Category: Commentary

Categories
Commentary Opinion

A Truism about the right of “Free Speech:” It isn’t free. Follow up to 421st

Free speech for me, but not for thee...

Views: 24

 

By TPR

There are certain groups of people that are always crying because their “right” of “free speech” was allegedly denied them.

They have no problem shouting down others whose “free speech” doesn’t agree with their speech, though.  Amazing how that is, isn’t it?

There is no such thing as “free speech” without consequences. Some consequences are good. Some are neutral. And some are unpleasant – or worse, deadly. Words of “free speech” have consequences every time, feels don’t count.

To use a clichéd example, yell “Fire!” in a crowded room (or “Bomb!”) and see how your Free-speech butt lands in jail in no time flat.

I started thinking about this after witnessing a couple of obscure websites that supposedly value free speech. One has free speech only for the favored few; the other is a dumpster fire of insults, feels over facts, and NSFW (or for FB) pictures. The denizens of both sites seem to think that rules of common decency – not to mention common sense – don’t apply to them because they’re more equal than those whom they despise.

Thus, they are disingenuously surprised when they show up on someone else’s site, exercise their “right of free speech,” and after being warned, are invited to leave, sometimes forcefully.

Robert H. Heinlein stated his belief that “An armed society is a polite society.”

The reason being that people would be more cautious if they knew that they might have to back up their words with their bodies. Being on the wrong end of a loaded gun barrel does that.

But today, these snowflakes scream to high heaven about how their “free speech” is being suppressed by — whomever. They think they can say or do anything they want to without care or pushback. And the stupidest ones keep coming back to repeat what got them banned in the first place. (I’m looking at YOU, Stan.)

JOS thought that way, repeatedly doxing people, threatening to beat them up, shoot them (from behind, of course), rape, and burn them alive, etc. He lost his all Disqus sites, two or three YouTube channels, and his Rumble channel because of his “free speech.” I’ll bet his DI at Camp Pendleton had some ideas of his own about JOS’s right to “free speech.” He and Jewish Jeff might BOTH be behind bars for all we know, for their “free speech.”

‘Nuff said.

Just like haters gotta hate, idiots gotta keep being idiots.

Thoughts?

 

Loading

156
Post Views: 291
Categories
Commentary Public Service Announcement

Just for fun, after visiting the 421st Blog…

Views: 104

I love it when these double-digit IQ people think I care what they say about me. dERp and Leslie Lapsitter are two prime examples. And LL proved she lurks her by posting how I’d banned Stan for calling me a ‘fucking moron’ on my own blog. Thanks for alerting me to the fact that I’d accidentally spammed his comment by the way I banned him, Leslie.

Everyone else, feel free to comment or post other pertinent memes.

 

Loading

181
Post Views: 323
Categories
Commentary Elections Faked news Politics Reprints from others.

Fact-Checkers’ Sad Attempt to Minimize Trump Rally Attendance Blows Up in Their Faces.

Views: 17

Commentary By Rachel Emmanuel for The Western Journal July 6, 2023

On Monday, Fox News published a report titled: “Trump draws massive crowd of at least 50K in small South Carolina town of 3,400: police.”

The article covered former President Donald Trump’s rally in Pickens, South Carolina, on Saturday, which, according to the police chief of the town, drew a crowd of over 50,000 Trump supporters to the tiny town.

But community note contributors on Twitter weren’t willing to accept that the former president was still able to draw crowds of this size.

A community note was added to the Fox News tweet of the article that read: “Police Chief Randall Beach initially estimated the crowd to be 50,000, he said he would need to confirm those numbers with the Secret Service. A Secret Service agent later clarified to the news that approximately 15,000 were in attendance.”

But it turns out the fact-checkers were doing a little less “fact-checking” and a little more “fact manipulation.”

The fact-checkers cited an article from Greenville News to support their community note.

The relevant section cited read:

“Pre-rally estimates of 10,000 to 30,000 were made. During his remarks, Trump claimed the turnout was 75,000. Beach said he needed to get an accurate count from the Secret Service before providing a final number. Around 11 am, a secret service agent told the News there are 5,000 inside the gate and approximately 10,000 still in line.”

Sidebar: Do you trust fact-checkers?
Yes: 1% (7 Votes)
No: 99% (1197 Votes)

With some convenient cherry-picking, the fact-checkers used the estimated 5,000 people inside plus the 10,000 still in line mentioned by the Secret Service agent and came up with a grand total of 15,000 people at the rally.

An impressive math feat.

What they did not mention, however, is that that estimate was made at 11 o’clock in the morning. Trump’s plane hadn’t even landed at that point, according to Politico.

Tens of thousands pack Pickens. More than 50 treated for heat-related illness.

Moreover, the article cited is titled: “Trump in SC: Tens of thousands pack Pickens. More than 50 treated for heat-related illness.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but “tens” of thousands generally means more than one ten and a five.

But, maybe the fact-checkers missed the fact that the title of the article they cited implies in its title that there were well more than 15,000 there that day.

They must have also missed the part in the very same article they cited where Beach “reiterated his crowd estimate of 50,000.”

“I would not be shocked if it were closer to 60 (thousand),” he told the newspaper. “If someone has an estimate closer to 70 (thousand), I wouldn’t question it.”

That statement by Beach was made on Sunday, the day after the rally, not at 11 a.m. on Saturday, hours before the rally had even started.

So the part about the Secret Service agent’s estimate being the “later” one was, let’s just say, sadly mistaken.

Cherry-picking when it comes to how stories are reported is nothing new, especially when the news is conservative and even more when the story has the word “Trump” in it. So it’s important to stay vigilant, even on a so-called bias-free platform like Twitter.

As for the contributors who wrote the community note on the article — if I were a gambler, I’d take any odds that at least one of them has the letters “CNN” in their employment bio.

CNN — or CBS, or CNBC, or MSNBC, etc. –TPR

Loading

143
Post Views: 279
Verified by MonsterInsights