Comments
-
@Tyler643, I just hope pornhub does something before it's too late
-
@Tyler643, I’m more worried that he still has access to SoundCloud. Strum a guitar and talk, you have “music” even if it’s bad. He could still put his rants out there.
-
@Tyler643, I’m guessing why is because you can do podcast on Spotify
-
@AceWolf456, brah, regardless of what he says he's the president. If big tech can remove his ability to reach people then they have more power then him. So why would they need to pretend any more about being fair or balanced? They already tryed removing competitors in the past to keep there monopoly secure. So why not openly control the US?
-
@That one lurker, because the president is maliciously misinforming people, and pretty directly caused the siege of the capital because he lost the election. He should not have a platform to lie to people from. If he was telling the truth I’d still dislike the man, but I would say he should have a platform to talk. Deliberate malicious misinformation from the president should not be tolerated.
-
@AceWolf456, "Deliberate malicious misinformation from the PRESIDENT should not be tolerated." I think it shouldn't be tolerated regardless who does it. The problem is both the precedents it sets and the fact it's only happening to conservatives. Several Democrats including Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris and Ocasio Cortez. Has called for worse, with zero repercussions. If we were to set this rule, to make this the new precedent, would you before the complete removal of ever democrat that supported either black lives matter or antifa. Since you're saying a man should be removed from the platform for not supporting a group of people you think he incited. Let's hold people that do support and insight insurrectionists. Would you consider that fair?
-
@That one lurker, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, AOC, literally NO ONE has caused an actual insurrection on Twitter. That’s all Trump. The precedent it should send is that Twitter isn’t the place for lies and hate and they will not accept it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions Also I found a list (I know Wikipedia) but tell me is it just conservatives?
-
@MrTuxPenguin, lol Antifa and BLM have set up autonomous zones that are autonomous to the u.s
-
@MrTuxPenguin, litterally BLM and antifas whple shtick is that this entire society and system is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, islamaphobic, pedophobic and it needs to be burned down.
-
@CocoasBro, I’d recommend any news site other than FOX for you. The CHAZ was not hell on earth.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, lol dude it doesnt matter your point is invalid because the CHAZ and every other autonomous zone was inherently insurectionist. What is more insurectionist than saying nope were no longer a part of this country. Not to mention their assault on the capital building during the kavanough hearing, and their assault on the federal court house where they permanently blinded a few federal officers and tried to burn the building down with molotov cocktail. knowing full well that the officers were sealed inside and would have been burned alive. This idea that the left hasnt been insurectionist is so absurd because thats their entire shtick.
-
@CocoasBro, https://www.npr.org/2018/09/08/645497667/the-resistance-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings-more-than-200-arrests https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1453524002 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/kavanaugh-allegations-ford-palo-alto.amp.html
-
@CocoasBro, Three different sources saying nothing of any bombs. There were protests at the Capitol. NOT an assault. They allowed protest there. They do not allow protest when counting electoral ballots. Nothing was damaged. No property damage. People got arrested (200ish). NO ONE DIED. The CHAZ doesn’t have a CONFEDERATE flag waving around. That’s a shtick that yells “insurrection”. A flag of states that literally pulled away from the US AND started a war. Where are you pulling this information from?
-
@Tyler643, One of Spotify’s major share holders is Tencent.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, tell that to the two teenagers who were shot there.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, the CHAZ had their own flag. Where’s the law that states you cannot assemble when ballots are being counted, and how is that different then assembling while a confirmation hearing is in progress. Are you saying there was not damage in the area the CHAZ was set up?
-
@DaSchlappah, Yup. And those were the only murders to of ever happened in Seattle. A city of over 700,000 people. The media played it up for views. It’s what they do. And the property damage wasn’t all that much worse. There was more graffiti there than normal, yes. But if you want an argument, talk about the police building they took over. I thought the law was implied when there were capitol police guarding the building. And what flag? As someone was was actually there, in person, they didn’t have their own flag.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, lol your definition of insurectionist is ridiculously biased. Well they essentially succeeded from the union for a couple months but they didnt have a confederate flag so its not insurectionist. Im not sure what word vomit of a point above that you were trying to make though.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, ok, you’re going to have to do more research. Seattle had 49 homicides in 2019. That’s from KING5 News website. The two unfortunate people killed in The CHAZ brought the murder rate per capita(in the CHAZ)up to a level that surpassed Chicago.(Discovery Institute website) So much for the “peaceful protest”. Property damage wasn’t worse? Really? Then why are business owners in the area suing the city? The police building they took over? You mean the one built by the first African American mayor? CHAZ flag....search for it on Reddit, or Redbubble is selling them for $31.21 but I’m not sure if that includes shipping. Oh, and there are no laws that are “implied” it is or it isn’t a law.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, for intellectual consistency, if what Trump did is considered a call for insurrection. Then dems calling for the continuation of the violent portions of the "mostly peaceful protest" to continue is their call. That's trying to be honest with the situation. By last I checked there was 4 murders in the CHAZ, two from general lawlessness, and two by the guards. Let's talk about the one that happened at the gates. Two runaways stole a car, barreling at the CHAZ started getting followed in hot pursuit by a CHAZ guard who started firing on them. The vehicle crashed and the "guards" pumped 30sec of sustained fire into the care. Killing one, critically wounding the other. On the note of flags, the confederate field standard pays homage to the soldiers that fought in the war. Not the politicians that wanted to keep people as slaves. But in due fairness many people don't understand the reason they only see the symbol. So why is it ok to wave the communist flag?
-
@CocoasBro, Let’s do some comparison. Which is more insurrectionist? Some protesters taking over a park and police building, or half the country waging war over slavery?
-
@DaSchlappah, We need to get on the same page first. Look up the name Bruce Chapman and tell me what you find out about him.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, I found that Mr. Chapman is a Harvard educated man who founded The Discovery Institute which, according to wiki is a “conservative”think tank. Does that mean the facts are wrong?
-
@DaSchlappah, It means the facts are skewed to sound worse than they actually are. Might as well be false. I see where you got that it surpasses the homicide rate in Chicago. They were talking about the homicide rate of the CHAZ. Not Seattle. Seattle still didn’t crack the top 5 or too homicide rates per capita. As for the flag, there is no flag. There was no flag. I was there, they didn’t have a flag. Someone got the (genius) ideal to sell one later on.
-
@That one lurker, Which is more of a threat to democracy? Mostly peaceful protests about how bad racism is, or trying to overthrow a fair election? DaSchlappah and I only found 2 murder there. So I need proof otherwise. But again, take it from someone who was there, there were no armed guards. No ID checks, nothing like the news made it out to be. As for the confederate flag, was that what Trump supporters were honoring waving it inside the Capitol building? At their rallies? You can honor the soldiers without waving an insurrection’s flag. And again, what communist flag? Waiving where?
-
@MrTuxPenguin, no the facts aren’t “skewed” nor are they false. Facts are what they are. It’s how the facts are presented that can cause “skewing”. I’ve never said that the Seattle homicide rate rivaled Chicago, that would be laughable. You said there was no flag there, you were there. Ok, I’ll bow to your on the ground reporting. I do however think you saying someone having a “genius” idea of making and selling one is humorous. You’re applauding the capitalist idea of making money off a socialist ideal.
-
@DaSchlappah, So I looked back over your message, your right. You did say in the CHAZ and not Seattle. I misread that. Also, it is funny. Profiting off of any socialist is capitalism at its best. That’s the definition of irony. Look, I’m not anti capitalist, I wouldn’t even call myself a democrat. I’m on the side of logic and reasoning. When I said that the facts are skewed I meant what you said. They are presented in a way that gives off the wrong opinion. You are correct facts are facts. If they weren’t, they’d be lies. The facts are, the media sensationalized the CHAZ to make it sound like this barren wasteland where gangs ride motorcycles wearing tight black leather. My mom and I went. We got churros. It was nice.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, the reason for the conflation is that both flags are wrong but one is scene as worse. As for where it's waved, just like in every right wing rally there's afew confederate flags, in left wing ones they're all over the place. You are people throwing up their first in a communist salute and will beat any opposition to their march. As for a threat to democracy, having an unaccountable group walking around being domestic terrorist, regardless of what side they come from, is bad. They should be condemned whole heartedly. Now, we have the left, who've smashed black owned small business into the dirt, burned their cities, and looted their stores. They're praised for it, they have fundraiser made for their defence, International corporations prints their message, politicians sing their praises, donate money, and bind the knee to them. The right invades a building, smashes pricesless artifacts, disrupts the vote and gets nothing accomplished. And they have no support.
-
@That one lurker, not even from Trump. One gets its name blanketed in the street after a 3month long campaign, leaving 33 people dead. The other was 4 hours, with 3 dead. Blm and antifa showed what you need to do to be heard in the country. If they was treated any where close to this, then this riot would not have happened.
-
@That one lurker, We’re going to take a step back and I’m going to ask again. Which is worse, fighting to end racism or fighting to overturn a fair election. I don’t agree with everything the BLM protests have done. But the protests are the only way to have their voices heard. Same with the DC riot. The difference is, the DC riot was based off of a lie that trump keeps spreading. You can’t compare the two. The BLM has good intention behind it. The other side doesn’t. If no one supports the other side that should give you some indication of which side is morally just. Also, what flag are left wingers waving around? You still haven’t answered that. And the first in the air is a BLM salute. It’s not communist.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, dude your so biased its not even funny. Take your head out of your ass. You: hmm blm and antifa created an autonomous zone that essentially succeeded from the union where a few dozen people died.... hmm im ok with that that doesnt seem insurectionist at all. Also you: IS THAT A CONFEDERATE FLAG OHOLFLOSNFANFISBAKDISJ TRUMP IS SUCCEEDING FROM THE UNION QUICK CALL IN THE MILITARY AND KILL THEM ALL!
-
@CocoasBro, Haha I thought we were having a discussion. I’ll ask you the same question I asked lurker: which is worse, a group fighting to end racism or a group fighting to overturn a fair election? If you still wanna be a cvnt and say that BLM has killed more people than the confederate go for it. But that’s not a fact. You: “darn he has some good points. Quick let’s make fun of him!”
-
@MrTuxPenguin, your right i apologize. I disagree vehemently that blm is fighting to overturn racism. As far as i see it BLM is an extremely racist movement. Just like the mojority of the left nowadays they dont fight to end racism but rather to make racist laws in favor of specific races. Also the confederacy isnt even a player in this discussion dont act like they are.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, “BLM proudly proclaims its belief that all black Americans should receive a guaranteed minimum income and “free” healthcare, schooling, food, real estate, gender reassignment surgery, and abortion; bring an “an end to all jails” as we know them; disrupt the traditional family; demand reparations on behalf of foreign nations; and form a “global liberation movement” that will “overturn US imperialism [and] capitalism.” That’s the beliefs of BLM. You said you believed in facts, those are the facts. Now please tell me how that’s stopping racism.
-
@CocoasBro, Agreed. I only brought it up because it was waiving during the siege. But let’s start here, do you think there is systemic racism in our society?
-
@DaSchlappah, Where’d you pull that ‘fact’ from. “BLM believes in ending systemic racism”. Anything else is fear mongering.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/28/black-lives-matters-real-agenda/. This is their original mission statement. They took heat for it and changed it. Again I’m finding irony in the fact that you would call their original mission statement fear mongering, when they wrote it.
-
@DaSchlappah, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/oped-dear-roland-c-warren-you-re-wrong-black-lives-n620976 Here’s an article objecting to yours. But let’s dissect the quote. (Btw the article was only on one of the 12 guiding principles right? I wanna make sure I address everything). “We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and villages the collectively care for one another, and especially our children to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable”. That’s the whole quote. The article goes on to say that they want black males to die as sacrifices. But if you just read the quote, you don’t think that it’s trying to say that they want a whole “village” to raise kids instead of just a nuclear family?
-
@MrTuxPenguin, the part they don’t tell you is that the “whole village” doesn’t include the father. They also don’t tell you that by “village” they mean “state”. If you think that’s an opinion look at the list of things they want, and then think real hard about where they would be able to get it from.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, I honestly had to step way for a sec for doing resurch, remembering all the times blm co-opted a criminal is to common to count, with one or two suspicious and two a clear sign of either individual racism or officer malfeasance. I do agree that there is systemic racism, it's from diversity programs that violates the civil rights legislation. Diversity quotas being placed in schools allowed Harvard to demand a higher standards for Asian students while lowering the bar for bipoc community. This systemic racism is being pushed forward by blm and their backers, trying to pressure schools to take in POC. If we can agree, that Asian students being not allowed to enter a school because of their skin color is wrong, we can continue the discussion. On a side note. A raised fist, fingers facing outward is a communist symbol. It comes Spanish communists, and has been used as a symbol for feminists and black supremacist groups from the 70's. It did not originate with blm...
-
@That one lurker, but if my word, a man that's spent the past four years no lifeing politics, means nothing. Then you would need to agree that people heiling and those carrying the Confederate flags have no connection to the origins of their flags and symbols.
-
@DaSchlappah, So the leaderless movement BLM wants the entire state (all races) to kill black fathers, and have the kids grow up without dads. Even though it’s a fact that that causes troubles within the kid. That’s what they’re after?
-
@That one lurker, I’m sure you know what the nazi symbol is. Did you know that it means divinity and spirituality? Did you know that it was created in Euroasain countries decades before Germany adopted it? My point is symbols can change. You have to look at what that party is about now. I’m not going to go through and dismantle your argument. There’s too much there. I will say, watch the documentary 13th on Netflix (and call it research). I think that could do a better job than I ever could.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, yes, I agree. That's why I find it hypocritical for you to believe that symbols can't change again. But can change as long as you agree with the change. I think the Nazis knew exactly what they were doing when they took the surya. A symbol of good fortune and peace. To hide their dominant stick intent. Now that we understand what the symbol is used for by some people, it's used within that context is suspect. That's what I can agree with. What I can't agree with is the set double standard. The fist, swastika, and Confederate flag are three different symbols. The fist is being used by the same people that has used it for years, marxist, leninist, and communists. The swastika, not the surya, is used by white supremacists and anti-semites. But your conjecture is that the Confederate battle standard is the same symbol as the Confederate flag. A, show of, sign of faith, for the Confederacy. The South is proud for the battles they won. Not what they fought for.
-
@That one lurker, The swastika was shown at the site of dead Jews. The confederate flag has been shown at the sites of racist rallies and most recently the insurrection at the Capitol. The first was last shown at protest against racial injustices. Symbol with actions behind. White supremacist have used the swastika ALONG WITH the confederate flag at their rallies. These are the connections. These are facts. The confederate flag means something different to you. And I get that. It’s ok. But to others (and the majority of Americans) it represents the confederacy that broke away from the union to continue slavery. The natzies have rewritten what the swatsika means (to mean racial supremacy). BLM have rewritten the first to mean racial equality. White supremacy is rewriting the confederate flag with the waving of it at racist rallies. I don’t like it either. But that’s what’s going on. Start flying that flag at free yoga in the park to change the stigma that comes with it.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, and in all of this, my opinion can be wrong. If I believe one thing but it is shown to be something different. Something that has a wholly new meaning of itself, then whose opinion over a symbol like the Confederate flag matters. Mine the more rational if not foolhardy, or the ones who carry it. Or yours with the blm fist. The difference here in lies with myself understanding the history behind the symbol, and you ignoring the history behind the symbol. I only have a nuanced opinion of the Confederate flag because I believe in speech I disagree with. Not the belief of the speech but for the speech to occur in the first place. You deny the history of the Fist, the sign of communist rule and demand, to assign it a revisionist history. In order to try to clean the blood of every body tapped to water the tree of revaluation. In so of a manner, I can disagree with Trump, but demand he be able to speak. Because if his words are lost then any man may claim a reference to his w
-
@That one lurker, I accept the history of the fist. Just as I accept the history of the swastika. A symbol can change from something bad to something good, or from something good to something bad I’m not gonna say BLM is perfect. They are leaderless, disorganized, and self righteous. But they do make a good point, there is still rampant racial inequality in America. I believe in free speech as well. Everyone is entitled to say what they want. No one is entitled a platform to speak on though. When Trump signed up for Twitter he agreed to to THIER terms and conditions and he broke them countless times. The president should be held to a higher standard because of the power he holds. Trump can go on about how the election was stolen, but he doesn’t get a platform to lie on.
-
I’m not a US citizen to have a say in supporting him or not, this however is a massive example of the damage cancel culture can do. Forgetting who he is a moment, this has happened to far lesser people over slivers of rumours. Any normal person (not saying mentally either, I know Trump is crazy) would have a life after a cancellation such as this. This cancellation is setting the precedent for a normality that is going to dance the line between permanent incarceration and execution. How many people won’t commit suicide (not caring if anyone wishes Trump would) after something like this? It’s happened before, let’s be honest. This is excommunication at its modernised finest, there is no judge, no jury and no end date. To make matters worse alternative tech is being removed, so there’s no option either. Hell, if this app was bigger it would eventually be a target.
-
@Bad Suggestions, you’re right. As an American, this concerns me greatly. The really scary thing is people are cheering this. They don’t realize that it can easily happen to them on down the road. Unless the brainwashing is complete, they will eventually disagree with something, and it can easily happen to them too.
-
@groundpounder04, I’m on both sides of the issue here, (regardless of positive or negative views of Trump), I basically don’t have an issue with private international companies doing whatever the hell they want, because that’s exactly what they are, a website, an app, places that used to be politic free (mostly). Plus the regular media still exists, the platform literally every other president used to communicate still exists and in countless forms (don’t @me with fake news and crap). There’s hasn’t been a moment in time yet where you’re forced to make social media accounts or told by a higher power this is the only way to keep up with your country and it’s leaders. On the other hand, it is a little scary specifically because some of these private companies leaders have it in with some of our government leaders. But again, still a complete free will of choice to use the platforms
-
@groundpounder04, Personal opinion: I think the president should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us for not spreading misinformation. The more popular you are, the more influence you have. And if you use that influence to invite violence, to spread lies and hate, why shouldn’t you be banned? Shouldn’t we all try to take a stand against that kinda stuff?
-
@MrTuxPenguin, should that not also apply to media outlets as well? I mean both sides have thrown out some pretty wild accusations and lies. I think if he gets this they all should. Imo of course.
-
@Steve Lichman, I personal don't like the "it's a private platform" excuse. Let's take for example what you put forward. That it's a privilege to use the platform. Because of terms of service this tach oligarch decides their is no acceptable discussion on abortion, climate change, illegal immigration, border controls, gay rights, trans rights, polygamy rights, bestiality rights, pedo rights, National sovereignty, conversations of peace and war, ect... unless they agree with your opinion. If applied as they do here, then there would be no candidates that could speak out against these massive corporations, unless they are willing to be yeeted. Giving their opponent the massive advantage of owning the largest platform, and an uncontested approval of the oligarch. The best way that I could pose this. Where you live, there is an amazing place to eat. But they do not advertise. So you think you're stuck with McDonald's. If anything, this's why we should be outraged.
-
@Cyriac, if were holding people accountable for inciting violence then cnn, msnbc, fox and friends and all of the others need to be held accountable too. Not only that but trump was doing nothing but telling everyone to stop this bullshít
-
@Guy Fawkes, I 100% agree with you. Though I'm not sure about trump telling people to stop because honestly I've become so tired of this political trash I haven't even been following it lately...
-
@Cyriac, thats probably good for your health tbh hahaha
-
@Cyriac, News media is different. They just reported what he says. They should fact check it before hand and tell you the truth. Media shouldn’t be trying to influence you. IMO.
-
@That one lurker, That would be taking it to the extreme. That is when we should be scared for our 1st amendment. Right now we’re on the opposite end of that where politicians can incite an insurrection and spread hate and lies.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, news media is no different, although one would argue that if there is a difference, its that they should be held to a higher standard do to the audience and command over their attention they command. The news media has tremendous power of narration, which they weilded absolutely shamelessly over the past four years. They're was never good news with Trump, all of it use and framed in a manner to spark anger. This is because anger generates ratings. Do they report facts, sure, most of the time. But is it always constructed in a way that is negative. Its all about framing.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, also the amount of out of context quotes and half quotes presented in a negative light for trump are astranomical. Also just to mention I think trump is a moron and even though I am more conservative i am not a fan. I would have voted for Tulsi.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, yes, I agree. My problem is in what I stated. Twitter have a provision in it's terms of service against dead naming or speaking out against the trans activists. You can't talk about any veiws against homosexuality. Many climate change "deniers" are purged along with doctors trying to bring a counterpoint to the Coronavirus. It's against terms to be an organization against abortion. It's against term to talk about a border wall or simply security. We've come that far. The next step was crossed in the Georgia runoff election, where Facebook band the two Republicans running and removed them from advertising through Facebook. What I'm trying to explain. The fox is in the hen house, and you're taking their calls as just noise in the night. Since You're Expecting the fox to tell you his time table on when he's hungry.
-
@Bad Suggestions, what do you mean alternative tech is being removed?
-
@Finndogs, I’d say the news media differs because they are the middle man. Social media allows you to speak directly to your followers. News can spin it any way they want. But I am calling you out on the media not being nice to Trump. Liberal media aside, all you heard about Trump was how “he’s not like other politicians. He’ll do what’s right.” The reason (IMO) more center news media has given him a lot of good press, is because he hasn’t done anything to benefit the country. He cut taxes for everyone (corporations and people). Cool. He’s also pealed back EPA restrictions, bailed out companies, denied climate change, and started an insurrection. He has done almost nothing he promised to do.
-
@Cyriac, If he’s a moron they don’t need to take quotes out of context. And I’ve listened to full speeches by him. He is a moron and a liar.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, yet they still do. virtually all of them. All of them are liars. He hasn't said nearly as bad things as they claim. Him being a moron doesnt mean he lies...
-
@That one lurker, Jk Rowling is still on Twitter. John Cleese too. I’ve heard people on both sides claim that big tech is banning them. But I still am watching someone complain about it. What I’m trying to explain is that there is no wolf. The boy is just crying wolf so people will listen and give him money to stop it.
-
@Bad Suggestions, you are frighteningly correct
-
@MrTuxPenguin, you're completely right about Trump being a moron and making some questionable choices, but if you relied only on the news, you'd think he only makes bad decisions. If you are going to claim to be a reliable source of news, you MUST weigh the good with the bad, and that is something they never did. Take for example, for every good this he did, he mentioned it for a day (two if he was lucky), while for every controversial topic (some of which he was right to do), it would be the center story for weeks. Speaking of which, let's look at the controversial topics, and examine them. One such example when over NATO, where Trump criticized and pushed the other members of the organization to pay theyre agreed share. For some reason, the news would only discuss about how this may hurt US relations with the other members, and maybe slightly mention how the US has been making up for their lack for decades. Thats a legitimate concern, yet its swept under the rug.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, getting rid of the fairness doctrine was one of the most cataclysmic mistakes the country has made in recent history, since it was one of the few things keeping news media in check. Without it, there is no one watching the watchman.
-
@Cyriac, Him being a moron doesn’t make him a liar. True. The fact that he tells lies makes him a liar. Look at everything he’s said about the election being fraudulent. None of it is true. If it was, they would have some evidence.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, well that depends on which media you believe as well doesnt it? All I'm saying is journalism and news outlets should tell you the news. They should give you the quote. Not the quote with their opinion or there inference on what it could mean. To infer is not their job. I'd they wanna write opinion pieces that's fine but opinion pieces should not be main stream "news" I dont really care to fight about trump. I just wanna make the point that this is definitely the fault of both sides they have all lied and they're all to blame for what's happening to America. Not just trump not just biden not just fox or cnn. All of em.
-
@Finndogs, You do have to separate the opinion from the fact when listening to the news. I’ll admit I thought trump did some good with foreign affairs. He connected with other leaders we would deem dangerous. That’s a fact. Now if you think he did it for selfish reasons, that’s an opinion. You can hear CNN talking about he’s just taking notes on how to be a dictator. I believe that Trump has not been a good president and I can argue that with logic, facts, and evidence. I wouldn’t trust a word from his mouth, or anyone’s mouth for that matter. I look at what he’s done and hasn’t done. And he hasn’t done much.
-
@Finndogs, I agree 1,000%. Now, instead of having to give informed opinions, it can resort to just fear mongering.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, I know that you have to separate fact from opinion. I do that myself, and its why I read from muiltiple sources. The problem is that is not how most people look at the news. To them, every thing said and framed is fact, a hangover from the Cronkite days (yes, I know that even he possessed bias). Personally, I have no love in my heart for Trump. I think he's a complete and utter @ss and one with no skill for words. That being said in terms of his policy, foreign and domestic, I found a great many favorable. But it is not politics that we are discussing here. But rather what I find to be at best poor journalism and at worse dangerous sensationalism.
-
@Finndogs, Yes you get it. It seems that people refuse to do the work to find out the truth. You’re correct, you need multiple sites (left and right) and to separate fact and opinion. Also agree. Journalism now days isn’t real. It’s only what sells. And lots of people feel that way. That’s why when trump says “fake news” they agree. And when he says “don’t trust the news” people don’t. Even if they report something 100% true, no bias, they’ve lost the trust of the public. And they buy into anything and everything trump says and that’s when it gets dangerous.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, have we been arguing in agreement?
-
@MrTuxPenguin, over our string, since I hadn't had time to read the other threads. Jk Rowling and John Cleese where harangue for there comments, if I'm not mistaken they was also locked out of their Twitter. If that's not the case I'll need to look back into it. But continuing on to the reason for them being harassed at all by Twitter or their addicts. Both of these two are National Treasures, icons of entertainment for the western world. If Twitter had banned them for their crimes against sensibilities then it would cause to big of a wave. What I see are smaller groups and people that are talking about the same topics as Cleese be removed. Feminists that hold the same opinion as Rowling getting marginalized and abused. Both John and Jk are great examples to my first point. Twitter only allows it's opinion to be on the platform....
-
@That one lurker, It's not something as drastic Kathy Griffin, who if I remember right, kept her Twitter since it was an "art" piece. Cleese was censored because he made a basic observation of London. And Rowling had the wrong opinion. Trumps a blithering blow hard that gave you his raw thoughts and feelings. That, in an of itself, is honesty. The problem lied in a combination of key details. His supporters took him seriously but not literally. While his detractors took him literally but not seriously. He didn't call for insurrection or violence. He was a terrible orator. But he ment every word he said. Twitter today is more powerful then any ruler in history. It dictates what your opinion is in five years. Example being, your full support of a multi trillion dollar corporation removing a duly elected leader from power. All because he's today's hate figure.
-
@Bad Suggestions, This isnt just cancel culture. At this point its the calm before a dystopian nightmare.
-
@Steve Lichman, When they control 90% of human communication and almost all of the collective human knowlege id say its pretty fair to regulate them. Especially since they rely on claiming theyre a public platform.
-
@Finndogs, This happens way more than it should I think. We’ve been arguing the same point just from different sides.
-
@That one lurker, If Twitter is a powerful as what you say it is, then they’d have no problem banning Rowling or Cleece. But before we go any further. I would appreciate a list of small time conservatives that have been banned when they shouldn’t of.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, sure grab a phone book. That's the deal. Back maybe two years ago there was a problem on Twitter. A bunch of media personalities going them selves out of the job. Middle to lower income working joes, told them to "learn to code." In reference when media pundits said the same to them when Obama was removing their jobs and shipping them a way. Every person that said "learn to code" was yeeted. If we can't agree that that's wrong at least the we may be done here. As of John and Jk and how that relates to power. Twitter power is these celebrities and media pendants that is on its platform and pruning it's lower classes to keep them from learning any contradictory information. For example if Twitter thought communism was good. It wouldn't just keep the communists. It would only keep facts on the site that was pro communist, removing any person that would dare speak against it. Many people would not see anything other then Twitter "truth" and believe that it's correct.
-
@That one lurker, that's their power.
-
@That one lurker, Twitter doesn’t ban everyone who has a different opinion because Twitter doesn’t have an opinion. They have their policies that you agree to if you sign up. If they did ban everyone, there would be no Ben Shapiro, Carl Tuckerson, Kayleigh McEnany, Mike Pence (who still owns straight camps), Ted Cruz, Dave Rubin, Devin Nunes, Kellyanne Conway, Joe Rogan (I think I just know he has different opinions sometimes) Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Lindsey Graham... I can go on. But all these people, despite being the most conservative, are not banned. Trump Jr. even called for war. If someone did get banned on Twitter, it’s because they aren’t just expressing their opinions but because they were calling for hate and violence.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, what do you mean Twitter doesn't have an opinion? What does it mean to call for hate and violence? They've broke their terms of service on multiple occasions. Twitter is made up of people, people that are on the record activly trying to band conservatives. The people you've mentioned are in the exact same place as Cleese and Rowling. They'd get push back if they did so, give it three more years, if it holds its monopoly they'd be purged to. I think this can be defined with one moment. Do you believe in the Russian Trump Collusion?
-
@That one lurker, That’s why they can’t ban everyone. Because they will get push back. Then Twitter gets known as “the safe space” and there’s an opening for another company to capitalize on that. The opposite has happened on Facebook. Facebook didn’t ban anyone and more people know it as the place they’re grandparents her fake news from. I don’t see how it can be defined with that one moment, but yea. I think trump and Russia are in bed together. I also think Biden and China are too.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, ok, on the first part, is a valid point. The rebutle is Parlour. The moment there was competition Twitter and Facebook pressured Amazon to pull their servers. Removing them off the internet. This is the same that happened with subscribe star and every other small start up. It gets bought by them or is dealt with. Point 2, Facebook does the same as Twitter. The reason why it doesn't matter as much is because it's a boomer platform. While Twitter has the media pundents. It's bad for both, but since where on the topic of Twitter I won't delve into the sludge of FB. Lastly, the reason why I ask about Trump Russia is because it was a hoex. A fake report made by a defunked British spy, payed by Hillary Clinton to try and ost Trump. It was used as reverence for Faiza warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. This document read like a dumpster fire you'd get from a /fandom sight.....
-
@That one lurker, But the reason why it's relevant, is because it put in doubt a free and fair election, it was a piece of opposition propaganda. The exact thing Twitter is banning people for now.
-
@That one lurker, 1. I wanna read where you got that report. The exact thing that got trump banned from Twitter. Trump was doubting that the election was fair and incited a riot over it. Twitter has a thing against violence in their teens and use and trump broke it. For parlour, I can see tech giants pressuring to remove it but I’d like to see evidence of it. Parlour has plenty of options around that as well. They’ve got the press, they can start their own website and market as “true free speech website”. It’ll be like 4chan and those websites. OPINION: it won’t take off though because the only thing going for them is the story that Twitter is banning all conservatives. Speaking of 4chan, there are plenty of websites that allow you post anything. They aren’t popular because people consider them as the places where the scum of the internet reside. You remember YouTube comments in the early years and how bad they were before YouTube started doing something about it?
-
@MrTuxPenguin, bro, did you just hit me with "if they want to have free speech they should build their own internet?" Like which report are you asking for, and would you like to be sent stuff on the parlour case? I'm only asking cause we are seeing the lucrative Merger of corporation and state to crush political opposition. We have heads of offices like the fbi and cia. Going into these company, while the companies have members on bidens team. It's all the way from union members in the cabinet to a board member of Dominion being a part of the transition team. Dude, except for sending you my references I think I'm done here. I hope you have a great week and a better 2021. Also, do you mind if the ref I send is in vids?
-
@That one lurker, Thank you.
-
@DaSchlappah, Np, but who dis, new phone. What you want?
-
@That one lurker, don’t want nuthin! Just sayin thank you for being The Guy who could have a rational, intelligent argument throughout that thread. All I was coming up with was insults to intelligence and paternity. So again....thanks Lurker, you Da Man!😂
-
@DaSchlappah, yelling at a man isn't going to teach him anything. It will harden his resolve and turn his heart away from facts and logic. The topic is overwhelmingly simple for any person looking. This guy had the pure bad luck to have an absents of facts in a sea of evidence, allowing political delusions cloud his prospection. In short, arguing in bad faith, with out realizing. He is to the USSR what modern day people are, a default liberal or a useful idiot for authoritarians. I don't blame the man for nothing, he's a victim.
-
@That one lurker, agreed. I chose to respond later on to the penguin in another thread, and the sheer “wrongness” almost seems willful in the face of so much easily attained info. It will be interesting to see the response to the facts that were presented. Found it interesting that you were asked to cite your sources(like this is some kind of high school book report)but none were ever sent your way. Cited most of my points in the thread I responded to, it will be interesting to see if this changes the penguins stance or if the willful ignorance will continue. Anyway.....stay frosty Lurker and have a good day.👍🏻
-
@That one lurker, yup...willful ignorance.🙄
-
So we’re just throwing out the constitution then?
-
@troubled panda, if only he had a large room in his current residence to get his message out by the press.... A press room if you will. Or learn your constitution, free speech protects you from prosecution by the government ( with some exceptions)
-
@InsaneAnimeCleavage, its not just about the constitution. There are laws in America that prevents platforms from prohibiting speech they don't like or disagree with. Right now there is a legal question that the supreme court may be hearing soon about whether or not these social media companies', and maybe YouTube's, actions in banning or censoring counts as actions from a publisher. Which would mean they do not have protections under 230 as a platform, which they currently have and many courts (not the supreme court) has affirmed their status as a platform.
-
@I99nsaneAnimeCleavage, Also we have already seen that the press does not give an unbiased viewing of the President's speech (whether it be cheerleading from Fox or lies from CNN) the nice thing about Twitter is that you can just read what he says directly.
-
@Blandrice, then that is the laws and not the constitution. I believe it was a law change in the late 80's which started that.( FFC fairness doctrine) It existed before, get active to get it reimplemented. It won't be perfect but it will be a whole lot better than what you have now. There is a direct link to news outlets "reporting" and covid cases rising
-
@troubled panda, This doesn’t fall under free speech. Also, most platforms like this have a no hate speech or inciting violence rule.
-
@Pharaoh, so BLM and groups like that should be removed from the platform as well.
-
@Blandrice, remember the whole " trump refuses to denounce racism" thing and they use a clip of " there were good people on both sides" but they left out what he said right after where he condemned white supremacy.
-
Well, I guess the first amendment is not allowed under Biden's rule
-
@Elmato, This man has abused his rights to the First Amendment to maliciously spread false information from a position of power. I would love is we could remove his First Amendment Rights, but we can’t. No matter how evil someone is they still have that right. But private companies have the right to remove someone from their platform for any reason. And honestly, you should be worried when a corporation has more interest in the truth than the President does, because clearly that person isn’t fit to lead.
-
@AceWolf456, I trust corporations as much as I trust a thot to not have some disease
-
@Elmato, so ur saying it should be illegal for facebook or youtube to ban someone?
-
@Elmato, first amendment only applies to government censure. A private company can tell you to stfu all day
-
@AceWolf456, what false info is that?
-
@AceWolf456, the mainstem media blatantly lies DAILY! There are so many lies out there about Trump that people literally don't know what's actually true.
-
@Z0IDBERG, Actually yes. Poland also agrees and wants to fine social media companies who censor free speech.
-
@Tylerdurdin, I’m not talking about the news, I mean Twitter has more interest in the truth than Trump does. Trump is still claiming he won the election that he lost. Trump is also an anti masker. This man is a danger to the public. And honestly, he should have been impeached.
-
@AceWolf456, he was...twice...shows how informed you really are...
-
@AceWolf456, the only way to abuse rights is to take them away, not to use them in ways others don't like
-
@Elmato, i can’t wait to move to poland and break all the youtube rules lol
-
@Z0IDBERG, as illegal as it is to kick a law abiding citizen out of a public space.
-
Nice to see our big tech overlords all playing together so nicely. It warms my heart.
-
Awe damn, a private company banned someone from using their services? It's almost like that's perfectly legal.
-
I mean he just can’t log into stuff, he can still google and watch videos. They removed write access, he’ll have to lurk like the rest of us.
-
Social Media is not a right. If he didn’t spread so much misinformation, he’d still have his Twitter. He’s the problem. People believing his word vomit is a bigger problem. MSM’s problem is they want to be the first to report, so they constantly screw things up.
-
@ZeldasHero, so basically you think its okay for a multi national corporation with control of over 90% of human communication and which holds the sum of all human knowledge to start censoring people they disagree with. You dont see any potential future problems with such a scenario? Oh right i forgot theyre censoring bad orange man and people that disagree with you so its ok.
-
@ZeldasHero, if it’s not a right, then it shouldn’t be protected. It should have the same standards as any other publisher.
what malicious activity was he going to accomplish with spotify? an emo shower playlist?