpoint in college. The fact you think this is an alt right talking point shows your ignorance and bias.

                  The fact is the left revels in racial discussions and conflict fat more than the right. But your only impetus is to defend the left while claiming you're not.

                  1. Mike Cernovich:

                    “I went from libertarian to alt-right after realizing tolerance only went one way and diversity is code for white genocide.”

                    https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2018/08/20/pizzagate-conspiracist-mike-cernovoch-headline-kelli-wards-bus-tour-no-really/1042793002/

                    1. Jeff. What does far more mean?

                  2. Laura Loomer:

                    https://t.me/loomeredofficial/18405

                    "Being worried about replacement theory is also not a radical stance. It’s a pro life and pro preservation stance."

                    Is she a left-winger?

                    1. Did I say exclusively or far more? Are you truly this retarded jeff? Are you denying leftists pushing segragation? CRT? The new press sec saying everything is racist nearly 50 times on television?

                      You really are a dumb and ignorant leftist shit.

                    2. Where are these legions of left-wingers pushing great replacement theory nonsense? I mean, I guess there's Louis Farrakhan, anyone else?

                      Segregation is not "great replacement theory".
                      CRT is not "great replacement theory".

                      Are you actually going to address the point at hand this time?

              3. policies that left-leaning or progressive hivemind types, not notorious radical individualists, go for

                Like what?

                All I see him support are immigrant rights, civil rights, and voting rights.

                One can be a radical individual and still support the above.

                No one championed the individual more than Ayn Rand and she despised conservatives. No doubt she would have hated Trump too.

                (but Bernie Sanders would have been her #1 target)

                1. To some, being a humanist is equivalent to being a "left-wing radical". So what would that make a conservative? An anti-humanist?

                  1. I also identify as a humanist and this is probably the crux of the issue with paleo types.

                    As a humanist I know that only humans can solve problems. I don't acknowledge any supernatural beings.

                    But paleo/conservatives rest their entire worldview on a Creator as evidenced by the specious argument that "our rights come from Gawd". Then they become the high priest that defines these rights and amazingly they take the form of some long debunked Dead Sea Scroll type gibberish.

                    It is why paleo/conservative types push so hard for private schools. They want to define morality from their pulpit.

                    Humanists are onto this con job by paleo/conservatives.

                    1. Well, I am not as hostile towards religion than you are. I don't believe in a God either, but I have great respect for those who are genuinely sincere and devout in their religious beliefs. Granted, that is a very small number (because it's difficult to do), most of the self-proclaimed "religious conservatives" are really just hypocrites using religion to justify their biases, but there are some out there who are sincere and devout.

                      But the idea that rights come from God may be one reason why many on the right view rights in moralistic terms. After all, if rights come from God, and God is all wise, then why would he give rights to evil, sinful people? Maybe they don't really have rights...

                    2. The only really firm grounds (“data-driven” grounds is a better fit here than “scientific” grounds) that we have here, is as follows: “What are the results of our policies, and what are the most likely results of these here policy changes?” “God told me so” doesn’t deserve much of a public hearing, besides politeness. And the quest for politeness is wasted on many a fanatic, who HAS no politeness! God told you that fertilized egg cells have souls, and God told me that they don’t! Now we’re stuck! Back to policies and their effects, if we have any REAL smarts!

                      A whole book (And I recommend it highly) has been written by Sam Harris, “The Moral Landscape How Science Can Determine Human Values”.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape#:~:text=The%20Moral%20Landscape%3A%20How%20Science,morality%2C%20facts%2C%20and%20science. Now HERE are firm grounds on which to base discussions! I must add, I am NOT opposed to religion in general… Religion is of GREAT value, so long as the leaders and practitioners act out of humility and BENEVOLENCE (aka “Love”), and NOT out of lust for political power! “Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing”, said a Fart Smeller, I mean a very Smart Feller, WAY back when! Also, be data-driven… That one and the same Smart Feller also said that “The truth will set you free!”

                      This (above) is from http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ ...

                2. All I see him support are immigrant rights, civil rights, and voting rights.

                  Yup those are three big things that I support. Each INDIVIDUAL is entitled to exercise those rights.

                  Right-wingers tend to refuse to view immigration in terms of freedom of association and property rights. That if an employer and an employee come to a mutually agreeable contract for employment, that this arrangement is an expression of rights that fundamentally does not matter if the employer and employee originally came from different sides of some border.

                  Right-wingers also tend to refuse to view voting rights in terms of an actual right - instead it is a privilege that must be earned through 'good behavior' or something. I am continually amazed by the number of right-wingers who rightly chafe at having arbitrary government restrictions and regulations placed on all sorts of everyday activities, but then turn around and have no problems with having arbitrary government restrictions and regulations on the act of voting.

                  1. Each INDIVIDUAL is entitled to exercise those rights.

                    Odd how conservatives see these rights as nuisances that need to be curtailed.

                    1. Neither the left nor the right defends liberty for its own sake.

                      The left tends to view liberty from a utilitarian perspective - if liberty is used towards "constructive ends" then it should be protected. So they want to ban "hate speech" because it is unproductive and inflammatory (in their view) and they want to ban campaign donations, also speech, because they "corrupt elections" (in their view).

                      The right tends to view liberty from a moralistic perspective - only those who are morally worthy should have their liberty protected. So they would ban flag burning because it is an immoral slap in the face to the civic American religion. They will put up onerous barriers to voting because only "the worthy", i.e., those who can navigate all those barriers like an obstacle course, should have the right to vote.

                      Libertarians should stand against both of these excesses and support liberty for its own sake, for each individual regardless of what group that individual belongs to. That is what I believe. I don't know how you can get more libertarian than that.

                  2. Voting is participatory, it cannot be a right.

                    1. It is not a natural right, but it is a civil right. Like the right to a trial by jury. Every person eligible to exercise that right should not be arbitrarily restrained by the state from doing so.

                    2. You do know that civil rights can be restricted, right?

                    3. Since civil rights are a creation of law, and not inherent in each individual, then yes, they CAN be restricted, but they really SHOULDN'T be. Certainly libertarians among all groups should be the ones pushing the envelope to have the most expansive framework possible for people to exercise their rights, including civil rights, no?

                    4. Well that was a fun back and forth of leftists trading leftist talking points while being ignorant about true racism.

                  3. Jeff admits but then ignores that open immigration in presence of a welfare state doesn't work. That is because jeff is an idiot who lies to himself constantly and lies about the motivations of his opponents.

                    1. And here's Jesse to shit on the conversation.

                    2. JesseBahnFuhrer's motives are ALWAYS all about more POWER for His Sacred Tribe, and for the TrumptatorShit! So clearly then, ALL of His Motives are GOOD!

                    3. Lol.

                      Holy fuck jeff. You started the statement by claiming false motivations for your opponents you retarded fat fuck.

          2. despite him attacking fox in the manifesto

            It has become common for the far right to attack Fox News because they don't traffic in the Big Lie like Trump wants them to.

            They are moving to that extra nutty news station. Is it OAN? Or the other one.

            1. Is this the results of your months of intensive research at wingnut.com? Say what's the recent rig count at OAN?

            2. Watching leftist delusions is amazing. And the fact he called himself a communist turned moderate leftist?

          3. Like buttplug, jeffy can't comprehend (or accept) that a person on the left can be as racist as a person on the right. His prayer book has personal traits listed according to tribe, and may not be contradicted.

            1. A "person on the left" cannot be a racist by definition. If they are racist (Farrakan for lack of a better example) then they are of the right.

              Again -

              Left = egalitarian
              Right = favoring a race, ethnic group, select group.

              You Peanuts have the hardest time with left/right.

              Socialism (in theory) is a disease of the left where the state controls all production and distribution to insure equality (horrible system)

              Fascism is a disease of the right where a race or group is elevated as superior as the state intends.

              So that is why Islamo-Fascism is of the right.

              1. Inventing your very own definition of left and right doesn't make them true.

                Hell, they don't even hold up to your own rhetoric. You and Jeff purport to be extreme lefties, and you guys are constantly pushing CRT, race-based quotas and affirmative action while minimizing historical Democratic Party racism.

                1. You're such a fucking liar.

                  I have consistently (for 15 years here) denounced all quotas, affirmative action, and CRT since it has been around.

                  1. Just think of ML as Jesse's attack poodle. He yips a lot but otherwise may be safely ignored.

                    1. This is when you know jeff has lost lol.

                    2. Yes. If you just fantasize like that it makes the impotent rage and embarrassment go away.

                  2. turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a scum-bag kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
                    If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
                    turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

              2. Uh, sure. Now try defending those who claim to be Democrats, campaign for and support Democratic candidates, and vote straight Democrat, but also hold seriously racist views.

              3. The left is literally dividing school kids by race shrike. It is amazing how ignorant abd leftist you and Jeff are.

            2. Oh, there can certainly be left-wing racism. But left-wing racism tends to be of the condescending nature, rather than right-wing racism, which tends to be irrational hatred.

              Right-wing racism: You black people are all ruining the country so I'm going to murder you.
              Left-wing racism: You black people are all helpless so I will give you special privileges.

              Left-wing racism of the hatred type tends to be against the dominant race, rather than against minorities.

              At least those are my observations.

              1. Left-wing racism: You black people are all helpless so I will give you special privileges.

                This certainly exists.

                But back to definitions.

                Some people wrongly think right-wing refers to a capitalist.

                But the greatest capitalist of all time (Warren Buffett) is never referred to as "right-wing".

                If fact, Buffett is a good example of a left-wing capitalist since he supports equal education and opportunity for all regardless of race/sex/ethnicity.

                1. Quit lying, pile of lefty shit.

                2. Now which party and leftist contingents openly hate White rednecks?

              2. Leftists are literally nothing but irrational hatred.
                You are cancer.

              3. Nobody gets more hate for being black than conservatives like Clarence Thomas. Again, you're full of shit because you have an inate need to defend your team on the left.

            3. unpopular observation (at least here, nah, everywhere): Until trump came along and red pilled the union folk, I had never met a racist conservative.
              Democrats have always been the racists, even when they're Reagan or trump democrats.

              1. The left has 150 years of seeking out segragation by race which continues to this day.

                1. Democrats. Telling black people what to do since 1836.

        2. You can’t possibly be a libertarian. You have an open mind, and you aren’t an extremist, and you like to think about things. No room for that here.

          1. Oh, and you don’t hate on Reason enough.

            1. Sometimes I wonder if White Mike is ENB or Boehm.

              1. Low enough IQ (and testosterone) to qualify

          2. I am a humanist, rational libertarian.

            I'm also pragmatic. In the end, an ideology is meaningless if it doesn't deliver tangible benefits to those whom it purports to help.

            That was the reason behind the major downfall of communism in Europe. Sure it was theoretically very beautiful, but at the end of the day, the results weren't even close to a "worker's paradise". The strength of Marx's logical arguments didn't matter.

            Similarly it has to be the same for libertarianism. We can talk all we want about reducing the power of the state, but at the end of the day, the result must conform to a situation that is tangibly better than the status quo. If it doesn't, then no amount of libertarian theory will matter.

            1. "Sure it was theoretically very beautiful"

              ^and collectivistjeff child groomer admits to a deep resentment of humanity without even realizing it

            2. Amen. Why should the real world, with all its messiness and randomness, be expected to comply perfectly to any ideology. There will always be pieces that don’t fit, places where exceptions have to be made or some flexibility has to be kept.

            3. Youre an elite loving globalist. You even called yourself a globalist libertarian. Lol.

              1. He's a totalitarian pedophile.

        3. Oh. Well. Is THAT all it takes?"
          In a shooter's manifesto? Yes.

          "I self-identify as a libertarian"
          In an astroturfing post by a known fifty-center? No.

          1. Yeah, didn't think you would apply any semblance of consistent principles. It's always "attack the left, defend the right".

        4. If you went around calling yourself an ancap, wrote a manifesto ranting about ending the fed, how taxes are theft, and then went and shot up someplace, it would be fucking stupid for the media to be all “crazy far-left extremist murders ten.”

          And I will say, the contrast in coverage of this story when put up against the guy who ran an suv into a parade is pretty stark.

    2. Anti semite is actually the domain of the left these days.

      It is the left pushing segragation and calling black conservatives uncle Tom.

      Anti illegal immigration is not the same as anti immigration.

      Biden just recalled fondly how he used to dine with segragationists.

      He actually self described himself as a moderate left authoritarian.

      Lol.

      1. Not to mention that in the Big Democratic Tent we also find people against Asians, Blacks who want a world without Whites, native Americans who hate Hispanic descendants of conquistadors, rivalries between color groups, and any number of other tribal conflicts.

      2. It always has been. There is a tiny tiny fringe on the right that is anti semitic, but most of them have always been the cosmopolitan leftists.

    3. Turn yourself in for your crimes against children.

  13. The New York Post reported Saturday that it “looked at Jean-Pierre’s tweets between 2015 and 2020 and found a staggering 57 instances where she accused people, policies, ideas, or words of being ‘racist.’
    Also, Jean-Pierre accused people and ideas she was opposed to as ‘racist’ at least 43 times in TV appearances too.”

    That makes an even 100 accusations of racism or twenty per year; among Democrats today, that makes Jean-Pierre a moderate or even slightly conservative.

    1. It isnt race grievances when the left does it.

  14. Sounds like he's trying to give people reasons to not take his firm's investments. Businesses and their officers should stay out of politics.

  15. I love journalists, honestly. Most journalists are amazing.

    Automatically going to discount his opinions.

    He's a retard.

  16. https://twitter.com/0Funky11/status/1525631477312012289?t=OyllV1GcA6AQTUAknE2wHg&s=19

    Pro-abortion protestors pledge 'summer of rage' during nationwide Saturday protests

    All planned, organized, by democrats.

    1. Paid for by Soros, so we'll probably see an uptick of activity on that subject by Shrike.

  17. https://twitter.com/kevinhaddad08/status/1525627578861531136?t=uxgSWJBBfENdzWWcnYnEOQ&s=19

    Remember it’s the midterm election season again, we’re about to see mass shootings, cops beating black Americans & definitely abortion activities marching in every city. But please forget about inflation, food shortages and $6 for a gallon of gas

  18. https://twitter.com/ACTBrigitte/status/1525877464219766784?t=aLt1Ny2GXp_r5KYOIwWsfQ&s=19

    CNN's Dana Bash asked Speaker Pelosi if right-wing politicians and commentators are to blame for the horrific Buffalo mass shooting. How divisive.

    [Video]

    1. https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1525858895994003456

      Truly one of the greatest orators of all time.

      [Video]

      How many people do you think I could get to call me a sexist or a racist if I said she makes Barack Obama look like an articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy?

    2. Senile cunt.

  19. On both your Substack and your Twitter feed, you display what I think is sort of a honed, crafted internet persona. It's snarky and contrarian, perhaps trollish. What's your vibe?

    I just don't ever want to be afraid to speak my mind ever again. I understand why you're picking up on perhaps snark or [being] almost troll-adjacent. I don't think I am a troll; what I am is willing to fight back. It's just words on the internet, right? What do we have to be afraid of?

    While I like the cut of his jib, I don't understand what the aversion to trolling is. Unprincipled and dishonest, I could agree. But nobody's clear on whether 'trolling' refers to being a creature under a bridge or dangling several lines in the water behind a boat any more than they're clear on whether being a nigger means being stupid or lazy or being black. Even if being a troll means living under a bridge, it doesn't mean they can't be principled and honest any more than it means a black person can't be hardworking, upstanding or prosperous. Unless that's what you mean by being a troll. But then, if you're a "Hey, let's commit a thoughtcrime!" type why wouldn't you just say 'unprincipled' or 'dishonest'?

    1. Even if being a troll means living under a bridge, it doesn't mean they can't be principled and honest any more than it means a black person can't be hardworking, upstanding or prosperous.

      Honest an principled trolling is sometimes the highest form of argumentation.

      "Soooo, pro-choice protester, about that "my body my choice sign" you have there..."

  20. a theme he hits frequently in Pirate Wires, his irreverent, pointed Substack.

    so I see Reason is going full alt-right racism now.

  21. I expected it to happen, even though I said nothing about pure politics or all the things that they're obsessed with. There's nothing about race, right? They just see everything through that lens.

    Sumerman followup: So, moving on...

  22. It doesn't seem to me that being deplatformed from any specific social media site is a violation of a constitutional right or anything like it. Deplatforming has led to the growth of alternatives—podcasts, Substack, to some extent

    And the corporate media you so trust are doing everything they can to get substack shut down.

    Newsletter company Substack profits off misinformation - The ...https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2022/01/27 › substa...
    Jan 27, 2022 — Conspiracy theorists, banned on major social networks, connect with audiences on newsletters and podcasts. Newsletter company Substack is making ...

    Substack Is Now a Playground for the Deplatformed
    The company’s CEO says the old way of social media is broken—but is his alternative much different?

    WHAT DO ALEX Berenson, Bari Weiss, and Glenn Greenwald have in common? They’ve all railed against being deplatformed—be it a Twitter ban or the loss of a job at a prestigious publication—only to find a new home and great riches on Substack.

    The hyped newsletter platform, founded in 2017 and touted as an alternative way forward for the perpetually struggling ad-driven media industry, has positioned itself as the anti-Facebook—a place where quality and thoughtfulness triumph over engagement algorithms. But some of its most feted writers are considered by many to push harmful content. Such successes raise an awkward question for the new media darling: If Substack is the future, what future is it even creating?

    Fuck you Wired and Washington Post. Fuck off and die. I hope your entire staff is laid off in a massive industry collapse and you're reduced to scrapbooking for minimum wage. Or better yet, on welfare.

    1. So much disinformation there, perhaps a new federal agency to tackle this problem might be in order. Nah, that's the fever dream of a Fox News Host. They'd never do that.

    2. Bunch of lying, envious, malicious, fascist cunts at the Post. IMO unemployment is far too generous. I am thinking more like a deep mine shaft.

    3. But some of its most feted writers are considered by many to push harmful content. Such successes raise an awkward question for the new media darling: If Substack is the future, what future is it even creating?

      This is a valid question worth considering, whether it comes from the Washington Post or not. Of course they have a self-interest in seeing their business model preserved at the expense of Substack's. But nonetheless I think we ought to ask ourselves, if there are no gatekeepers to information, if anyone with an Internet platform is regarded as equivalent to a professional journalist, then what does that mean when it comes time for collective decision-making? We don't even live in a country with a shared reality anymore. You cannot get the two tribes to agree on basic things like who won the last election, or what transpired on Jan. 6. How can we make collective decisions that are rational and prudent in this type of environment?

      1. How can we make collective decision

        We won't. Oh well.

        1. Well, I do tend to favor voting to choose one's national leaders.

          1. We don't now, you do know that right?

            1. Well, the vote for president is convoluted and not direct. But for the rest of them, yes, we do vote. What are you referring to specifically?

              1. The reps we vote for vote among themselves to find leaders.

                At no point do we actually vote for a leader.

                1. Well, no, we do vote among the choices presented. Granted the choices presented are often extremely crappy.

                  I'm in favor of making it easier for a wider range of candidates to appear on the ballot. Are you?

                  1. Well, no, we do vote among the choices presented. Granted the choices presented are often extremely crappy.

                    Do you not get that in a representative system, you aren't actually voting for your direct leader? Or are you purposefully obfuscating?

                    I'm in favor of making it easier for a wider range of candidates to appear on the ballot. Are you?
                    NO, because I want fewer people seeking office in general.

                    1. In our current presidential system, no we don't vote directly on candidates for president, we vote for electors to the Electoral College. But for all other elections, yes, we do vote directly for the people listed on the ballot and if they win, they are the ones in fact who assume power and become one of the many leaders in the government.

                      NO, because I want fewer people seeking office in general.

                      Why?

                    2. In our current presidential system, no we don't vote directly on candidates for president, we vote for electors to the Electoral College. But for all other elections, yes, we do vote directly for the people listed on the ballot and if they win, they are the ones in fact who assume power and become one of the many leaders in the government.

                      The reps we vote for vote among themselves to find leaders.

                      At no point do we actually vote for a leader.

                      I'm sorry you can't get that your reps do not automatically become leaders by virtue of elections.

                      Why?

                      Because power spreads like cancer. Elections happen to be a chokepoint that we can control.

                    3. I guess you are making some pedantic point. Oh well.

                      Personally I prefer to have more choices of candidates in elections, not fewer.

                      Having fewer candidates doesn't mean that the power of the government is reduced, it just means that the choice of who will wield that power is diminished.

      2. This reminds me of when Lefty Jeffy attacked Joe Rogan for daring to allow a platform for people that were saying things the government didn’t approve of. Because that’s what “radical individualists” do.

    4. Anyone who's studied anything about fascism knows what's going on. Goebbels was good enough to articulate it, even if your average FOX News host couldn't. Facts and common standards of factualness are the enemies of fascist power, who operate by inventing the world anew on their own terms. In an age where real journalism has been unrelentingly slandered by right-wingers for decades and where the internet lets anyone pretend to be a journalist, this sort of thing was bound to arise opportunistically.

      And I feel like many people here need to be educated that fascism is bad actually, and it's bad because of the death camps.

      1. Look, Jen Psaki showed up now that she's got more free time.

      2. Imagine being so fundamentally historically illiterate that you think fascism hasn’t existed for 100 years in this country and wears the donkey like a goddamn skin suit.

    5. It's especially hilarious because GG didn't 'lose his job' at the Intercept, he quit because he refused to be censored.

      1. You mean edited. He is one for hyperbole, isn't he.

        Like recently he was on Tucker Carlson's show explaining how January 6 was understandable because people on the internet feel aggrieved.

        Wait, that's not hyperbole, that's downplaying.

        1. Like recently he was on Tucker Carlson's show explaining how January 6 was understandable because people on the internet feel aggrieved.

          LOL seriously? Isn't that the exact same argument that the BLM rioters made when they were destroying downtown Portland? "Racism is so bad, we HAVE to smash shit!" It is just yet more proof that Team Red and Team Blue are just mirror images of each other.

          1. Didn't you look like an idiot just yesterday regarding this? 100 days, 2 billion in damages, nearly 30 dead for those blm "protests."

            I remember you also laughing when they forced trump into the bunker at the white house.

            1. attack the left, defend the right

              1. I mean, he has a point….

          2. It really doesn't matter how psychotic totalitarian collectivist feel.
            Their perspective is delusional, made of nothing but resentment, and they lie constantly.
            The federal government is becoming more and more totalitarian, the result of the 2020 presidential election was fabricated, and the capitol is the people's property.
            We're way fucking past the point where we can tolerate your bullshit anymore.

        2. His contract allowed him full control of everything he wrote, full stop.

          "Wah, wah! Greenwald was useful during Bush! But when he went after St. Obama, wah! Wah! No fairsies!"

          1. I couldn't give less of a crap. GG is a right-wing propagandist. He's bad. Just like his best friend Tucker Carlson. They are bad people. They lie. They are hurting America.

  23. Really you're talking about maybe like 10 executives in Silicon Valley who worked together to erase a sitting president from the internet. That's a huge, huge, huge problem. And your competitive alternative is also being shut down for not playing by these rules.

    Do you really feel like Donald Trump, billionaire, former president of the United States, someone who has massive media access, who can call into any number of radio and television shows pretty much any time he wants and get his message out there, is not able to get his message out?

    Suderman translated: There's nothing stopping Trump from putting out Cuneiform clay tablets and handing them out on street corners, what's the free speech issue here?

    Oh, and:

    The loss of DirecTV will deprive the channel of its major source of revenue and casts doubt on the future of the operation, where President Biden’s administration is called a “regime” and concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic are described as hysteria. OAN correspondents have promoted efforts to audit the vote counts in the 2020 election.

    OAN is not the only conservative outlet losing distribution. Newsmax, the Boca Raton, Fla.-based channel that is the TV home of former President Trump’s first press secretary, Sean Spicer, was dropped from four cable systems in January after it failed to reach new carriage agreements with those companies.

    The two channels gained notoriety in recent years by seeking out conservative viewers who believe right-leaning Fox News, the dominant ratings leader in cable news, did not show enough unwavering fealty to Trump. Both believe it’s now open season on conservative outlets.

    “We count 11 liberal news and information channels in a typical cable package, with Fox News Channel and Newsmax as the only alternatives,” Newsmax Chief Executive Chris Ruddy said in a statement to The Times. “All Americans are harmed when any voice, liberal or conservative, is closed down. We believe that society as a whole benefits from more discussion and political views being represented, not less.”

    Progressive groups, which have lobbied companies to drop OAN, lauded DirecTV’s decision.

    1. Either that, or this was a lie, what say you, Suderman?

      Deplatforming works, this new data on Trump tweets shows
      It’s not just the reach that a platform offers; it’s the whole package of affordances.

      But he can still call into CNN and argue with Don Lemon... you know, if he wants!

      1. That deplatforming works so well means the people who have that awesome power had better get it right.

        Oh indeed, indeed.

      2. Yet journalists seem to wonder why they are so little trusted, and so greatly despised. The attitudes one could draw from the interview, without asking more questions, certainly give the impression of someone who has little time for facts.

    2. Donald Trump was whining about his free speech being surpassed when he had a White House press briefing room at his disposal. At some point you're going to have to recognize when you're being used like a cheap fuck doll by these people.

  24. Why should Peter Thiel have any outsized influence on society? Every single one of this pets is a ridiculous charlatan. Money does not buy you brains. Oh my god why does this need to be explained.

  25. https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1525630660244819968?t=0dnMOBFVlXkmB0O7pBn3JA&s=19

    Buffalo resident: “It’s ridiculous. Something has to change…If more people were armed—and knew what they were doing with a gun—because it’s not the gun. It’s the person with the gun that don’t know how to act."

    [Video]

    1. I think one of the reasons the fucktard said he chose Buffalo was the high level of disarmament. The rest, yep, bog standard crazy person racist, ecofascist, appears to have copied Tarrant's manifesto down to color, font. Definitely potentially more ignorant nuance than what the shit media are reporting, or the hate crime charge might indicate.

  26. So is this guy's message that we should distrust democratic government and trust the genius of a couple of autistic freaks who fell into some money on the internet?

    Look, Thomas Edison was an asshole and a freak. If he had Twitter, nobody would think he should be governing anything. But we definitely want to leave room for lunatic freaks who invent things. It's the most American thing in the world.

    But if you're going to talk about "authoritarianism" then you need to understand what the fuck you're talking about at a basic level. Democratic government is the opposite of that. One guy making all the decisions because he's such a super duper genius is LITERALLY AUTHORITARIANISM.

    1. One guy making all the decisions because he's such a super duper genius is LITERALLY AUTHORITARIANISM.

      Enough about Mark Zuckerberg, what are your thoughts on Jack Dorsey?

      1. It’s ok as long as they make the decisions tony likes.

      2. They are all assholes who have mistaken winning the lottery for being smart.

    1. From your article:

      An election official from a county which received funds from the Mark Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life used a local newspaper column to dismiss evidence of election fraud, praising mail-in ballots in the process, and helping dismiss notions of foul play despite his obvious conflict of interest.

      So what exactly is the conflict of interest here? Your article is not clear on this point.

      1. Wow. An election official gets paid to dismiss evidence of election fraud and your response is "Where's the conflict?" Ballsy. Or stupid. Especially after saying "I like like lots of choices in electing leaders." Actually, nevermind, not ballsy, just stupid.

        1. An election official gets paid to dismiss evidence of election fraud

          Umm, what? When did this happen?

          1. Again, wow.

            An election official from a county which received funds from the Mark Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life used a local newspaper column to dismiss evidence of election fraud

            Do you want lots more choices in electing leaders or do you just want the choice of leaders that Zuck approves and pays for? I don't really have a problem either way. Just that the "I'm for the purest of pure democracy." and "I'm for billionaire-funded and steered democracy." stances are kinda mutually exclusive.

  27. "you're talking about maybe like 10 executives in Silicon Valley who worked together to erase a sitting president from the internet"

    This is the standard description because it plays well with the populist grievance-based ideological play, but is a pretty huge miss on what's going on.

    The problem (if we can agree it is one) with tech employees being opposed to doing work to amplify racism, misinformation etc. is a labor market development. This is because tech is about talent.

    The CEOs would rather be well free of these discussions, as they aren't good for business. Companies are forced to take sides in a brawling culture war, a business nightmare scenario if anything. But if you do nothing, you're asking employees to be happy about doing labor to amplify those things, and many just aren't going to do it. And losing talent wars is the end for tech companies, just not visible from the outside.

    It takes high-IQ, highly educated people from a wide range of backgrounds to win in these industries. The only culture that consistently works is inclusive.

    To spend everything you have going after such talent, then to turn around and tell those people it's for the good of the country to allow more obviously offensive (racist etc.) content, to tell them that it's for the better that tens of thousands are going to be lost due to social media's ability to amplify viral anti-vax claims (as you *still* see casually and uncritically accepted in all rightist forums), or that we might have to give up the republic for the good of the republic because it's easy to convince a bunch of people elections don't work and therefore we can't go by the Constitution anymore. None of that is going to fly, and code doesn't write itself.

    It's hard to understand the dilemma in rightist forums because these things and a host of implicit conspiracy theories are taken to be mostly true or at any rate *important* stories.

    But to educated employees applying traditional understanding of logic, statistics, evidence etc. these things clearly aren't true.

    All parties agree there needs to be a line – even venture bro here speaks of "right-wing toxic dumps" and probably doesn't want the explicit Nazis platformed with Holocaust denial etc. It's just covid denial, science denial etc. that he thinks should be platformed. But that line isn't actually that obvious.

    I don't have a great answer on how to draw the line actually (don't think anyone does). I've said I oppose censorship but support intelligent badging with fact checks. That might not actually be enough to keep employees, when the impact unfolds.

    But at the end of the day, it's worth understanding what the problem is, and "activist woke elite CEOs" is a made-up thing. It is pursuit of profit in an IQ-driven industry that is creating this dynamic.

    1. Who is coding and running “right wing” forums?

      1. This is "Truth Social" question, per interview.

        It's not hard to code something up into existence, so alternative forums will be everywhere, per the discussion.

        To compete at scale and with features for dominant cloud platforms is much harder and takes armies.

        But the right could always try it, try to attract an all-star army of right wing coders and make a forum that will be more friendly to extremist content. Again, that's the Truth Social game plan I think. It's not surprising the thing doesn't work yet. Even if you get it to work, you have the business problem of drawing the line and who you attract to start (Holocaust denial, right-wing toxic dumps). Likely to be self-limiting as a business model – not only are there labor market factors in play, but consumer factors in terms of what is mainstream tolerable.

      2. It has no idea, but will lie.

        1. You know Hank I'd really have to go look to try to remember what hurt your feels, and that would take time.

          Nice contribution here though.

  28. With the Jan 6 investigations going on, I wanted to see just what 45 said in his speech that day. It's part of a major news story, but Youtube and probably other sites have banned it. I eventually found it on Odyssee. (Why did they choose a name that's so hard to spell?)

    He never called for violence at all. He read a very long, boring list of alleged election improprieties. I know that what Pennsylvania did was blatantly illegal, but I have no knowledge of the others he listed. The point is, instead of rebutting him point for point, they just banned it. What are they afraid of?

    1. "I know that what Pennsylvania did was blatantly illegal"

      Lol. You mean passing a vote by mail provision by bipartisan vote in 2019. To be clear, not claiming there was fraud or Biden didn't win, but claiming people shouldn't have been allowed to vote by mail, as many states do routinely. "Blatantly" is a bit of a propaganda stretch, but yes the courts ruled that a Constitutional amendment was required and don't blame you for trying in these times of 24/7 agitprop.

      What the GOP wanted to do both in Pennsylvania and Washington was obviously far more illegal and unconstitutional. In PA, they wanted to *after the election* throw out the mail-in votes because they were predominantly Democratic (because Trump told his people in advance not to vote mail-in to try to set up this tactic.) This violates article II.

      In Washington you can read the plan in the Eastman memos.

      If you want to know whether Jan 6 participants thought Trump sent them there, why don't you ask them? I suppose we both know the answer to that.

  29. I was thinking how I might get hold of some mint Juul pods here in Michigan. Is that a crime? Guv'na?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.