I just sent the following letter to Fb’s discussion forum about their censorship (email@example.com). Perhaps you may find it worth reading.
I’m a Mensan who has been researching the scientific and logical historical and archeological records of early Christianity and Judaism since the late 1950s.
What I found is that science, logic and hard evidence could evaporate current conflicts between Christians, Jews and Muslims.
But… resolving those differences is never going to happen with the current methodologies that have persistently and relentlessly failed for about 3 millennium. With our “traditional” courses, wars will always be imminent and peace an unreachable utopian fantasy.
I suspect that slanderous complaints against me have repeatedly resulted in my suspension; not just in Fb but Yahoo before that (a fact, not suspicion) and suppression of the only Netzarim website (www.netzarim.co.il; other sites have plagiarized my original work back in the 1970s) by search engines.
And my 4 decades + experience is people don’t grasp, see, conflicting information when they can avoid it. Whether it’s
Christians or Muslims who can’t “see” how their inherent (!) invalidation of Judaism causes their peers to feel that defending the validity of their religion requires invalidating Judaism, Jews and Israel; or
Orthodox Jews who can’t “see” how their anti-science stance and anti-Christian / anti-Muslim / xenophobia — even towards the IDF and other Jews who aren’t Ultra-Orthodox — offends and animates bitterness (and often motivates enmity; i.e. miso-Judaism / “anti-Semitism”) in the rest of the world toward Jews and Israel;
they only “get” it when it confronts them, unglossed (not PC) and head-on.
That cannot happen when censorship is determined by a PC vote or numbers of PC complaints. Nor can it happen when PC vote or numbers of PC complaints are disguised as “Fact checkers” who, in fact (!), cherry-pick PC votes or complaints. It can only happen when the touchstone is computational logic that determines a statement to be true, false or indeterminate; without exception.
If an unflattering statement is false, then it is defamatory and should (though, sadly, it doesn’t) have redress in court; i.e. sleeze — like what currently dominates and animates both American and Israeli politics these days. It doesn’t have to be true. The media can simply sleeze their opponents to destruction. If truth isn’t protected by free speech while sleeze is permitted by PC, where does that lead?
You appear to be headed down the path of what PC people like and don’t like; not what is true, false, indeterminate relative to reality / the real world.
Take slurs, which you discuss, for example. From a logician’s POV, most are logically invalid (generalizations). So they’d be unacceptable unless they can be demonstrated true in the instance stated. Truth must override even slurs. Logically, on one is black and no one is white. We’re all somewhere in the color spectrum between dark brown and pale pink. Clearly, a strictly logical approach will require a LOT of education. But it’s the only absolute that will work.
If an unflattering statement is true, then people need to learn to live with it instead of becoming dependent on zones that are protected from free speech.
When the truth of a statement is indeterminate, then it is merely opinion. While indeterminate speech should be forced to be stated in terms of opinion and not fact, it must never be censored. Demonstrate it false or protect it as free speech.
Speech that is defined by PC disguised as “Fact Checkers” is not free speech, AND violates the First Amendment. Socialists had “Fact Checkers” in the past. Look how that worked out. Should I not be able to point out that Nationalist Socialists in German was known by the acronym Nazi? Is that not true? Should I not be able to point out that Christians pray to (i.e. worship) a god-on-a-stick idol (crucifix) and 2-Dimensional depictions also included in the Torah definition of an idol?Christians don’t grasp why Jews object to praying with them and having Christmas in their face everywhere they turn for several months. The uncomfortable, but true, phrase ”
god-on-a-stick” might just get through to them how Jews can find Christian impositions upon us offensive. As a former Christian myself, I’m convinced that if they really understood that, they would have greater respect for our differences, reducing conflicts — and the underlying hate that drives the conflicts.
If people are proud of their choices then they should “own” them — AND deal with the truth about them. That’s reality. And personal responsibility and accountability. Denying reality is insanity.
Addendum 04.27: When you surrender your right to free speech to a group or groups who decide for you what speech will be stifled by media, then you’ve essentially surrendered to 1984 socialist brown-shirts to regulate what is and is not acceptable to say and write: tech-media defined PC. Most media are now socialist propaganda outlets: Goebbels-speak. They are socialist, they are controlling what you and I can say and write, they are propagandists: True. Goebbels-speak. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson pointed out some of the problem in tech censorship that has for some time already been censoring speech that disagrees with their world view of politics and religion (latest overnight broadcast, viewed in Israel this morning). That’s the only reason that that the socialist Dimocrat liberals have levitated socialist Dimocrats above the law and arbitrarily PC-defined realists POV (point-of-view) to be censored hate-speech. They have turned America into a giant “safe zone” for snowflakes in which you are no longer free to speak or write. They’ve been censoring me decades and you would not listen nor help. Now they’re censoring you.