GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Inequality, Bullying, and Facebook

by

So, why is it OK for Facebook to ban conservative opinion such as Diamond and Silk, but not OK for a Christian baker/florist/photographer to decline to participate in a gay wedding?

Leftist: “Well, Facebook is a private company.”

And what branch of Government is a Christian-owned bakery.

Leftist: “Baking a cake isn’t free speech.”

But y’all say burning the flag is.

Leftist: “It’s different because LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM are a legally protected class and conservatives aren’t”

Ah, now, we’re getting closer to the truth. It’s not really about “equality” then, is it? It’s about giving certain groups privileges at the expense of other people’s basic rights.

Leftism is not a coherent political philosophy. Leftism is a cult of bitter losers who lust for Government power so they can use it to bully people they don’t like. It is nothing other.

Youtube/Google censorship: It’s real

by

Black Pigeon Speaks has the details.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuRXrnYGWtQ[/youtube]

By NO means do I agree with all of BPS’ positions or statements. To cite just one difference of many: he favors government-run health care (and I don’t).

But I have found that, even where I find his views silly, his videos are good-faith (if somewhat sarcastic) attempts to support his positions with science and facts. That Youtube (which means Google/Alphabet) would censor him – and other content creators who happen to be politically incorrect – while continuing to allow a ton of Islamist terrorist content, is disturbing.

It seems that 4chan pushed back with malware bots that generate fake ad traffic. The fake, extra traffic causes Google/Youtube to overcharge their advertisers, making trouble for everyone. I don’t endorse that tactic at all. Still, one can’t help but admire the goal: to remind Google/Youtube that they, too, depend greatly on the goodwill of others for their fragile existence.

Lots of people seem to be moving to BitChute and Vid.me. But I like the new YouTube: they’ve been letting me watch my favorite content ad-free (since the first step in the censoring the scapegoated content is “de-monetize” it).

Controlled Media watch

by

  • Congress readies a bizarre resolution against WikiLeaks.

    It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.

    “Resemble”? The resolution is saying that if you *look like* anything Congress doesn’t appreciate, they can strip your First Amendment protections and take the U.S. to war with you.

    WikiLeaks, remember, is non-profit journalist service. They publish leaks. The traditional, First Amendment approach is that *the leaker* commits a crime and can be punished, but *the journalist or publisher* does not. Someone wants an exception, it seems, for super-effective journalists whom the government can’t control.

    More from Julian Assange, here.

  • CNN endorses the undercover journalism of Project Veritas. Indirectly.

    A journalist snowed Breitbart employees by pretending to be someone they would trust. The journalist gave the story to CNN, who gladly reported it. Very embarrassing. But that is undercover “sting” journalism, like what James O’Keefe and Project Veritas do, and CNN and many lefties fulminate indignantly about them. Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s? 🙂

  • Google and Apple ban Gab (a Twitter competitor), censoring what you can do with your own phone.

    “Whatever is permissible under the First Amendment is what Gab allows onto its site.”

    …Gab’s Android app was available through Google’s app store until yesterday, when Google banned it, citing violations of its hate-speech policy…

    While Android users can install unapproved apps, it’s a cumbersome process…

    It’s difficult to credit Gab as a white-supremacist site when its cofounder is a Turkish Kurd and Muslim…who says “I’ve never supported Trump for a minute in my entire life”…

    Google is being plain evil. They’re saying *you can’t use a non-Google app to say anything to anybody that Google would not like*. What’s next, Google censoring your private emails? Remember, email is a phone app.

  • Breitbart has more on Google’s other steps to punish conservative speech.

Flashback: When Facebook ex-employees admitted that Facebook routinely censors conservative news from their “Trending” section. Even if it was really trending.

Free Speech Week, Sept 24

by

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abwNz8xQINE[/youtube]

The greatest threat to your future, the greatest risk to the American Republic, is from the unprecented assault on Free Speech, committed by the media, Silicon Valley, politicians, Hollywood producers, and the academy.

Unlike Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter and a couple of idiots on the far right too, I don’t believe that violence is the answer to political disputes. That’s why I’m staging Berkeley Free Speech Week, a week-long festival of free expression, for libertarians, conservatives, and their liberal friends too, including everyone who has been prevented from speaking at UC Berkeley in the last 12 months.

Hmm, no web site yet. Stay tuned. (UPDATE, from Nanny G in the comments: Check freespeechweek.com. Also, Milo has a blog post with a few details.)

News you can use – Getting free of Biased Google: I have not tried all of these yet, so I can’t vouch. Please comment with your experiences. Hat tip, Black Pigeon Speaks.

More Google updates

by

Just to round out today’s earlier post, we also have new interviews in Breitbart’s Rebels of Google series.

UPDATE – Everyone we don’t like is Raaaaaaaaaysist: CNN falsely smears the planned March on Google as a “White Nationalist”, “Alt Right” event.

To begin with, the organizers of March on Google are known to be pro-peace, anti-racist and anti-Alt Right. But they also say it pointedly, at this link.

Code of Conduct for March on Google

The March on Google condemns and disavows violence, hatred, and bigotry and all groups that espouse it such as White Nationalists, KKK, Antifa, and NeoNazis.
We will not use messages that are designed to incite anger, hate, or violence.
We will respect the law and the police and cooperate in all matters.
Any violation of these tenets will not be tolerated.
Is this an “Alt-Right” event? The answer is no. This is an event for First Amendment supporters from across the country, from all backgrounds, ethnicity, and walks of life.

CNN could have checked it easily. Instead, CNN published a complete falsehood – once again attempting to smear anyone who challenges them, or Google or the hard Left, as racists.

Hey, lefties: This is why Trump won (be that good or bad). This is why rational, honest people reject and despise the Left.

UPDATE: Peaceful March on Google is postponed, due to Alt Left terrorist threats following the CNN slanders.

Google updates

by

A fair argument from Tucker that Google can no longer be trusted and, due to its out-sized influence, should be regulated as a public utility:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9K4Rt8SPk[/youtube]

I don’t necessarily agree; competition to Google could still punish their evil ways. But I found Tucker’s case interesting.

An editorial from James Damore himself, in The Wall Street Journal.

In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment.

The March on Google is still on for this Saturday, August 19.

  • List of cities here and here.
  • Explicit disavowal of the so-called “Alt Right” – and Antifa – here.

Google will get worse, before it gets better

by

There’s a lot in the news about North Korea, but I haven’t the heart to write about that, it’s too depressing. The U.S. should have taken care of that problem 20 years ago.

So, back on Google. First, Stefan Molyneux interviews James Damore. He’s a bit snow-flakey. Molyneux almost has to hold his hand. Seriously, how could the SJWs feel so threatened?

Second, by now you’ve seen Breitbart’s Rebels of Google interviews with dissenters to Google’s left-wing, Social Justice Warrior culture. Of course you have to take it with a grain of salt; these are disgruntled former employees. Nonetheless, many details ring true to those who have worked in Silicon Valley. Put it this way, statements of Google execs and SJWs will tell us one side of the story; Rebels of Google gives us the other.

I’m not sure what goes on at Google exactly, but it sounds like they have a culture of SJW discussions (probably on Google Plus group chat and/or email) that employees can’t escape. I picture an employee signing on to discuss a work-related problem, for example, and then being spammed with HR “diversity” announcements, or political sniping injected by the SJWs into every discussion “just because”.

Anyway, here are the interview bits that jumped out at me: [Read more…]

When AI chatbots chat each other

by

I don’t know what to make of this, but it seemed worth a mention. Real chat between two Artificial Intelligence chat robots at Facebook (who were not instructed to restrict themselves to human-understandable phrases):

Bob: i can i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me

Bob: i i can i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me

Bob: i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i i i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have 0 to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Amongst the natives

by

Mark Zuckerberg has been visiting Middle America. You know, to better understand us deplorables.

Here he is with oil workers in the Dakotas. His coveralls are backward. Nobody told him:

Mark Zuckerberg with oil workers and his coveralls backward

UPDATE: All poking-fun aside 🙂 it’s fair to say that we can’t be sure anything is wrong. The inference from the visual is that the standard coveralls there have parallel stripes in front that become crossed stripes in back. Zuckerberg’s could be different. Or for that matter, the guy with the crossed stripes could be different? TheQuietMan notes, “The pocket and collar look correct.”

What is it with snowflakes and their hyphenated names?

by

Per her own LinkedIn profile, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza is a “Leading progressive legal analyst, advocate, and author.”

She says that President Trump blocked her on Twitter – from his personal @realDonaldTrump account (rather than from @POTUS). Her article is called, Trump Blocked Me on Twitter and It’s Costing Me My Career. If you’ve been around kids, you can hear the “whine” in that title.

She’s devastated that, on Twitter at least, she can no longer live off of Trump:

Most of my writing is about the Trump administration…On Twitter, the bulk of my recent follower growth and new relationships with others in the politico-legal sphere have come out of responding quickly when the president tweets…

So when President Donald Trump blocked me in June…he harmed me professionally.

Her language bespeaks her sense of entitlement and self-importance; she makes it sound almost like she discovered Twitter:

Twitter initially became a haven for me when I recognized it as a great equalizer in the media world…

when I make a point pithily and it’s liked and retweeted by thousands of people, some of the people who agree with my point or like the way I make it follow me…

Anyway, she’s suing:

Every day I’m blocked I lose opportunities to advance my views…

I can’t fire off a 140-word tweet… [thus] constraining my career…

When it comes to Twitter, I thought my fights would be confined to threads and direct messages. It never occurred to me that I’d end up in court.

I like the victim-y passive voice. Remember, she’s suing. It’s her choice. No, she didn’t just “end up in court” from, say, getting sued.

But here’s the thing. Does a public figure have an obligation to allow anyone to make a living off of his public activities? For example, if Kanye West denies a particular reporter a photograph on a public street, can the reporter sue?