Key takeaways:
1) Only after the massive outrage and backlash over the fake reporting did Google suddenly decide to remove a searchable definition.
2) .... there really needs no further takeaways on this. It's abundantly clear what is going on.
Google obeys the deep state and removes the definition for Bloodbath. 1984 is here.
Posts
Total:
22
-->
@Greyparrot
I'd like to remind everyone that Double_R wants you to know that just because they hide something your suspicions are not warranted. What with the trumpets running around the country we can't just hand out definitions to anyone. They might use those definitions for evil!
See: Paul Joseph Watson Doesn't Understand Anything
Dr. Layman criticizes the InfoWars reporter and prolific vlogger, Paul Joseph Watson, for being hypocritical and scientifically illiterate.
Paul Joseph Watson
needs his balls roasted off him
he sucks dick and Alex does almost as often
needs his balls roasted off him
he sucks dick and Alex does almost as often
-->
@FLRW
NO ONE is in more dire need of learning how to disagree without being disagreeable than radical liberals. In the Left's ongoing war against conservatives and conservative ideas, slander and libel have become routine. A contemporary liberal would much rather damn conservatives with a toxic label -- "racist," "homophobe," "fascist" -- than actually debate their ideas on the merits.
One reason leftists resort so readily to character-assassination is that it's a lot easier than resorting to logic, facts, and persuasion. But another is that they're never called on it. Let Newt Gingrich mock Bill and Hillary Clinton as "counterculture McGoverniks," and torrents of denunciation pour forth. But there isn't even a ripple of objection when Vice President Al Gore characterizes Republicans as wanting "to create as much . . . discord and hatefulness as they possibly can and follow a scorched-earth political strategy: burn down the house in hopes that you'll inherit the ashes."
Intellectual bankruptcy is the father of character assassination.
Because far-left liberals are the most intellectually bankrupt group in America, they are the ones who resort most often to character assassination.
When liberals are confronted with arguments they cannot answer, they hide their inability to answer the argument by attacking the person. This desperate resort to name-calling is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem.
Thus, if you do not think American taxpayers should reward illegal immigrants for breaking our laws by putting them on welfare and providing them with free education, you are called a racist.
If you believe in equal opportunity rather than mandated racial, ethnic and gender quotas, you are a racist and a sexist.
If you do not agree with liberal Democrats’ legislative agenda, you are a right-wing extremist. In the liberal lexicon, there are only moderates (themselves) and right-wing extremists. For some reason, no such thing as a left-wing extremist exists.
If you think American education should instill in American students a pride in their country and culture, you are called a jingoist or a nativist.
If you think Congress should restrict legal immigration, you are a racist and a nativist.
If you think the First Amendment allows people to dance naked, talk dirty and burn the U.S. flag, you are a civil libertarian. If, however, you think it allows prayer in public schools, you are right-wing, fascist, fundamentalist Christian. If you think the Second Amendment means what it says – that people have a right to keep and bear arms – you are a gun nut.
If you think children within the womb deserve the same protection as children without, you are an anti-choice, religious fanatic.
If you think America’s trade laws should ensure that American manufacturers have an equal playing field, rather than being destroyed by overseas slave or sweatshop labor, you are an isolationist and a protectionist.
If you think Israel should sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and stop abusing the human rights of Palestinians, you are an anti-Semite.
There has been some discussion in this country about the decline of civility and the deterioration of the quality of public dialogue. Both have occurred, and both have occurred mainly because of the left’s routine resort to insult rather than logic.
This is a bad thing for the country, and liberals deserve to be called on it. Already, now that Republicans have reluctantly decided to move toward a balanced budget, they are being accused of wanting to starve children and abandon the elderly, allowing them to freeze to death.
That’s a crappy argument. In fact, it’s no argument, just like all the other cases cited above. To believe in democracy is to believe in (a) a free debate based on reason and facts; and (b) to accept the results of the outcome with grace. Those who try to poison public debate with insults and name-calling and then sabotage the results every time they lose in the public arena are, in spirit and in fact, acting in the manner of totalitarians.
Some American fascists masquerading as liberals go even further and try to silence people whose arguments they can’t answer by intimidation or economic pressures. Such people are vile and villainous and deserve nothing but contempt from those who value freedom and reason.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'd like to remind everyone that Double_R
This doesn't sound like double R. He usually has sensible political opinions for example he believe in institutional racism and also wants to expand the size and scope of government institutions.
-->
@WyIted
This is true, and I respect DoubleR for being honest about that.
-->
@WyIted
[ADOL] Since a doctor should absolutely not hide anything about someone's medical state from the person in question any refusal to reveal any information is suspicious.[Double_R] The situation you describe is suspicious because you defined it as being suspicious.If someone is "hiding" something from you, they're by definition doing it to conceal the truth.The question here is whether one's withholding of the facts is being done to conceal the truth or for other legitimate reasons, such as for example the protection of rights. The motivation here is the question, you don't get to declare your point proven by asserting it so.
He usually has sensible political opinions
I've got a list that says otherwise.
Is this denying election results?:
"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter
It is and Hillary made the same claim. Funny thing is that Bill told her team what thy needed to do to win. He said to focus on the rustbelt and talk to working class people an her campaign team laughed at him. Laughed at a guy who won 2 presidential elections as if he didn't have a clue how to run a succesful presidential campaign
-->
@WyIted
"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy CarterIt is and Hillary made the same claim.
I know, and is it "sensible" to claim that just because these democrats used these same words as MAGA election deniers that does not mean the democrats were actually denying elections?
-->
@Greyparrot
Bloodbath? Isn't that when Biden swims in the pool filled with the blood of Palestinian children?
-->
@Benjamin
According to the recently updated Google definition, this is the ONLY administration approved definition.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
- an event or situation in which many people are killed in a violent manner."he allowed the protest to go ahead despite warnings that it would spark a bloodbath"
Notice the purposeful example Google displays now. Nothing wrong going on at all here.....
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.
-1984
-->
@Greyparrot
Google tends to default to Oxford as a gold standard dictionary, that's just a tendency Google developed along its development. It's Oxford dictionaries it's rendering from via AI and presenting to you as the top result. Oxford is the one censoring, Google just didn't switch it.
It's a valid example of cancel culture but this was Oxford, not Google.
-->
@RationalMadman
There are four meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun bloodbath. See ‘Meaning & use’ for definitions, usage, and quotation evidence.
bloodbath has developed meanings and uses in subjects including
Google only recently eliminated 3 of the 4 oxford definitions, while also fabricating an example to imply Trump incited a bloodbath with a protest.
This isn't the 1st time Google got caught interfering in an election.
-->
@Greyparrot
are you signed up to see that? It's rendering from the freely available, which is only 1. Try to open up the 4 without an account.
Have you paid a subscription?
RationalMadman,
It's google that changed what it showed. See how it changed from dictionary.com to oxford? (and then choose to show only one definition)
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
there are several things different including device.
It looks like it realised person A enjoys dictionary.com much more and deviated from defaulting to Oxford for them.
There's an 'x' on the search bar for them and a link beneath the default which both aren't there for person 2. Person 2 is getting the default. However, I predict Oxford tweaked it potentially, not interested if I'm honest.
It's well known that Oxford is one of the fastest dictionaries to alter for cancel culture out of the prominent ones.
-->
@Greyparrot
Because far-left liberals are the most intellectually bankrupt group in America, they are the ones who resort most often to character assassination.When liberals are confronted with arguments they cannot answer, they hide their inability to answer the argument by attacking the person.
Reporter: “What do you say to Americans, who are watching you right now, who are scared?”
President: "I say that you’re a terrible reporter"
Yep, those liberals just can't answer a question without attacking the person.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What's your take on this article?
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree with the conclusion. I've seen too many "anecdotes" to doubt it.
It didn't surprise me at all that the feds were caught directing the censorship. The fact that there aren't hundreds of people in prison while Joe Biden hasn't been impeached and convicted for direct violations of the bill of rights is high on the list of reasons why the constitution is beyond any shadow of doubt a null and void social contract even for those who consented to it once in their hearts.
Proving such thing by looking at search results is not possible, that's reverse engineering a black box I'm sure almost no one at google search understands themselves.
They have levers they're pulling but we will never be able to differentiate that from random algorithmic behavior since they claim to factor in all data and process it in any way they please (probably literally opaque matrices of non-linear operators aka neural nets aka machine learning)