Whoopi makes a mess

[Res Ipsa]

I think most consider themselves Jews, and would rather not have to worry about whether they are white or not.

I think that’s fair. My impression is the jewry have a strong self-identity as such that takes primacy over national identity. I couldn’t say if their self-identification is stronger or lesser than any other ethnicity or race, though. Whatever the case may be, it’s understandable when a POC sees a Jew and they see a White person. They wouldn’t necessarily understand the nuances of the transatlantic slave trade, from financiers to auction houses to slave holders. They just see White people running the show, here and abroad, at least in terms of American slavery.

- Doc

If we reject the notion that we can divide Americans into White Supremacist Oppressor Class and BIPOC Oppressed Class, I don't think we even have to think about which class Jews should be crammed into. I don't see that process as being necessary, or even helpful, in addressing structural racism. I don't think that it takes much thought to see that racism toward Jews on the U.S. today is more accurately described as intentional as opposed to structural. That doesn't mean that racial justice should ignore anti-semitism. I think that we can and should address both structural and intentional racism at the same time.

[ajax18]

The two things are the same only when government provides the platform. Nobody censored what Whoopi said.

Spotify is a private company and they can cancel Joe Rogan. But when the government (Democrats in congress and the Biden whitehouse) pressures spotify to cancel Joe Rogan, that's a violation of the 1st amendment, or at least it should be.

[ajax18]

"Jews were beaten in the streets not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors... even by children."

Because history today is edited, most people don't understand that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could round up 1000s of Jews, the government first made their neighbors hate them for being Jews. How is that any different than hating someone for their political views?"

This was the quote of the tweet that got Gina Carano immediately fired from her job. Compare that to what "Caryn" Johnson said and strangely enough got a two week suspension. Strangely enough, a Jew hired her on to the Daily Wire immediately afterwards.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/see-gina- ... her-fired/

[Res Ipsa]

The two things are the same only when government provides the platform. Nobody censored what Whoopi said.

Spotify is a private company and they can cancel Joe Rogan. But when the government (Democrats in congress and the Biden whitehouse) pressures spotify to cancel Joe Rogan, that's a violation of the 1st amendment, or at least it should be.

Pressures, or express an opinion? Legislators and presidents get to express opinions, just like everyone else. Exactly how did the government "pressure" Spotify?

[Res Ipsa]

"Jews were beaten in the streets not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors... even by children."

Because history today is edited, most people don't understand that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could round up 1000s of Jews, the government first made their neighbors hate them for being Jews. How is that any different than hating someone for their political views?"

This was the quote of the tweet that got Gina Carano immediately fired from her job. Compare that to what "Caryn" Johnson said and strangely enough got a two week suspension. Strangely enough, she a Jew hired her on to the Daily Wire.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/see-gina- ... her-fired/

Because a Jew can't stop being a Jew? Because no one has rounded up Conservatives, forced them into labor camps, and exterminated 6 million of them?
But what's your basis for claiming she was fired solely because of this tweet. Was it just this one incident, or was the incident a last straw?

Comparing the two, one trivialized the horrors of the holocaust. The other argued about a definition of race. Either employer gets to do what it chooses.

Incidentally, teaching neighbor to hate neighbor is what the right has explicitly been doing since at least as far back as Rush Limbaugh started. So, why all of a sudden are conservatives playing the victim card now?

[ajax18]

Spotify is a private company and they can cancel Joe Rogan. But when the government (Democrats in congress and the Biden whitehouse) pressures spotify to cancel Joe Rogan, that's a violation of the 1st amendment, or at least it should be.

Pressures, or express an opinion? Legislators and presidents get to express opinions, just like everyone else. Exactly how did the government "pressure" Spotify?

The same way the Biden administration pressured Facebook. Jen Psaki said it out loud. The government was pressuring Facebook to censor anyone who did not agree with vaccine mandates or anyone who presented evidence that Covid originated in a Chinese laboratory.

[Res Ipsa]

Pressures, or express an opinion? Legislators and presidents get to express opinions, just like everyone else. Exactly how did the government "pressure" Spotify?

The same way the Biden administration pressured Facebook. Jen Psaki said it out loud. The government was pressuring Facebook to censor anyone who did not agree with vaccine mandates or anyone who presented evidence that Covid originated in a Chinese laboratory.

That's not evidence of government pressuring Spotify over Joe Rogan. Did Jen Psaki say it out loud about Spotify? Is Spotify claiming that the government is pressuring the company? Where's the evidence?

[ajax18]

Here's an example.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... nformation

[Res Ipsa]

Here's an example.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... nformation

Different kind of LOL, as that's exactly the article I read to understand what you were talking about. But nothing in the article is about Spotify.

Legally and constitutionally, the federal government can take some extraordinary measures to protect the public health. It hasn't come close to using them. Applying pressure to reduce misinformation and disinformation doesn't even come close to constitutional boundaries.

But that was Facebook. Where is your evidence about Spotify?

[ajax18]

Here's an example.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... nformation

Different kind of LOL, as that's exactly the article I read to understand what you were talking about. But nothing in the article is about Spotify.

Legally and constitutionally, the federal government can take some extraordinary measures to protect the public health. It hasn't come close to using them. Applying pressure to reduce misinformation and disinformation doesn't even come close to constitutional boundaries.

But that was Facebook. Where is your evidence about Spotify?

What if it's not misinformation as in the case of the lab leak theory? Why does Biden get to define what misinformation is?

The Biden administration has no problem pressuring private companies to squelch free speech.