WHAT IS TOS?
It is The Objective Standard . . . a quarterly journal of culture and politics based on the idea that for every human concern—from personal matters to foreign policy, from the sciences to the arts, from education to legislation—there are demonstrably objective standards by reference to which we can assess what is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong. The purpose of the [TOS] is to analyze and evaluate ideas, trends, events, and policies accordingly.
If you do not agree with this partial premise, you are not in violation of TOS, but in disagreement with it.
It is difficult to violate the magazine, The Objective Standard. Unless, you consider not reading it a violation of TOS.
Now there is something that can be violated, and that is our--my--freedom of speech. I know that this is not guaranteed everywhere in this country--not in privately controlled environments, corporations, or other enterprises, it is, however, guaranteed in a public forum, which some entities pride themselves to be--with a caveat.
. . . and what is that loophole that allows censorship to arbiters--to those qualified or not--who set themselves up now to be judges over us.
They have their rules: no hate speech against race, ethnicity, religion, etc.
They listen to the whines of ideologues who imagine themselves to have been injured--humiliated perhaps. Why? Because we do not agree with neither their ideology nor their method of attempting to enforce it--to make us knuckle under to it.
These followers of an ideology that condones killing, maiming, beating of all non-believers, complain and there are those who fold and do what the ideologues demand.
Now, these ideologues are neither of ONE race, ethnicity, nor of a religion as that can be defined unequivocally. They are followers of one ideology.
One who does not agree with that ideology is judged by whomever to be in violation of something called TOS. That is not The Obective Standard but Terms--not of endearment, because they are set up so that self-styled judges can arbitrarily rule one way or another, lightly, shutting up anyone, even if that one is telling the truth--unvarnished, unabashedly.
These TOS are set in stone as Terms of Service. They are rather a disservice to the freedom of speech that we do have here in the United States but not in the lands controlled by the unnamed ideologues. They are used to shut up a certain point of view. While they accept another, the opposing point of view--simply out of fear, or is it caprice?
These TOS can easily become TOD. And apparently they have.
Want to know what's going on? Click on http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/ or try and google " islamic danger blog "and see where that takes you and what it says. Another way that you can try to get back to the islamic danger blog is to try
I can't guarantee that'll get you into the old islamic danger blog, as I don't control anything (except what's left of my brain--I try to, anyway).
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY student snowflakes object to the term “radical Islamic terrorism” because it might hurt the feelings of radical Islamic terrorists - The recent terror attacks in London have re-energized the debate over the term “radical Islam,” but not among student interviewed, nearly all of whom insis...
1 hour ago