Announcement

**jlittle** · Mar 26, 2018, 06:43 AM

I'm not convinced.

Your quotes (I only got page titles, but quite enough) are good, because it's a polarizing issue, and one person's plea for justice for Palestinians is another's anti-Semitism.

Your local time suggests to me that you are based in Europe somewhere; and so it's likely that you're aghast at the brokenness of politics in the USA. I suggest that they've got into that state because their citizens tune in to echo chambers that line up with their prejudices, and so those prejudices reverberate, resonate, and grow louder. An appeal to truth, to facts, objectivity, principles, fails when they're lost in the booming. And those ideas are needed for any kind of tolerable censorship.

**Bings** · Mar 26, 2018, 03:07 PM

It's got nothing to with the middle east really, it's just plain old anti semitism.

There's an old saying, "The Jews own Hollywood." Think about that for a moment. Look at how corrupt, vile, contemptuous, and deplorable that industry is and that's how they behave in a 'good' light. Can you imagine how dark their hidden side is? Not as dark as a raging Viking Berserker with a monumental chip on his shoulder. The system is going down and the truth will be exposed soon. I will see it done myself.

This 5 minute video where these leading Jews discuss 2 main problems the world has. 1) Jewish leaders are SO WORRIED about all the poor refugees in the world and the west HAS to take them in and JEWS are going to AGITATE socially and politically to make sure we westerners keep the flow up. 2) THE JEWS DON'T LIKE the world being CRITICAL of their apartheid JEWISH ETHNO STATE, as it leads to problems like BDSM slowing the flow of BILLIONS going to Israel, and maybe adverse public reaction to ISRAEL might slow government (taxpayer) funding to the hook nosed fascists who masquerade as humanitarians

And still Americans claim Jews need financial support despite this 1 jewish family owning 50% of the world's wealth.

The jews are a disgusting and vile race totally alien to gentiles. There is so much that can be said about them but a summary would be calling them a parasitic virus upon nations.

I'm not "aghast" at US politics either, that's not the subject and I am not anyway.

I'm more responding to a train of thought that thinks that large social media sites like Twitter and Facebook have a responsibility to act as a neutral public meeting site. As opposed to having a bias. I disagree, I don't think sites however large should be prevented from doing so. The problem is that people congregate around single sites, not that sites aren't objective. Also it's more important that the people reading sites become more objective, not that sites are forced into it.

**GreyGeek** · Mar 26, 2018, 04:23 PM

Equally disturbing anti-semantic posts can be found on Twitter, G+ and YT.

Minds and Gab are free speech sites in the literal sense of the word. That means that you will find on those sites posts from the FULL range of the political spectrum -- Hard Core Marxist with a fetish to shoot up the place to establish their "revolution" along side of posts from Hard Core Racists who think Blacks are barely above the Apes and use the term "chimp out" to describe their behavior. Pro-gun by folks who think personal nukes is an option to folks who become triggered at the thought of you owning a BB gun or sling shot or even defending yourself if attacked. As Twitter and YT continue their purge of dissenting thought they are rapidly becoming mere echo chambers for the Marxist & AntiFa. Rather than purging offensive members, on Gab each member has a muting tool that allows them to mute the posts IN THEIR OWN STREAM of people whom they feel don't add value to the conversation.

It has been easy to trace the IP addresses of a lot of Gab invaders to their Twitter accounts. Ardent socialists on Twitter, they post vile things on Gab. Why? That's obvious. To defame the site. The posts that aggravate me the most are the Flat Earthers, Moon landing hoaxers, Nibiru and Over Unity posts in the science a/o technology categories. It is obvious that aside from people whose IQ is below -2 sigma, (only 3% of the posts) those with an IQ greater than -1 sigma cannot be that stupid, so they are posting from a political agenda. I mute those accounts. They can continue their discussion, I never see their posts. Am I creating an echo chamber? No, because I don't mute people who disagree with me but post excellent arguments. That's how free speech is supposed to work.

Just who decides IF there should be a speech code line, and where the line should be drawn? And by what authority? You? Me? Some unelected bureaucrat administrator making laws out of regulations by overreaching them? (Like when the IRS was weaponized against Conservative Groups before the 2012 election, inhibiting their ability to fund ad campaigns because donations were not tax deductible.) It has, can and will lead to over criminalization:
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031

In the US the 1st Amendment lists FIVE natural God given rights (Yes, God given because the Founding Fathers were Christians & Deists, and stated these rights as God given and unalienable, i.e., we can't be alienated from them by man made infringements, although that is no longer the case because some politicians are more dedicated to the Manifesto than the Bill of Rights, despite their oath of office):

Congress shall make no law
1) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
2) abridging the freedom of speech, or
3) of the press; or
4) the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
5) to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You cannot destroy any one of them without destroying the entire 1st Amendment. (And, I might add, without the 2nd Amendment how would you enforce the 1st?) Your response might be that the government isn't making any laws against free speech, the social media sites are. My response is that in a supposedly free country, which hasn't had a history of National Fascism, corporations have NOT had and should not have the right to inject themselves as a moderator between you and your Bill of Rights, or your discussions with other free citizens or people around the world.

The socials are the new public square where membership is free and was freely invited. In our past history the town square was where people went to talk politics and other things. Anyone could step up on the soap box and speak. They didn't have to get permission from the mayor or town cop, or the local hardware store owner who probably supplied the soap box. No one had to listen to them speak but they had a right to speak in that public square. Initially professing "First, do no evil" the socials are now, IMO, consummate evil. Marxist Thought Police. Had they been honest and stated their ToS as "You can use our platform freely as long as you do not write against or contradict any Marxist theory or government, past or present" I wouldn't have any objection against them. People would be going in with their eyes wide open. However, getting them hooked as a means to communicate and share with friends and family or the public at large, all the while suppressing competitive sites just the way Microsoft suppressed competitive OS's, how do you now expect them to move to a site that isn't well known, or is suffering from a negative disinformation campaign from the social sites and their MNM supporters, just as MS attacked Linux?

**GreyGeek** · Mar 26, 2018, 04:54 PM

BTW, I must add that Jews are not a race, so one cannot be "racist" against a Jew. Jewish linage is determined through the mother for historical reasons. And if you think I am a racist for writing that let me remind you that my last name is Kreps, historically from the Ashkenazi Jews of Germany and Czechoslovakia. After a period of atheism I became a Christian, long before I knew of my Jewish ancestry. And, no, I've never felt an inner desire to migrate to Israel because, religiously speaking, I am Israel.

**jlittle** · Mar 26, 2018, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

BTW, I must add that Jews are not a race, so one cannot be "racist" against a Jew ... my last name is Kreps... Ashkenazi...

Logically, I agree, and I have to respect your stance on this.

However, it's a line often given by anti-semitic apologists, so... Do you want to sound like them?

Regards, John Little

**chimak111** · Mar 26, 2018, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by jlittle View Post

... one person's plea for justice for Palestinians is another's anti-Semitism.
...

Isn't anti-Semitism very ancient, existing way before Palestine/Islam became contributory factors?

**jlittle** · Mar 26, 2018, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by chimak111 View Post

Isn't anti-Semitism very ancient, existing way before Palestine/Islam became contributory factors?

Of course, but, especially in the USA, for decades anyone who even uses the word "Palestinian" to refer to anyone or anything other than terrorists, will be accused of anti-semitism implicitly, and explicitly if any sympathy is shown.

**GreyGeek** · Mar 26, 2018, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by jlittle View Post

Logically, I agree, and I have to respect your stance on this.

However, it's a line often given by anti-semitic apologists, so... Do you want to sound like them?

Regards, John Little

Facts do not become non-facts when someone who is not popular repeats them.

What is "sounding like" a racist? Who gets the right/privilege of determining or declaring certain speech is racist or bigoted, or that certain words cannot be spoken in public.

Christians were told to keep their religion and morals to themselves when Clinton was impeached for sexual misconduct in the White House. The NYT wrote, in 1998, when talking about Clinton's affair with Lewinsky:

But publicly humiliating anyone for consensual adultery is draconian, and wrong. It teaches children cynicism. What they see is how little respect there is for privacy, and how gratuitously and harshly adults will harm one another to gain a little power. And using adultery or any aspect of consensual adult sexuality as a weapon in political battles is more abhorrent than the act itself.

So, there, all you self righteous Christians! Take that!

Now, however, an affair that allegedly occurred 12 years before Trump won the office of POTUS is supposed to make him ineligible to continue as president? The NYT is doing its best to humiliate Trump using consensual adultery as a weapon, which it claimed in 1998 was "more abhorrent than the act itself."

That's how you define hypocrisy and spot an agenda.

**GreyGeek** · Mar 26, 2018, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by chimak111 View Post

Isn't anti-Semitism very ancient, existing way before Palestine/Islam became contributory factors?

It is. God stated in Deu 28:37 that if they didn't remain obedient to Him He would cast them out of the land he gave them and "You will become an object of horror, ridicule, and mockery among all the nations to which the LORD sends you."
The last, greatest diaspora occurred following the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, driving the Jews who were not killed by the Roman army into the surrounding lands, from which they migrated to the rest of the known world. All along their travels they were subject to God's curse. In most Christian lands usury was frowned upon, but Jews had no problem lending money at interest and became very wealthy doing so, until they were attacked and driven out of a given area because of that usury. The Nazis began the myth that Jews were a race so they could isolate and target them as the cause of all of Germany's troubles brought on by their loss of WWI.

IMO, the greatest source of anti-semitism today, except that practice by adherents to Islam, is the Left.
https://www.jns.org/opinion/why-left...itism-matters/

But despite the attempt by some Trump critics to confuse the Charlottesville marchers with the people who edit Breitbart.com and other more mainstream political forces on the right, the truth is that the Klan, the Nazis and their friends are actually a miniscule group with no influence and no connection to anyone in power.

The comparison with Farrakhan is important. He has a mass following among adherents of the Nation of Islam. And many others in the African-American community that don’t claim to share his views treat him as a respected ally. That includes members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who hosted him back in 2005 when he took a picture smiling next to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (which was repressed by a sympathetic photographer who didn’t wish to endanger Obama’s hopes for a higher office). Rep. Keith Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee was also a longtime supporter of Farrakhan.

The same is true of people like Sarsour. The BDS (boycott, divest and sanctions) movement hasn’t won any major battles in America. But it has a foothold on many major American college campuses and is backed by many on the left. It is also inextricably linked to incidents of anti-Semitism and attacks on Jewish students, which occur wherever the BDSers raise their banner.

**Bings** · Mar 27, 2018, 06:07 AM

The socials are the new public square where membership is free and was freely invited. In our past history the town square was where people went to talk politics and other things. Anyone could step up on the soap box and speak. They didn't have to get permission from the mayor or town cop, or the local hardware store owner who probably supplied the soap box. No one had to listen to them speak but they had a right to speak in that public square. Initially professing "First, do no evil" the socials are now, IMO, consummate evil.

This is where I disagree. Public Squares are owned by the democratically elected authorities that run them. Social Networks are run by private companies. If there was a social network on http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/ then I would agree, that is equivalent to a public square. Maybe there is an argument for such authorities to run them. Websites are property and you should control what happens on your property and you should also be responsible for it. If a private person or company is obliged to run a public square then that can surely only practically be done by state coercion, which can't be right.

In London, there has been this thing where local authorities have been selling public spaces to private companies often owned by Gulf Arabs. So if you try to have a protest for example on open to the public river bank by Tower Bridge, you will get thrown off https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yMuZ6m9MeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1fU4E_8aAY. Here is a video of similar problems in Hong Kong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWq705kXv3E So, there is problems with not having a distinction between public and private space open to the public. It's easier to define in the internet space and I think should be kept that way.

**GreyGeek** · Mar 27, 2018, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Bings View Post

This is where I disagree. Public Squares are owned by the democratically elected authorities that run them. Social Networks are run by private companies. If there was a social network on http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/ then I would agree, that is equivalent to a public square. Maybe there is an argument for such authorities to run them. Websites are property and you should control what happens on your property and you should also be responsible for it. If a private person or company is obliged to run a public square then that can surely only practically be done by state coercion, which can't be right.

In London, there has been this thing where local authorities have been selling public spaces to private companies often owned by Gulf Arabs. So if you try to have a protest for example on open to the public river bank by Tower Bridge, you will get thrown off https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yMuZ6m9MeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1fU4E_8aAY. Here is a video of similar problems in Hong Kong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWq705kXv3E So, there is problems with not having a distinction between public and private space open to the public. It's easier to define in the internet space and I think should be kept that way.

I don’t live in the UK. In America we have the Bill of Rights, or used to. The Marxist have a nice double standard: a corporation running a public accommodation like Facebook, Twitter and YT can restrict 1st Amendment Rights of people of Faith or Conservatives, even closing their accounts, canceling their licenses and confiscating monies in their accounts, BUT they are proposing legislation that forces churches to accept members whose life styles epitomizes depravity BECAUSE, they claim, churches are a public accommodation.

Like Microsoft or the Socials, churches have a ToS, “Code Of Conduct” that is clearly listed in Leviticus 18,

So, you are saying that a for-profit public accommodation CAN discriminate but a non-profit Church cannot? And that is fair how?

https://onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/...ligious-rights

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Bings** · Mar 27, 2018, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

I don’t live in the UK. In America we have the Bill of Rights, or used to. The Marxist have a nice double standard: a corporation running a public accommodation like Facebook, Twitter and YT can restrict 1st Amendment Rights of people of Faith or Conservatives, even closing their accounts, canceling their licenses and confiscating monies in their accounts, BUT they are proposing legislation that forces churches to accept members whose life styles epitomizes depravity BECAUSE, they claim, churches are a public accommodation.

Like Microsoft or the Socials, churches have a ToS, “Code Of Conduct” that is clearly listed in Leviticus 18,

So, you are saying that a for-profit public accommodation CAN discriminate but a non-profit Church cannot? And that is fair how?

https://onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/...ligious-rights

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am drawing the distinction between private and public owned, not whether there is a profit involved.

Unless they were going to deliberately cause a disturbance, I don't see why a church/religious organisation would refuse a member. Isn't redemption a thing over there?

**GreyGeek** · Mar 27, 2018, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Bings View Post

I am drawing the distinction between private and public owned, not whether there is a profit involved.

Unless they were going to deliberately cause a disturbance, I don't see why a church/religious organisation would refuse a member. Isn't redemption a thing over there?

I understand your distinction, but it doesn't apply when comparing a private corporation and a private religious organization, many of which have incorporated to satisfy legal or financial requirements.

Also, redemption is "a thing" over here with most Christian religions. As I said before, a church is a private organization as well, and like FaceBook and Microsoft, and Google and YouTube and Twitter it has a "Code Of Conduct". If a church is politically forced to admit as members people whose philosophy is 180 degrees out of line, as some on the Left are asserting, wanting to legislate, and suing to make happen, then so should the "private" corporations who also solicit members from the general public.

Churches teach their beliefs and rules of Faith before a person is accepted into the Faith and part of that acceptance in most Christian groups is baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, based on their repentance and confession of Faith that Jesus is the Son of God. It is not merely checking a box on a form or web page, although some "preachers" have reduced it to that in order to make collecting money from their "faithful" an easier job to do.

See Leviticus 18:24 for part of the "Code Of Conduct" for those who profess Faith in God and Christ.

“‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

“‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”

What are "any of these ways"? Verses 1 through 23 describe them.

Jesus calls people to repentance. You cannot be repentant and continue to have sex with animals, or sacrifice your children because they are inconvenient, or fornicate with your neighbor's wife, or continue to do any other things listed and still claim fellowship with Christ. Paul asked a simple question, "can a fountain flow with both sweet and sour water at the same time?" He put it another way when he wrote to the Galatians:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

**oldgeek** · Mar 27, 2018, 11:04 PM

Technically, Semites include peoples who speak Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic, and not specifically Jews. I don't know how it came to specifically refer to Jews, but in reality an anti-Semite hates Jews and Arabs alike--and Jesus Christ, who was a Jew who spoke Aramaic. So in the broader sense of the word, anti-Semitism is much more widespread than the current understanding of the term indicates.

Announcement

The Anti-Semitism on minds.com

The Anti-Semitism on minds.com

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment