> Cancel culture will not win
But what are they doing to actually prevent censorship?
This feels like an excuse to capitalize on the politically charged term of “cancel culture”.
My grift alert is blaring.
But what are they doing to actually prevent censorship?
This feels like an excuse to capitalize on the politically charged term of “cancel culture”.
My grift alert is blaring.
Payment processing.
edit: I have to say that I'm finding the replies unintelligible. The largest payment processors are banning organizations from receiving payments. This organization claims that they will not do that. Would that destroy censorship in the world, or keep Visa and Mastercard from banning people (or banning Parallel Economy themselves?) No. Does it stop censorship at your local high school paper? Also no.
As best as I can tell this is basically security through obscurity.
In other words: is the "censorship resistance" here just the pinky promise of someone who unironically writes a page like this[1]?
I suspect, if they can stay ahead of the regulators, we'll be looking back at services like this in 20 years and note:
1. Riddled with scams and fraud.
2. Better overall results than the well regulated banks. The banks tend to rely on regular bailouts to maintain the illusion of competence, and don't fund a lot of ideas that would be good.
As we see in any of the social media platforms with things like selective enforcement of rules: people are policy.
We are starting with payment processing. And keep building. We took on big tech and it was us who made Parler the most downloaded app in the world. Unfortunately we did not control Parler. We took on big tech and the success we had was unprecedented. We are back and we continue to take on all entities that want to abridge your freedoms.
It is pretty easy to assume that the "freedoms" they want to protect here is freedom to be a right-wing racist Q-nut.
The radical right-wingers are white supremacists frequently committing acts of domestic terrorism. They are hostile toward education and science. They support a free market with trickle-down economics and no regulations. They worship oligarchs, hoping to become like them. They regularly call for normalcy and the sanctity of the family unit, but they also think that women don't deserve rights, because they are thin-skinned and can't stand to lose any of their privilege. They call everyone snowflakes, sheeps and cucks, which is exactly who they are. They love watching oligarchs living it up on their dime. Most of their idols are scam artists preying on their fears.
If you do believe all of that in your comment, then I wonder if you’re victim to hateful disinformation intentionally meant to make it ok to censor, excommunicate, and violently attack a group of people with whom you would otherwise have minor policy disagreements.
Ironically, proving the need for “the other side” to have a parallel economy in the first place.
It’s mostly too bad because, if you believe all the things you said about desiring better education, better healthcare, higher wages being good; and that sexism, racism, and acceptance of business and political elites is bad, then you have a lot more in common with people on the right than you think, and are likely not seeing some aspects of the extremism on the left. (But not your fault - a function of the disinformation).
It’s too bad, because the extremists on both sides are also far more alike than they are different, and they are empowered when we’re against each other.
Not to say there aren’t elements of truth in your comment, too.
The funny thing about having a huge industry of hyper partisan right and left wing cable news and publications pumping out hateful caricatures all day, is that at some point it becomes somewhat self-fulfilling. A feature, not a bug, to be sure.
The worst example of left-wing extremism you can find is the BLM protests, and as unfortunately as they unfolded the griveances there were not unfounded. The American police is largely unaccountable, corrupt and infiltrated with white supremacists. Antifa itself is often discredited, but it's a response to the rise of far-right extremism. The difference is that antifa is not a major domestic terrorism risk.
Do I have to cite the worst examples of right-wing extremism? Between Trump's criminal conduct and messages and the Capitol attack there is an entire culture and media of political violence, culminating in several mass shootings, cults like QAnon and several militias. Right-wingers live in a bubble of paranoia and victim mentality. They contested the result of the last election violently. They've built a cult of personality around their leader, who must never be questioned.
Most scholars don't think there is an equivalence here, and I don't either. I'm not even a left-winger or whatever, I have my own thing, but they are not equivalent, and when I have to choose the choice is obvious.
I’m sure being extremely condescending and dismissive works wonders for turning people towards your politics. That’s basically the left winger stereotype response to everything (that plus “just trust the science”).
Another stereotype of left-wingers is conveniently ignoring facts and truth as soon as it becomes uncomfortable and challenges their narratives.
Your tolerance for ‘facts’ is more see-through than a pane glass window, and this cognitive dissonance is exactly what drives people to the right. Just look at Sweden
https://www.commonsense.news/p/two-bombings-in-one-night-tha...
> Antifa itself is often discredited, but it's a response to the rise of far-right extremism.
And the right wing extremism is a response to the rise of left wing extremism. I could rebut the right wing extremism with reasons why it is a response to grievances that are not unfounded. I could cite the worst examples of racism, bigotry and violence on the left, and use that to justify measures that would silence anyone with left wing ideas.
Then, ultimately, you'd reply with why the bad things on the right are worse or less justified and the bad things on the left are more justified, and before you know it, both of us are in deep justifying extremists that (presumably) neither of us agree with, really.
> I'm not even a left-winger or whatever, I have my own thing
I don't identify as a left- or right- winger either, I have my own things that don't fit any mold. So, the real question for me isn't which side is more justified or more of a threat to the other, but rather - how is it that you and I find ourselves arguing on behalf of not just political parties, but the extremists in them. How is it each of us is relatively blind to the extremism on one side, but hyper aware of the other's?
George Floyd was a defining moment for me. For the first time in a long time, both left and right saw the same video, the same way. Some on the right would qualify their anger with "maybe there's an explanation", but few disagreed that the scene was unjust, and deeply disturbing. For the first time, we had a semblance of unity. Even some Fox News hosts condemned it. The right started to see the police problem for what it is.
So what happened? People wanted to help. They wanted to donate, and march in solidarity.
Cancel culture came for anyone who wanted to donate but questioned whether the official face of the protests, BLM (the organization) was the best place for corporations to be sending money in lieu of other efforts (and rightfully so).
Then riots happened. Groups of (often very white, very male, non-local) people started burning things down, destroying and looting buildings.
So where did that come from? From the peaceful protesters on the right who joined the left in solidarity? No.
Did it come from the peaceful protesters on the left? No.
People were angry, but they did not march down city blocks to burn down the very communities they were supposedly supporting.
But very quickly, the solidarity turned into Fox News saying "this is who the left is" and CNN saying "show me where protests are supposed to be peaceful". Before you know it, extremists successfully hijacked a positive movement and turned it against the very thing the movement was for. And the best part - those extremists are now defended by a population that doesn't even agree with their violence.
So where's the outrage from the peaceful protesters, against the extremists like Antifa who hijacked a peaceful movement? Well, it's there. In plain sight. MANY people who marched in those protests feel hurt and betrayed, but not just by Antifa - by the media and politicians, who STILL haven't even asked them what happened, or how they feel about it. The only way you would know they even exist is if you know them and speak to them personally (as I have).
Now, those peaceful protesters get to be pawns used in Fox News montages lumping them in with Antifa, and they get to be entirely ignored by CNN and MSNBC that spend more time covering up or justifying the violence than they do talking to anyone who was betrayed by it.
And that's the pattern. It repeated on the other side with the 2020 election protests, and it will repeat again, with one side or the other, sometime soon I'm sure.
There's a fray in this country that we're all unwittingly part of. Don't know who's doing it or why just yet, but it's there. And it's so hard to see the fray when you're in it, and it's even harder to pull yourself out of it, but pull ourselves out we must.