Rose McGowan suspended from Twitter after criticizing Bill Clinton.
“If you put your party over principles, over ethics, you are the problem, not me,” McGowan added, according to Fox News. “You can come for me all you want. I do not care. This is your cult leader. If you aren’t disgusted, go take a long, hard look in the mirror, and wake the F up.”
Many and varied have been the arguments by
which the State and its intellectuals have induced
their subjects to support their rule. Basically, the
strands of argument may be summed up as fol-
lows: (a) the State rulers are great and wise men
(they “rule by divine right,” they are the “aristoc-
racy” of men, they are the “scientific experts”),
much greater and wiser than the good but rather
simple subjects, and (b) rule by the extent gov-
ernment is inevitable, absolutely necessary, and
far better, than the indescribable evils that would
ensue upon its downfall. The union of Church
and State was one of the oldest and most suc-
cessful of these ideological devices. The ruler
was either anointed by God or, in the case of the
absolute rule of many Oriental despotisms, was
himself God; hence, any resistance to his rule
would be blasphemy. The States’ priestcraft per-
formed the basic intellectual function of obtain-
ing popular support and even worship for the
rulers.
Another successful device was to instill fear of
any alternative systems of rule or nonrule. The
present rulers, it was maintained, supply to the
citizens an essential service for which they should
be most grateful: protection against sporadic
criminals and marauders. For the State, to pre-
serve its own monopoly of predation, did indeed
see to it that private and unsystematic crime
was kept to a minimum; the State has always
been jealous of its own preserve. Especially has
the State been successful in recent centuries in
instilling fear of other State rulers. Since the land
area of the globe has been parceled out among
particular States, one of the basic doctrines of
the State was to identify itself with the territory
it governed. Since most men tend to love their
homeland, the identification of that land and
its people with the State was a means of mak-
ing natural patriotism work to the State’s advan-
tage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Wallda-
via,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals
was to convince the people of Ruritania that the
attack was really upon them and not simply upon
the ruling caste. In this way, a war between rulers
was converted into a war between peoples, with
each people coming to the defense of its rul-
ers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were
defending them. This device of “nationalism” has
only been successful, in Western civilization, in
recent centuries; it was not too long ago that the
mass of subjects regarded wars as irrelevant bat-
tles between various sets of nobles.
Many and subtle are the ideological weapons
that the State has wielded through the centuries.
One excellent weapon has been tradition. The
longer that the rule of a State has been able to
preserve itself, the more powerful this weapon;
for then, the X Dynasty or the Y State has the
seeming weight of centuries of tradition behind
it.16 Worship of one’s ancestors, then, becomes
a none too subtle means of worship of one’s
ancient rulers. The greatest danger to the State
is independent intellectual criticism; there is no
better way to stifle that criticism than to attack
any isolated voice, any raiser of new doubts, as a
profane violator of the wisdom of his ancestors.
Another potent ideological force is to deprecate
the individual and exalt the collectivity of society.
For since any given rule implies majority accep-
tance, any ideological danger to that rule can only
start from one or a few independently- thinking
individuals. The new idea, much less the new cri-
ti cal idea, must needs begin as a small minority
opinion; therefore, the State must nip the view
in the bud by ridiculing any view that defies the
opinions of the mass. “Listen only to your broth-
ers” or “adjust to society” thus become ideologi-
cal weapons for crushing individual dissent. By
such measures, the masses will never learn of
the nonexistence of their Emperor’s clothes. It
is also important for the State to make its rule
seem inevitable; even if its reign is disliked, it will
then be met with passive resignation, as witness
the familiar coupling of “death and taxes.” One
method is to induce historiographical determin-
ism, as opposed to individual freedom of will. If
the X Dynasty rules us, this is because the Inex-
orable Laws of History (or the Divine Will, or
the Absolute, or the Material Productive Forces)
have so decreed and nothing any puny individu-
als may do can change this inevitable decree. It
is also important for the State to inculcate in its
subjects an aversion to any “ conspiracy theory of
history;” for a search for “conspiracies” means a
search for motives and an attribution of responsi-
bility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyr-
anny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggres-
sive war, was caused not by the State rulers but
by mysterious and arcane “social forces,” or by
the imperfect state of the world or, if in some
way, everyone was responsible (“We Are All Mur-
derers,” proclaims one slogan), then there is no
point to the people becoming indignant or ris-
ing up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an
attack on “ conspiracy theories” means that the
subjects will become more gullible in believing
the “general welfare” reasons that are always put
forth by the State for engaging in any of its des-
potic actions. A “ conspiracy theory” can unsettle
the system by causing the public to doubt the
State’s ideological propaganda.
Another tried and true method for bending
subjects to the State’s will is inducing guilt. Any
increase in private well-being can be attacked
as “unconscionable greed,” “materialism,” or
“excessive affluence,” profit-making can be
attacked as “exploitation” and “usury,” mutu-
ally beneficial exchanges denounced as “self-
ishness,” and somehow with the conclusion
always being drawn that more resources should
be siphoned from the private to the “public sec-
tor.” The induced guilt makes the public more
ready to do just that. For while individual per-
sons tend to indulge in “selfish greed,” the fail-
ure of the State’s rulers to engage in exchanges is
supposed to signify their devotion to higher and
nobler causes—parasitic predation being appar-
ently morally and esthetically lofty as compared
to peaceful and productive work.
In the present more secular age, the divine
right of the State has been supplemented by the
invocation of a new god, Science. State rule is
now proclaimed as being ultrascientific, as con-
stituting planning by experts. But while “reason”
is invoked more than in previous centuries, this is
not the true reason of the individual and his exer-
cise of free will; it is still collectivist and determin-
ist, still implying holistic aggregates and coercive
manipulation of passive subjects by their rulers.
The increasing use of scientific jargon has per-
mitted the State’s intellectuals to weave obscuran-
tist apologia for State rule that would have only
met with derision by the populace of a simpler
age. A robber who justified his theft by saying that
he really helped his victims, by his spending giving
a boost to retail trade, would find few converts;
but when this theory is clothed in Keynesian equa-
tions and impressive references to the “multiplier
effect,” it unfortunately carries more conviction.
And so the assault on common sense proceeds,
each age performing the task in its own ways.
Thus, ideological support being vital to the
State, it must unceasingly try to impress the pub-
lic with its “legitimacy,” to distinguish its activities
from those of mere brigands. The unremitting
determination of its assaults on common sense is
no accident, for as Mencken vividly maintained:
The average man, whatever his errors otherwise,
at least sees clearly that government is some-
thing lying outside him and outside the general-
ity of his fellow men—that it is a separate, inde-
pendent, and hostile power, only partly under his
control, and capable of doing him great harm. Is
it a fact of no significance that robbing the gov-
ernment is everywhere regarded as a crime of
less magnitude than robbing an individual, or
even a corporation? . . . What lies behind all this, I
believe, is a deep sense of the fundamental antag-
onism between the government and the people
it governs. It is apprehended, not as a committee
of citizens chosen to carry on the communal busi-
ness of the whole population, but as a separate
and autonomous corporation, mainly devoted
to exploiting the population for the benefit of
its own members. . . . When a private citizen is
robbed, a worthy man is deprived of the fruits
of his industry and thrift; when the government
is robbed, the worst that happens is that certain
rogues and loafers have less money to play with
than they had before. The notion that they have
earned that money is never entertained; to most
sensible men it would seem ludicrous.
I don't care one way or the other about Rose. I'm not sure the narrative at some outlets is correct though. She apparently violated TOS with that photo.
"That image prompted McGowan's suspension from Twitter over its non-consensual nudity policy, specifically for "sharing privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent."
She's been expressing her political views for years apparently, so I doubt this is them trying to "silence" her. They didn't have a problem with it until she shared someone else's intimate photos, which isn't allowed. I guess the only strange part is that it was an art piece, so I'd think they were aware the public would see it.
Originally posted by StyleTime
I don't care one way or the other about Rose. I'm not sure the narrative at some outlets is correct though. She apparently violated TOS with that photo."That image prompted McGowan's suspension from Twitter over its non-consensual nudity policy, specifically for "sharing privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent."
She's been expressing her political views for years apparently, so I doubt this is them trying to "silence" her. They didn't have a problem with it until she shared someone else's intimate photos, which isn't allowed. I guess the only strange part is that it was an art piece, so I'd think they were aware the public would see it.
Aren’t you allowed to shared WAP, that Cardi B song? If so, I’ve heard that song is filthy and it’s considered art.
And if WAP can be share on Twitter, then this is indeed political.
Originally posted by StyleTime
I don't care one way or the other about Rose. I'm not sure the narrative at some outlets is correct though. She apparently violated TOS with that photo."That image prompted McGowan's suspension from Twitter over its non-consensual nudity policy, specifically for "sharing privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone without their express consent."
She's been expressing her political views for years apparently, so I doubt this is them trying to "silence" her. They didn't have a problem with it until she shared someone else's intimate photos, which isn't allowed. I guess the only strange part is that it was an art piece, so I'd think they were aware the public would see it.
It was a piece of commissioned art. Not exactly a celebritygate hack of nudes.
Originally posted by SquallX
Aren’t you allowed to shared WAP, that Cardi B song? If so, I’ve heard that song is filthy and it’s considered art.And if WAP can be share on Twitter, then this is indeed political.
As I said before, the issue here is whether or not an art piece like this falls under the policy. Their policy is online in plain text to read for anyone, so check it out. I searched up the artist(Alison Jackson), and she's made no comment on it I can find. She just silently retweeted the news around Rose. Maybe the reactions are interesting to her.
Also, Rose would apparently get her account back if she just removes the picture, according to a Twitter rep. She could get back to tweeting her anti-Democrat stuff if she'd just take the image down. It seems she realizes more people will pay attention if she hangs on to the controversy though.
Originally posted by cdtm
It was a piece of commissioned art. Not exactly a celebritygate hack of nudes.
Or do you not know what commissioned means?
Originally posted by cdtm
They called it a piece of art. Pretty specific wording there.No one calls all those memes pieces of art.
It doesn't appear to have been commissioned from what I can find.
Originally posted by cdtm
Should be fair play posting it.
I'm not even saying they're right. I just don't think y'all get the issue here.
She's been allowed to tweet those same opinions for years though. And still would be if she'd just remove the image. They're not censoring her actual statements as far as I can tell, and just want the picture gone. Just seems like an easy fix to me, unless she wants the controversy.
Regardless, holy **** I've spent way more time on Rose McGowan than I ever cared to. I think I'm done here.