#pyhrricvictory

After a long, hard battle, Elon Musk has decided not to try to buy the online cesspool that is Twitter. In reaction, the Board of Directors (i.e. the Twits in Charge) are taking him to court to force him to buy Twitter. While this is being used as fuel for the anti-Musk forces to mock and criticize him, there’s a bit more to it than they care to admit.

Now, I’m no businessman, but if you have someone willing to purchase your company for a significant sum of money that would rival the GDP of some small countries, there should be a built-in incentive to make the process as painless as possible. But since we’re dealing with Twitter here, we’re not dealing with smart people making decisions.

First, they took the firm stand they would not sell Twitter to Musk because they disagreed with his vision and ideology. (In other words, they were afraid he would overturn the virtual apple cart and reverse the bans of certain users the Left hated.) Because of this stance, they threw up more roadblocks than a road crew working straight commission. One of those roadblocks was not providing accurate information to Musk, which ultimately lead to him pulling out of the deal.

Now, the Twits in Charge are taking Musk to court…where this potential breach of contract can be litigated, i.e. exposed, and make it easier for him to get out of the deal. Yes, the discovery process goes both ways, as Twitter will be able to ask for information that will help their case, but given how badly the Twits in Charge have fucked up the deal so far, I have no doubt their lawyers might be as incompetent as the Twits in Charge are. I mean, they work for Twitter, for fuck’s sake!

Then, there’s the potential financial fallout to consider. If the court rules in Musk’s favor, Twitter loses out on a shit-ton (or for our Canadian readers, a metric shit-ton) of money not just from Musk, but from others. The reputational risk alone would be enough to tank Twitter’s future earnings, and it’s not like the Leftists who dominate it are going to be able to pony up enough money to keep it afloat.

If Twitter wins, the risks can be spread out to both parties, but it will be much harder sledding for them. After all, would you like to try to explain why they had to force someone to buy your company? Talk about your bad temp jobs!

While the Twits in Charge try to figure out how to get out of their personal Kobayashi Maru, I would avoid investing in Twitter for the time being. The platform is more toxic than a Super Fund clean-up site (albeit a lot less expensive) and the business model doesn’t seem to be all that stable due to the Board of Directors’ lack of vision and inconsistent/irrational decision-making. However, I do have something you can invest in while watching this train wreck of a flaming dumpster fire.

Popcorn.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Have you ever known someone who is completely oblivious about a topic one week, but then gets super-attentive to it the next because it’s become a major controversy? Really, that’s Twitter in a nutshell.

Funny I should mention Twitter because this week’s Lexicon entry is related to the recent purchase of the aforementioned social media platform by one Elon Musk. I won’t go into the details because a) they’re not really important to the subject matter at hand, and b) I don’t want to relive the trauma of hearing that many Leftists screech at once.

Instead, we’re going to look into a portion of the takeover that isn’t getting that much attention, but it’s become a cause celebre for Leftists. I’m speaking of Section 230, the sexiest title involving technology ever devised. Believe me, I’m talking 50 Shades of Gray hot!

Okay, it’s not, but it’s still an important aspect of internet culture as a whole that has gotten a lot of attention without a lot of explanation. Grab a big cup of coffee, kids. This is going to be a toughie.

Section 230

What the Left thinks it means – an important regulation that needs to remain in force and enforceable to ensure the future of the Internet

What it really means – a mixed bag of ideas in an obsolete regulation

If you want a solid and balanced analysis of Section 230, I can’t recommend Ballotpedia’s overview enough. For solid and unbalanced analysis, read on!

The short version of what Section 230 does is it protects online services from being held accountable for what members of those services say while using them. It also gives these networks leeway as it pertains to what communication they will allow, even if the communication could be considered protected speech under the US Constitution. In the early days of the Internet, these protections were enough. Then again, back in those days getting a 28.8k modem connection while signing onto America On Line was reason enough to declare a national holiday.

On a side note, if anyone wants one of the free disks AOL gave out like samples at a drug pusher convention, let me know. I have 5 or 6 storage units full of ’em!

Meanwhile, back at the main point, Section 230 worked well enough at the time, but as technology advanced, regulation didn’t. I’m sure there’s a government agency somewhere resisting the trend to upgrade to Windows 95. Given what I’ve seen of the various “upgrades” that may not be a bad thing, but the point is expecting government bureaucracy to move swiftly to an issue is like expecting Joe Biden not to screw up foreign policy: it ain’t gonna happen!

One of the effects of the speed of quiet of regulations is it opens up opportunities to evolve without having to worry about someone telling you no. And online culture took that ball and ran with it. I’ve been online in one form or another since the early 90s and I can attest online culture has gotten very weird. And I’m not just talking about the porn! It’s a completely different world these days with people willingly or unwillingly putting their entire lives online with all the privacy concerns therein.

But the one thing Section 230 couldn’t have seen coming was the politicization of online content. Sure, you can still see pictures of kittens or the occasional funny meme, but outside of that is a nuclear wasteland that makes Chernobyl look like Salt Lake City. And when there’s ideological conflict, there are going to be people who will do whatever they can do to win the argument.

Including twisting the rules of the online road.

Twitter, among other social media platforms, has been accused of silencing conservative voices, and you’d have to be a Leftist not to see it. What started out as subtle biased enforcement of the rules to blatant “we write the rules and you can just fuck right off if you don’t like it” enfarcement. I mean, the Taliban had an active Twitter account as of last year, and their accounts promote violence and hatred. But, try to say men and women are different and you’ll get silenced, temporarily or permanently based solely on who is handling the Ban Hammer.

And therein lies one of my problems with Section 230 as it stands right now. When biases affect who gets to say what on a social media platform, it ceases to be anything but a political tool, which the Left sees no problem with as long as they’re the ones controlling the tool. The kicker here? This actually goes against the spirit and the letter of Section 230.

Funny. I think we’ve just found the first regulation on the books the Left doesn’t deify.

This fact inspired former President Donald Trump and his supporters to push to repeal Section 230 altogether. Given how social media platforms lean so far Left they are parallel to the ground, this seems to have merit. Now that Elon Musk has bought Twitter, through, the idea is gaining more steam on the Left, which doesn’t have merit given how they were in favor of reforming it all the way back in…let me check my notes…two weeks ago.

Obviously, this change of opinion is politically motivated because, duh, Leftists, but it reveals a fundamental lack of understanding, not just of Musk’s stated goals, but of Section 230 itself. Section 230 opens with a Congressional acknowledgement that the Internet is a place for political discourse and should be kept open to diverse points of view. Haphazardly applying terms of service depending on how a poster votes doesn’t accomplish that in the least. If anything, it makes discourse, political or otherwise, nearly impossible. Reversing that trend is what is best for everyone involved. Sure, you are going to have to deal with assholes who will take things too far, but I’d rather know where those assholes are so I can avoid them than to play a perverse game of Three Card Monte where the cards are a white supremacist, a BLM member, and a grandmother in Wyoming who just wants to post funny videos.

Where I deviate from the folks who want Section 230 to go the way of CNN+ is the protection of platforms from the things their users say. If some dumbfuck uses Twitter to call for the extermination of redheads, I don’t want to see Twitter called into court to answer for what the dumbfuck says. They should be busy applying the terms of service equally, not lawyering up every time a Twit posts an ignorant screed. Their business isn’t, nor should it ever be, to be the whipping boy for people looking to get a fast buck because their fee-fees got hurt.

Unfortunately, Elon Musk taking over Twitter won’t fix the fundamental problem with Section 230: the out-of-touch Congresscritters who still ask their staffers to find stamps for their emails. The fact no one in Washington has put forward serious efforts to update Section 230 and create better enforcement tells you just how little they care about the problems its current form poses. Now, if they tied it to pork spending back home, every Congresscritter would be fighting each other to get to a microphone and camera to let his or her opinions be heard.

Or, you know, use Twitter. Or have one of their staffers use it for them.

I’m not usually a fan of keeping regulations on the books, but Section 230 has a lot of good things going for it that would get wiped away if we did away with it completed. Beef up the enforcement a bit to keep social media outlets honest (or at least more honest than they are now), add some actual penalties for non-compliance, and have everything overseen by tech-savvy people who can put their politics aside, and we might just be able to make social media great again.

Then we can tackle the real problems in the world, like figuring out if Mark Zuckerberg is a real person or a wimpier T-1000.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Last week the Biden Administration finally took action on an issue that consumed our nation’s attention. And I, for one, want to give the President credit due him for taking a bold stand against…ghost guns.

Confused? You should be. This was a new one for me, considering the only ghost guns I knew of came from the Ghostbusters and they were fictional characters. However, the Left wants us to believe ghost guns are a real threat to society, which obviously means it is…to Leftists.

ghost guns

What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous variant on the already escalating gun problem in America

What it really means – the inevitable result of gun control laws

To put an actual concept to the term, ghost guns are firearm kits or weapons that can be purchased online without a background check. What makes them so concerning to Leftists is the fact they are untraceable and lack a serial number, so they can’t be traced back to an individual. Although the Left wants to frame this as a public safety issue, there’s a more obvious explanation of why Leftists are freaking out about ghost guns.

Ghost guns avoid Leftist gun control laws and the licensing fees connected to them.

Whenever you come across a Leftist issue like this that doesn’t seem to make much sense to introduce at a particular time (so, basically, any Leftist issue), most likely it’s being brought up because of money, power, or both, since these are the motivating factors behind anything the Left does. Altruism doesn’t enter into the picture unless it’s spending other people’s money to accomplish it. They’re in it for purely prurient reasons.

Case in point: gun control laws.

Have you noticed the number of gun-related deaths in cities and areas with strict gun control laws? Why, it’s almost as though…criminals don’t follow laws or something! But instead of packing it in and realizing they are walking definitions of insanity, Leftists double down (or would it be double-barrel down) on more gun laws, knowing they don’t work as well as they want us to believe. But they do work in generating income and creating a power dynamic that allows the government to dictate to peons…I mean citizens. In some places, a cat can haz cheezburger before even law-abiding citizens can get a gun permit, and it’s even worse in “may issue” states where you can be denied a permit even if you jump through the legal hoops to get one simply because the government says so.

But remember, kids, Republicans are the ones who want to dictate to us how to live our lives because Leftists say so.

It is said necessity is the mother of invention, but being able to piss off Leftists is a pretty good motivator, too. Instead of knuckling under to Leftist demands, people have been figuring out ways to make working firearms and making money off it and keeping the Leftists out of the process altogether. It’s the American Dream as written by the NRA!

By making it more difficult to own firearms, making moves to make it harder and more expensive to get ammunition (which, by the way, is also a DIY project), and doing next to nothing about the proliferation of violent crime, Leftists laid the groundwork for ghost guns to be a thing. Nothing like a self-own to make a Leftist idea go up in flames like the Hindenburg.

Which brings us to another reason the Left introduced the ghost guns issue right now: the Biden Administration has been the political equivalent of a flaming bag of dog shit put on America’s front porch while Kamala Harris rings the doorbell. Between the never-ending Hunter Biden scandals and the numerous bouts of political, economic, and foreign policy incompetence, Joe Biden needed a win. Unfortunately for him, this ain’t it. Most people don’t know even know what a ghost gun is, but the President decided to make it the focal point of a Rose Garden event. It’s like letting Hannah Gadsby headline a comedy show, or the opening of a Blockbuster Video for that matter: those who know are already going to go, but most people won’t and there’s not enough interest to attract them.

I know this is going to be a risky prediction to make, but dammit I really think this one’s going to pan out. Any laws or regulations concerning ghost guns is going to fail. I’m no Nostradamus, but given the track record of gun control laws and their failure to address gun violence in any meaningful way, I’m confident this will end the same way and for the same reason: Leftists don’t think far enough ahead to see the fatal flaws of their ideas. Which makes it better for us because a) it lays the groundwork for those ideas to be challenged and eventually defeated, b) it gives us ongoing topics for blog posts, and c) it provides endless opportunities for humor!

Unlike Hannah Gadsby.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week the Left experienced a great disturbance in the Farce…I mean Force, as if thousands of voices cried out and were silenced. Did they finally see what was on Hunter Biden’s laptops? Did the Socialist Socialite decide not to run for office again? Did Nickelback announce a new album? Nope! Something far, far worse.

Elon Musk bought nearly 10% of stock in Twitter, giving him a seat on their board.

The Leftist meltdown has been a joy to behold because it gives us an insight into how little the Left understands the underlying concepts at work here and how they’ve managed to screw up something so simple. Plus, it’s funny watching Twitter Leftists with hair color matching their blue checkmarks get triggered.

Twitter

What the Left thinks it means – an influential social media platform run by a private company

What it really means – the online equivalent of a SuperFund clean-up site

Now, for the “Star Wars” fans out there, I was tempted to compare Twitter to Mos Eisley (a.k.a. “a wretched hive of scum and villainy”), but that wouldn’t have been fair. Mos Eisley is far less toxic than Twitter and I don’t want their Chamber of Commerce on my ass for comparing the two.

Anyway, as you might have guessed, I have a pretty low opinion of Twitter, and that’s not without reason. The primary reason for this is the multitude of really dumb things said on it that other Twits…I mean Twitter users think are profound and worthy of further investigation. I point you in the direction of the Tweets of Bette Midler, Keith Olbermann, and my personal favorite Cher, among many, many others. Politicians, celebrities, athletes, and political and social movement spew whatever comes out of their pointy little heads and the world can see it. I know sunlight is the best disinfectant, but too many Twits…I mean Twitter users are using it as a spotlight.

Granted, that is more of a personal thing with me, but Twitter’s application of its own Terms of Service is more far-reaching. Since the advent of President Donald Trump, Twitter and other social media companies have taken it upon themselves to act like information gatekeepers, fact checkers, and Internet cops all in one. And they were as effective as the Weekly World News, PolitiFact, and Paul Blart all in one. From holding conservatives ultra-accountable for infractions (real or imagined) that Leftists get away with repeatedly without consequence to out-and-out banning accounts for “misinformation” for the unforgivable sin of providing information about COVID-19 that wasn’t getting covered otherwise, let’s just say Twitter’s track record in applying inconsistent standards, let alone consistent ones, isn’t good.

Then, there’s Hunter Biden and his laptops. Twitter and other social media actively ran interference for President Joe Biden by punishing people and organizations who decided to, you know, pay attention about something Leftists didn’t want to address right before the 2020 Presidential election. But Russiagate and its offshoot Pissgate are given a wider berth than Michael Moore at an all-you-can-eat buffet. But it’s not like Twitter has been slow to restore accounts they erroneously termina…oh, wait. We’re still waiting on Twitter to man up and restore the accounts.

Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath on that.

Having said that, Elon Musk jumping into the Twitterverse and buying enough stock to make the world take notice may turn out to be a bigger blessing than the Left wants to admit. Within the past few days, he has already shown to be an active listener to the users and actively ask them if they wanted an Edit feature added to Twitter. You would think he was handing out free tickets to a Scandinavian orgy the way Twitter users responded. Whether that comes to fruition is yet to be seen, but I’m going to guess Musk is going to bring Twitter into the 20th Century by allowing something Microsoft Word has had since, oh, Bill Gates had a decent haircut.

As you might expect, Leftists aren’t happy that Musk is getting involved in Twitter because they’re afraid he’s going to change the current model, which is “Let Leftists have all the perks, privilege, and protection while fucking over everyone else.” Who knew such a short-sighted approach would have negative consequences? Even the threat of Musk making slight changes to how the Terms of Service is applied has Leftists screaming about how fascist he is. I mean, more than usual.

For years, Leftists have relied upon Twitter being a private company as a defense against anyone accusing the social media giant of censorship and violation of free speech rights. To be fair, though, they do have a point. Twitter is a private company and can write and enforce whatever rules they want. But with that flexibility comes an expectation to enforce the rules evenly. Even with my already low expectations of Twitter, the brain trust there keeps figuring out ways to limbo under them when it comes to enforcement.

Ah, but there’s the rub. Under the current status quo, Leftists have all the power, thus turning Twitter into an echo chamber of Leftist ideas. Even the most extreme ideas are held on equal footing with merely stupid Leftist ideas, all because a good chunk of Twitter employees think it’s their job to promote “right” thinking. Put another way, these folks are the Ministry of Truth in the cyber world. If someone they agree with says 2 + 2 = 5, you had better be ready to Tweet it without question.

That should scare you more than Elon Musk scares Twitter.

While the Left tries to figure out how to hold onto their Ministry, we can enjoy the shitshow for what it is: well, a shitshow. As far as getting a Twitter account or maintaining it, I would hold off for now if only to see what Elon Musk does with his newfound social media power. I wish him all the best, regardless of what he does, because he’s going to need all the good vibes he can get.

But, to be crystal clear, I won’t get a Twitter account until someone adds a lot of chlorine to the social media swimming pool.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’ve been to the grocery store or gas station, you’ve noticed things costs a bit more than they used to. And by a bit, I mean you might need a second mortgage to fill up your tank, and that’s if you’re driving a sub-compact hybrid. Good thing there’s not a war involving a major oil producer going on riiiiii…oh wait.

As you might expect, the Left is using the current clusterfuck to promote clean energy alternatives to oil and coal. (At least they believe in recycling, even if it’s limited to talking points.) They make it sound so simple. All we need to do is switch to solar, wind, and other green energy sources and everything will be great! The skies will be cleaner! Global warming will go the way of New Coke! Nickelback will break up!

But is it really as simple as the Left wants us to believe it is? Let’s just say the self-designated “Party of Science” doesn’t quite understand science well enough to give us an accurate picture.

clean energy

What the Left thinks it means – alternate green energy sources that will protect the environment and be a viable replacement for oil and coal

What it really means – all talk, no power

Before we get into the political aspects of clean energy, we need to take a short trip into Science World. The idea of clean energy is based a bit of deception. No matter what fuel source we use, we will have to deal with the byproducts of the inefficiency our technology has built into it, and at no additional cost! With the internal combustion engine, we have exhaust. With coal-burning factories, we have smoke. With hybrid vehicles, we have smug assholes who think they’re better than everyone else. So, not a pretty picture all the way around.

Where the deception comes into play is in describing the byproducts of clean energy sources. Leftists will have us believe there are none, but that’s not strictly true. Solar, wind, and other allegedly clean energy sources have their own issues, namely the environmental impacts required to make them somewhat viable. Wind power requires building giant blades that, surprise surprise, aren’t biodegradable. Manufacturing solar panels require mining for certain minerals that damages the environment. And even before you can generate one Watt of electricity, you may need to figure out how to store it once it’s generated.

Guess what storage batteries are made of, kids.

At best, the clean energy sources are cleaner, but not clean per se. Leftists will argue this is merely semantics, but it’s really not. When you use such a definitive term without modifiers, it makes a concrete impression, complete with all the implications of said impression. When you use a different variation of the same word by adding -er or -est, it changes the impression and, thus, the implication. This works both ways, depending on the context and what is being compared.

Now, we’re getting into English grammar. A few more rabbit trails and we might just be able to recreate your elementary school course load!

With clean energy, the comparison being made is to energy from more traditional sources (i.e. oil and coal) which are considered dirty. The Left wants us to think there is no middle ground, which there is. Even “dirty” energy is getting cleaner. Whether it’s as clean as “clean” energy is a matter of opinion, but the fact the Left wants to leave out this context in favor of the clean/dirty dichotomy should give even the most ardent Greenpeace member with an understanding of grammar reason to second-guess the Left’s honesty.

It won’t, of course.

But it wouldn’t be a Leftist narrative without there being another level of dishonesty. Seems the clean energy advocates don’t like all clean energy sources. I’m referring to nuclear energy. Granted, disposing of nuclear waste is a concern as well as the source of a lot of bad 80s sci-fi/horror films, but it’s still a part of the clean energy family. Then, there are geothermal and hydroelectric which are just as clean, but surprisingly don’t get the love wind and solar do. Ditto with bio-diesel, which brings recycling and environmentalism to whole new levels. So, why are Leftists being so picky when it comes to clean energy?

Money.

Over the past few years, Leftists have put our money where their mouths are in the form of federal subsidies, which translates into…political contributions for Leftists. And that doesn’t even take into consideration any private investments into clean energy companies, which can turn into…more money for Leftists so they can continue to live high on the clean energy hog. After all, it takes a lot of money to buy private jets and stretch limos to attend climate change conferences. Just ask Al Gore. And if you do, bring a lot of energy drinks because he tends to drone on.

If you don’t, and I can’t say as I blame you for not wanting to hang out with ManBearPig, keep in mind the Left’s commitment to clean energy is so full of holes the Swiss Cheese Federation is suing for copyright infringement. And as Vladimir Putin found out recently, when you get the Swiss to eschew neutrality, you done fucked up.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are times when I shake my head in disbelief at what the Left takes seriously. This is one of those times.

It starts with New York Times tech reporter Taylor Lorenz taking her role to new depths by attempting to publicly shame a conservative mother online through bullying her daughter. Rightly, Lorenz has been called out for this behavior. Then, she started complaining about online harassment she’s received, which caused many a Leftist to ignore the utter garbage she did to warrant the attention. Thanks to Tucker Carlson naming Lorenz and using a photo of her available on the Times website, the victimhood meter got turned up to 11 through the invocation of a magical phrase the Left has been using for the past few years, “online violence.”

Let’s demystify this term, shall we?

online violence

What the Left thinks it means – mistreatment of minorities and women online, including taunts, insults, and trolling

What it really means – a made-up controversy with real-life inspiration

With the advent of the World Wide Web (thank you, Al Gore…not!), American society changed forever. Even though we were able to chat with people around the world, our worlds shrank inward. Things we wouldn’t say to people in public were said online, often with our real names attached to them. And don’t get me started on Rule 34. If you don’t know what that is, please don’t ask. You really don’t want to know.

Out of that change came troll culture, which then turned into American culture. And as exchanges got more heated, egos got more fragile. People on social media go from bully to victim in a matter of keystrokes. Hell, I’ve been shit-talked by 12 year olds playing Call of Duty.

Does it cross lines of civilized society? Absolutely. Should we be trying to do better than throwing more shade at people than Rosie O’Donnell sunbathing? No doubt. Is it violence? In a word, no. In two words, fuck no.

Words, by definition, cannot be violence because they lack the ability to be physical. When spoken, they are the expulsion of air through the mouth combine with muscular actions. Even a literal tongue lashing doesn’t involve actual lashing of the tongue. Words can inspire violence (i.e. fighting words), but the words themselves don’t commit the violence.

Now, let’s add in the online element. This may come as a shock to many people, but online life isn’t real life. Even if you believe words are violence (which just confirms you’re a dumbass), the fact the words occurred in the cyber-ether renders your opinion more useless than Eric Swalwell’s security clearance.

So, why are so any people convinced online violence is really? One, online life has made people dumber than a bag of hammers. More importantly, though, it’s a clever play on words the Left uses to convince people it’s a serious problem by playing to their emotions through the negative implications of violence. Let’s be honest. There are very few positive aspects to violence, and those that are positive usually cost at least an extra $50…not that I’d know about that, mind you…

Where was I again? Oh yeah, Leftist word play. By invoking the concept of violence, the Left counts on us to fill in the blanks and assume the worst. Adding the word “online” makes it seem widespread and a direct threat to us personally because everybody and their Grandmother is online these days. Although I get a chuckle imagining an octogenarian trolling a 20 year old over his or her taste in anime, the desired effect is to get us afraid of what could happen.

And by creating that fear, the Left can take your voice, equating legitimate criticism with the modern equivalent of an elementary school taunt, only with more vulgarity. As with other times the Left attempts to manipulate us through creative wording, the key to countering it is to recognize it for what it is and call it out. What Taylor Lorenz and her enablers are trying to do is to escape responsibility for being reprehensible to someone with less power than they have. With Tucker Carlson calling her out, the shoe is on the other foot and now Lorenz is getting a taste of karmic justice.

Let’s just say she’s not a fan. Which makes it all the funnier to me. So, win-win!

Meanwhile, don’t fall prey to the emotional manipulation the Left is using here. They want you to avoid using your brain and simply believe, just like one of the Left’s online darlings Anita Sarkeesian says: Listen and Believe. But when what you’re being told to believe is absurd on its face, you have my blessing not to listen.

Election Fraud

The evidence of fraud taking place in the 2020 Presidential Election is overwhelming. Reported across multiple media sources and social media as well before it gets taken down by the current tech giants. It is plain as day.

From the media reporting different results from the official election results being reported by the various Secretaries of State on their websites to the videos and photos being released by poll watchers across the nation.

We see the tampering of ballots. We see manual voter registrations being entered to the the voter rolls on election day of people born in 1900 or even 1824.

We find that our overseas military absentee ballots have been dumped into the trash. And mail-in ballots being accepted without postmarks.

We see voters given Sharpies to mark ballots with instead of regular ink pens. Since voting machines can’t read Sharpies these votes aren’t counted but the ballot is accepted and marked as read. We see voting machines not properly filled with ink in a strong Republican district.

Poll watchers were removed from some polling places after they noted irregularities. and illegal activity being conducted. Some were removed when they took the evidence on camera that we are seeing being presented as evidence.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg of the fraud that is being carried out in the 2020 election. This a coup by election fraud. If Biden wins it will be because he cheated and the Democratic Party is corrupt at its very core. And the whole world will know it.

But thankfully there is a fix in the works. Vortex Blockchain Technologies will prevent voter fraud like this from ever happening again. But until that day comes we may have to endure 4 years of a Harris Administration and loss of Liberty.

Censored On Social Media

We hear about it all the time. Someone’s social media account got suspended, or they are in “Facebook Jail”, or even had their account cancelled and deleted from the service.

The social media giants are indeed censoring content and posts that they state violates their community standards. And it appears to be very politically biased. If a post favors Christianity, the Founding Fathers of the United States, the current conservative political movement. Chances are it could be censored. If a post speaks out against sin, the Leftist agenda, cultural progressive acceptances. It may be censored.

Yet not of these viewpoints are ever censored. Deviant sexual immorality, wrongs, lies, and evils of socialism, even advocating of violence against conservative members of society is allowed without exception.

Morally this is wicked. Ethically this is wrong.

But the social media giants are not true public forums. We want to believe and pretend that they are public forums with all the rights associated with a public forum. But we are deceiving ourselves when we think this way.

No the current social media giants are members only communities. And as a member we must abide by the community standards or we face the repercussions of ignoring them.

If someone was at a Republican function and started shouting Leftist propaganda. That person would be removed. Even in the case of a function that allows the public to attend. No one is going to stand up and say that the person has the right of free speech.

This is true for any of the current social media giants or any online virtual community, such as a forum, chatroom, or even a blog site. Even your homeowners association. There are rules of conduct and community standards of what is acceptable and what is not.

Yes we have free speech. But there are social limitations. You cannot come into your local church and preach the tenants of Satanism from the pews or pulpit without violating a community standard.

This is the reason why alternatives to Facebook and other social media giants exist. Some are niche sites the only are for Republicans where you can preach to the choir. Others have very loose codes of conduct which allow for a wider discussion. But there are still limits of acceptable topics and content. And if a Leftist managed to join one of these conservative sites. And started to post Leftist content, they too would find themselves censored.

Decades ago there was an uncensored and unmoderated internet discussion forum called USENET. Here there were different discussion boards for almost every conceivable topic. And anyone could post anything to any of them. No questions asked and nothing was ever censored.

The only community standard was a “gentleman’s agreement” not to post on an unrelated subject matter. But it was not enforced by anyone other than the users. And for several decades USENET flourished. A number of great ideas were born out of USENET.

But then the internet grew. And without moderation on the USENET, so did spam, cross postings of unrelated topics, and the arrival of files that could be exchanged. Most of it porn, warez, unauthorized copyrighted material and more.

Today that is all that is there on USENET. Access to USENET used to be through your ISP. Now you need a separate USENET provider and additional fees to access it.

If you don’t like the rules of the social media giants. You can either ignore them and run the risk of being censored. Or post someplace else.