Slashdot Mirror


Chinese President Xi Jinping Says Internet Must Be 'Clean and Righteous' (reuters.com)

The internet must be "clean and righteous" and vulgar content must be resisted in the field of culture, Chinese President Xi Jinping told a meeting of senior propaganda officials, state media said on Wednesday. From a report: The government has been tightening controls over internet content as part of what it says are efforts to maintain social stability, taking on "vulgar" and pornographic content as well as the unauthorised dissemination of news. The moves come amid a broader clamp-down targeting online content from livestreams and blogs to mobile gaming, as the country's leaders look to tighten their grip over a huge and diverse cultural scene online popular with China's youth. Speaking at a two-day meeting, attended by officials from major state media outlets and the internet regulator, Xi said propaganda efforts needed to be put front and centre, the official Xinhua news agency said. "Uphold a clean and righteous internet space," the report cited Xi as saying. China shut as many as 128,000 websites that contained obscene and other "harmful" information in 2017, Xinhua reported in January, citing government data.

176 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Clean and righteous, right on! by llamalad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now, what's his email address?

    And does anyone know a good goatse mirror?

    1. Re:Clean and righteous, right on! by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Funny

      While you're at it, tell him that the communist party needs a rebranding. Lemon Party sounds catchy.

      And if there's anything that will help clean thoughts of Tank Man from the minds of people, it's definitely tub girl.

    2. Re:Clean and righteous, right on! by llamalad · · Score: 1

      Well played, sir. Well played.

      You win at the internet today. I'm impressed.

    3. Re:Clean and righteous, right on! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > goatse

      pandase

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Clean and righteous, right on! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You'd need an entire tanker ship full of bleach to scrub tub girl from your brain, though, and it still wouldn't be enough.

    5. Re: Clean and righteous, right on! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      This message brought to you by the Communist Party of China.

    6. Re:Clean and righteous, right on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone getting all high and mighty about the Chinese government censoring the internet. I live in the UK... we do exactly the same - and are planning to do more.

      We're barely any different.

    7. Re:Clean and righteous, right on! by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    8. Re: Clean and righteous, right on! by Brujis · · Score: 1

      What? Your post is ten billion words with no actual point or any meaning whatsoever. Are you Alexandria 'bug eye' Cortez by chance?

    9. Re: Clean and righteous, right on! by Brujis · · Score: 1

      "Xi Jinping is right," No he is an arrogant dictator who needs a bullet in his head. "as a PROUD AMERICAN," Is that why your comment is anonymous? Because you are proud? "why does the first amendment allow the protection of GARBAGE," Because you don't get to decide what is garbage you braindead retard. "it should be amended to protect only truthful speach while garbage speach should be a misdemeanor." With the government determining what is truthful... I see... "If the first amendment is allowed to continue to protect garbage, it might as well protect child predators" They are committing acts of physical violence which is not speech. "and street artists because of a lack of boundaries." If they are making their street art without the consent of the people who own the property then they are criminals and need to be put in jail. "Decency is a characteristic that eclipses religious boundaries." And you have proven stupidity is a characteristic that eclipses all boundaries. "If you are willing to protect any kind of speach," That is what free speech means. All speech is protected, even stuff I don't like. "well then.... if you don't agree with being a decent well-rounded person of courtesy; clean and righteous," Which you define obviously... " make yourself known!" Here I am, bring on the soy boy brigade! "There are street artists more than happy to beat the living fuck out of you," They can try, the little soy boy bitches aren't strong enough to even hurt. "knocking you out," They can try but it won't go well for them. " then grabbing your hair or ear and slamming the fuck out of your face on the ground and as the coup de gras, stomping on your lower jaw till it looks like mush." So speech you don't like is bad and needs to be stopped but being a violent piece of shit is all good in your book? Go f**k yourself anonymous, you are clearly a pu**y ass soy boy trying to act like a man... "Wow such a hard decision: being courteous and decent and clean and righteous or ending as an art show." Yeah your try that with me a**hole and see how beaten to death you get. "Hard decision, yeah I know..." No it's pretty easy, you are a coward and evil, just pure evil.

    10. Re:Clean and righteous, right on! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Difference of magnitude. Both countries censor, but China censors a lot more.

  2. And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Come to think about it, most Europeans and most Americans do wish for that.

    1. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So do bible-thumpers. There's no meaningful difference between left-nazis and right-nazis here.

      In the US, far left is currently mainstream while far right is not (Unite the Right 2018 had ~20 participants, most of the hype came from Russian trolls), while eg. in Poland the left is nearly non-existent while far right is everywhere, but that's just a matter of different colors of the same. Just note the name: national socialism.

      Their policies are very alike. This includes censorship.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The difference between all of those groups and Xi is that he actually has the power to censor the Internet.

      You mean, deplatforming isn't a thing?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So do bible-thumpers. There's no meaningful difference between left-nazis and right-nazis here.

      ...

      Bullshit.

      First, left-nazis actually have terms for censoring opposing viewpoints.

      Second, Bible-thumpers may be obnoxious in their misguided attempts to save your soul, but they won't beat up a progressive Bernie Bro for the crime of carrying an American flag, like a bunch of left-ACTUAL-nazi risibly self-proclaimed "Antifa" goons did.:

      Paul Welch came to the downtown protest Aug. 4 to let his political leanings be known.

      With pride he clutched his U.S. flag as he moved among the crowd of like-thinking demonstrators.

      Soon a group of black-clad anti-fascist protesters, also known as antifa, demanded he lose the flag, calling it a fascist symbol. Welch refused, and a tug-of-war ensued.

      It ended with Welch taking a club to the back of the head, lying on the ground in a pool of his own blood.

      Only Welch was not a Proud Boy, a Patriot Prayer supporter or among the other conservative activists who descended into the area that day, many from out of town.

      He was one of hundreds of progressive Portlanders who had turned out to oppose the right-wing rally held at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park.

    4. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yet they have no problem bombong abortion clinics.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)

      When one of those right-wing bombers becomes a glorified member of accepted academe and the ghost-writer behind the "autobiography" of a President, then you'll be able to claim equivalence with "progressive" acceptance of violence.

      Also, call me when a right-wing person takes it upon himself to shoot up the Democrat's congressional baseball team.

      Fuckwit.

    5. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The difference between all of those groups and Xi is that he actually has the power to censor the Internet within the territorial boundaries of China.

      Fixed that for you.
      NO ONE can censor the entire worldwide Internet. If that fact ever changes then we've all got a much bigger problem to worry about.

    6. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Broadly speaking everyone wants there to be no obscenities in their enviroment.
      The trouble is everyone has a different only occasionally intersecting set of what they consider obscene.

      That's why "removing obscenity" is such a useful stated goal for somone who wants arbitrary control over what people can comunicate. It's easy to get support for the high level idea, and then use the discord over the low level implementation to twist the end result to arbitrary goals.

    7. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between banning someone from a site over rules violations and brigading every site with any content to remove a person from public discourse.

    8. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      Second, Bible-thumpers may be obnoxious in their misguided attempts to save your soul, but they won't beat up a progressive

      Hmm, I think I can recall quite a few people burned at stake for saying things that were disliked by official teaching of Christianity (often things that were obviously factually true, or explicitly mentioned in the Bible). And even in modern times, censorship by Christians goes strong.

      And that's still nothing compared to censorship in Saudi Arabia or the likes.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    9. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      So then why are maps from american airlines changing their Taiwan labelling?
      Don't believe the within china nonsense., they're getting everyone to censor themselves.
      PS: Xi Jinping looks like Pooh.

    10. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I think I can recall quite a few people burned at stake for saying things that were disliked by official teaching of Christianity (often things that were obviously factually true, or explicitly mentioned in the Bible).

      Except, you're wrong. The excuse was heresy, but those executions were political moves by local landowners. Usually killing off a rival or someone with dangerous information. In the case of Salem, those were all property grabs using a local ordinance about witchcraft to justify denying heirs ownership of the property.

    11. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 2

      Just because it's open to the public most private places and events have some sort of rules. Heck, they'll kick you out of the public library if you can't behave not even their tolerance is infinite.

      When a private site becomes the de-facto public forum, free speech laws may apply. There's precedent for this in meatspeace, though it's not 100% clear. It's also not so clear that social media has reached that level of importance.

      It's a lot more clear that you're either a carrier, and carry everything legal without liability for content, or you're a publisher with full editorial discretion and liability for what you publish. I think it's time that principle applies to social media sites.

      I assume it's an implied reference to Alex Jones and yeah it almost looked like a coordinated effort

      "Almost looked like"? He was deplatformed from every social media site (except Twitter) in a 24-hour period - they even closed his Linkedin page. Do you need a press release?

      it probably comes from him being way across the line on almost service he's on,

      Across what line? He's a nutbag, and is routinely sued for slander, but he's within the policies of these sites. They simply don't like his politics, and figured no one would defend him since he's crazy. But he's obviously the canary, and they'll be coming for more mainstream people next.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I think I can recall quite a few people burned at stake for saying things that were disliked by official teaching of Christianity (often things that were obviously factually true, or explicitly mentioned in the Bible).

      I'm sure it happened over the centuries, but it was almost always politics that got you burned at the stake. Either local politics, or church politics. The more things change ...

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      That's not 'censorship', perhaps you should go look at the defiinition of the word?

    14. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by citylivin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "In the US, far left is currently mainstream"

      bwahaha...

      Left:
      - universal healthcare
      - environmental protections
      - marijuana legal
      - hate speech outlawed
      - no coal plants

      FAR left, is above plus
      - universal income
      - 50%-90% corporate tax rate
      - all drugs legal
      - proportional representation
      - nationalized critical industries (energy, water, internet) and some too big to fail businesses or businesses in the national interest
      - no more nukes, nuke plants or any polluting power plant. renewables only.
      - cap higher end wages

      So I very much doubt that the "mainstream" in the USA is "far left". I think you guys can barely get to the centrist position.

      I know its said time and time again, but the USA version of "left" is considered center or center right by other 1st world democracies.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    15. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by ewibble · · Score: 1

      Although I agree with you that both far left and far right want censorship. In many respects the USA main stream is anything from left. The USA cannot even provide free hospitals (which every other country in the world provides) or add a background check for owning an automatic rifle. The far left would be advocating communism that is definitely not mainstream in the USA. Although the left in terms of feminism is mainstream (in the media at least, talking to real women it isn't the case), you are not even allowed to say men may have a valid opinion, or innocent until proven guilty without being labeled misogynist.

    16. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by chronoglass · · Score: 1

      or add a background check for owning an automatic rifle.

      no issue with most of your post, but throwing this in (being that it is 100% false) could undermine peoples perception of the rest of it, as you appear to be outraged by things you don't understand.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    17. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I still have not found any meaning full difference between any xyz-nazis. Left/right/religio/etc.-nazis. Extremist minded-people that feel entitled to push their ideologies on everybody. All the same scum, with a bit of different imagery and catch-phrases. At least in the end all willing to kill anybody who disagrees.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    18. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The religious fuckups are entirely willing to kill, maim and slaughter anybody believing differently. At the moment these specific ones in the US are just not powerful enough to get away with it, so they exercise some limited restraint out of self-preservation. But even a brief look at history shows their real nature in action.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      National Socialism was very much not socialist in any way. The name was used to attract people. On the other hand, it wasn't very right wing either. But everyone insists it must be one or the other and it's used as a way to tarnish the reputation of the side that they disagree with. Politics these days is just stupid, I'd rather people get along as opposed to parties which claim that the othesr are traitors (not just the US, this is everywhere). Political parties are one of the worst ideas invented in my view.

    20. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The bible serves excellent pretexts for all kinds of political murder. So does every "holy book". The whole idea of such a book is the very opposite of "holy". And since not even the very short abstract version (10 commandments) is in any way abuse-proof, the whole approach can safely be regarded as a fundamental failure.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by gweihir · · Score: 2

      The US only has right and far-right.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    22. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Is all censorship the same?

      The Left wants to censor incorrect political opinions, claiming that Ideas are harmful because they have the power to change someone's mind and make them believe something you do not want to believe. Please, if you believe their is a better or more less partisan way of putting this, please help me come up with a better one.

      While the Right wants to ban content they believe is unsavoury or harmful.

      Banning pornography is definitely not the exact same thing as banning all opinions different than yours. For one, if it turns out that banning pornography was wrong, everyone can still express their opinion, have arguments about, and publish research on the effects of pornography on the individual and society. While the open debate, or research into banned opinions are by definition illegal themselves.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    23. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 1

      In meatspace, a public business can tell anyone they want to leave and refusal to leave will result in them calling the police for trespassing.

      Not even close. If you're open to the public, you can't discriminate against protected classes. There are some additional restrictions around community message boards.

      Really, there's only two places I'm aware of in which private businesses have free speech considerations forced on them: unions and company towns.

      Good point, I had forgotten about company towns. But it's the same principle - if you are a de-facto public forum, there are some restrictions to your ability to censor not limited to protected classes.

      he contention is that Alex Jones has went from "nutbag" to "nutbag inciting people to violence".

      Yep, that's the given reason. No evidence or audit of that, of course.

      Any one of these sites banning him, I could buy. We all know how bizarre e.g. YouTube's censorship algorithms are. But this Stalin-esque un-personing? That's very clear.

      Personally, free speech advocates should make their own platforms, and conservatives should actually move to them and abandon the platforms that hate them. Gab.ai and minds.com seem worthwhile. Seems like whining to complain Twitter is evil but keep using it.

      But I do think that once e.g. Facebook starts applying editorial discretion, they should be liable for fraud and libel for the user content they allow.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ah, so the structures that successfully kept societies together for 2000 years "can safely be regarded as a fundamental failure"? How convenient. All religions over history combined have killed fewer people than communism, of course.

      Any set of laws, without a sense of morality to guide their interpretation and enforcement, can be turned to evil. Does that make the concept of "laws" bad? Of "morality"? Or does it simply mean that humans are fallible?

      There was this guy once who said that scripture is complicated, and it's easy to read it wrong, so if you think it's telling you to hurt someone, that's how you know you're reading it wrong. He got pretty famous for saying things like that, though it didn't end well for him. However, he got the last laugh, as it turns out, since you've probably heard of him.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      "In the US, far left is currently mainstream"

      bwahaha...

      Left: - universal healthcare - environmental protections - marijuana legal - hate speech outlawed - no coal plants

      FAR left, is above plus - universal income - 50%-90% corporate tax rate - all drugs legal - proportional representation - nationalized critical industries (energy, water, internet) and some too big to fail businesses or businesses in the national interest - no more nukes, nuke plants or any polluting power plant. renewables only. - cap higher end wages

      So I very much doubt that the "mainstream" in the USA is "far left". I think you guys can barely get to the centrist position.

      I know its said time and time again, but the USA version of "left" is considered center or center right by other 1st world democracies.

      You left out their most extreme positions and you know it. For example:

      Left:

      - general disdain for white people and favor affirmative action type programs. I think this is unique to the US. - OK to openly fly job ads that specify no white males unless they are gay - general disdain for Christians as a group - general disdain for anyone from "fly over" states, the south, or just not from a city - amnesty for all illegal immigrants is acceptable. Multiple times is fine too. - Abolish ICE so that enforcement of immigration laws is handicapped - force people to use an ever expanding list of new pronouns depending on what they identify as that day - deplatforming / censorship is OK as long as it's hate speech. Note that hate speech is very broadly defined and full of exclusions.

      Far Left:

      - wants reparations for slavery, always calculated to be in the trillions of USD - segregation in the form of safe spaces where only "people of color" are allowed - abolish borders altogether, anyone can come in any time and stay however long they like

      Think I made this garbage up? Here are some citations:

      https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lu... https://www.thecollegefix.com/... https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://www.washingtontimes.co...

    26. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's pretty terrible. Amongst the bible thumpers I know (I'm not one of them) they DO respect the first amendment and whilst they'd LIKE to see things censored they are also aware that freedom is important. I know no SJWs so I can't speak on them. Whether or not ALL bible thumpers respect the constitution, I can't say.

    27. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the far left almost openly supports genocide of white folks. Pretty astounding.

    28. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Just note the name: national socialism.

      Well you just fell for a big pile of Nazi propaganda. Tell me, if you think the Nazis were actually socialists, then why did they throw socialists in concentration camps?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    29. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Whether you censor because I'm holding a gun to your head or you're censoring because you're swallowing my kool-aid whole-sale; its censorship.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    30. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      This. Early Christians didn't murder anyone, but the very moment they were legalized and gained some political power (Constantine the Great), they started mass-burning of libraries, killing heretics, etc. Then not long after there was Theodosius -- also "the Great", who outright demanded people to convert or die. And they stopped going after heretics only after their political power diminished.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    31. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Tell me, if you think the Nazis were actually socialists, then why did they throw socialists in concentration camps?

      If Sunnis are actually Muslims, then why do they mass-murder Shias? Or if Protestants were actually Christians, then why did they mass-murder Catholics (and vice versa)?

      Enemies can be negotiated with. Heretics need to be eradicated without mercy.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    32. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by losfromla · · Score: 1

      only 2000 years? I thought religion and society had been around much longer...

      So this imaginary guy that we may have heard of, his message has persisted? Or are his "followers" now not remembering his sage advice about not inflicting violence on others?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    33. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Except that in the US even our "Left" doesn't have much traction, sadly.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    34. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      Their reason for deplaforming him is vague and indefensible.

    35. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      "Although I agree with you that both far left and far right want censorship." Mostly the left because their ideas tend to disagree with reality. "In many respects the USA main stream is anything from left." The mainstream media definitely is left. "The USA cannot even provide free hospitals" Why should they? " (which every other country in the world provides)" That isn't an argument, if it were then it could be used to pronote anything other countries are doing regardless of it being the right thing or not... "or add a background check for owning an automatic rifle." To own an automatic rifke in the U.S. requires special licencing , background checks, and mental health assessments. Only a very small portion of the population are able to own them and it is very very expensive. I think you are confused with semi-automatic rifles. This covers every rifle that is not bolt action... Also they already require background checks for all rifle purchases. Like I said earlier leftist nonses tends to disagree with reality. "The far left would be advocating communism that is definitely not mainstream in the USA." Communism is just a form of Socialism and the left is advocating Socialism. "Although the left in terms of feminism is mainstream (in the media at least, talking to real women it isn't the case), you are not even allowed to say men may have a valid opinion, or innocent until proven guilty without being labeled misogynist." Proof that the left is evil and doesn't like facts.

    36. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by losfromla · · Score: 1

      you must be an Alex Jones acolyte. That guy is a just a fat dumb blowhard, fyi.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    37. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      "National Socialism was very much not socialist in any way." Expect in regards to completely removing private control of the means of production. Government provided medical. Government provided jobs. Government provided everything... "The name was used to attract people." No it was the basis of their policies "On the other hand, it wasn't very right wing either." It was Socialist, by definition of the term. "But everyone insists it must be one or the other and it's used as a way to tarnish the reputation of the side that they disagree with." Because it actually was left wing, with all the lefties praising the Nazi policies before the war. " Politics these days is just stupid, I'd rather people get along as opposed to parties which claim that the othesr are traitors (not just the US, this is everywhere). Political parties are one of the worst ideas invented in my view." Democracy is one of the worst ideas ever.

    38. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      Then explain the removal of private control of the means of production? Which is the definition of Socialism..

    39. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      The Nazis removed private control of the means of production, which is the definition of Socialism. This makes them Socialists. End of discussion.

    40. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      Because they were an opposing political group, what else you got?

    41. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. Hate speech is just words you don't like

    42. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Ah, so the structures that successfully kept societies together for 2000 years "can safely be regarded as a fundamental failure"?

      A convenient lie. Claiming that only the right set of beliefs can instill morality and order is right out of the fascist's handbook.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    43. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The Nazi governments cooperated as partners with industrial companies, those companies were not nationalized. The Nazi government did sell off some state owned companies, or sell off enough to no longer have majority shares. Some were sold to entities within the party but not all. For instance, banks were re-privatized by the Nazis, so that the government was no long a majority shareholder. Similar with steel, railroads, ship building, etc. Before the war, industrialists loved the Nazis because they were clearly not acting like the red wave that was sweeping much of europe, and they were rapidly improving their economy.

      The term "privatisation" was invented by The Economist in the 1930 to describe Germany's economic policies.

      The official Nazi economic programs did have proposals for larger scale nationalization, but in practice they did not do this. Partially one can suppose that after the Great Depression no one wanted this very much. But I think that because they were a populist party they were doing what felt right at the time rather than having a coherent long term economic plan. So rather than say that they had an ideology that guided them, it seems likely that they were flying by the seat of their pants. Also privatization of government owned resources earned them a lot of money which certainly helped get the country out of the terrible situation it was in.

      The tricky part in this is realizing that the Nazis did not have strong left versus right economic ideologies. So one can look at their actions and see evidence pointing either way. If someone has a simplistic one dimensional political view of left vs right then they will want to put Nazi Germany on that scale, but they don't fit that way. For instance, the state exerted little control or regulation over how companies conducted their own affairs internally, whereas it had very strong control when it came to operating within the market (building the product vs selling the product). They also were highly critical of communism and socialism. They were in some ways marketing themselves as a hybrid; parts from socialism and parts from nationalism, both of which were popular ideas that arising earlier in the century.

    44. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      The Nazi party forced every single company to become 'partners' which meant the company did exactly what they were told to. That is nationalisation by another name and the fact that you try to defend that proves what kind of person you are. The Nazi party sold off some shares and then regulated complete control of the companies anyway so still prvented private control of the means of production, which is the definition of Socialism... Who owns the business on paper isn't what matters, that is why Socialism is defined as control of the means of production. As to improving the economy, no such thing happened. Germany always had shortages of just about everything. If we look at the facts we see everything you said is a lie. They didn't need to nationalise the companies they just took complete control of them by force. Hitler even said he was a Socialist and praised Socialism constantly.

    45. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      Usually your greatest competition is from on of your own kind, so it makes sense.

    46. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Personally, free speech advocates should make their own platforms, and conservatives should actually move to them and abandon the platforms that hate them. Gab.ai and minds.com seem worthwhile. Seems like whining to complain Twitter is evil but keep using it.

      Last time I checked gab was still blocked from both the Apple and Google app stores for failing to adhere to the SJW censorship standard. Or pretty much any other excuse they can scramble to come up with.

      I know it's popular to say 'if you don't like it start your own', but the goal post is constantly being moved. Seems as if some anti-trust litigation is long overdue.

    47. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Brujis · · Score: 1

      Actually the Democratic party brought us the KKK and still has active members of the KKK in their ranks. Robert Byrd is a great example of that...

    48. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Raenex · · Score: 1

      FAR left

      o Open borders
      o Welfare state
      o Anti-First Amendment (Antifa)
      o Transgender "rights" for the 0.1% over the rights of the 99.9%.

    49. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 1

      That just adds Apple to the "start your own" bucket. There's no natural monopoly here, and while the network effect is powerful, you'd expect the second-biggest site to be at least 20% as big as the biggest. Certainly not the case with YouTube or Twitter. Conservatives do need to get off their ass here, and remember that capitalism depends on new companies challenging old as the old lose their focus.

      Agree on the anti-trust. It certainly seems like there's something wrong with the oligopoly of "social media" companies colluding to drive out new entrants.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    50. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but there's no surviving documentation of moral codes derived from religious principles before about 600 BC. E.g., I don't think the Code of Hammurabi calls out any religious basis. I think something changed in the way humans saw religion around 600 BC, and it's probably not an accident that that's the point where written history becomes sparse.

      And of course his message has persisted, but then there's the "humans are fallible" part too. At least his message is there to read for those who care to listen.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    51. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 1

      You added the word "only" when you made your strawman. Before the Enlightenment, that's just how it happened to work for 2000 years. It didn't seem to work that way before that, not sure why, but then civilization was very spotty before 600 BC. There's at least a correlation between the idea of morality as something other than the will of the king, and civilization becoming common enough to preserve written histories and other documents consistently enough to reach us today.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    52. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by losfromla · · Score: 1

      From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The Pyramid Texts from ancient Egypt are the oldest known religious texts in the world, dating to between 2400-2300 BCE.[7][8] Writing played a major role in sustaining organized religion by standardizing religious ideas regardless of time or location.

      So, that's much further back than your 2000 years ago belief. Religious ideas of course date back much further than that.

      My problem with the "humans are fallible" argument is that it is too easy to fall back to that. Maybe if humans are so fallible so frequently under a given religious doctrine there might be a problem with the doctrine itself. There is also of course the fact that your imaginary friend never did claim to do away with Mosaic Law which is brutal and vicious, therefore the more violent in your camp might indeed be those who are more correctly following the scriptures (all of the scriptures).

      It is sad that as we live in a more apparently Fascist regime, people with brains still think that Socialism is the problem.... (that's in response to your sig)

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    53. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      If you say so, buddy. Maybe airlines just don't want to confuse travellers, did that occur to any of you? Of course not.

    54. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      While I'm happy to have a discussion with points being made back and forth may I first ask you a question? Do you support one set of laws for all people or are some people more equal than others?

    55. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 1

      The situation in ancient Egypt is a bit speculative, though. It may well be as you say, that there was some idea of morality more important than the will of the king. Personally I think so, just because church-state political rivalry seems inevitable.

      Maybe if humans are so fallible so frequently under a given religious doctrine there might be a problem with the doctrine itself.

      Maybe so. But there is no perfect set of rules for humans, and we know that the rules that survive as the basis of the major religions worked quite well to make societies function because those are the cultures that survived.

      never did claim to do away with Mosaic Law which is brutal and vicious

      Eh? There were 2 different v2.0s - the New Testament, and the Torah.

      Mosaic Law was better than what people had before, and the 10 commandments are a reasonable starting point for a set of laws: don't kill, don't steal, and don't do the kind of shit that makes people want to kill you. Eventually it accumulated a bunch of stuff more appropriate for a tribe constantly at war, which turned not so helpful when they were conquered. The Koran is still all Old Testament stuff, but then Islam is still growing.

      It is sad that as we live in a more apparently Fascist regime, people with brains still think that Socialism is the problem.... (that's in response to your sig)

      Fascism and socialism don't really oppose one another meaningfully - they're both about giving power to the government to control things, especially the economy, and hopig you don't get an asshole in charge. Fascism ended up with an asshole in charge 100% of the time, while socialism has evolved to have more democratic control - some people make a strong distinction between Marxism Socialism and Social Democracy. It's very clear, however, that socialism can evolve directly into fascism, since it did, given the right asshole.

      Anyway, we're only "apparently fascist" because a lot of people call everyone they don't like a Nazi, especially when they lose an argument. This has replaced calling everyone "racist", since that accusation has lost it's emotional power. In a few years we'll have a new insult, and we won't be "apparently fascist" any more.

      I do find if funny that the early nerd-only internet was years ahead of its time in the fashion of calling someone a Nazi when losing an argument.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    56. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by gweihir · · Score: 1

      So you think, I don't know, a 130 year war or witch-burning or frequent famines are signs of a healthy society? Nice. No. I have your number exactly. You are a part of the problem and as soon as people like you get enough power, torture and murder of people thinking different starts. Again.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    57. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 1

      You imagine this sort of thing wasn't the norm in earlier societies? Why would you imagine that? You blame the Catholic Church for not being strong enough to stop the 100 Year's War? Fair enough, but you're advocating that it should have been stronger.

      The argument that "bad things happened in places with religion, therefore religion is bad" is childish. The only decent arguments in this regard must show that religion caused the evils, such as blaming the Church for the Inquisition, or Islam for its wars of conquest. Pointing out that the church failed to stop some evil doesn't mean much in isolation. Did the church ignore the events in front of it, contrary to the admonitions of that religion, as with the Holocaust? That's a decent argument that something is amiss, but not one that the situation with religion was worse than it would have been without.

      It's important to remember that the common morality in 600 BC was "might makes right". Not just that the strong can do what they want to the weak, and ignore morality, no, but the belief that they are morally right to do so. You have to show that a religion is worse than that starting point, if you want to make a case against religion historically.

      Post-Enlightenment we can see the possibility that social science could do better, but we only have social "science" thus far, and so no progress on that front yet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    58. Re: And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure thing, wars of conquest between neighboring kings totally don't happen without religion.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    59. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by lgw · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not the same principle at all. Company towns are de-facto monopolies* so have special restricted placed upon them. Twitter, Youtube, etc are not de-facto monopolies because there do exist other platforms.

      YouTube is a de-facto monopoly. They have a much bigger market share than Microsoft ever did. And, again, my entire point is that yes, if you're a monopoly, maybe you should be forced to be a microphone for other people's free speech, just as you can be in equivalent circumstances in the real world.

      but in every other walk of life where a lot of people all decide to shun someone we don't break out the pitchforks to defend them.

      We do when they shun all blacks. We do when they shun all gays. It's just as important to have a diveristy of views in the marketplace of ideas. Especially ideas you think are obviously stupid and wrong, because you are stupidly wrong about at least one of your ideas, and you deserve the chance to grow (doubly so ideas that everyone dislikes).

      Most conservatives (like most liberals) don't support free speech. They support speech they don't personally find too objectionable.

      Perhaps so. But most progressives violently oppose free speech. That's a real problem.

      The real question is, where do you draw the line? Slashdot engages in editorial discretion--shock videos aren't merely modded down but are at times removed.

      They claim this is not the case - they they've only ever removed content when legally required to do so. One of the janitors told me this directly when I confronted him about it. Nor does an ISP block content unless legally required, for just this reason. Either be a common carrier, or be a publisher.

      It's a bright line.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    60. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      There was this guy once who said that scripture is complicated, and it's easy to read it wrong, so if you think it's telling you to hurt someone, that's how you know you're reading it wrong. He got pretty famous for saying things like that, though it didn't end well for him. However, he got the last laugh, as it turns out, since you've probably heard of him.

      He did? Because I was under the impression that people took his words, mixed them together with a bunch of earlier words, and used them as an execuse to hurt everyone who was not precisely like them. Women. Children. The unmarried. Sexual "deviants." The poor. Anyone following a different doctine, much less a different religion. Anyone "getting in the way."

      Yes, he's surely laughing at the fact that he's the titular face of rank hypocrisy.

    61. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Not in the slightest, sorry. Even I'm not that paranoid ;-)

    62. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Yet you sound just like him. You show what appears to be an alarming lack of self-awareness. So does Trump, so now I guess you're behaving presidentially. Congrats!

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    63. Re:And so do feminists, socialists, anti-fa by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Your statement is illogical. I'm quite self aware, thank you.

  3. Unauthorised dissemination of news by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scary phrase, there. I knew there was a Trump liked this guy Xi.

    1. Re:Unauthorised dissemination of news by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you a word.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Unauthorised dissemination of news by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Not sure what mean.

    3. Re:Unauthorised dissemination of news by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Don't ridiculous.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:Unauthorised dissemination of news by bwd777 · · Score: 1

      This is my wife talks.

    5. Re:Unauthorised dissemination of news by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I completely this.

    6. Re:Unauthorised dissemination of news by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Haven't heard? It's the bird.

      --
      I tend to rant.
  4. Interesting. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who knew that Winnie the Pooh was so dirty and unrighteous.

    Fuck Xi Jinping, fuck him up his stupid cartoon bear ass. (we both know the internet has images of that)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who knew that Winnie the Pooh was so dirty and unrighteous.

      ...

      So you think walking into the woods pantless with a baby pig and a jar of honey is OK?

    2. Re:Interesting. by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you think walking into the woods pantless with a baby pig and a jar of honey is OK?

      That pig is a liar!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Interesting. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So you think walking into the woods pantless with a baby pig and a jar of honey is OK?

      Huh so actually David Cameron is winnie the pooh.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Interesting. by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the same setup for the story Tyrion begins telling but never gets to finish about walking into a brothel with a jackass and a honeycomb? It's a shame we didn't get to hear the rest of that story. :/

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    5. Re:Interesting. by lgw · · Score: 1

      /thread

      Took me a minute - Americans aren't so familiar with that particular incident.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. Says who? by StandardCell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This from a guy whose party has sanitized the killing of tens of millions of its own people, is now ruler for life, has a social credit score to force people to behave according to the CCP's wishes, could care less about the 300 million people in abject poverty without regular access to clean water, and won't acknowledge the Tiananmen Square massacre to the point of banning the term "63+1", or 6/4.

    Yeah, you can go fuck yourself Xi Jinping. We'll keep trying to show your people how the rest of the world works and hopefully they'll finish what was started in 1989.

    1. Re:Says who? by gslavik · · Score: 1

      Likely the reason for "clean and righteous." It shouldn't mention anyone being killed.

    2. Re:Says who? by rojash · · Score: 1

      You jealous of him ?? You clowns who just rant on dictator types...c'mon..provide solutions already !!

    3. Re:Says who? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Xi is a proud Communist whereas the Globalists are Communists (whom see themselves as the Elite group of authoritatives to run the show), but too cowardly to admit it.

      The Communists are really of (ironies) feudal group. They create a caste based society. The first tier are the party members and those that serve them. And then, there's the serfs that suck air and are best to be out of their way.

      The Serfs are the ones that get fucked the hardest. If you're not contributing to the rightous cause of "Communism", YOU WILL BE PURGED! And 100 MILLION purged there was under Communism. At worst, you could be a nice person, and will be purged because of some malthusian reason that robots and AI to better to serve the elite...and you have no reason to exist but to get in the way.

      Mark my words. If Communism takes hold - and I believe it will - the human population will be engineered in such as way as to reduce the count to 500 million on Earth or less. That's the future of humanity. Managed oppression for the elite, and China is leading the way with the globalist sure to follow in the shadows.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Says who? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > to the point of banning the term "63+1", or 6/4.

      Wow, that's a new low for China.

      What's that quote?

      "You can tell how advanced a society is by what they censor."

      --
      Only children censor.
      Adults communicate and even laugh at taboo subjects.

    5. Re:Says who? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Censorship leads to people finding ways to indirectly speak of subjects, which in turn must be censored, and this can lead to some things that appear very strange.

    6. Re:Says who? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It gets absurd quickly.

      Apparently the Chinese never heard the cliche:

      Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

    7. Re:Says who? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Globalists derive their power from both capitalism and government. It's really hard to point to capitalism being the sole culprit here when we don't really practice it. What he have is collusion, AKA crony capitalism. It's a bastard fusion of both public and private in all the worst ways possible. That said, it's still not nearly as bad as pure socialism/communism as indicated in past recorded history.

      In other words - The government should be a referee calling out the BS that capitalist enterprises engage in. But we don't have that, because the gov is also an active player.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  6. communism by davek · · Score: 2

    It's about time communism got with the program.

    --
    6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
    1. Re:communism by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      'Communism getting with the program' == 'Democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression'.

  7. Xi has KTV stock? by magarity · · Score: 1

    But there's still a KTV every few blocks in every Chinese city.

    1. Re:Xi has KTV stock? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Xi doesn't need stock... he essentially can do whatever he wants in China.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Xi has KTV stock? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Xi doesn't need stock... he essentially can do whatever he wants in China.

      But he still maintains enormous bank accounts in Panama, Caymans, etc. Just in case.

  8. Xi Jinping also says... by gtall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that Tibet belongs to the Tibetans and that the Chinese project of replacing the Tibetans with Han Chinese will be reversed. And, Taiwan can now be considered an independent country of 23 million Chinese and can determine their own future with full recognition from Beijing.

    Hope springs eternal...and in Xi's China, goes there to die.

    1. Re:Xi Jinping also says... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I heard he was going to announce he was relinquishing claims on the South China Sea, after looking at a map and deciding that China was clearly wrong.

  9. The Internet will be clean and righteous when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Internet will be clean and righteous when humanity is clean and righteous. In other words: Never.

  10. This is why by Tokolosh · · Score: 1, Interesting

    China will have periodic revolutions and will never be a front-rank country, Western angst notwithstanding.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:This is why by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      revolutions

      The ruling Communist party makes that much more difficult, but yeah, I've been kinda waiting for that to happen for quite some time now. It's hard to suppress unrest when you have over a billion people in your country. Imagine what Bashir al-Assad has done to the people of Syria, but on the scale of China. It might just plunge the rest of the world into World War III along with it, as it polarized every other nation on Earth, one by one.

    2. Re:This is why by kaatochacha · · Score: 2

      As long as the economy kept cranking along, no problems. I'm worried where they'll go once they realize you can't grow forever. People put up with dictators as long as their situation is improving enormously. when that stops...

    3. Re:This is why by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      China has never been able to control that many. That's part of the irony here, they have a centralized party that claims to control everything, but it is so weak that it has very little actual control over the regions. So the regional party bosses very often end up corrupt and abusing power without getting punished for it (or at least not until a school falls down).

    4. Re:This is why by larryjoe · · Score: 2

      As long as the economy kept cranking along, no problems. I'm worried where they'll go once they realize you can't grow forever. People put up with dictators as long as their situation is improving enormously. when that stops...

      See 1984. Control thought, language, and news. Then create alternate enemies for would-be disgruntled people. Punish the disobedient as enemies of the people. Economic turmoil is only a challenge for governments who care about human rights. In fact, the Chinese government is concerned about the possibility of the challenge to their tight-fisted control that economic turmoil might present. Therefore, it believes it needs to double down on the Orwellian strategies.

  11. Remember the Puritans! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Know what this fuckwad communist dictator sounds like? The Puritans. Remember them? They were at least as corrupted as anyone else, all the while pretending to pure and 'righteous'. Of course in this case it's an order of magnitude worse: this jackass includes things like 'freedom of speech', 'freedom of expression', 'criticizing the communist party', 'criticizing the government', and of course 'criticizing him' among the things he considers 'vulgar' and 'pornographic' content.

    As an aside to all this: know what I think is really ironically funny about this? For a country that has recorded history going back, what, 3000 years at least? They still fail to learn from their own history. This guy has set himself up as Emperor of China for all intents and purposes. How's that worked out for you in the past, China? Do you even remember? Or has the Communist party removed your access to (or worse, rewritten) your own history, too? Sad, sad, sad. I actually feel bad for the average Chinese citizen.

    1. Re:Remember the Puritans! by magarity · · Score: 2

      They still fail to learn from their own history. This guy has set himself up as Emperor of China for all intents and purposes. How's that worked out for you in the past, China? Do you even remember?

      Yes, he certainly does know and remember. For the vast majority of Chinese emperors, being emperor totally kicked ass.

    2. Re:Remember the Puritans! by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Funny
      I've read a lot of accounts of WWII and have never come across that version; sounds pretty cool, though.

      Is it French??

    3. Re:Remember the Puritans! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      You don't know much history, "Puritans" weren't a denomination just a blanket term. they're still around in the USA, didn't go away at all. I'd argue they're holding power right now.

    4. Re:Remember the Puritans! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Wow. Just. Wow. Were you homeschooled? That would certainly explain it.

    5. Re:Remember the Puritans! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      *Drum hit*

    6. Re:Remember the Puritans! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Where precisely did I say 'Puritans were a religious denomination'? Stop making shit up, don't put words in my mouth.
      That being said: yeah, the GOP sounds and acts an awful lot like them don't they?

    7. Re:Remember the Puritans! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      While I don't disagree with what you said, I don't know if the average person feels that much difference between the one Party and the one Emperor. I mean China has been cracking down on freedom of speech for 30 years if not longer, how much is really new and worse now?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Remember the Puritans! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      For a country that has recorded history going back, what, 3000 years

      Don't give them that! Its Chinese propaganda. The Chinese nation as it exists today dates to October 1, 1949. In fact as far a "developed" they are whippersnappers. There is no meaningful connection to the China that came before. They ensure that themselves with the 'great leap forward'

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    9. Re:Remember the Puritans! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Maybe he only watches Fox News?

    10. Re:Remember the Puritans! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Only that they were protestants that then went into various denominations that are still around. Would include Trump's main power blocks.

    11. Re:Remember the Puritans! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Not a denomination but they were still a clear sect with teachings and beliefs setting them distinctly apart from other Protestant churches. And they were relatively few. History makes them see more populous than they really were. What people today call "puritan" has only marginal relationship to the actual Puritans.

    12. Re:Remember the Puritans! by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Indeed. BTW the Puritans were also socialist.

    13. Re:Remember the Puritans! by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

      I actually feel bad for the average Chinese citizen.

      No kidding. It isn't the citizens that make China a totalitarian state.

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    14. Re:Remember the Puritans! by magarity · · Score: 1

      One of them had 80 wives of descending status which is why royal mathematicians were needed to plan a hierarchy preserving order of fulfilling marital obligations with all of them.

      Just make an orderly line, ladies. Don't worry; everyone will get a turn.

  12. Which is why you don't criticize the government by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... they're still blocking Tienanmen square. Because, remembering the tyranny of their own government is lacking in righteousness?... or cleanliness?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Which is why you don't criticize the government by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      To be fair to Xi, the tracks of those tanks were hosed-off immediately afterwards...

  13. Same problem in Nazi Germany by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

    Sanitizing of all media was a primary goal of Adolf. However I can understand this move from a perspective of historic Chinese social and their moral history. Mao was no saint but he did finally endorse a state set of morals largely based upon a Taoist cultural society. Thus todays leadership must bow to the will of the Chinese people in regard to social interaction morals. Amoral bureaucrats and political figures are a huge problem when a political system allows them to wield power over information, thus the people they are claiming to serve.

    --
    This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    1. Re:Same problem in Nazi Germany by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      Sanitizing of all media was a primary goal of Adolf. However I can understand this move from a perspective of historic Chinese social and their moral history. Mao was no saint but he did finally endorse a state set of morals largely based upon a Taoist cultural society. Thus todays leadership must bow to the will of the Chinese people in regard to social interaction morals. Amoral bureaucrats and political figures are a huge problem when a political system allows them to wield power over information, thus the people they are claiming to serve.

      Correction and post edit...sorry if that is not possible. change "social and their moral history" to just "social and moral history" to avoid the grammar police coming to my door step. WHICH CAN BECOME A HUGE PROBLEM ON THE NET if is policed for moral correctness!!!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    2. Re:Same problem in Nazi Germany by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      So pretty much how Facebook/Twitter/Google are policing undesirable thoughts off the internet? Only Xi is using the same methods but has different outcomes in mind (e.g. continuous communist party control, forever).

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Same problem in Nazi Germany by hey! · · Score: 2

      Trying to make sense out of Nazi actions and ideology is a fool's errand, but it's quite a stretch to imply that sanitizing the media of sex was a "primary" goal. The media was used to serve the regime in any way it could, on an opportunistic basis.

      While pornography was officially frowned on, it was really pornography produced by people who weren't in the party. The Schutzstaffel "Hygeine Institute" actually produced pornographic films for use by party members, and titillating images of naked "Aryan" women were common. For the vulgar masses, material that was pornographic by the standards of the day was printed in Der Sturmer -- if often depicted the violation of young Aryan women by Jews, skillfully blending sexual arousal and hate.

      It wasn't porn they objected to, it was porn that didn't serve their political ends.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Same problem in Nazi Germany by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      Trying to make sense out of Nazi actions and ideology is a fool's errand, but it's quite a stretch to imply that sanitizing the media of sex was a "primary" goal. The media was used to serve the regime in any way it could, on an opportunistic basis.

      While pornography was officially frowned on, it was really pornography produced by people who weren't in the party. The Schutzstaffel "Hygeine Institute" actually produced pornographic films for use by party members, and titillating images of naked "Aryan" women were common. For the vulgar masses, material that was pornographic by the standards of the day was printed in Der Sturmer -- if often depicted the violation of young Aryan women by Jews, skillfully blending sexual arousal and hate.

      It wasn't porn they objected to, it was porn that didn't serve their political ends.

      Precisely the point I was getting at and thank you. I was certainly not trying to justify the actions of an obvious dictator which is what the poor unfortunate masses have. China now must endure dictatorship again because in truth there is no real democratic system there to keep the assholes in check. There are only bullets not ballots. I just wonder if the central committee votes with a bowl and black and white balls the same way as the Greeks did. This is the problem with too much centralization of power in one party it is the wet dream of dictators!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    5. Re:Same problem in Nazi Germany by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

      No argument there, that is why eventually reason will prevail because the bigotry, hatred and prejudice that we see from the alt right can shout louder but those who have real intellect can write much more effectively. The pen is much mightier than the sword and must never be silenced!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    6. Re:Same problem in Nazi Germany by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Mao was no saint...

      Now there's the understatement of the day. Being responsible for ~45 million deaths is more than just not being a saint.

    7. Re:Same problem in Nazi Germany by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Only the Left has been using violence to shut down free speech, friend. Hell they don't even believe in the concept.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  14. Re:Agree in principle by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I agree there's a lot of vulgar content to be removed.

    I mean, Futanari is one thing, furry is another, but furry futanari? The line must be drawned here! /Picard

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  15. I've seen the future... by RickyShade · · Score: 1

    See, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy. Cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind if guy who wants to sit in a greasy spoon and think, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in a non-smoking section. I wanna run through the streets naked with green Jello all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to. Okay, pal? I've seen the future, you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sittin' around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener". You wanna live on top, you gotta live Cocteau's way. What he wants, when he wants, how he wants.

    1. Re:I've seen the future... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      +1

  16. Yugoslavia in the 80s by pacija · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was born in "communist" Yugoslavia, and lived there through my early childhood in the 80s. There was no Internet, but the only three national TV programs were what you could call "Clean and Righteous". Lots of educational stuff through the morning, classic Disney or Fleischer cartoons before bedtime, movie classics, both domestic and foreign in the evening.

    Yugoslavia was torn down in early 90s by "western democracies", split to smaller, weaker countries, and one of them - Serbia, where I live now - was finally bombed in late 90s and early Y2K with depleted uranium by NATO member states. We finally got rid of the "dictators" and got "democracy".

    A few weeks ago my 7 year old son asked me and my wife if he could watch football world cup semifinals on TV because our neighbor Croatia played, although it was past his bedtime (9PM). We allowed, but at the half-time we were genuinely afraid to start to switch through channels because we knew there will be stuff we don't want him to see. And don't get the wrong impression, as I completed Medal of Honor with him when he was 5, and at the same time he saw Lord of the Rings - he ain't a snowflake.

    Freedom and democracy and free speech my ass. If you don't take western corporations' shit and also pay for it you get depleted uranium. Maybe not if you are as powerful as China.

    1. Re:Yugoslavia in the 80s by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 2

      You don't get to blame western democracies when Serbs and Kosavars start slaughtering each other because they can't get over ethnic conflicts from almost 900 years ago.

      And if your argument is that it was all worth it so your son maybe doesn't see boobs or unfiltered news coverage on the TV, then I would suggest immigrating to North Korea where they still practice the clean righteousness you miss.

  17. Wow by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    I bet he has no idea how much he has in common with Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Wow by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I bet he has no idea how much he has in common with Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

      Indeed. One has a social credit score and the other has a trustworthiness rating.

  18. And anyway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sex is righteous. Sex is how our species survives. It is the reason everyone of us exists. And so on.

    Sex is not dirty. It is perfectly natural and clean. Sexual desire is not dirty. It is an instinct that our species relies on for continuance.

    Pornography is not dirty. It is the most automatic expression of our sexual instincts, given the tech available. It plays its part in assisting the entire enterprise of keeping our species alive.

    People who want to block pornography usually have an ulterior motive. Either they actually want to block a whole bunch of other things and are just using a widespread cultural discomfort with our own survival instincts to get the necessary approval, or they are threatened by the fact that standards of beauty actually exist and aren't always trivially easy to achieve. Or they are just under-developed and hence erroneously believe their own sexual instincts are dirty. In any case, they insist that pornography is dirty, when it is not.

    1. Re:And anyway... by Rolgar · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Or perhaps you should study what science has to say: https://fightthenewdrug.org/

      Porn makes people stupid. Science FTW.

    2. Re:And anyway... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pornography is not dirty.

      Dude, you need to find better porn.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:And anyway... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 2

      Sex is righteous. Sex is how our species survives. It is the reason everyone of us exists. And so on.

      Sex is not dirty. It is perfectly natural and clean. Sexual desire is not dirty. It is an instinct that our species relies on for continuance.

      Pornography is not dirty. It is the most automatic expression of our sexual instincts, given the tech available. It plays its part in assisting the entire enterprise of keeping our species alive.

      People who want to block pornography usually have an ulterior motive. Either they actually want to block a whole bunch of other things and are just using a widespread cultural discomfort with our own survival instincts to get the necessary approval, or they are threatened by the fact that standards of beauty actually exist and aren't always trivially easy to achieve. Or they are just under-developed and hence erroneously believe their own sexual instincts are dirty. In any case, they insist that pornography is dirty, when it is not.

      "Do you think sex is dirty?"

      "It is if you're doing it right!"

      ~ Some Woody Allen movie.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    4. Re:And anyway... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I've tried to see what science has to say. But once you discount all organisations that are misrepresenting scientific studies to push a political agenda, all the personal anecdotes, and all the sensationalist reports just trying to get some views, science doesn't actually have much to say. There are studies that give contradictory results, but it's not an easy area to study. For one, good luck getting ethical approval for a controlled study.

      Fight the New Drug looks superficially respectable. They don't have an obvious religious or political bias, and they do use a lot of citations. Promising. But the closer you look, the more suspicious they appear - a lot of the citations are either other anti-porn groups, dubious correlative studies, or selectively chosen experts. They make a lot of use of personal stories in their videos (not so much their writing though), and have close ties to a very shady 'rehab' program. If you dig around enough, you discover that the shady rehab program came first, and they share a founder (Clay Olsen).

      You can also check out their team listing page. It uses a few humorous comments about each member, but you might notice that not a single one of them has any scientific background. At all. Nothing. Strangely, though, for a non-religiously-affiliated program... some people have done a little digging, and apparently (though this might be dated) it's almost entirely run by Mormons.

      The problem isn't that they outright lie, it's that they present a very one-sided view. The old trick of selective citations. If you have one study saying A and ten saying B, it's easy to claim "Science says A, and here's a study to prove it."

      It's a better attempt than most, but you can find plenty of expert columns that will savage their one-sided presentation.

  19. And a dictator consolidating his power as we speak wants this massive censorsjip wave for purely coincidental reasons.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Wrong by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Yes. 'Vulgar content' == 'criticism of the Communist party or of the God Emperor Xi'.

    2. Re:Wrong by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I know, AC, I know. The Correction is forthcoming, however.

  20. Re: Which is why you don't criticize the governmen by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    when was the last time you criticized a government you supported?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  21. Re:Mine Is by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    AC if you're going to go there then why not just sever all the cables connecting China to the rest of the Internet and let them have their own literal walled garden?

  22. Re:?? 'Clean and rightious' by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    He's set himself up as Emperor for all intents and purposes. Apropos for Emperors, especially in China, he probably considers himself a god. Therefore anything he decrees as Good is 'righteous'. Disagreeing with him becomes 'blasphemy'. Disobeying his decrees makes you a 'sinner'. And so on.

  23. Chicom delendo est by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 1

    The planet must be clean and righteous and Communists must be destroyed. Xi first.

    Nazis get bayonets, Communists get helicopter rides, humans get freedom.

  24. To speak freely is to think freely by blindseer · · Score: 1

    I saw just an epic speech by Dr. Jordan Peterson on free speech. It's about a half hour long but worth every minute.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Dr. Peterson explains how vital it is to speak freely to develop one's thoughts. If people are not able to say anything that isn't "righteous" then nothing of importance can be discussed. And who is to be the arbiter of what is righteous? To have a functioning society one needs to be able to say uncomfortable things. That includes "hate speech". Most anything of importance is in some way uncomfortable, hateful, or not "clean". It can be important as an example of good behavior as well as what we should not do.

    To know what is good we at times need to see what is bad, and the damage this can cause. We define our heroes by their villains. You can't have Batman without the Joker. There is no Superman without Lex Luthor. These comic book characters borrow from old myths to the point of pulling Thor and Loki from mythical characters and turning them into big budget movies and comics. Wonder Woman borrows heavily from myth as well. In every case we see examples of heroes, fighting what we consider evil. To purge evil from society to the point that Chinese citizens can't even read of news of such evil outside their borders means Chinese people cannot learn how to see such evil within themselves.

    This censorship can only end badly. We should not tolerate it in any form. That includes these college campus protests to "de-platform" people that student groups despise. By expressing intolerance for "bad speech" means in the end expressing a disdain for thinking clearly. If you cannot think of a better response then to make noise and smash things then you are no better than unthinking animals.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:To speak freely is to think freely by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's gotten bad enough here ta]hat Tom Sawyer is getting pulled from libraries because, in order to learn that slavery and racism are bad, Tom meets racists and interacts with them. Now that must be banned, as it's presenting racist views. FFS.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. Our wishes are smaller by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    We'd already settle for a clean and righteous Xi Jinping.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:?? 'Clean and rightious' by lgw · · Score: 1

    Isn't he an atheist? What does righteous mean?

    Everything within the state. Nothing outside the state. Nothing against the state.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  27. Immigration, Diversity, Social Welfare by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    Are you talking about literal Nazis here?

    The 1942 Berlin diversity and Gay pride parade was quite a show. People came in droves, from many different nationalities. The military turned up too, on account of the huge social welfare projects created by the newly expanded funding. Controling the executive, legislative and parliamentary branches of government created a utopia, with one man in charge.

    The only part which sucked was when the German military forced the racially impure, the Jews, Roma, sexual deviants and enemies of the government at gun point into concentration camps where they were BURNED IN OVENS.

  28. Did Bill and Tedd say Righteous a lot? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    Because I thought they did, but I can't find any quotes from their movies to... uh... quote.

  29. Re:SICK, SAD WORLD. by losfromla · · Score: 1

    That's very much on-topic moron. Alex Jones is inciting violence, the idiot investigator with his AR-15 is a very likely example of what AJ is instigating.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  30. He can go fuck himself by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    but America won't be taking away their most favorite nation status anytime soon. Meanwhile our close allies the Saudis are seeking the death penalty for a peaceful protestor who demanded women's rights. Last I checked we're still selling them bombs and they're still dropping them on school buses in Yemen.

    It's all well and good to say "Fuck so and so" but until you vote people into office who will actually get tough on human rights abuses it's pissing in the wind.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  31. I wouldn't even call that far left by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Far left are the actual communists and maybe the anarchists. We had a 50-90% tax rate in the 50s and 60s. All drugs legal comes with the stipulation that hard drug use is administered by the government and treated as an illness. Renewables isn't far left, it's common sense and the cap on wages comes from the Japanese who's economy stagnated shortly after they removed the caps.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  32. Sounds familiar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a lot of kids in the USA and Europe.

    Anything they deem to be bad is bad and must be removed from the pages of history.

    Kind of exactly like Google/YouTube/Twitter already do

  33. So by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    No Tibet?
    No Taiwan?
    No Tiananmen square?
    No awkward cartoon bear?
    Emperor?

    The internet belongs to its users, not the Communist Party.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  34. Re:SICK, SAD WORLD. by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for this wave of censorship intended to prevent violence to be applied fairly and consistently, with clear unwavering standards as to hold people accountable.

    Oh wait, ha ha, we'll just walk past a mountain to point at a mole hill, and use any excuse we can think of to ban or hit someone we don't like.

  35. Re:SICK, SAD WORLD. by losfromla · · Score: 1

    We just need to shut down fascist voices. Fuck the alt right, they're just neo Nazis and don't deserve a seat at the table of civilization. That's right, I'm all for curtailing the voices of those fucktards.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  36. Re: Which is why you don't criticize the governme by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    You messed up your comment. Try again.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  37. Re:Mine Is by novakyu · · Score: 1

    You can do a reverse look-up (not always successful). Maybe he meant he blocked an IP range.

  38. Obligatory SMAC reference by Evtim · · Score: 1
  39. This is why no new posts on ./ after this article? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    notext

  40. more importantly by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    He achieved his vision of Internet in China. Putin achieved his vision in Russia. In contrary to the naive belief of Internet enthusiasts, it turned out to be possible.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  41. Totally righteous by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    I too hope that the internet will be righteous, radical, gnarly, and SO bad. Not sure about the clean part though?

  42. Reputation will be the key by mrwireless · · Score: 1

    China's reputation system will allow them to do this. By 2030 China will be the biggest economy in the world, and they will probably start exporting their scoring system to the rest of the world. Want to do business with Chinese people? Make sure you have a 'clean and righteous' social credit score in their system.

    The bigger picture is that we are slowly moving from an information society towards a reputation society. Where the information society was about access to data and information, the reputation society is about the flow of social capital. Our social capital is measured now, both in China, but also in the west. Just this week we saw how Facebook is measuring trustworthiness. Behind the scenes databrokers have been deriving and selling data like this for a long time.

    The 60's were all about breaking free from crippling social pressure to conform. Now the data driven panopticon might undo that.


    The reputation society: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
    Facebook's reputation score: https://www.dailydot.com/debug...
    Databrokers: http://crackedlabs.org/en

  43. Pooh Bear by spinitch · · Score: 1

    A cute endearing children character banned coz Xi and minions don't like the likeness assertions. Could be worse likeness such as the borg, vice lord etc I get there is desire to deter as rebellion symbol but that seems to on embolden it. Would have faded by now. Instead new movie coming out from West resurrecting story.

  44. Re:SICK, SAD WORLD. by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

    Here's a good example of someone being 'held accountable' for daring to display a symbol of the fascist alt-right neo nazis, and being 'censored' as your ilk would have it.

    No thanks. Religious fanatics have no business deciding what is or isn't 'harmful' or 'hateful' for the rest of us. Only a fool would submit to this kind of tyranny.

  45. Re: Which is why you don't criticize the governme by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    You don't know what you're talking about. Please give up now and find a new hobby.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.