Punishing censorship on social media: what do you think?

[ImmortalFlame]

I do respect your views, but
We speak two different languages, really.
We are the most outspoken country in the world. And the most politically incorrect country in Europe.
So we have a completely different vision of freedom of speech.

This is our PM
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I7n8B_A4Q2o

Considering Italy is not even in the top 50 on the press freedom index and you just elected a fascist, I am not so sure you're a fit judge of your own place in the world.

 

[Estro Felino]

Considering Italy is not even in the top 50 on the press freedom index and you just elected a fascist, I am not so sure you're a fit judge of your own place in the world.

If you go to the outskirts of Rome and ask people whether they identify as racists...what do you think the answer will be?

And by the way that index was made by Anglo-Saxons, it's as reliable as a 30 dollar bill.
I mean... Tommy Robinson received a journalism award in Italy. He was jailed in UK. Big difference.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you go to the outskirts of Rome and ask people whether they identify as racists...what do you think the answer will be?

Probably a lie.

And by the way that index was made by Anglo-Saxons, it's as reliable as a 30 dollar bill.
I mean... Tommy Robinson received a journalism award in Italy. He was jailed in UK. Big difference.

Yeah. You apparently love racists, criminals and liars.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah. You apparently love racists, criminals and liars.

You should make a list of all the likes of Tommy Robinson.
So we can give them honorary citizenship...and they can move to Italy.
They would be home, here

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You should make a list of all the likes of Tommy Robinson.
So we can give them honorary citizenship...and they can move to Italy.
They would be home, here

So you admit you like racists, criminals and liars?

 

[Estro Felino]

So you admit you like racists, criminals and liars?

I don't think Tommy Robinson is a criminal. I think he is an outspoken person.
I value his freedom of thought. That's all.
He received a journalism award by a very outspoken newspaper in Italy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't think Tommy Robinson is a criminal.

He has multiple convictions to his name.

I think he is an outspoken person.

True. Also a racist, lying criminal.

I value his freedom of thought. That's all.

Nah. I don't buy it.

He received a journalism award by a very outspoken newspaper in Italy.

Oh really? Lemme guess: it's a really racist, right-wing one?

 

[Estro Felino]

Oh really? Lemme guess: it's a really racist, right-wing one?

. A newspaper of the province of Bologna.
A Tommy Robinson il “Premio Oriana Fallaci” - Thank You Oriana

 

[ImmortalFlame]

. A newspaper of the province of Bologna.
A Tommy Robinson il “Premio Oriana Fallaci” - Thank You Oriana

Do you have any information about that prize? From my cursory examination, it doesn't appear that such a prize actually exists. It's not even mentioned in the Wiki bio for Oriana Fallaci.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you have any information about that prize? From my cursory examination, it doesn't appear that such a prize actually exists. It's not even mentioned in the Wiki bio for Oriana Fallaci.

Maybe if you look for it in Italian pages....

 

[Stevicus]

@Stevicus
There is an interview with Barr on the Hannity Show.

I just saw part of the interview, and she seemed to be confused that her comment was interpreted as racial when she says she meant it to be political. Her comment was definitely rude and nasty, but is it on the same level as Nazism or the KKK? I don't think so. That may be why "political correctness" or "wokeness" might be rejected by some, since it's perceived as too unreasonable as to equate relatively mild, off-the-cuff comments with the "worst of the worst." It makes it appear that the "woke" crowd has no perception, as if they can't see any difference between Roseanne and Hitler.

It really has little to do with free speech or the rights of a business to fire employees for cause, but it's more a matter of wondering whether they have any sense of perspective at all. Excessive overuse of the race card seems to have had some consequences in terms of how the general public reacts to it. (I sometimes wonder if "wokeness" isn't some sort of put-on or false flag designed to create more conflict and dissension. After all, "political correctness" was originally a product of the Reagan Administration and Corporate America.)

By the way, as you may know, Libya is just an open book to me. To all Italians it is.
I do know what was done in Libya, back in the days. And that Gaddafi was hated because he used to fight radicals. But how can you be called a tyrant just because you jail the radicals and the Salafists that would like to take Libya back to the Middle Ages?

The first time I heard about Gaddafi was in the 1980s, and it was just after the Iranian hostage crisis. I think that in the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam era of the late 1970s, Americans continued to be more self-reflective, cynical about government, and skeptical about America's perceived role in the world. Though it would have been a good time to start dealing with certain problems such as climate change, pollution, overpopulation, overdependence upon fossil fuels, the geopolitics of the Cold War, and many other issues, Iran suddenly went berserk and screamed out "Pay attention to us!" As a result, America started paying more attention to that part of the world. There have been allegations that the Reagan campaign colluded with the Iranians to make Carter look bad and help Reagan win the White House. Whether true or not, the end result was that a senile, reckless warmonger was now in charge of America, and a more militaristic, aggressive policy was in store.

But what most people outside of America really can't seem to understand is that Americans tend to see themselves and their country as basically nice, freedom-loving, and good people. Even people who speak candidly of our history, it's usually presented as something that's in the past, but now we're nice and good.

So, whenever someone like Gaddafi is presented in the media as someone who doesn't like America, Americans tend to interpret that as someone who "hates us for our freedom." As a result, he becomes another "deplorable," someone who is to be denigrated and blackened in the eyes of the people - completely irredeemable and forever condemned as an enemy.

 

[Estro Felino]

The first time I heard about Gaddafi was in the 1980s, and it was just after the Iranian hostage crisis. I think that in the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam era of the late 1970s, Americans continued to be more self-reflective, cynical about government, and skeptical about America's perceived role in the world. Though it would have been a good time to start dealing with certain problems such as climate change, pollution, overpopulation, overdependence upon fossil fuels, the geopolitics of the Cold War, and many other issues, Iran suddenly went berserk and screamed out "Pay attention to us!" As a result, America started paying more attention to that part of the world. There have been allegations that the Reagan campaign colluded with the Iranians to make Carter look bad and help Reagan win the White House. Whether true or not, the end result was that a senile, reckless warmonger was now in charge of America, and a more militaristic, aggressive policy was in store.

But what most people outside of America really can't seem to understand is that Americans tend to see themselves and their country as basically nice, freedom-loving, and good people. Even people who speak candidly of our history, it's usually presented as something that's in the past, but now we're nice and good.

So, whenever someone like Gaddafi is presented in the media as someone who doesn't like America, Americans tend to interpret that as someone who "hates us for our freedom." As a result, he becomes another "deplorable," someone who is to be denigrated and blackened in the eyes of the people - completely irredeemable and forever condemned as an enemy.

As you may know, Libya was a former Italian colony.
Italians have never imposed their language on them. In Libya the administrative language was Arabic, even during the fascist period.
There have been always excellent relations in every step of the process of decolonization. Unlike the French who even waged war against one of their former colonies, Algeria (...).

Libya was one of the wealthiest countries in the Mediterranean. Tripoli had skyscrapers, banks, luxurious hotels and spas. It was a very, very modern Arabic-speaking country.
Gaddafi was a capable statesman. He was incredibly admired by Italians: if they had had the slightest suspicion of violations of human rights, they would have said it to the world.

As you know, there are fundamentalist countries in the ME, pretty far from Libya...let's say states led by Arabs who became billionaires thanks to their own oilfields. In those countries women are treated like property, there are no human rights for apostates, atheists, LGBTs and so on.
These countries fund radicalism and fundamentalism in all the Mediterranean area and could not stand that an enlightened socialist leader was modernizing the entire Maghreb area.
So they needed to eliminate him.
And I am afraid they had the support from a president who is not a Christian.