Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pocotrader who wrote (1383317)	12/12/2022 6:59:16 PM
From: Maple MAGA	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Respond to of 1578072

I ask you poco, what is wrong with people? Man Terrorizes Everyone at Christmas Tree Lighting by Screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ DEC 12, 2022 6:00 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER LEAVE A COMMENT New in PJ Media: It happened recently in the Italian town of Sora. As workers were putting up Christmas lights in the town center, a man ventured by and began screaming, “Allahu akbar.” Everyone present was terrified, contravening the American media dictum that “Allahu akbar” is an entirely benign phrase that shouldn’t worry anyone. How did these Italians get so Islamophobic? The Italian-language publication FrosinoneToday reported that the onlooker’s shouts of “Allahu akbar” as workers put up Christmas lights and lit them caused “real ‘moments of fear,’” and that “once he was gone, having literally terrorized everyone present with the equally classic exclamation associated with terrorism, the young man continued to rail against the lights.” Why was everyone terrorized? The phrase “Allahu akbar” is routinely translated in the English-language media as “God is great,” a resoundingly uncontroversial phrase by any standard. In reality, however, that is a mistranslation. “Allahu akbar” actually means “Allah is greater,” a subtle but important difference. Rather than simply being a proclamation of the greatness of the divine, “Allahu akbar” is actually a proclamation of superiority: what is being said is that Allah, the God of Islam, is greater than your god, or your government, or your atheistic belief system, or your society and culture, or anything else that you may love and admire. Whatever it is, Allah is greater. This proclamation therefore also means that Islam is superior to all other religions and everything else, for while the use of the word “Allah” is not restricted to Muslims alone, those who proclaim “Allahu akbar” generally have in mind the God of the Qur’an, and are proclaiming his superiority over all other Gods. This was made abundantly clear a few years ago in Malaysia when Christians were forbidden to use the word “Allah” to refer to the God of Christianity. But the Italians in Sora weren’t terrorized by a simple assertion of the superiority of Islam. The phrase has come to be associated with terrorism for one very good reason: terrorists often shout it when they’re in the act. Just a few weeks ago in France, a Muslim previously convicted of terrorism screamed “Allahu akbar” as he attacked a police officer. Also in France recently, a Muslim migrant proclaiming, “Allahu akbar” hit one gendarme with a faucet and bit another. In Belgium, a knife-wielding Muslim who was also screaming, “Allahu akbar” said he was going to kill everyone in a hospital emergency room. In the same country, another Muslim shouting, “Allahu akbar” stabbed one police officer in the neck, killing him, and wounding another. In Germany, a Muslim on a Berlin train screamed “Allahu akbar” and “I will kill all Germans.” There is more. Read the rest here.

To: pocotrader who wrote (1383317)	12/13/2022 7:12:06 AM
From: Maple MAGA	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578072

Rex Murphy: Do you want the Liberals deciding what you read and watch? *Opinion by Rex Murphy* • 1h ago The idea that a Justin Trudeau government, or — for it is possible and maybe likely — that a Pierre Poilievre government, or — and we all like a little fantasy — a Jagmeet Singh government should have any authority to determine what is news and what is not news, is an offence to the democratic intellect Bill C-11 specifies that the CRTC has the authority to force online services, like Netflix, to make financial contributions to Canadian content, and impose conditions on them.© Provided by National Post The distinguishing essential feature of all tyrannies, dictatorships and oligarchies is the control of information — of books, newspapers, broadcasting. Present-day China provides the most vast example; North Korea perhaps the most vivid; and any of the lesser one-rule states prove the principle. There should never be in a democracy any role for government — outside explicit statute law on slander and genuine incitement to immediate violence — in determining what citizens can say and read, watch or research. Any government-mandated oversight or control of information is an attack on the soul of democratic life. That soul is freedom of thought, expression and speech. Now it is a given that no modern democracy would contemplate, let alone go to the limits of total control that is the hallmark of all dictatorships and Communist regimes. Yet there is more than enough evidence to point out that in very many of them — our own in the present moment is a prime example — their leaders and their partisan administrations have more than a taste for “a little bit” of that control. The Trudeau administration’s hunger to get involved in misinformation and disinformation “oversight” is very clear. It issues great cautions and claims high anxiety over manipulation and fake news. Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault threw this out some months back when he was still heritage minister: “We are now witnessing public opinion being manipulated at scale through a deliberate campaign of misinformation by commercial interests that would prefer to avoid the same regulatory oversight applied to broadcast media.” Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, coupled with the yet-to-be-introduced online harms bill, may be easily seen as a Trojan horse (or rather a herd of Trojan horses) to give the government the power to police the internet. I totally agree with C2C author Fin DePencier’s damning assessment that C-11 “could create the most authoritarian regulatory framework of any democracy in the world. This makes it a grave threat to overall freedom of expression in Canada. Nearly as reprehensible as the implications of the legislation itself are the tangled thicket of unclear or self-contradictory language within the bill.” In the spring, the prime minister warned about “misinformation and disinformation” on his gun control legislation. The government throws out these two terms as if they denote absolutely clear, non-ambiguous concrete concepts, as if these terms are not utterly subjective, contingent on the biases, predeterminations and ideologies of whoever would be passing judgments on matters before them. To give a simple example, let us imagine — a little horror sparks the mind — a full and fat majority for the Trudeau government coming out of the next election. Then let’s imagine a scientist — perhaps Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen or one of so many others with impeccable credentials — provides a rebuttal, or serious criticism, of the Trudeau government’s climate change policies. Rex Murphy: The Hunter Biden story should make us think twice about censorship Jesse Kline: What the Hunter Biden scandal says about big tech’s political censorship What chance in the world would there be for such a criticism to receive full public dissemination? Do we want Steven Guilbeault, Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau to make a ruling on this subject? For them, climate change is Holy Writ and their policies to “stop” it unimpeachable and not to be criticized by anyone. Curry and those who might think otherwise would be placed in the misinformation and disinformation bucket; people passing along their articles or columns to others would perhaps be banned from online platforms, or perhaps fined, or worse. Now that’s just, as they say, a scenario. Just this past week we had a reality illustration — that fabulous Hunter Biden laptop story . It differs only on the point that the treatment of that story did not result from any statute or explicit ban. In democracies, the control of information is more delicate, shall I say, more silent and stealthy. And — as I will explain — it comes more voluntarily from the one set that should be the most against news management — some of the media themselves. The laptop story illustrated that misinformation can, does and has actually been practiced by news media — news media who share a partisan perspective, who agree with government, or who disagree with its strongest opponents — not by what they publish, but by what they actively choose to ignore; by what they pass over, by what they bury. Call it censorship by negative attention. Type “Biden laptop story” into the Google search bar and add CBC. What you’ll bring up first will be a three-month-old podcast. Nothing on the immense storm brought on by last week’s Twitter Files revelations. Nothing. Now search Elon Musk and CBC. You’ll see a lot about his potentially fretful takeover of Twitter, but nothing from last week. Ditto for CTV. Both news sites appear to have been hygienically cleansed of one of the biggest stories in the western world. Surely this had to have been a choice, a determination not to cover it. In the United States of course, it is much, much worse. In the states, when the New York Post first broke the story in 2020, before the presidential election, they actively tried to take it out of circulation. I must abruptly conclude. Three points. Some online platforms are already controlling the flow of news through active partnership with government (i.e. Twitter in the U.S.). Some news media are already aiding the government by engaging in self-censorship with the choice of what to report and what not to report. The National Post