WO #3: irony and hypocrisy on ‘free speech’

This is the first in a series of posts addressing claims at Whale Oil   that Google are ISIS friendly, that makes varying claims about why Google Ads ceased on Whale Oil for part of yesterday and then resumed again, that tries to raise donations to fund the ongoing operation of the blog, and that makes highly ironic claims about freedom of speech and censorship.

REVEALED: WHY WHALEOIL ISN’T RUNNING GOOGLE ADS ANY LONGER [UPDATED 5PM]

On October 29, Whaleoil published The only solution is to kill them before they kill us, an article covering how ISIS and other Islamic adherents bent on throwing gays off building and subjugating women are to be met by preemptive force to protect our way of life and freedoms, such as they are.

This set off a small but vocal part of Social Media.  No surprise:  exactly the same people who are always busy trying to damage Whaleoil in some way.   This time a petition was created to request the Human Rights Commission take Whaleoil to court for “hate speech“.   And as you’d expect, this was promoted by other blogs and even some main stream media journalists.  (Oh the irony).

This third post is about oh the irony of “Oh the irony”.

In this post a number of claims and comments about free speech, which are highly ironic and hypocritical given the the history of banning and censoring on Whale Oil and their involvement in trying to smear and shut up critics.

From the original post:

But our critics didn’t leave it there.  They have also been busy placing pressure on our advertisers.  

They can not just disagree with our position, we must be silenced.   The irony of fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and so on, by denying someone you disagree with those rights is remarkable.

Fighting for freedom of speech? Yeah, wrong.

And:

At these times, the community that is Whaleoil stands up against the bullying from those who want Whaleoil broken and to disappear.

It’s common for bullies to claim they are the victims of bullying when confronted.

More from comments, first their “featured comment”:

I don’t always agree with Cam’s views but freedom of speech is vital.

Obviously Don’s favourable comment was allowed by Whale Oil’s heavy handed censorship.

Also:

These plonkers are nothing but bullies, I don’t like bullies. I’ll put a bit in the kitty.

Someone frequenting Whale Oil who doesn’t like bullies – only the bullies they disagree with.

In reply to a comment by Pete Belt:

Which is of course censorship…by Google…who it appears are ISIS sympathisers.

Did Slater type that with a straight face? Perhaps he believes that attacks on free speech only matter when it’s his speech that’s being attacked.

He’s got the right to say whatever he likes, and to hold any opinion he likes.

All I want is for us to be left alone to do the same.

Except Belt doesn’t leave opinions he doesn’t want on Whale Oil.

We stand, we have a voice, and freedom to have that voice. Let’s keep it that way. Donation done.

‘We’ is those who have not been banned by Belt. There have been many claims that people who have donated to Whale Oil in the past have been censored and banned.

It wasn’t confined to that post, the very next post yesterday, by Spanish Bride, was Silencing Free Speech isn’t the same as changing people’s minds. This has ironic gems like:

They don’t realise that creating a hostile environment for debate enables them to intimidate and silence but it does not mean that they have changed anyone’s mind.

Many readers of Your NZ will see the high levels of irony and hypocrisy in this.

For anyone who hasn’t seen Whale Oil in action someone sent me some screen shots from Whale Oil yesterday that you won’t find there now.

1.

WOBH

2.

WOBH_2

3.

WOBH_3

4.

WOBH_4

It’s common for awkward questions and unwelcome opinions to disappear from Whale Oil, and for unwelcome contributors to be blocked and banned.

Now of course Slater and Belt can censor and ban as much as they like on their own blog.

But when they claim to be champions of free speech and criticise the censorship of others when they censor and ban as much as they do they deserve strong criticism of their double standards and their hypocrisy.

Belt said in his post’s update yesterday:

The Google Bot is even more merciless than I am as a moderator.

I hear many complaints about Belt’s ‘moderation’ – more like censorship, message control and propaganda enforcement – and few about the Google bot.

Free speech is as much a feature of Whale Oil as clean politics and honest disclosure – it’s a sad joke.

Related posts:

28 Comments

  1. Salacious P Crumb

     /  4th November 2015

    Those paragons of free speech ought to defend to the death Tiso’s words which attack them and their revenue streams. But no, free speech for whale oil means they are free to attack, demean and conduct hit jobs, but nobody must make fun of mental health or imperil their various scams.
    As arrogant jumped up with his own importance Slater once bragged: let the market decide. Oh and how the market is deciding.

  2. David

     /  4th November 2015

    So Belt thinks that withdrawing advertising dollars is akin to banning free speech, the lack of self awareness is incredible and points to perhaps a need for the WO crew to get out a bit more often and get some perspective.
    I was banned and told my financial contribution no longer wanted in what was probably the nastiest email I have ever received, water off a ducks back for me but quite funny to hear them bitching about free speech and asking for cash.

    • Mefrostate

       /  4th November 2015

      Please post the email, it will make for delicious reading.

  3. Guest

     /  4th November 2015

    Yes Mr Belt. Someone with a dissenting opinion, someone who asks a fair question of WO, is a troll. Not a contributor with a worthy opinion that challenges others, oh no. A troll.
    Jerk.

  4. MaureenW

     /  4th November 2015

    I note that the two commenters threatened with bans, both contributed financially to yesterday’s fiasco (scam). Maybe they’ll get over their “Daddy” complexes one day and walk away while they’re still useful idiots.

    • traveller

       /  4th November 2015

      You’d really have to wonder at the vacuity of these contributor’s. Masochism?

      • traveller

         /  4th November 2015

        Please forgive me Lord as I have sinned and added an unnecessary apostrophe. 🙂

      • Maureen W

         /  4th November 2015

        Heh, thanks for the dough, but next time either of you has a brain fart (read: thinks for yourself), you’re on the bench for months.

        Christ thanks big Pete, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read since my primary school reports.

  5. Budgieboy

     /  4th November 2015

    Ooooooo…K , so the guy screaming FOR free speech deletes free speech and bans the free speaker! Not a bad effort but he then follows up by promising to delete/ban/censor/punish anyone who has the temerity to even RESPOND free speech by kind of, you know, exercising their right to free speech. In a post about free speech. My head hurts.

    • joe

       /  4th November 2015

      I’ve reported slaters anti muslim hat rants to google 4 times last month.

      https://support.google.com/adsense/troubleshooter/1190500?hl=en

      If his little hobby blog can’t earn enough money to support is family. He will have to get off his arse and out of his basement and get a job like anyone else.

    • why bother

       /  4th November 2015

      whaleoil and free speech have never ever been synonymous
      however whaleoil and hyperbole = exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally… is very much

  6. Mike C

     /  4th November 2015

    Whoever that “Screeching Widow” is … they deserve a fucking Knighthood or Damehood … those screen shots are priceless. LOL 🙂

  7. why bother

     /  4th November 2015

    To the people, well I’ll be fooked blames for all and sundry
    here is a quote from Donna Lynn Hope for you

    “Some people live their lives being perpetual victims and finger pointers.
    To anyone who points a finger at someone else and lays all the blame at their feet instead of taking responsibility for their own behaviour,
    I would say, “I see that finger and you know where you can put it?”

    • DaveG

       /  4th November 2015

      How true. I suggest most of you read the comments above and stuff you post, venomous and spiteful stuff, most of you unable to get over being banned, instead of taking responsibility for their own behaviour, INDEED.

      How ironic, laugh of he day thanks to the dammed. I have said before this place is getting worse than the standard, a vipers pit, and it is, all be it with a few quality commenters. For such a place to be filled with probably. 70% of the posts and comments on hating WO or Slater, yes, it’s obvious most are unable to get over their WO ban.

      The final thought, move on, get a life, real stuff is happening around you. I’m out, it’s not worth my time coming to such a negative place.

      • Rob

         /  4th November 2015

      • Mefrostate

         /  4th November 2015

        While I admit that many of us are indeed the jilted Damned, don’t you think that WO deserves to be called out for its hypocrisy?

      • why bother

         /  4th November 2015

        yaaaa finally back to wo or is that work you go with your truly sad pitiful loyalty to the
        No Free Speech Here Blog
        FYI I have never been banned from the blog that once was a blog
        see ya don’t let the door hit you…..

      • Mike C

         /  4th November 2015

        @DaveG

        I miss you already. LOL 🙂

  8. With due respect to village idiots.

    If you were traveling and stopped at a country pub and on entering saw in the corner a raver who the locals were avoiding, would you engage? If a resident said, “He’s the village idiot,” would you take that message seriously? If the rants continued enough for you to ascertain that indeed this was the village idiot would you get into conversation and debate with that local?

    People continue to discuss what Cameron Slater says.

    • Mike C

       /  4th November 2015

      @Duperez

      But you see … that’s just the point 🙂

      We are not discussing what Slater is writing … because most of us in here believe that Cameron Slater writes the posts that have his name underneath the title as being the Author.

      What we discuss here … pertains to the lack of ethics and morality that Slater&Co seem to have over at the Whale.

      • Ah, you mean if you go into a country pub and there’s a slobbering idiot in the corner, there might be others who are at one with him who are equally lacking in ethics and morals?

        (Mind you, there could be the stuff for the sort of philosophical debates you have in country pubs – that at Whale Oil they do have ethics and morals. The point being that while they do, those sets are somewhat ‘different.’)

  9. Alan Wilkinson

     /  4th November 2015

    That was funny! Whatever you say about WO, their arrogant frothing stupidity is good for a real belly laugh. Thanks Pete.

  10. Mike C

     /  4th November 2015

    The Whale is such a bizarre place to be now.

    Before Belt arrived … it was so entertaining.

    But it is nothing but a train-wreck now 😦

  11. MaureenW

     /  4th November 2015

    So, after all the drama, I would like to know why Screaming wife was declared a troll for asking a valid question, and why the two commenters who responded were treated like chumps. That is all!

  12. Gazza

     /  5th November 2015

    I too am a banned contributor to WO. I have met Cam, had lunch with him once, found him an interesting character and followed WO for a fair while. One day I happened to make a quip about Pete B after he posted a comment that was neither malicious or offensive but was a merely a bit tongue in cheek….within seconds I was cast out with a permanent ban. An email for an explanation resulted in a reply stating that I should not have dared to have insulted a Moderator….meh, I have more free time now….yay

  1. WO #2: The changing claims about Google Ads | Your NZ
  2. WO #1: Are Google ISIS friendly? | Your NZ