Parent Article: The Media and Emotions: A Critique of Mainstream Media Coverage of the Anti-DNC Protests
Hidden with code "Policy Violation"
Re: The Media and Emotions: A Critique of Mainstream Media Coverage of the Anti-DNC Protests
contextflexed (nospam) juno.com (unverified)
08 Aug 2004
"However [I] care to characterize my politics, they are not consistent with yours." So if I were to re-characterize my politics until they were
identical to yours they would still not be consistent with yours. Perhaps you should hide your own posts, since the "politics" that are alleged to
be held in common by all the independent people on this site are not independent. They are heavily weighted toward a collectivist bias. This is
the antithesis of independence. It is a crude form of interdependence.
Anyone who proceeds from a hive mindest would indeed find it surprising that an INDIVIDUAL would continue to act in the manner of an
Individual. So were the Saracens surprised at Muhammad, the Pharisees at Jesus, the NAACP at Marcus Garvey, and China at Taiwan.
Collectivists continue to be surprised at the concept of free speech. Much of the Cambridge crowd is.
It is the nature of an epistemologically challenged person to balk at the very definitions of words. He cringes from semantics, and hides from
semiotics, because those very items are the tools by which we construct meaningful and verifiable claims. Meaningful and verifiable claims are
anathema to collectivists, whose sole verification principle is the mob's feelings. "Right-Wing" is anything the drooling mob believes isn't left
wing. "Anti-semitic" is that which the drooling mob believes isnt Judeophilic. "Bigotted" is anything which removes a lollipop or a dildo from
the drooling mob's orifices.
I am glad at least you now freely understand and admit to censoring the responses to your rant against censorship. As to the "born-again"
reciprocity plea that "Flipside does it too, and worse than I do." Our site does not censor incoming material. We do not delete information
which opposes the beliefs of the editors. We discriminate between redundant inputs, choosing the most coherent and attention grabbing
versions. Discrimination is not censorship. YOU censor. WE discriminate.
I must reinforce to you that although every true and valid system must not generate statements which are its own antithesis (I think you were
trying in a feeble way to say that), you are thoroughly confused by thinking that a public forum can be axiomatic. Only collectivist forums are
axiomatic. You must therefore also admit to being a hive mind, and not a free society advocate. Not a social group, but a socialist group.
It is irrelevant how long, or for how long the hive mind policy has been in place. It is only relevant if it is in place when I desire to post
information. Using your argument, I am not the only person who posts links to a website. I am simply the most effective. Again it is a sign of
individuality truimphing over collectivism.