censorship

German Language Police Group Decides to ‘UnWord’ the Term ‘Climate Hysteria’

Orwell rolls in his grave; Newspeak dictionary 2020.

Published

1 month ago

22 January, 2020

A German panel of linguists which decides on a new word to ‘ban’ every year has announced the ‘un-wording’ of the term “climate hysteria” because it undermines propaganda about man-made global warming.

First of all, just let it sink in that there is an organization comprised of linguists which exists solely to ‘ban’ words and terms that they don’t like. Their action is known as ‘Un-word of the year’.

They’re literally attempting to re-create 1984’s Newspeak dictionary, which shrank in size year after year in order to eliminate language and limit free thought and free speech, making it harder for the plebs to vocalize their opposition to The Party.

As you may have suspected, every word or term already ‘banned’ by the group in recent years are ones used by conservatives to challenge leftist political tropes. Imagine my shock.

Terms ‘un-worded’ in recent years include “alternative facts,” “do-gooder,” “Lügenpresse” (liar press) and “welfare tourism” (referring to “foreigners in Germany allegedly leeching on the welfare system.”)

The panel says it exists to discourage the use of words that “discriminate against societal groups or may be euphemistic, disguising or misleading.”

Perhaps nervous that more Germans appear to be rejecting the cult of man-made climate change despite vociferous propaganda, this year the panel has chosen to ‘un-word’ the term “climate hysteria.”

According to the panel, which contains no scientists, the term “defames climate protection efforts and the climate protection movement, and discredits important discussions about climate protection.”

“Keeping the Newspeak Dictionary as thin as possible in hopes that this will narrow our range of thought is a progressive priority,” writes Dave Blount . “Any word or term that can be used to undermine leftist ideology will eventually be removed from the permissible vocabulary. That’s the point of having a Newspeak Dictionary.”

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

censorship

Siri is Now Refusing to Say the Word “Gun”

Yes, really.

Published

1 week ago

12 February, 2020

Paul Joseph Watson

Apple’s Siri voice assistant is now apparently refusing to say the word “gun” when used on an iPad.

Tracy Connors tweeted a video of herself attempting to have Siri read out a Daily Caller headline entitled ‘Virginia House of Delegates Passes Gun Ban, Seizure Bill’.

Instead of saying the word ‘gun’, Siri spelled out the letters G-U-N.

This is wild! Check out what happened when I had my iPad read me a ⁦@DailyCaller⁩ headline about the gun ban bill that passed VA’s House today. pic.twitter.com/MoXcbv6GKY

— TLC (@TracyLConnors) February 12, 2020

“Apple is now our parent and we’re fragile little children who can’t hear scary words,” said Connors.

As far back as 2016, Apple replaced its gun emoji with a water pistol in response to “a series of shootings in the US.”

Apparently, censoring words and changing how cartoon drawings appear is going to stop mass shootings.

Good luck with that, Apple.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

censorship

YouTube Pledges To Remove “Manipulated” Election-related Videos

Published

2 weeks ago

6 February, 2020

Steve Watson

Wrongthink could be defined as ‘misleading voters’

Youtube announced this week that it will begin removing election-related videos that are “manipulated or doctored” with the aim of influencing voters.

The move is part of an effort by the Google owned company to be a “more reliable source” for news and to promote a “healthy political discourse”.

YouTube’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, Leslie Miller commented “…the service’s community standards prohibit content that has been technically manipulated or doctored in a way that misleads users… and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm.”

Of course, what constitutes “manipulation” and a “healthy political discourse” will be entirely decided by techie elites in Silicon Vally, who don’t have the most balanced of records.

Therefore, merely including footage of election candidates in videos and expressing an opinion that doesn’t jive with YouTube overlords could be construed as ‘misleading voters’ by the company.

YouTube says it is not only going to focus on so called ‘deep fake’ videos, where AI software is used to make it appear that a political figure is doing or saying something they have actually never done or said, but that they will also look for what they describe as ‘shallow fakes’.

Again, what ‘shallow fakes’ actually are is not specifically explained, except to say that they use more ‘rudimentary’ techniques than deep fakes to mislead voters.

The only specific examples YouTube gives is that it will remove videos that claim “a candidate is not eligible to hold office based on false information about citizenship status requirements” and that it will remove any video “manipulated to make it appear that a government official is dead” or that “aims to mislead people about voting or the census processes, like telling viewers an incorrect voting date.”

YouTube has a recent history of banning Conservative opinion on its platform:

The move by YouTube follows an announcement by Facebook that it will not interfere with political ads on its platform, and an announcement conversely by Twitter that it will ban all political ads for candidates.

Twitter also announced that it will crack down on ‘synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm’:

Translation: We will ban you for memes. https://t.co/JUFa4pby5m

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) February 4, 2020

The platform just banned conservative investigative reporter James O’Keefe for probing into Bernie Sanders’ campaign:

Twitter suspends Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe for reporting on Democrat Bernie Sanders pic.twitter.com/yTlOgQzAKy

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) February 5, 2020

censorship

Facebook Censors Jordan Peterson Video Link Sent in Private Message

Thought crime patrolling reaches absurd new level.

Published

3 weeks ago

29 January, 2020

Paul Joseph Watson

Facebook is now so censorship happy that it is blocking links to Jordan Peterson videos sent between two people via private message.

Yes, really.

A screenshot posted to The Donald Reddit forum titled “THE DYSTOPIA IS NOW. Facebook censored a PRIVATE MESSAGE I sent because it has a link to Jordan Peterson’s Bible Lecture Series” illustrates the ridiculous new standard.

When the user attempted to send a link to Peterson’s video to his friend, the URL was blocked and replaced with the text, “This message was removed because it includes a link that goes against our Community Standards.”

null

Facebook appears to have a clear bias against biblical discussion.

As we previously highlighted, the company banned a peace-loving quote by St. Augustine of Hippo, a Catholic theologian and philosopher, saying it was “hate speech”.

In addition to blocking links that contain thought crimes, when Facebook suspends a user, it also prevents them entirely from using its messenger function.

For many people, Facebook messenger is their only means of communication with friends and loved ones, meaning that if an emergency were to occur and the user was suspended, it could actually result in real world harm.

Given that the social media giant openly incited violence against people it deemed “dangerous individuals” (including yours truly), it’s unsurprising that they would put people deemed to be thought criminals at risk.