Reminder: Biden White House Censorship of Facebook
For those who claim there was no censorship by the Biden WH. I could give dozens of examples. Here is Mark Zuckerberg discussing Biden WH censorship of Facebook: "It was brutal."
For those who claim there was no censorship by the Biden WH. I could give dozens of examples. Here is Mark Zuckerberg discussing Biden WH censorship of Facebook: "It was brutal."
For all new converts to the free speech cause…If you want to argue that a TV host shouldn’t be fired for his words, your case would be stronger if you hadn’t spent the last ten years cheering on the censorship of your political opponents and celebrating when they got murdered.
What is it to be (or not be) "agreeable"?
Michael Malice:
Michael Malice:
I score a zero or close to it on agreeableness Meaning, it makes little sense to me to say things or act in a certain way simply to accommodate others I view it as a form of dishonesty and long-term disaster If you are high-agreeableness, how would you explain it to me?
Question to Grok: With regard to the Big Five trait of agreeableness, what is the consequence of being extremely agreeable? What is the opposite of Agreeableness?
Consequences of Being Extremely AgreeableExtremeAgreeableness, a trait characterized by high levels of compassion, cooperation, and a desire to maintain harmony, can have both positive and negative consequences:Positive Consequences:Strong Relationships:
- Highly agreeable individuals are often well-liked, fostering trust and positive social bonds due to their kindness and empathy.
- Conflict Avoidance: Their tendency to prioritize harmony can de-escalate conflicts and promote group cohesion.
- Team Collaboration: They excel in cooperative settings, making them effective in team-oriented environments.
Negative Consequences:Difficulty Asserting Needs:
- Extreme agreeableness may lead to suppressing personal needs or opinions to avoid conflict, resulting in unmet needs or resentment.
- Vulnerability to Exploitation: Highly agreeable people may be taken advantage of, as they are less likely to confront manipulative behavior.
- Reduced Leadership Effectiveness: Excessive agreeableness can hinder decision-making or assertiveness, making it challenging to take charge in competitive or high-stakes situations.
- Neglect of Self-Interest: Constantly prioritizing others can lead to burnout or diminished self-esteem if their own goals are consistently sidelined.
Opposite of Agreeableness
The opposite of agreeableness in the Big Five personality framework is low agreeableness, often described as antagonism or disagreeableness. Individuals with low agreeableness exhibit traits such as:Competitiveness: Prioritizing personal goals over group harmony, often thriving in competitive environments.
- Skepticism or Cynicism: Being less trusting and more critical of others’ intentions.
- Assertiveness or Aggressiveness: Willingness to confront others, express disagreement, or pursue self-interest, sometimes at the expense of relationships.
- Lower Empathy: Less concern for others’ feelings, which can manifest as bluntness or insensitivity.
While low agreeableness can lead to conflicts or strained relationships, it can also be advantageous in situations requiring tough decision-making, negotiation, or standing firm on principles.
Unfortunately, decent people often cower to avoid strategically-imposed shame. This allows loud unruly minorities to inflict censorship and tyranny. Eli Steele presents an illustrative article written by his father, black conservative Shelby Steele:
Eli Steele: "Before Charlie Kirk, my father spoke at countless universities and colleges, often for nominal pay, and the verbal abuse he suffered was beyond the pale. It is a sign of how much our culture declined, from screaming to the bullet."
Excerpt: The Loneliness of the "Black Conservative"by Shelby Steele
"I realized that I was a black conservative when I found myself standing on stages being shamed in public. I had written a book that said, among many other things, that black American leaders were practicing a politics that drew the group into a victim-focused racial identity that, in turn, stifled black advancement more than racism itself did. For reasons that I will discuss shortly, this was heresy in many quarters. And, as I traveled around from one little Puritan village (read "university") to another, a common scene would unfold.
"Whenever my talk was finished, though sometimes before, a virtual militia of angry black students would rush to the microphones and begin to scream. At first I thought of them as Mau Maus but decided this was unfair to the real Mau Maus, who, though ruthless terrorists, had helped bring independence to Kenya in the 1950s. My confronters were not freedom fighters; they were Carrie Nation-like enforcers, racial bluenoses who lived in terror of certain words. Repression was their game, not liberation, and they said as much. "You can't say that in front of the white man." "Your words will be used against us." "Why did you write this book?" "You should only print that in a black magazine." Their outrage brought to light an ironic and unnoticed transformation in the nature of black American anger from the sixties to the nineties: a shift in focus from protest to suppression, from blowing the lid off to tightening it down. And, short of terrorism, shame is the best instrument of repression.
"Of course, most black students did not behave in this way. But the very decency of the majority, black and white, often made the shaming of the minority more effective. So I learned what it was like to stand before a crowd in which a coterie of one's enemies had the license to shame, while a mixture of decorum and fear silenced the decent people who might have come to one's aid. I was as vulnerable to the decency as to the shaming since together they amounted to shame. And it is never fun to be called "an opportunist," "a house slave," and so on while university presidents sit in the front row and avert their eyes. But this really is the point: The goal of shaming was never to win an argument with me; it was to make a display of shame that would make others afraid for themselves, that would cause eyes to avert. I was more the vehicle than the object, and what I did was almost irrelevant. Shame's victory was in the averted eyes, the covering of decency."
Republicans watched the Dems vigorously engage in censorship for the past 10 years. You'd think they learned a thing or two about the First Amendment, but no. Whatever party is in power tries to ignore the Constitution and the party out of power cosplays a Constitutional law prof.
Here's eight prominent Democrats advocating for censorship in recent years:
Oh, and then there is this (confirmed by Grok):