Jump to content
Bellazon
Patreon/Only Fans Content
Underage Models (Kids - Preteens)

The Political Correctness Haters' Club

Sarah.Adams

By Sarah.Adams
in General Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sanni

Sanni

Posted
Posted

In general, I’m a lot more easy-going about the videos than most and have liked most of them. However, I do think that some videos crossed the line like what Elsa did in hers. She was even wearing VS, so I don’t get why her message seemed to be, “I’m down for anal,” unless LOVE Advent is the most exclusive catalogue for the elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfstone

elfstone

Posted
Posted

Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/

Quote

In September of last year, we noted that Facebook representatives were meeting with the Israeli government to determine which Facebook accounts of Palestinians should be deleted on the ground that they constituted “incitement.” The meetings — called for and presided over by one of the most extremist and authoritarian Israeli officials, pro-settlement Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked — came after Israel threatened Facebook that its failure to voluntarily comply with Israeli deletion orders would result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country.

The predictable results of those meetings are now clear and well-documented. Ever since, Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists who protest the decades-long, illegal Israeli occupation, all directed and determined by Israeli officials. Indeed, Israeli officials have been publicly boasting about how obedient Facebook is when it comes to Israeli censorship orders:

Shortly after news broke earlier this month of the agreement between the Israeli government and Facebook, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to the social media giant over the previous four months asking it to remove content it deemed “incitement.” She said Facebook had granted 95 percent of the requests.

She’s right. The submission to Israeli dictates is hard to overstate: As the New York Times put it in December of last year, “Israeli security agencies monitor Facebook and send the company posts they consider incitement. Facebook has responded by removing most of them.”

What makes this censorship particularly consequential is that “96 percent of Palestinians said their primary use of Facebook was for following news.” That means that Israeli officials have virtually unfettered control over a key communications forum of Palestinians.

In the weeks following those Facebook-Israel meetings, reported The Independent, “the activist collective Palestinian Information Center reported that at least 10 of their administrators’ accounts for their Arabic and English Facebook pages — followed by more than 2 million people — have been suspended, seven of them permanently, which they say is a result of new measures put in place in the wake of Facebook’s meeting with Israel.” Last March, Facebook briefly shut down the Facebook page of the political party, Fatah, followed by millions, “because of an old photo posted of former leader Yasser Arafat holding a rifle.”

A 2016 report from the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms detailed how extensive the Facebook censorship was:

Pages and personal accounts that were filtered and blocked: Palestinian Dialogue Network (PALDF.net) Gaza now, Jerusalem News Network, Shihab agency, Radio Bethlehem 2000, Orient Radio Network, page Mesh Heck, Ramallah news, journalist Huzaifa Jamous from Abu Dis, activist Qassam Bedier, activist Mohammed Ghannam, journalist Kamel Jbeil, administrative accounts for Al Quds Page, administrative accounts Shihab agency, activist Abdel-Qader al-Titi, youth activist Hussein Shajaeih, Ramah Mubarak (account is activated), Ahmed Abdel Aal (account is activated), Mohammad Za’anin (still deleted), Amer Abu Arafa (still deleted), Abdulrahman al-Kahlout (still deleted).

Needless to say, Israelis have virtually free rein to post whatever they want about Palestinians. Calls by Israelis for the killing of Palestinians are commonplace on Facebook, and largely remain undisturbed.

As Al Jazeera reported last year, “Inflammatory speech posted in the Hebrew language … has attracted much less attention from the Israeli authorities and Facebook.” One study found that “122,000 users directly called for violence with words like ‘murder,’ ‘kill,’ or ‘burn.’ Arabs were the No. 1 recipients of hateful comments. Yet there appears to be little effort by Facebook to censor any of that.”

Though some of the most inflammatory and explicit calls for murder are sometimes removed, Facebook continues to allow the most extremist calls for incitement against Palestinians to flourish. Indeed, Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, has often used social media to post what is clearly incitement to violence against Palestinians generally. In contrast to Facebook’s active suppression against Palestinians, the very idea that Facebook would ever use its censorship power against Netanyahu or other prominent Israelis calling for violence and inciting attacks is unthinkable. Indeed, as Al Jazeera concisely put it, “Facebook hasn’t met Palestinian leaders to discuss their concern.”

Facebook now seems to be explicitly admitting that it also intends to follow the censorship orders of the U.S. government. Earlier this week, the company deleted the Facebook and Instagram accounts of Ramzan Kadyrov, the repressive, brutal, and authoritarian leader of the Chechen Republic, who had a combined 4 million followers on those accounts. To put it mildly, Kadyrov — who is given free rein to rule the province in exchange for ultimate loyalty to Moscow — is the opposite of a sympathetic figure: He has been credibly accused of a wide range of horrific human rights violations, from the imprisonment and torture of LGBTs to the kidnapping and killing of dissidents.

But none of that dilutes how disturbing and dangerous Facebook’s rationale for its deletion of his accounts is. A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that “Mr. Kadyrov’s accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act.”

As the Times notes, this rationale appears dubious or at least inconsistently applied: Others who are on the same sanctions list, such as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, remain active on both Facebook and Instagram. But just consider the incredibly menacing implications of Facebook’s claims.

What this means is obvious: that the U.S. government — meaning, at the moment, the Trump administration — has the unilateral and unchecked power to force the removal of anyone it wants from Facebook and Instagram by simply including them on a sanctions list. Does anyone think this is a good outcome? Does anyone trust the Trump administration — or any other government — to compel social media platforms to delete and block anyone it wants to be silenced? As the ACLU’s Jennifer Granick told the Times:

It’s not a law that appears to be written or designed to deal with the special situations where it’s lawful or appropriate to repress speech. … This sanctions law is being used to suppress speech with little consideration of the free expression values and the special risks of blocking speech, as opposed to blocking commerce or funds as the sanctions was designed to do. That’s really problematic.

Does Facebook’s policy of blocking people from its platform who are sanctioned apply to all governments? Obviously not. It goes without saying that if, say, Iran decided to impose sanctions on Chuck Schumer for his support of Trump’s policy of recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, Facebook would never delete the accounts of the Democratic Party Senate minority leader — just as Facebook would never delete the accounts of Israeli officials who incite violence against Palestinians or who are sanctioned by Palestinian officials. Just last month, Russia announced retaliatory sanctions against various Canadian officials and executives, but needless to say, Facebook took no action to censor them or block their accounts.

Similarly, would Facebook ever dare censor American politicians or journalists who use social media to call for violence against America’s enemies? To ask the question is to answer it.

As is always true of censorship, there is one, and only one, principle driving all of this: power. Facebook will submit to and obey the censorship demands of governments and officials who actually wield power over it, while ignoring those who do not. That’s why declared enemies of the U.S. and Israeli governments are vulnerable to censorship measures by Facebook, whereas U.S and Israeli officials (and their most tyrannical and repressive allies) are not:

All of this illustrates that the same severe dangers from state censorship are raised at least as much by the pleas for Silicon Valley giants to more actively censor “bad speech.” Calls for state censorship may often be well-intentioned — a desire to protect marginalized groups from damaging “hate speech” — yet, predictably, they are far more often used against marginalized groups: to censor them rather than protect them. One need merely look at how hate speech laws are used in Europe, or on U.S. college campuses, to see that the censorship victims are often critics of European wars, or activists against Israeli occupation, or advocates for minority rights.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frenchkiki

frenchkiki

Posted
Posted

I am tired of these women complaining about  the toxic shock syndrome!

You are an idiot and had zero hygiene if you keep your tampon more than 4 hours.

Some of them kept the same tampon inside 12 to 24 hours! :angry: And then they scream in the medias "Tampons are dangerous!!"

Sorry you lost your leg honey, but next time you will do what says on the box : change your tampon every 4 to 6 hours.

It's crazy how now people can't assume their own mistake. Tampons do not cause TSS, bad hygiene does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gotportugal

gotportugal

Posted
Posted
On 30/12/2017 at 3:47 PM, Sanni said:

In general, I’m a lot more easy-going about the videos than most and have liked most of them. However, I do think that some videos crossed the line like what Elsa did in hers. She was even wearing VS, so I don’t get why her message seemed to be, “I’m down for anal,” unless LOVE Advent is the most exclusive catalogue for the elite.

What moment in the Elsa video are you mentioning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfstone

elfstone

Posted
Posted



In an article titled, "What Does Harvey Weinstein Tell Us About the Liberal World," Thomas Frank writes:

 

"What explains Weinstein's identification with progressive causes? Perhaps it was about cozying up to power, the thrill of being a friend of Bill Clinton." A little further down: "In the world of the wealthy, liberalism is something you do to offset your rapacious behavior in other spheres. It's no coincidence that, in Weinstein's first response to the accusations against him, he thought to promise war against the National Rifle Association and to support scholarships for women.

 

"But it's also something deeper than that. Most people on the left think of themselves as resistors of authority, but for certain of their leaders, modern-day liberalism is a way of rationalizing and exercising class power. Specifically, the power of what some like to call the "creative class," by which they mean well-heeled executives in industries like Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. Worshiping these very special people is the doctrine that has allowed Democrats to pull even with Republicans in fundraising and that has buoyed the party's fortunes in every wealthy suburb in America.

 

"Harvey Weinstein seemed to fit right in. This is a routine of liberalism that routinely blends self-righteousness with upper class entitlement. That makes its great pronouncements from Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons. That routinely understands the relationship between the common people and showbiz celebrities to be one of trust and intimacy."

 

Now joining us again in the studio is Thomas Frank. Thanks for joining us.

 

THOMAS FRANK: It's my pleasure, Paul.

 

PAUL JAY: That's a revealing and, I don't know, I'm not sure vicious is the right word, realistic, scathing.

 

THOMAS FRANK: Yeah. Yeah, that's not vicious. I'm sorry, of course, I'm biased, I wrote that. I thought that was fair. Basically, the Harvey Weinstein case happened and I think uniquely among American journalists I had never heard of the guy before. I started reading up on him, who is this guy? He's been accused of sexually harassing women in hundreds of cases, or I don't know how many, dozens of cases, many, and I'd never heard of him before. I start reading up on him and you keep reading about his intimacy of leaders with the Democratic party. He's always giving them money, hosting their fundraisers, hosting this good cause and that good cause, and he sort of fit into a type of liberal supporter that I'm very familiar with.

 

Take a step back, earlier in 'Listen, Liberal' I wrote about the Clinton Foundation and what the Clinton Foundation does. I'm not talking here about the various accusations that people made of them, acting as a slush fund or that sort of thing. What I'm talking about is the way that they act as a -- how would you put this-- a moral exchange, for people who are quite bad. A lot of foundations do this, so my argument is that this is what liberalism is-

 

PAUL JAY: The Saudis give them money and so do others, yeah.

 

THOMAS FRANK: Yeah. You go to their events and there is a very high-octane goodness, lots of celebrities, people who are celebrated for being good people, highly, highly, highly moral people, often people who are only known by one name like Bono or Malala. People who are saintly, and there's a kind of exchange there where those people are made to rub up against figures from American business and business people donate this money to all these good causes. Then the Clintons are the facilitators in the middle of this. They have a hand in each camp, in the extremely, highly moral, saintly camp and also in the really dirty, awful, ugly business world. There's a kind of moral exchange that happens via the Clinton Foundation. Harvey Weinstein really, I think better than almost anybody I know of, not only fits into that, but was acting it out. When he first was accused was like, "Oh, you're saying I'm doing these bad things well, okay, I'll go after the National Rifle Association, I'll give money to good causes."

 

That's what liberalism is. What was the phrase that I used in 'Listen Liberal,' it's virtue offsets. It's like rich people buying you know carbon offsets, but they're buying like liberalism offsets.

 

PAUL JAY: Karma offsets.

 

THOMAS FRANK: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. That's what it is. It's a moral/financial operation that doesn't really depend on getting votes or winning elections or anything like that. It's all about this exchange of karma, buying the karma offsets.

 

PAUL JAY: It's good PR.

 

THOMAS FRANK: Yeah, that too.

 

PAUL JAY: It makes your company look like you care about things. How does this resonate amongst sections of rural America, where towns are dying and workers who don't have jobs? It seems to me like people get the vulgar lies to some extent of Trump. We interviewed a guy in Dundalk, which is a place outside of Baltimore, very

 

THOMAS FRANK: I'm familiar with it.

 

PAUL JAY: Used to be one of the big steel mills, now high unemployment and terrible drug problems, families falling apart. This guy gave a wonderful quote. He says, "It's not that we don't think Trump is crazy, you know, we know he's crazy. We don't believe most of what he says and we voted for him."

 

THOMAS FRANK: Yes, yes.

 

PAUL JAY: What does that tell you about what we think of this political system?

 

THOMAS FRANK: Wow. That's a great way of putting it. I could add on to that. I think of my people in Kansas who are Bible believing Christians and voted for a man who boasted about groping women, said it was his right as a celebrity to grope women. They didn't agree with that. It's a monstrous statement what Donald Trump said and they voted for him anyway. That's a really interesting question, but to go back to Harvey Weinstein this is the broader question of the relationship between the Democratic party and celebrities. Look, they make a very simple calculation, they say Americans like to go to movies. Movies are one of the best things that our country does. We export them all around the world. It's a highly successful industry. It's our kind of industry, the Democrats say. It's creative class, all that kind of nonsense. It's our sort of thing.

 

What they don't understand is that it cuts both ways. Yes, Americans like to go to movies, but Americans hate aristocracy, and that's what celebrity is. There's something very deep in the American grain, we are democratic to the core in this country, another word for it by the way is populist, that we can't stand the idea of stars and celebrities.

 

PAUL JAY: Well, sure love-hate because the same people that are voting for Trump are at the grocery stores buying celebrity magazines.

 

THOMAS FRANK: Yeah, yeah. No, it's a love-hate thing because these same people will-[crosstalk 00:08:43] These same people will go to church on Sunday and listen to these denunciations of sinful Hollywood. You know how it is, it's America. They simultaneously will take both sides of the question, but it's not as simple as Democrats think. They think that just hanging around with celebrities and doing benefit shows with whatever rockstar, or something like that, that's going to help them win the election and it does no such thing. It never works. Harvey Weinstein's a great example of that.

 

PAUL JAY: I asked you this in the last segment, but I'll ask you again because you spend a lot of time talking with people that have voted for Republicans, used to vote for Democrats, now vote Republican. The fact is as much as you and I have been critiquing Clinton and critiquing Obama, in small ways, not as much as we would like to see, actually life is better for people, it's objective, you can look at it, under Democrats than under Republicans. The Republicans are worse. As much as these guys serve the interests of Wall Street, being Democrats, the Republicans are worse.

 

THOMAS FRANK: That is true, and I would agree with that, but those statistics are massively skewed by the Roosevelt administration, Hoover and Roosevelt. You know what I mean? Anyway, doesn't matter. Then of course George W. Bush.

 

PAUL JAY: Yeah. As fractured and dog's breakfast as the Affordable Healthcare Act was, it has some reforms that-

 

THOMAS FRANK: Yes, better than nothing. That is for sure, yes, yes.

 

PAUL JAY: Preexisting conditions were covered, 26 years old, and so on. The hypocrisy of the Democrats infuriates whole sections of America, but why doesn't the hypocrisy of the Republicans infuriate them as much or more? It's as bad.

 

THOMAS FRANK: Now we're back to that same question, and I would go back to the answer that I was working on before, which is that the Republicans have, for whatever reason and I don't really know the answer to this, have become very, very, very good at the populist style at pretending to be a man of the people and acting like a man of the people, and doing the motions, and talking the languages. Democrats are very uncomfortable with it anymore. This is largely a reflection of two things; one, the Republicans have studied history and particularly the history of the '30s. This is their disaster period. The Republican party was almost destroyed in the 1930s, and it was all at the hands of these left wingers and these Huey Long types and Franklin Roosevelt, at the hands of populism and because they had been identified with Wall Street. They know the pitfalls of that.

 

They know the dangers of being identified with Wall Street, and they know the dangers of being on the wrong side of populism. Ever since then, they have done everything in their power to act like that, and to pretend to be a man of the people, and to work against what they actually are, which is basically a side arm of organized money. They're a weapon wielded by organized money. The Democrats have no such history. They have no such fear because that didn't happen to them. They never learned that lesson. The lesson they learned is a very different one. If you look at what the Democratic party is today, as opposed to what it was when you and I were younger, it's a very different animal.

 

It is the party of the professional class today, it's not the party of organized labor anymore. It's not the party of the people, it's not the party of those people in the small towns in Missouri, it's not Harry Truman's bunch anymore. It is the party of the professional class. Hillary Clinton was their nominee for a good reason. She was a sort of perfect idealized version of themselves, this hyper-wonkish, Ivy-League educated, very, very, very competent person who's able to discuss policy and talk very rapidly and do these things. That's their image of what a Democrat should be.

 

Most Americans look at that image and they say, "That is an elite." That's not the elite, that's not big fat money bags, Monopoly man, but that is an elite. That's the guy that fires you from your job. That's the guy that grades your paper in high school and tells you that you did a lousy job. The professional class is an elite. They're the one that judge you when you get a speeding ticket. You go right down the list, that is life's officer corps. And to identify --I'm sorry to keep interrupting you -- to identify yourself with this elite in the way that Democrats have is a catastrophic mistake, but they can't see it, Paul.

 

PAUL JAY: It's also part of this that the Republicans have successfully positioned themselves as the party of God. It doesn't matter what they do, they get away with being the party of religion. Until you have the catastrophe like George W. Bush, until you have a series of catastrophes. When he left office what was his approval rating? It was like in the 20s. It was so bad. We had Evangelical pastors calling The Real News thanking us for our coverage saying that our congregation have been rethinking, we were conned by Bush, but right back at it again with Trump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...