Kanye West to acquire free speech platform Parler
prnewswire.com
prnewswire.com
They're really agreeing to let him be their boss?
[1] - Latest tweets saying he's going "death con 3 on jewish people" and "who do you think created cancel culture?"
[2] - ongoing drama with Taylor Swift
[edit] Dropped the reference to bipolar.
"Heard Yeezy was racist, well, I guess that's on one basis... I only like green faces."
- Musk will destroy Twitter
- Zuckerberg is defunding Facebook via the metaverse
- Now West will take out Parler
Parler has always been irrelevant. Facebook in increasingly irrelevant. Twitter may win by default.
I imagine they sold for a very small amount (although they did apparently raise some money earlier and buy Dynascale, a hosting company).
Most of those who used parler are now on Gettr or Truth Social or Retalk.
CNN Business - Kanye West to acquire conservative social media platform Parler - https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_ad4adf7e27837537f8b07523ab...
Associated Press - Kanye West to buy conservative social media platform Parler - https://apnews.com/article/kanye-west-parler-5b1cbdb1f311ae9...
Reuters - Kanye West to buy social media app Parler - https://www.reuters.com/technology/parler-be-acquired-by-kan...
Beyond that, most of his books are extremely anti-historical and filled with literal falsehoods. Foucaults take on leprosy is literally conspiracy theory tier BS and is anti-scientific.
1. On "pedophilia in Algeria": a. You are probably referring to the rumors started by Guy Sorman which mention crimes allegedly taking place in Tunisia, where he lived and taught, rather than Algeria. b. As described in a report (in French) published in the Obs[1], Foucault was under strict police surveillance when he lived in Tunisia, because of his political activities. The State was desperate to find a reason to convict him. One would think that allegations of rape and pedophilia wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Moreover, Sorman himself admitted that his allegations were not founded[2]. c. Even if these allegations were true (which they don't seem to be), I failed to see what they would have to do with the argument you are answering to. This would make him a criminal and a despicable person; it would not imply that nothing he wrote was philosophically and historically pertinent.
2. On the age of consent laws in France: your argument is simply dishonest. At the time, the age of consent for heterosexual relations was 15 (and it still is), whereas homosexual relations were forbidden until the age of 18, which was (rightfully) seen as discriminatory. However, some of the people involved in that movement were indeed despicable. 3. "most of his books are extremely anti-historical" That makes absolutely no sense. What does "anti-historical" mean? a. "filled with literal falsehoods". This is a gross overstatement. The accuracy of some facts described in some of Foucault's books have indeed been disputed, it doesn't make them "filled with falsehoods". b. "anti-scientific": that's ironic, because, for reasons that I cannot explain in much detail here (do study Foucault and make your own opinion about his work rather that believe what random strangers say on the Internet), it is, to some extent, precisely the point (but it is dealt with in a much more complex manner than what your comment leads one to think).
Think whatever you want about Foucault and his work, but please do your homework and don't spread ridiculous rumors and over-simplifications.
[1] https://www.nouvelobs.com/idees/20210506.OBS43714/michel-fou... [2] https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/idees-et-debats/michel-fou...
At no point was someone’s mental well-being not a point of mockery or weakness in society, I think.
And it doesn't end at the buyout. According to the deal that was described this morning, Parlers parent company stays open, and keeps billing Ye forever for "engineering and cloud services". He basically has to keep paying them for life, or start recruiting his own tech company, or shut the website down, even though he's the owner, he doesn't directly employ their employees nor owns their cloud accounts
This is the team at Parler taking advantage of someone who is very obviously having some serious mental issues
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/06/02/parlers-p...
[2] https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-719370
ye is buying parler specifically not the whole thing, parler currently runs on parlement but he could presumably move to anything else. the "consulting" part is pretty normal for a transition like this.
Instead he's the brave truth-teller telling us things that the Man (who, it turns out, ia jewish) doesn't want us to know. You see a bunch of celebrities and regular people alike fall into this trap — think of the former popular kid in high school who ended up as a janitor who spends their time "researching" the connection between vaccines and autism.
Reality is quite different. The people not getting vaccinated are the people who have dealt with the government the most. They have a certain distrust after years over years of dealing with the government.
Meaning, the vast majority of the antivax hate ends up impacting the most vulnerable in our society.
Hate is bad. It's anti-human and a huge step back. It doesn't make anyone, anywhere, morally superior and it definitely isn't a marker for intelligence.
In fact, swallowing wholesale the narrative by people who have a vast history of lying(or no history of any truth/intelligent ideas) is the least intelligent thing one can do.
These are weasel words. The antivax movement among progressive west-coast parents in the US has been covered frequently in the national media e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/us/measles-outbreak.html
> The people not getting vaccinated are the people who have dealt with the government the most.
This is also not true. They're mostly people with low educational attainment who are more susceptible to misinformation, but I can see the narrative you're trying to create!
> In fact, swallowing wholesale the narrative by people who have a vast history of lying(or no history of any truth/intelligent ideas) is the least intelligent thing one can do.
Good governments generally understand this, and the most effective health policy during the pandemic was to give the mic to the scientific community.
Even just the argument to support mandates has completely changed, and yet too late for those who lost their jobs.
There are billions of webpages that presumably say just about everything possible. The link to the NYT article that was never promoted doesn't do much in this regard
There are also plenty of scientists who have different opinions. Only scientists with certain opinions are given interviews/timeslots. This applies to Fox as it does CNN.
None of that matters though.
My points were not about vaccinations, they were about hate. The why isn't really important.
How is that creating a narrative? People with low education are also often people who deal with government programs a lot. Through medicare, social security, VA, police, public schooling, public housing and I can keep on going, these people are often dependent on government. And that combined with lower mental capacity really doesn't help.
> Good governments generally understand this, and the most effective health policy during the pandemic was to give the mic to the scientific community.
That's what they did in my country... And in my country, the covid anti-vaxxers are very relatable to the ones in the US. Hell, they get most their information from Q-anon.
This is no less true of the self-declared anti vaccination prophets, and their cousins the lab leakers. The one area in which "both sides" tends to be true is that there are condescending extremist never-shut-ups on every side of every issue, and even their allies often find them exhausting.
Reminds me of Inception. At least when I think of the overall outcome which I get to see daily.
But I agree the last couple of records weren't exactly radio friendly!
Probably never?
I'm the farthest thing from a fan of Kanye West, but this is false:
"West remains a considerable force in pop music. Every album except his debut, 2004’s “The College Dropout,” has topped the Billboard 200, including 2021’s “Donda,” which received a Grammy album of the year nomination. In the run-up to “Donda,” he held public “listening parties” at football stadiums in Atlanta and Chicago that were livestreamed on Apple Music (he was roundly criticized for bringing out special guests DaBaby and Marilyn Manson, who are each under scrutiny for bigoted language or alleged abuses). His sold-out December show with Drake at the L.A. Coliseum affirmed he’s still a formidable concert draw, one of few hip-hop acts who can credibly headline major global festivals." [1]
His continued popularity is precisely what makes his comments so dangerous.
There's no denying Kanye's words still have an impact, but his star is dimmer than it once was, and he knows it.
And isn't Kanye also still popular by those metrics?
However, measuring said relevancy is a very subjective endeavor (due to the fact that it’s hard to objectively evaluate things outside of our own bubble). In my view it’s whether the artist is “talked about” and whether they are influencing the current music (and a broader culture) - that’s what makes them relevant. Kanye is still doing both of those things, so he is very relevant.
Donda (and Donda 2 to a smaller degree) was a very noticeable cultural event. Listening parties, album guests, the controversy around his romantic relationships (scandalous IG posts, etc), merchandise (tied to his big fashion releases)…
Billy Joel has none of that. Nostalgic concerts are definitely not a sign of relevancy outside of his fandom bubble.
He's definitely lost his mind but to say he's lost his cultural relevance is a stretch.
Making the system invite-only may be a requirement.
If needed, split a team of moderators by political association and have each moderator handle the users of the "opposite" side.
Otherwise you end up getting shadow banned for reporting an actual call to violence which then took place.
This isn’t partisan hypocrisy — it’s applying an objective standard to a bad-faith argument.
I said that it is not free speech platform.
So they did. You should be happy?
It's really just about choosing who moderates your content. 0 moderation is not possible, so if you don't like Twitter, you can use Parler, and if you don't like Reddit, you can use Retalk, etc etc
Moreover, this title was not written by Parler. The free speech platform is editorializing by submitter.
Hard edge rappers are a relic of the 90s/00s. They still exist for sure, but its not going to ruin your cred if you dont "come from the streets".
I’m not talking about gangster cred or whatever. I mean, Beyonce isn’t harmless.
In all seriousness, he’s created a small and apparently growing following by fostering the “harmless” persona. Sure, he’s no Dr. Dre, but his songs have featured in a couple of relatively large ad campaigns even though they definitely aren’t “radio friendly”.
I don't care what he's said in the past. I don't have to agree with him on the issues to agree with him that the trend towards social media companies censoring people (sometimes in collusion with the government) is terrible for everyone except the globalist elites.
(that's a rhetorical question, don't answer please)
I am not advocating censorship, but want to point out that your hopes might be misplaced. The illuminating ideas this kind of a free speech platform usually attracts rarely go far beyond bigotry.
And absent it being an actual threat (which it's clearly not), I don't see what your issue is. Kanye West is well within his rights to criticize Jewish people the same way that literally every woke person is within their rights to criticize, nay, demonize white people these days on every social media, corporate media platform, and news outlet these days.
If he is "criticizing" Jewish people (which does not sound like it to me) - do you think it's not an antisemitic thing to do? (To pre-empt your counter-argument... yes, criticizing all white people is also racism/bigotry.) Treating a race, a nation, all followers of a religion, etc as a uniform group that can be subjected to some "criticism" is not an idea that's valuable to an open society. Saying that, I don't think people should be immediately banned for posts like that.
If you think we need a "free speech" app filled with these "valuable" ideas - that's fine, just don't expect that it will be a space for discussing opposing views. Places like that always end up on either extreme right or extreme left.