I'm glad I'm not on Facebook, though. Some alt-media reported on this, the details are as horrifying as they are idiotic: someone said that the victim was 'mentally unstable', hence the consignation to the psychiatric ward; while he was in there, nothing was done, though, and the absurdest facet appears to be that, upon his release after 9 days, they admitted to not having read anything about this.
There's two things to note here (I hope): first it was on 'official' social media, and compared to Substack, the reach of Facebook is simply much larger. The way Facebook is used here in Norway, esp. in rural areas, is that it's nearly impossible not to use it as virtually 90% of stuff that's going on is advertised on it. It also means that more snitches, block-warden, and the like are there to report you.
Second, don't forget that these places (social media) are neither 'townhalls' or part of the 'public arena'. They are pseudo such places, with the biggest indicator of that being, of course, the end user licensing agreement, which is neither necessary to access or speak in the real world nor is it a contract (which cannot unilaterally be changed).
While I am upset by the fact you mentioned, what I do think is that this person must have known these things in advance. I mean, it's summer 2023, internet censorship, and high social pressures to conform aren't exactly new things in Nordic countries.
Mind you, I'm not saying it isn't wrong, but posting on Facebook is akin to wild peeing outside a police station--you do that at your own risk. I also think that those police and doctors should be fired and put in front of a judge (who will, likely, set them free, but it should be a cautionary example for these people to never do such a thing again).
Since it is an older man, he has grown up in a climate of actual freedom of speech and expression (Norway's blasphemy law banning Life of Brian being the one exception), and while it's perfectly conceivable he knows full well the censorship and forced parroting of coercive consensus that is Facebook, his underlying instinct would be that he is free to say whatever he wants, barring actual threats or other incitement to actual criminal acts (same as here).
My guess is, it's a local curtain-twitcher with a grudge behind it.
Perhaps we (all oppositional people) should start lobbying politicians in our various nations for a law forcing Facebook et al to make their "moderation teams" et c public and that all complaints must be handled as cases of libel, slander et c - meaning if Facebook wantedto block, limit, censor someone, they'd first need a criminal conviction against that person. Basically, make the old pre-internet laws regarding such things apply to social media too.
I think your intuition about 'a local curtain-twitcher with a grudge behind it' is likely correct.
While I don't have any particular insights into this matter, historically, this also explains virtually all the witch craze and the like in pre-modern Europe: sure, some fanaticism was always involved, but by and large, there were ulterior motives at-play.
And then some. Mind you, the German original reads 'Ich verdiene…', i.e., 'I earn…', which, as a career politician paid by the public betrays an incredible amount of ignorance about how popular sovereignty theoretically works. Then again, this is a minor issue compared to what she actually said…
My mouth is open in astonishment at this behaviour. Yet, when I rang up Green party offices in Australia to ask about the excess death vote that was conducted in parliament, I was abused, intimidated and they hung up on me.
I'm sorry this happened to you. I's also indicative of these groups who profess adherence to democratic norms etc. are--not serious, they shouldn't be in parliament, let alone politics, and cannot be trusted.
This is, by the way, where this is coming from: decades of indoctrination have made people infer that 'feminism' is something that is 'good'.
Yet, what is 'f.'? Strangely, I suppose one gets attacked for merely asking this question, and the answer--to me--seems: women's advocacy to the exclusion, or subordination, of everyone else.
OT, but since you live in Norway, it might be of interest:
[https://petersweden.substack.com/p/norway-locked-man-in-psychiatric]
Full title: "Norway LOCKED man in psychiatric ward for questioning mRNA shots"
Oh, yes, I've seen this.
I'm glad I'm not on Facebook, though. Some alt-media reported on this, the details are as horrifying as they are idiotic: someone said that the victim was 'mentally unstable', hence the consignation to the psychiatric ward; while he was in there, nothing was done, though, and the absurdest facet appears to be that, upon his release after 9 days, they admitted to not having read anything about this.
There's two things to note here (I hope): first it was on 'official' social media, and compared to Substack, the reach of Facebook is simply much larger. The way Facebook is used here in Norway, esp. in rural areas, is that it's nearly impossible not to use it as virtually 90% of stuff that's going on is advertised on it. It also means that more snitches, block-warden, and the like are there to report you.
Second, don't forget that these places (social media) are neither 'townhalls' or part of the 'public arena'. They are pseudo such places, with the biggest indicator of that being, of course, the end user licensing agreement, which is neither necessary to access or speak in the real world nor is it a contract (which cannot unilaterally be changed).
While I am upset by the fact you mentioned, what I do think is that this person must have known these things in advance. I mean, it's summer 2023, internet censorship, and high social pressures to conform aren't exactly new things in Nordic countries.
Mind you, I'm not saying it isn't wrong, but posting on Facebook is akin to wild peeing outside a police station--you do that at your own risk. I also think that those police and doctors should be fired and put in front of a judge (who will, likely, set them free, but it should be a cautionary example for these people to never do such a thing again).
Since it is an older man, he has grown up in a climate of actual freedom of speech and expression (Norway's blasphemy law banning Life of Brian being the one exception), and while it's perfectly conceivable he knows full well the censorship and forced parroting of coercive consensus that is Facebook, his underlying instinct would be that he is free to say whatever he wants, barring actual threats or other incitement to actual criminal acts (same as here).
My guess is, it's a local curtain-twitcher with a grudge behind it.
Perhaps we (all oppositional people) should start lobbying politicians in our various nations for a law forcing Facebook et al to make their "moderation teams" et c public and that all complaints must be handled as cases of libel, slander et c - meaning if Facebook wantedto block, limit, censor someone, they'd first need a criminal conviction against that person. Basically, make the old pre-internet laws regarding such things apply to social media too.
I think your intuition about 'a local curtain-twitcher with a grudge behind it' is likely correct.
While I don't have any particular insights into this matter, historically, this also explains virtually all the witch craze and the like in pre-modern Europe: sure, some fanaticism was always involved, but by and large, there were ulterior motives at-play.
Totally disgusting.
And then some. Mind you, the German original reads 'Ich verdiene…', i.e., 'I earn…', which, as a career politician paid by the public betrays an incredible amount of ignorance about how popular sovereignty theoretically works. Then again, this is a minor issue compared to what she actually said…
I agree. She could become real competition for the bacon lady. We indeed need to be afraid.
My mouth is open in astonishment at this behaviour. Yet, when I rang up Green party offices in Australia to ask about the excess death vote that was conducted in parliament, I was abused, intimidated and they hung up on me.
I'm sorry this happened to you. I's also indicative of these groups who profess adherence to democratic norms etc. are--not serious, they shouldn't be in parliament, let alone politics, and cannot be trusted.
Sadly, she's representative of three things:
Western (white to use american racist lingo) women under age 50.
Green Party members of any western nation.
Feminists, anti-fascists, et c.
As an argument against franchise for women, or universal sufferage in general, she is wonderful.
This is, by the way, where this is coming from: decades of indoctrination have made people infer that 'feminism' is something that is 'good'.
Yet, what is 'f.'? Strangely, I suppose one gets attacked for merely asking this question, and the answer--to me--seems: women's advocacy to the exclusion, or subordination, of everyone else.
OT, but it fits: https://us.boell.org/en/feminist-foreign-policy
Brought to you by the Green Party Foundation of Germany.
The irony of it being named after Heinrich Böll!
There is, of course, much more than meets the eye.
Check out today's posting for more (if you can stand it):
https://fackel.substack.com/p/wtf-is-feminist-foreign-policy-spoiler