The Bill C-10 Controversy

So I read the summary of this controversial Bill C-10, and here's my take:

The people braying about how it's "censorship"...they're exaggerating. And those exaggerations are backed by...Conservative/Right-Wing voices. Politicians and critics, "journalists", lawmakers, academics, everyone who is a right-leaning fuckwit, is crying about the bill. And the gist of their argument is this:

 

It makes room for censorship of individual expression.

 

And that's because of the ambiguity that was left in the bill. This argument they're pushing is what's called a "slippery slope" fallacy. All that the Bill C-10 does its AMEND current broadcasting regulations to include streaming services, and the likes of YouTube and TikTok, in promoting Canadian content and to try to make their programming more accessible to minority groups, including the disabled (such as myself). 

 

You see, these dishonest critics are making a mountain of a molehill. They're doing it because they don't expect damn near anyone who they're trying to appeal to to actually READ THE BILL ITSELF, because it's a long document and isn't fucking interesting to read. Well, it's a legal document made to enact legal and regulatory change, so of course it won't be interesting to read. But it's informative because you know what it's meant to do.

 

Why are the Conservative-types doing this? Because they're contrarian assholes, that's why. Imagine if you will, the Conservatives wanted to make their own bill akin to Bill C-10, which AMENDS current regulations regarding broadcasting. These dishonest assholes in our media, regardless of medium (social media, TV media, print media, etc.), would praise it to the heavens. 

 

This is sociopolitical theatre, people. It's showmanship. They think their voters — the people who see things a certain way that benefits these charlatans and opportunists — are too uneducated and impulsive to challenge their divisive (and frankly distracting, likely from their real agendas, whatever they may be) machinations. And the sad thing is that they're right. This is a demonstrable and unfortunate FACT in sociopolitical discourse time and time again. And it's hurting us all in the end.

 

Don't worry about Bill C-10. Technically, all regulations and laws are fucking exploitable anyway, and that's kind of the point to begin with. Think for yourself instead of going with the reactionary bullshit that's crying about so-called "censorship" being foisted upon us with this bill. That's not what it does at all. The best that the people who are pushing this narrative have got to support their argument is that it's somewhat ambiguous in what scope of content on these newly-amended platforms (Netflix Canada, Amazon Prime, TikTok, YouTube, etc.) will be regulated. They don't even really try to substantiate anything, relying only on a slippery slope fallacy that it MIGHT lead to censorship of content.

 

Sometimes you just want to blast yourself into space somewhere and get away from all of this noise.

You Can't Parody This...

Oh hey, I have an overnight sleep study tonight at one of the hospitals. I'll have cathodes and all that attached to my head and whatnot. And I'll sleep on a really crappy hospital bed while I'm at it!

On to the actual subject at hand: The following example, which played out yesterday at a press conference held by the current premiere and his closest confidantes (who play a role in managing the pandemic and the economy), is not the first one to blur the line between real life & parody. Far from it, even. Same goes for it being the last, unfortunately enough. But what can we expect from a government which was only voted in due to rampant cynicism and shitty politics in general. What can we expect from the Conservative party of Canada, which has been doing its level best in at least three provinces to out-stupid the other ones. Kenney, Moe, and Ford have all been vying for some kind of recognition and/or infamy, competing like its a bloodsport. Without the blood, of course, at least not yet.

What happened yesterday in that press conference (all twenty-seven and a half of it) was the stuff of comedy, only it was unintentional I think. Without further ado: Doug Ford, the PM who outlives his drug dealing brother Rob Ford (previous mayor of Toronto), at the end of the conference, plugged not only Tim Horton's (a Brazilian-owned company), but shilled for their "real egg" sandwiches as well. You can't make this shit up if you tried. He actually segued from talking about a Peterborough, ON woman who apparently would hand out $10 gift cards for the (shitty) restaurant brand, even placing them on public benches.

Sure, this isn't a travesty or anything. It's not even despicable or evil or anything like that. It's just complete idiocy is all. And a possible ethics violation if you were to ask me. But I'm not an expert of how laws apply to this instance of shameless corporate shilling, but I'm still sure that there's something that could be done about it. One of the primary subjects brought forward in that presser was that of the province's plan to re-open the economy. Another bit of comedy to come from the presser was that as he was contradicted the safety orders put in place by HIS cabinet, in order to stem the tide of the virus for a bit. Oh and he also took no responsibility for his part in the growing pandemic and just blamed (almost) everyone under the sun.

People are laughing at us right now. They're laugh at Ontarians. They're laughing at Ford. Canada's politics sinks further into a hole and it has left wanting some kind of return to sanity again.  

BlogTO has lots of details on this if you want to read on it: Doug Ford gives weird shoutout to Tim Horton's egg sandwich in press conference

You can see it for yourself, in action, at the following (starts at 26:49):
https://youtu.be/RhqZ1DFC0-I?t=1609

Word of Mouth #10: The Menzingers - Rented World

The Menzingers - "In Remission" on YouTube

This release arrives April 22, 2014, courtesy of Epitaph records.

Finally, folk punk gets a shoutout from me.

The Menzingers have been going at it since 2006, which is by no means a long stint but it needn't be in order to drive home a point in the punk genre. These guys couple a somewhat contemporary punk sound with rather intelligent lyrics that don't veer off into skater punk territory. "Rented World" will be up for grabs as of April 22nd, so be sure to check out the song linked above and even show your appreciation by buying the album when it drops!

Thanks, Menzingers.

Word of Mouth #5: Future Of The Left - How to Stop Your Brain in an Accident

Future of the Left - Bread, Cheese, Bow and Arrow on Soundcloud

Future of the Left - How to Stop Your Brain in an Accident (Full Album) on YouTube

From the album 'How to Stop Your Brain in an Accident', released through the band's own label Prescriptions Music.

Holy shit...

This one dropped this past October, and somehow I only became privy to its existence tonight, after watching TheNeedleDrop's video review on this album. In retrospect, I feel deprived of stimulating aural bliss from works like these. So anyway, after watching the video review, I checked them out, given that he mentioned the band's past works (McLusky was name-dropped) and the music seemed genuinely interesting just from his description of the music within this album. With all of that in mind, and getting hooked just from the opening song (which I linked to up above), I came to really like this shit.

So I'll shut up about all that and tell you that if you haven't heard this album yet, and you think you could appreciate their music (if Anthony Fantano's review of the album is anything to go by at least), then GIVE IT A LISTEN. 

Oh and in closing; spread the word! I'm doing that here, and good god if you love music like this as well then you'd share the love, too.

Opportunistic Racism, Failed Anti-Theism

UPDATE: This is pretty late to the party I feel, and that can be attributed to the fact that I've largely forgotten about this blog. I've been quite distracted from literary pursuits for a while.

First of all, view the subject of this post here: Cult of Dusty: Black Christians = Uncle Toms. Or you can just watch it above (added with edit).

Cult of Dusty is one of those vitriolic opinion channels, or vloggers (he calls himself a comedian when necessary), run by an anti-theist at that, masquerading as an "entertainment" channel. At least, the aforementioned descriptor is the defense Dusty wields when he gets smacked hard for the profoundly idiotic things he will say & do in his videos.

Convenience is the way of the vitriolic, because if he were an honest man, he'd have remembered the Abolitionist Movement, which, for the uninitiated, aimed to abolish the widespread slavery of Africans. They were passionate about their goal to end enslavement of others, and considering that Martin Luther King's legacy has celebrated a half-century milestone this year, Dusty implicitly called Martin Luther King Jr., a man of faith, a fucking Uncle Tom. A race traitor. Consider this, given everything stated previously; the Abolitionists & Martin Luther King Jr. were Christians, very much so, and they stood up against slavery.

Don't forget the very progressive (for his time) founding father by the name of John Adams. He railed against slavery entirely, unlike one or two of the founding fathers every anti-theist likes to name (Washington & Jefferson).

There's a lot of things wrong with his methodology and I'll break down a few that are noticeable:

1) He takes the bible too literally
 For such a devout, outspoken anti-theist, he sure does a poor job of not lending credence to the religions he speaks out against. When you base entire arguments off of what holy books say, that means you're taking such works literally. By doing this, you're placing yourself on the flip-side of the same coin on which you'd find fundamentalist religious people. Inadvertently or not, you're giving power to the passages and ideas found within religious texts by taking them at their word, or in other words, literally. After all, aren't they works of embezzled fiction, according to the logic of anti-theists? If they are bullshit, as many anti-theists would tell you, then why would they use holy books and the writings within as major focal points for their arguments against religion?

Logic. What?

2) He's fucking racist, even though he implies he is not
By stating that Black Christians are Uncle Toms because of their faith (Christianity in this case), utilizing the rather piss-poor argument of quoting (and taking out of context in doing so) a number of passages in Leviticus and whatnot he's being racist. Keep in mind that none of the passages he quotes in his video explicitly describe black people, let alone white people enslaving blacks. He's basically arguing that black people are beholden, by some measure or whatever the fuck it is, to other black people. This is especially jarring considering that there have been anti-slavery figureheads who argued that black people are no different from white people. After all, the most significant difference (and also the most noticeable) between the two is the amount of melanin in the skin.

Dusty conveniently neglects to mention that (in spite of bringing up Samuel Jackson's character in the film Django Unchained, but that really seems to be the best that he can muster) a number of Africans sold out their brethren to slave owners. So much for the mantra, from Martin Luther King Jr., that people should be judged by their character rather than their skin colour. Perhaps he didn't get that memo?

3) He largely ignores the Abolitionist Movement, spearheaded by Christians
He says this, and it's the only passing remark he makes about it at all: "Believe it or not, there were actually a few people back then that said, "Hey! This is a bad idea we should not enslave our fellow human beings." That's it. Talk about being disingenuous! Consider that William Wilberforce, a by-the-books Christian, wrote this in one of his journals as a young man:

"God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation Manners.” 1


Also read the following:

After studying slavery, particularly the “Middle Passage”, Wilberforce jumped into action. “So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the Trade’s wickedness appear,” as Wilberforce told Parliament, “that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition.” 1

What about Abbey Kelley Foster, a woman with a Quaker heritage, who was a strong proponent in the rise of the abolition movement? She had helped to begin and had served as a key speaker at the  National Women's Rights Convention in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1850 2.  While fervent in her anti-slavery stance, she was not one to censor her opponents, and thus she resigned from the more suppressive tenets of her movement in order to allow both sides to be heard. After she was ostracized from said movement, she went on to help establish the American Anti-Slavery Society. From then on out, "Abbey Kelleyism" became a new type of anti-slavery movement, describing a radical opposing stance on said issue.

Lucretia Mott, also having strong ties to Quakerism, was not only a strong supporter of women's rights (this was long, long before Women's Suffrage was passed in U.S. law, just so you know), would over a period of time deliver sermons about the abolitionist movement, women's rights, and other hot button issues of the time. She had once said of the "duty (that) was impressed upon me at the time I consecrated myself to that Gospel which anoints 'to preach deliverance to the captive, to set at liberty them that are bruised ..." 3. She helped the Free Produce Society boycott goods made by slaves, was an active & serving member of the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, and helped lead slaves to free territory (such as Canada).

These noted few examples of exemplary opponents of slavery in an era rife with slave trading and ownership were Christians, spoke highly of the role of religion in removing this baneful treatment of fellow humans, and put into place a movement that would lead to radical change and even the Civil War.

But if you watch Dusty's video without your critical thinking switch on, you'd be none the wiser. His convenience at ignoring the Christians who actively fought against the slave trade is quite profound. Not to mention, he is either entirely ignorant of, or conveniently brushed aside the culturally significant I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King Jr., which contained the passage:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. 4

'Nuff said.

REFERENCES:

1: http://www.wilberforcecentral.org/wfc/Wilberforce/index.htm
2: http://www.wwhp.org/Resources/Biographies/KelleyFoster/1850.html
3: Greene, Dana (April 1981). "Quaker Feminism: The Case of Lucretia Mott". Pennsylvania History 48 (2): 149.
4: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/17/i-have-a-dream-speech-text_n_809993.html

I'm Being Silenced! Force Freedom of Speech (on Private Enterprise)!

Read the subject of this post here: http://amazingatheist.tumblr.com/post/58763857547/youtube-is-100-within-its-rights-to-remove-your

I've written about TJ a few times so far and each time I thought I've seen the worst of him, it seems that he tops himself a little later on, so I then feel the need to comment on him again.

The gist of the situation behind the linked Tumblr post is that a number of TJ's YouTube videos were flagged for removal. Now, no one knows the full story yet, perhaps neither does he, but it's safe to say even at this point that he is indeed being censored. The party responsible is unknown, but that's not really important. What is important is how he is reacting to the issue.

It's fine that he's notifying his more active followers to keep themselves posted on his other social media outlets, but in saying the following...

Let’s consider that for a moment. Should your phone company control what you say on the phone? Should your ISP control what you say online? Then why should YouTube get to control what you post on YouTube? 

If YouTube was a small, exclusive site, I think your argument would have merit. But YouTube is large enough now, culturally important enough now, that we must extend First Amendment protections to YouTube videos.

 ...he does himself no favors. To compare companies which provide actual services to that of websites, albeit with very high traffic (YouTube is ranked #3 by the Alexa Ranking System globally & in the U.S.), is fucking ridiculous. Memorandum to TJ: their site is their god damn private property, and they can set the terms of service for using their site(s) any way they damn well please.

Here is what he responded to. Keep in mind that it contains a bit of vitriol directed at him, but compared to what he's received from many other sources, it's pretty tame:

Youtube is 100% within its rights to remove your videos. They are a company. You are allowed to hold whatever (fucking stupid) opinions you wish, but they are IN NO WAY obligated to give you a platform from which to spout said (fucking stupid) opinions. Yes, I am "for real". I know you wish women didn't exist, but sadly for your sorry fat ass, they do.

Too bad for the big guy that the poster of the above (verbatim) paragraph is 100% correct regarding Youtube's rights on controlling content that populates what is their property. When TJ said that "if YouTube was a small, exlusive site, I think your argument would have merit", he threw in a non-sequitur; the size & reach of an entity in a market, except for utilities, does not serve as a barometer on whether said entity should be regulated in any way by the government. Instead, the function of a company is a category upon which to consider regulations of a private organization. Owned by Google (whose service I am using now, obviously), a private corporation, they are explicitly excluded from freedom of speech rights as declared by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The government has no ability to set limits, or even lift them completely, in the private sector.

And it should stay that way.

I assume that you, reader, have gleaned the aforementioned amendment within a valid copy of the document from which it can be found. In that case, I don't need to quote it to support my argument that TJ is either somehow ignorant of said amendment (the old-world English as used in said document may have threw him for a loop), or is outright cherry-picking it in order to advocate for the abolition of the barrier set in place by that same document. Given his nature as a money-hungry, fraudulent, shady motherfucker since, as an actual example, he's still wrapped in a controversy regarding his $17,000+ video embedding site (which went down within two months of launching, and has yet to return to full operating order as of this writing), I feel that he falls into the latter case.

An argument that pushes government mandates on freedom of speech rights within the private realm, be it the home of the Average Joe (provided it isn't owned by government assets and thus, being publicly-owned property), a small business, a web business, or anything along those lines, is an unsound argument. First of all, it violates the Constitution itself. Second, because YouTube (and Google, henceforth) are accessed by users throughout the world and their assets are not exclusively rooted in the United States (in spite of being founded in Menlo Park, California), it would be a burden to legally impose Free Speech laws on YouTube alone because it would have to be applied distinctly according to the rights (or lack thereof) of each country which grants access to the site. Google's monetary assets are extremely high, and they could challenge such wasteful theoretical scenarios with the best legal teams their money could buy.

TheAmazingAtheist, an admitted Social Libertarian (mind you that within the same context, Social Liberal is virtually synonymous with that position), who held starkly Libertarian views on economics, essentially wishes for the government (his government, mind you) to re-write the Constitution so as to mandate freedom of speech laws on the private sector, particularly YouTube/Google. Keep in mind that this is not out of principle, but rather out of necessity, for him. He doesn't care about the experience of others, but that of his own, since the guy is laughably dependent on his earnings through Google AdSense via YouTube partnership. He's also a shameless beggar who comes up with sob stories or snake oil sales schemes to bilk money out of his more naive subscribers. His channel is, due to a large number of his uploaded videos being flagged down, likely going to be on the chopping block and he is understandably in panic mode.

But arguing for the intervention of the Government to protect his right to a platform and to speak freely on what is the property of a private corporation is not only desperately reaching, it's sadly hilarious. I hope he realizes just how idiotic his response was to the user who posted that comment on his Tumblr, because if that were enacted in the U.S., then it would set a bad precedent of yet conceived proportions. I feel bad for the guy because he's a weak-willed individual with seemingly few principles, if any at all, and will say or do anything to avoid having to get a fucking job like most people do. After all, people who work earn their money, but he has to beg for it. He's 28 fucking years old and he asks for handouts in ways no different than teenagers, but the difference between he and teenagers is that he manages to sell himself doing it.

RE: I dont' want a doctor

Click here for the post I am replying to.

I don't buy this.

I do agree, to some extent, that North America's medical establishment is quite flawed and in many cases, is more about shilling for pharmaceutical companies than actually improving your health. However, if you are really going through an episode of dementia, then get something done about it.

Apparently, this was invoked by huge amounts of stress. What could cause such stress? And you argue that you wanted to die happy. Well, are you happy right now? Were you happy before this "episode" rounded its ugly head? I think this is your means of justifying your pessimism towards the medical establishment, and refraining from seeing a doctor. I know you'd be taking a chance, but it's not definite knowledge that they'll inject you with chemicals that come with side-effects. Let alone your assumption that they'll 'experiment' on you somehow, which comes across as misinformed and paranoid.

Frankly, I think the two of you are in a scam. I think this is bullshit, twisted as it is. If you lost 3 years of your life, as young as you are, then how the fuck do you have the mental skill to write blog posts? How the fuck do you remember your blogspot, and the login details?

Attention seems to be your drug, which you share with your boyfriend, obviously (a match made in Heaven, I guess). Believe me, I've seen people sink to unthinkable lows to garner attention, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's all you and Greg are looking for. It's funny how you seem to be rational in your blog posts (as unreasonable as they are), but in the videos Greg has shared with the world, you don't even appear mentally capable of putting together a coherent sentence. And all of this is a bid for the attention you crave, because that's all you feel you have left in your sad little life?

Then again, people like you who try to make the world revolve around you and your problems are hardly ever capable of reprisal. I've met people like you and you all have made me sick with your bullshit, hurting others and whining about it to people acting like a fucking victim. And if my suspicion of this being a total joke is true, then what you ought to do is get the hell off the internet. Before your 'sad' life is really ruined. How would you like to have an encyclopedia dramatica article made about you and your boyfriend's antics? How would you like Anonymous to go after you because you're jerking everyone off with this bullshit?

And seriously, to have such a callous attitude speaks volumes of your character. The video from the channel TJDoesLife is sincere concern, while at the same time he does hold contempt for your asshole attention whore boyfriend. You calling him a prick because he almost entirely got pissed at Greg is telling. I'm not buying this. I am, however, going to tell you one last thing about Greg, since he's the one uploading VIDEOS of this to the world, thus making it everybody's business.

If you really have gone through memory loss, which is a very possible symptom of dementia, Alzheimer's Disease, or a brain tumor, then Greg is an exploitative piece of psychopathic shit.

If you didn't go through what could be early on-set Alzheimer's Disease, memory loss because of dementia, or a symptom of a brain tumor, then Greg is an exploitative piece of psychopathic shit.

See how they both turn out the same? In one scenario, you and he came up with a glaring lie, a grab for attention through an emotionally charged scenario. And in the other, at the behest of your mental health, he chose to exploit you for the world to see so that he can get more views. Why else would he put ADVERTISEMENTS next to the video, hmm?