[johnforbes]

Tracy Hoeg, MD, PhD, posted CDC info on pediatric deaths for April. FB said her comment violated standards on spam.

Robt Malone, MD, the creator of mRNA vaccine tech, asked a question about vaccine safety and his video was kicked off YouTube, doubtless by some kid with a BA in sociology.

Thoughts?

[Clownkicker]

I think you are nothing more than a partisan hypocrite.

You have no problem with censoring scientists.

In fact, you actually support it for partisan purposes.

[johnforbes]

No, I'm against censorship because it is intellectual cowardice.

Dr Hoeg was blocked for posting actual CDC info.

Dr Malone, who invented mRNA vaccine tech, had his video kicked off YouTube for merely stating what is already known, which is that myocarditis issues have been detected with juvenile use of the vaccine and that medical science needs to take a look at this issue.

[Clownkicker]

"Dr Hoeg was blocked for posting actual CDC info."-johnfibs

No, she was blocked for violating Facebook's spam policy, just as you said she was.

She wasn't "censored" by anyone. All of that information is still on the CDC website where everyone is free to read it. Not one word of what she posted has been altered or deleted there.

And Youtube can kick off any video that violates its policies as well. All of that information can be consumed at actual news sites if you wish. Just 'google it' johnny and you will find it. Stop getting your news off Facebook fer cripes sake.


But what puzzles me is that you didn't say a word about ACTUAL government censorship (intellectual cowardice) of scientists under Trump. The scientific reports were actually altered by the Trump Administration and the unaltered scientific information is not available to us anywhere else because it was the government doing the censoring. You were fine with that. You argued against anyone who criticized Trump for doing it.

Prove me wrong. Tell us Trump exhibited intellectual cowardice for altering the scientific reports.

[johnforbes]

It isn't "spam" to post precise CDC info

The "spam" claim was clearly faked, as you know.

A person with MD and PhD degrees who posted precise info from the CDC, with no personal comment, was blocked.

The censorship is insane and anti-science.

[Clownkicker]

What, not a word about Trump's clear, documented intellectual cowardice for ACTUAL government censorship of scientists? johnny calls out Zuckerberg and other tech 'leftists' by name but can't seem to squeeze "Trump" past his puckered ass-kissing lips. But at least johnny has finally realized the Trump is "insane and anti-science" in his words.

So I was right about johnny's partisan hypocrisy. What a surprise...


johnny, you don't even know how Facebook works. Did she send out the post to all of her "friends" or whatever? That could look just like a spam post. Who knows? You certainly don't. You have no idea whether the post was pulled because it contained this or that information. That part could simply be coincidence.

Even Hoeg didn't deny she violated the spam policy. She only said she didn't "think" factual information should be considered "spam". And then she said "...but maybe that is just me." Sounds like she's aware she technically violated the spam policy. But like I said, not a word of the scientific information in her post has been altered or deleted at the CDC site where it originated, so nothing has been censored. Calling that "censorship" is just partisan bullshit. You know, the breakfast of chumps like you.

[johnforbes]

This has nothing to do with Trump.

A lady with MD and PhD degrees posted CDC info, and some moron with at most a BA in Gender Studies ditched it.

[Clownkicker]

Yes, it does have to do with Trump when you claim a scientist was censored by Facebook or by Youtube, which they weren't.

They were blocked for violating company policy which they had agreed to. All of the information in those blocked posts is intact and still available to all. Censored material is not.

Facebook and Youtube are not news outlets, dummy. They are social media sites, not science sites. They can (and should) block anyone not following their rules which were agreed to by the posters.

I has to do with Trump because you were silent about Trump's very real, literal censorship of scientists, eliminating words and otherwise editing their reports. That makes your phony partisan outrage now a joke that no one need pay any attention to.


On a brighter note, Giuliani was what johnforbes calls 'censored' by the New York court for his lies while representing his client, stripping him of his law license.

[johnforbes]

No, that isn't an honest description.

Those scientists were censored/blocked out of the fear that they would not obey the party line on vaccines.

But now, it turns out that juvenile myocarditis was indeed a REAL medical issue and perhaps some youngsters should indeed pause and ponder before simply getting the covid shots.

Science must proceed in an open, honest manner -- not with some leftist kid like Zuck or Dorsey, with zero scientific background, censoring.

[Clownkicker]

I can't emphasize this enough, dimwit, Facebook and Twitter are NOT science or medical sites. It doesn't matter WHO is posting (since you have no idea who is actually posting there) and so no one should get their medical information from social media sites.

People should get their medical information about vaccines for a specific person from their own medical doctor who knows their medical history.

And no, medical doctors do not get their scientific information from Facebook or Twitter, and neither should you.

Never mind that the risks of getting myocarditis from a COVID infection is many times higher than from the vaccine. And COVID can have that nasty side effect of death (and permanent loss of smell, permanent lung damage, and "long-haul" problems for a year or more.) The risk is near zero for the vaccine; barely statistically relevant. The risk is far higher to contract COVID. But a decision based on that risk can be decided by the vaccine recipient when they talk to their doctor.

One thing is absolutely, undeniably certain however, and that is that NO ONE should get their medical information from Facebook. And you should stop saying they should, johnny. It's utterly irresponsible (and dangerous.)

johnforbes is not a doctor, but he likes to pretend he is as knowledgeable as a doctor on the interwebs.

[johnforbes]

Clowntoker has, for the first time in his 57 years online, spoken the truth.

I am not a doctor.

However, Big Tech monopoly outfits like FB, Twitter, and YouTube are run by leftist dropouts and they should not censor doctors.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^^^Look at johnforbes scurry away from his idiotic contention that people should rely on Facebook and Twitter for their medical opinions and information.


But johnforbes does like to try to convince himself that that 'female' MD he's exchanging his medical information with is actually a female and not the gay man 'she' actually is. Heck the poster SAID 'she' was a doctor, so 'she' must be.

But the guy should definitely not be censored. When johnforbes falls in lust with the good doctor, the guy may one day bring johnforbes out of the closet.

[johnforbes]

Clown, please keep your own dark, demented, deviant fantasy life out of this thread.

[Clownkicker]

That's gratitude for you.

I give johnforbes a heads up that every 'doctor' on Facebook and Twitter might not be who they claim to be and he insists that none of them should be blocked when caught breaking the platform rules.

Fine, johnny, run to your 'doctor' and do everything 'she' tells you to do.

[johnforbes]

I've never been on Facebook, although I do have the sort of face which should adorn every book.

Nor do I tweet on Twitter, where Clownslacker is a tedious tweeting twat.

[Clownkicker]

If all that is (dubiously) true, johnny, why are you so upset at Facebook and Twitter? You're here telling us people should trust unedited medical information from Facebook and Twitter, from people you can't know are who they say they are, and that those platforms shouldn't block posters who break their mutually agreed upon rules.

It just doesn't make any sense to a rational mind such as mine, johnny. It only makes sense to a partisanly hypocritical mind, apparently.

[johnforbes]

You'll have to write that down to my noblesse oblige.

Even though I'm not on FB or Twitter, I care about their censorship.

As Bush Senior said: "Message: I care"

[Clownkicker]

So today the FTC voted to take more power to regulate monopolies, and in particular, regulate Facebook.

The Commission voted along party lines, with every Republican voting against further regulating of Facebook.

How does johnforbes explain that Democrats want to do something about 'put of control' Facebook but Republicans (that's your people, johnny) refuse to do so?

Will johnforbes criticize Republicans now instead of just whining about Facebook enforcing their published rules?

I have an emergency team standing by with a defibrillator and oxygen to revive me as I hold my breath waiting for johnny to criticize his fellow Republicans for refusing to regulate Facebook.

But I'm sure I won't need them because Facebook's sins enforcing their own rules are so egregious that I'm sure johnny will be outraged at this Republican display of hypocrisy; condemning Facebook one day and refusing to do anything about them the next.

[johnforbes]

What?

There are plenty of spineless RINOs.

And even more lunatic leftists.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, somehow you always manage to outdo yourself in your stupidity.

If those guys were merely "RINO"s as you say, they would have voted WITH the Democrats, wouldn't they.

That they refused to vote with the Democrats proves they are absolutely Republicans and not undercover Democrats.

Your real problem is that you believe that Trump is somehow the only actual Republican in America. You see no problem with there being a 'Party' that consists of a single person.

So once again, are you going to criticize the Republicans for refusing to rein in Facebook, johnny? The Democrats are trying their best to do what you want, but you can't bring yourself to support them. You're THAT much of a tool of your handlers.

Wake up, dimwit. Your handlers are not your friends.

And I'm running out of air...

[johnforbes]

Well, there are many kinds of RINOs.

Some RINOs, like Mitt, are Dems but cannot admit that at peril of not getting elected in their area.

McCain was the same thing -- a Dem who couldn't have, back then, gotten elected from AZ had he admitted it.

[Clownkicker]

"Well, there are many kinds of RINOs."-johnfoibles

Yeah, apparently. To you, anyone who isn't Trump is a RINO. Not McConnell, not Barr, not any historically hard-line Republican. And why? Because they aren't Trump.



"Well, there are many kinds of RINOs."-johnflubs

So now it's your contention that RINOs are Republicans who are actually Dems but then vote exclusively the Republican Party line?

I told you you outdid yourself in "stupid" this time, johnny.

[Clownkicker]

More censorship from Repubublican "intellectual cowards."

"Texas GOP leaders pressured a book event examining the role of slavery in the Battle of the Alamo to abruptly shut down

The authors of a book that looks at the role of slavery in the Battle of the Alamo said they felt pressured to cancel a promotional event because GOP leaders in Texas complained about it.
The event was expected to happen Thursday evening at the Bullock Texas State History Museum, the Texas Tribune reported. But museum organizers canceled it with less than four hours to go, citing pressure from Republican lawmakers in Texas to do so.

"As a member of the Preservation Board, I told staff to cancel this event as soon as I found out about it," [Lt. Gov. Dan] Patrick said. "This fact-free rewriting of TX history has no place @BullockMuseum."

In response, Chris Tomlinson, one of the book's authors, accused Patrick of "oppressing free speech and policing thought in Texas."
"@BullockMuseum proves it is a propaganda outlet," Tomlinson said on Twitter. "As for his fact-free comment, well, a dozen people professional historians disagree."

The book examines the way the Battle of the Alamo is taught and concludes that important parts of the story have for generations been left out of the narrative.

"Just as the site of the Alamo was left in ruins for decades, its story was forgotten and twisted over time, with the contributions of Tejanos-Texans of Mexican origin, who fought alongside the Anglo rebels-scrubbed from the record, and the origin of the conflict over Mexico's push to abolish slavery papered over," a description of the book from Penguin Random House says. "As uncomfortable as it may be to hear for some, celebrating the Alamo has long had an echo of celebrating whiteness."-Business Insider

I wonder how long it will take johnforbes to condemn this intellectual cowardice on the part of Republicans. Will johnny insist that these ideas should have simply been let out into the "marketplace" and let the best idea win out? Or will he further agree with Republican censorship as he does with Republican censorship of teaching CRT which is really only taught to graduate students at universities?

[johnforbes]

I will never surrender to revision of the history of the Alamo.

However, Clownslacker is a slave to leftist rhetoric.

[Clownkicker]

See? For a second time johnforbes has no problem at all with government censorship, but he pisses himself over private corporations enforcing their written agreements with users of their platforms.

johnny has no problem with Trump literally censoring scientific reports, just as he has no problem with a Lt. Governor stopping the expression of historical research in the "marketplace of ideas." He's afraid the ideas of historical facts will someday overrun his beloved phony national mythology.

johnforbes once again refuses to call the perpetrators of actual government censorship "intellectual cowards" so there is no reason at all for anyone listening to his constant whining hypocrisy concerning the regurgitation of partisan propaganda from his handlers over so-called "censorship" which is not censorship at all.

[johnforbes]

Censorship is always the same thing -- fear of the complexity of the real world, fear of the only genuine diversity which is ideational/experiential.

In scanning this thread, I did locate this pearl of wisdom, which is commended herewith to Clown's attention:

I've never been on Facebook, although I do have the sort of face which should adorn every book. Nor do I tweet on Twitter, where Clownslacker is a tedious tweeting twat.

[Clownkicker]

"Censorship is always the same thing -- fear of the complexity of the real world, fear of the only genuine diversity which is ideational/experiential."-john"hypocrite"forbes

And yet you have never called out Trump or Patrick for their documented government censorship of ideas. (And if you really believe the government shouldn't censor ideas--that is, the updating of national myths--then you should still condemn them for the censorship of ideas that you claim should be out in the "intellectual marketplace" even if you disagree with the 'rewrite'.)

That's why you're just another loudmouthed, partisan hypocrite pussy, johnny. No one need take your whining seriously since YOU don't even take your whining seriously.

[johnforbes]

St Patrick is not the president.

Censorship is now done by dropout dolts such as Zuck, Dorsey, Gates, et alia.

[elklindo69]

Actually the social media companies are not censoring Trump becuase free speech is not guarenteed if it hurts anybody.

Without a doubt....Trump incited a mob to storm and attack the Capitol building. And a number of defendants who are Trump supporters have sworn in court documents that they took orders from Trump to attack the Capitol building.

[johnforbes]

Come on, Elkin, not a single person can honestly testify Trump ordered them to commit any crime.

It was Barry who said, if they bring a knife, we bring a gun.

Of course, to be fair, Manchelle was more macho...

[Clownkicker]

"Come on, Elkin, not a single person can honestly testify Trump ordered them to commit any crime."-johnfibs

Unfortunately that's not what some of the rioters are testifying to, johnny. They claim they were just doing what Trump told them to do; to stop the orderly Constitutional certification of the election.

[johnforbes]

Well, members of a mob will certainly say whatever, but that does not make it true.

Obama supporters were certain they would all get "Bammy Phones," but not all did. However, apparently a free phone is now a "human right."