Slashdot Mirror
Tech Groups Step Away From Gab Network After Shooting (ft.com)
Tech companies including PayPal and Stripe have suspended their services from Gab, a social network catering primarily to US conservatives that had been used by the man accused of killing 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue. From a report: The moves are likely to reopen the debate about the limits of free speech online and the potential for social networks to radicalise users. Gab was launched two years ago by tech entrepreneur Andrew Torba, who became frustrated with what he perceived as a bias against conservative views on California-based social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. His site soon attracted controversial rightwing figures, including Richard Spencer and Alex Jones, who had been suspended or banned from other social networks. Robert Bowers, who has been charged over the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on Saturday, was among Gab's hundreds of thousands of users, the company confirmed on Saturday. Mr Bowers, whose profile on Gab featured images of guns and white supremacist iconography, made anti-Semitic posts and threats on the site just hours before the shooting. Since Saturday's shooting, Gab has been accused of not doing enough to prevent free expression from tipping over into hate speech on its site.
Online payments companies PayPal and Stripe, as well as hosting provider Joyent, all said they would stop Gab from using their services, [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled, alternative source] citing violations of their terms of services, which do not allow hate speech. Gab slammed the moves as "direct collusion between big tech giants" against it. This weekend is not the first time that Gab has been sharply criticised for the content it hosts.Last year, after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Google removed Gab from Google Play, its mobile app store, claiming it violated its policy on hate speech.
Online payments companies PayPal and Stripe, as well as hosting provider Joyent, all said they would stop Gab from using their services, [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled, alternative source] citing violations of their terms of services, which do not allow hate speech. Gab slammed the moves as "direct collusion between big tech giants" against it. This weekend is not the first time that Gab has been sharply criticised for the content it hosts.Last year, after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Google removed Gab from Google Play, its mobile app store, claiming it violated its policy on hate speech.
Says it all.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/f...
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Something happened as a god excuse to shutdown the remaining platforms before the election. The worst mistake made by the blog-o-sphere was consolidating into platforms that had a strong ideological bent and zero interest in free-speech.
These are all non-government corporations making these decisions. If Gab is free to conduct their service how they wish without government intervention, so is PayPal and Stripe. Simple as that.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Let's be real here. This is all about Donald Trump's vile and hateful bigotry and conspiracy theories put into practice by his supporters.
Why are we even talking about social media? The President of the USA has encouraged his supporters to slaughter minorities and liberals and they are putting his words into action.
This isn't complicated. It's treason, it's terrorism. But it isn't complicated.
Torba can whine all he wants, but in the free market one is free to associate, or not associate, with who they want. No one says PayPal or Google have to deal with Gab.
As to Gab being a "conservative" social network, if conservatives believe saying Jews should die, that only white men should be in power, that women deserve to be raped, then sure, why not. Because that is what you'll find there.
This is almost as hilarious as white supremacist Robert Rundo fleeing the country he complains is being taken over by foreigners, and being arrested in Central America. If he didn't like people who weren't white, why would he try to hide in a country where his white skin would stand out?
On the other hand, banning such networks only drives them underground where no one can monitor them, creating an even bigger louder more resonant echo chamber.
If it is possible for such people to openly express their views, however disturbing they might be, while at the same time remove the perverse incentives for others who make money or leverage political power off them it would be better than banning them outright.
But it is very difficult to come up with such a solution where there are so many different players and enforcement is very difficult.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
From: https://medium.com/@getongab/gab-com-statement-on-the-tree-of-life-synagogue-shooting-a6c1de715b39
"Gab unequivocally disavows and condemns all acts of terrorism and violence. This has always been our policy."
They have had this policy for a while: https://medium.com/@getongab/gab-disavows-all-political-violence-cc4031b4899d
All these damn trees are in the way!
All these virtue signalling assholes have lost the plot. WE dont need to be saved, we want free speech.
If you can't see the vile disgusting edges of speech, then you dont know where the middle is. When you hide, curtail, restrict, and lie about speech then the publics perception of it over time becomes warped and allows for true evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Let the other assholes say their stupid and vile stuff and we are big enough to point our fingers and laugh at them or even take them seriously and fix it ourselves.
No, the issue is that Gab takes the platform / common carrier position while facebook and twitter exercise a degree of editorial control. This means that Gab is not liable for hosted content while facebook and twitter are.
That might be their official position but a little context is required.
Gab was started as a direct response to alt-right and white supremacist personalities getting kicked off of Twitter, it's the White Supremacist Twitter.
It doesn't really matter what their official policies are, they're a social networking company created to serve an extremely controversial community, they can't pretend extremists on their platform are some random unfortunate situation no one could have predicted.
I stole this Sig
Watch CNN and it is nothing but hate towards all things Republican.
Watch Fox and it is nothing but hate towards all things Democrat.
The only thing that differentiates them from Social Media is they have total control of the narrative.
who got away with knowingly laundering money for drug cartels for years (decades?), got to keep all the profits and had little to no repercussions ($100 million dollar fine sounds like a lot unless you consider the profits they made from the illegal activity).
They way I look at it is like this: Police yourselves so the gov't doesn't have to. See here for a far more amusing take on it though
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Here comes the flood of free market conservatives mad at private companies for making private decisions. LOL.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
"Ignore our problems! Look at these other people's problems instead! Why they're outright harmful savages by comparison, I say!"
Get real already. When people don't want to party in your filthy backyard, don't try to deflect away from that by pointing out that other people have filthy backyards too. People still won't want to party in yours, and will just see your insecurity and persecution complex for what they are.
There is no service that has been created that cannot and has not been used for evil. But don't think for a moment that certain groups are not quick to recognize when one group uses the actions of the few to imply support similar desire by the whole.
It has taken some time, but many have managed to make even liberty look like it is only a tool used for oppression.... my my my how much work must have gone into convincing people that you cannot be allowed to manage yourself and must instead have your liberties managed for you. All in the name of keeping you safe.
Tyranny is usually though of as a problem brought on by Government agency... yet the control businesses have gained over our lives it has become clear that economically assaulting another group is more than enough to provide it's own form of tyranny.
Perhaps other businesses should start to refuse to do business with banks that do this as well... or do they too not fear reprisal? All it takes for a business to become suspect is by mere associate with something now... whether that associate is properly represented or not. We are only going to see more and more of this as we continue down this, "those that do not think like me are evil" path. This is the mindset that gets people to agree with mass genocide of entire groups of people and when those groups feel oppressed, no matter the form that oppression takes they will discover now that when avenues of diplomacy or discussion are taken away, they become isolated... and many unfortunately feel that violence is the final resort of regaining any attention for their cause... no matter how terrible other think of them for it.
No worries, the Giant Tech companies are not responsible for what people say on their platforms. Really this is good news. Gab itself was an innovative reaction to increasing censorship. For that matter BitChute and a few others. So fuck PayPal and Stripe. This will result in competition for them. When you shut something that large out, customers are already waiting.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
It's just like the way Facebook got shut down when Facebook user Alex Minassian ran over a bunch of people with a van.
big difference between believing tin foil hat nonsense and shooting people.... most the millions in those tin foil hatters aren't doing that.
but that makes things a little hard for the American Right wing vis-a-vis gay rights, so I don't see that happening. Nonetheless if the right wanted this to stop for real that would be the way to do it.
That said, I don't think they do. The right wing own all 3 branches of government and nearly all of the media (they dominate talk radio, Fox News' ratings are much higher than MSNBC and, well, as a lefty I can safely say that MSNBC is right wing on economics, just go watch some of their coverage of Orcassio-Cortez and the Medicare for all Issue).
What I'm saying is this is great for them. It lets them paint themselves not as the ruling class in charge of everything that matters but as an oppressed minority because their extremist aren't welcome. That narrative of oppression grants them sympathy that folks like this normally wouldn't have it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Paypal can choose not to associate with Gab - or any other network - if they want. Nobody can force them to do business with them. Similarly if people don't like that paypal doesn't want to work with Gab any more, they are free to find another way to move money to Gab (or orthogonal to them if they encounter paypal too often in regular transactions for their own liking). There is no free speech issue here when one company decides they don't want to do business with another one.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I guess because it's "conservative" that it's automatically bad.
You're equating a white supremacist who shot up a synagogue with "conservative" (the backlash was for hosting that guy). You must really really despise conservatives.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I guess because it's "conservative" that it's automatically bad.
No, what made it bad is that it's a platform that designed to create echo chambers. In this instance the echo chamber it created got so bad that lives were lost.
it would be pretty bad if banks started booting customers who said things they didn't like.
That may be where we are headed. Conservatives and liberals once talked to each other. Then they started reading different newspapers, watching different TV channels, and moved to different forums on social media. Then forums got banned, and they moved to different social media platforms. Now platforms are being banned, so the next step may be for different ideological groups to have their own app-stores, payment processors, etc.
What is next? "Conservative" and "liberal" grocery stores? Conservatives banned from Whole Foods, and liberals banned from Walmart? Where will Libertarians shop?
All this polarization can't be good for our society.
Actually, it is protected in the United States. If it wasn't, people would be getting arrested for it.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
This. Where I come from, what people call "the left" in the United States would be considered center-right, at the very least. The liberals there are our right-wing conservatives here trying to privatize everything, austerity measures incessantly diminishing our social services, health care and education, zero environmental vision. That's left-wing in America. The right-wing takes the same starting position and launches forward at lightspeed. It's a fascinating yet profoundly depressing shit show.
It does not necessarily mean they blame Gab for the shooting.
Could just be the publicity has made people aware of the nasty shit going on there, the hatred tolerated.
And correlation is obviously causation.
Any excuse to de-platform conservatives will be takes. Any. Excuse.
This requires a legal fix. Political views must be made a protected category.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This.
The reason things are so fucked up is because we, the consumers, are served content that we ask for.
We hate one news outlet and love the other. The providers don't give a flying rat's ass as to how we got there, they just want more of us.
There is a middle ground of sorts with PBS and NPR, but notice that we are not rushing to those sites.
America has two races: Republicans and Democrats.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The reason they haven't also banned Twitter is that Twitter has a policy of not allowing that kind of thing on its network.
That's complete BS. Twitter allows multiple terrorist organizations to operate on there. They even have terrorist groups like the muslim brotherhood verified. It doesn't get much further in terms of extremism when you're talking about a group that wants to commit genocide because religion tells them to.
Om, nomnomnom...
The problem is that Gab is filling a niche that Twitter has forced open through bans, and disproportionately just that niche. Throw in the existing persecution complex of those groups and you've got a recipe for trouble, because you've created an even stronger echo chamber for the worst elements.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The right wing own all 3 branches of government
Republicans do. Conservatives don't. It's still mostly the Establishment Uniparty in charge, which is why so little changes.
and nearly all of the media (they dominate talk radio, Fox News' ratings are much higher than MSNBC and, well, as a lefty I can safely say that MSNBC is right wing on economics
You're very high right now.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You're missing the point.
A parallel is the Paula Dean case. She signed an agreement that, to paraphrase reads: "You fuck with our revenue stream, we will fire you."
That's precisely what happened here. Notice Gab is not filing a lawsuit. They signed the ToS that they violated.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
In the real world, a "party" is a club of people. These people move around, new people entering, other people leaving, and people changing clubs. And there's an interesting history of how and where the many individuals of the club called "Democrat Party" moved to in the decades since and which people replaced the as those left and where these came from. Google it, and google the same for the club "Republican Party". You'll find all the plot twists quite interesting, if not entertaining.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
The shooter hated Trump because Trump was racist enough towards the Jewish people. Trump is just racist towards every other non-white ethnicity.
Do you realize just how pathetic that argument is?
Have you seen Trump's racist remarks where he essentially said that he wants all of the people counting his money to be Jewish?
They way I look at it is like this: Police yourselves so the gov't doesn't have to.
If corporations ban speech under threat of government coercion, how is that any different than the government directly censoring speech?
The problem is that any genuine "conservatives" are so bloody bad at drawing the line between themselves and the racist, hate spewing, violent Nazis out there.
They are so similar in many cases that the temptation for "conservatives" is to think that they are the same, only that the nazi scum is a bit more "dedicated", and in any case "better dead than red". Which becomes a particularly thorny problem when you define anything to the left of hard core reactionarism as "socialism" or "communism".
And you're right it's not good for a society. It's what happened in Germany in the past, Nazis to the right, Communists to the left. There are reasons why the people who ultimately bore the responsibility for put old Adolf into power, Alfred Hugenberg and von Hindenburg were very conservative politicians. And there were reasons why the Nazis let Hugenberg retain his place in the Reichstag until 1945, despite all other parties than the NSDAP being banned. These are also the reasons why Europe haven't had the kind of crazy "conservatives" the US has had for a long time; they all convinced themselves that the Nazis weren't so bad, and either joined the "winning" team directly, or allied themselves to them to the extent that they discredited themselves for decades. Only now, when the people who were actually around back in the day are starting to die out, are we beginning to see their ugly faces again - again accompanied by the hate-filled breed of losers they in vain hope they will be able to exploit.
No, "conservative" just means you can count on violent, willfully ignorant, loudmouth assholes being present in overwhelming numbers. It's not automatically bad, any more than a serious cockroach infestation is automatically bad.
It is, however, symptomatic of a place that lets filthy, loathsome pests take over, so that it becomes uninhabitable for decent people.
I hope this clears things up for you.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
What is next? "Conservative" and "liberal" grocery stores? Conservatives banned from Whole Foods, and liberals banned from Walmart? Where will Libertarians shop?
Progressives already openly support segregation of students based on race. Seems to me the problem with extremism is fairly easy to find.
Om, nomnomnom...
The reason they haven't also banned Twitter is that Twitter has a policy of not allowing that kind of thing on its network.
That's complete BS. Twitter allows multiple terrorist organizations to operate on there
How is it bullshit?
You've offered no evidence that Twitter's usage policy does not disallow terrorist organizations.
All you have claimed is Twitter doesn't follow it's policy. You've completely failed to claim let alone show that this policy, the only actual requirement, doesn't exist.
Seeing as the person you replied to even stated as much, you aren't even bringing anything new to the table with your redundant claim.
In fact let's actually look.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy
That entire webpage, that you claim doesn't exist, is right there existing.
Click the link and look for your self. You outright claim that page doesn't exist, yet it does. If there is any bullshit here its your lies that are so trivial to show as lies that it is embarrassing.
So the page you claim doesn't exist, does exist, right there for all to see.
Your redundant claim that Twitter doesn't follow it, again already said and not insightful, is not any sort of requirement. It's legally so unimportant I question your understanding of law to even bring it up in the first place.
How are you so confused by this? Paypal and the like require you to have a written policy of such rules. They have NO requirement to follow such a policy. This is a simple binary situation.
of being Conservative? If change isn't happening then they're winning.
I think you're mixing up the radical right (alt-right?) with actual Conservatives. But even then the radical right wing is doing pretty well for themselves. There's been a massive and successful attack on gov't regulation. Much of Dodd Frank has been repealed. Most of the Obama era EPA guidelines have been eliminated or toned back. Net Neutrality is dead putting control of the internet in the hands of private industry. Mitch McConnell is even able to talk openly about ending Social Security and Medicare. These are policies the far right has wanted for decades and had to back down on.
Meanwhile the left can't get any tracking on Medicare for All, even though a majority of Republicans support it (let alone Democrats). The left are completely on the defensive in all respects. The right is winning on all fronts.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...the hatred tolerated.
there are many forms of hatred; anyone can hate anything else.
hatred is a feeling rising out of some value (usually but not limited to, moral) judgement (irrational, misguided, or not).
not to tolerate hatred of any kind is to create a zombie like slavish society where no kind of free individual judgement is allowed. where only values and judgements allowed are those of the powers that be.
actions against gab indicate, we are heading that way.
personally i think hatreds, of any kind, should be tolerated, and would be tolerated, in a healthy robust society confident of itself and its values. only perpetrators of actions that actually deprive others of same rights everyone enjoys(and are legally guaranteed through democratic means) should not be tolerated. [shooter should be banned after the action, gab should be free to continue as they want.] only weak authoritarian societies cannot tolerate hatred.
again actions against gab indicate, we are becoming such a society,.
yeah social media made him do it, riiiight.
Well, he did tweet that the only good reason to buy a MAGA hat is to burn it. Clearly he was radicalized by Trump-haters on Twitter. Also, this proves that Twitter is anti-Semitic.
Has anyone called for the banning of the brand of car he drove to the shooting?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Liberals? They're not liberals. Liberals believe in freedom of speech. They might disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. You are talking about Leftists. Leftists have little use for free speech and will happily silence those with whom they disagree. As is happening here.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Any excuse to de-platform conservatives will be takes.
I'm not conservative, but unlike you I don't hate conservatives, and certainly not nearly enough to equate the whole of conservatism with white supremacy. What I want to know is why you despise conservatives so much? It's not healthy.
That's what happened here, gab hosted white supremacists and one off then went off and did some actual white supremacist sort of things and now lots of people don't want to do business with gab any more.
Bonus points if you reply with whataboutism involving antifa.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You can't make direct threats. That's what's at issue here. Paypal was fine with Gab until one of their own shot up a place.
That said, Paypal's a payment processor, not a web forum. I don't think this is pressure from the gov't. It's more likely they're worried about a backlash from their customers.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Republicans haven't been conservative in their actions since the 90s. The Establishment, most Dems and Most Republicans, is a small group of huge donors who always gets their way. Democrats and the GOP put on this kabuki theater ritualized show where they make a very public show of disagreeing on things like gay marriage, things with no financial consequence to the big donors, but they agree on everything important. (And even on issues like gay marriage, the outcome is as scripted as professional wrestling).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Political views are something you choose, so they can never be a protected category.
"Protected category" is a legal construct, and includes whatever arbitrary groups the law is written to include. California includes political affiliation as a protected category.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Don't worry, the tech giant's will fall once the massive subset of the total population that supports the indiscriminate shooting up of places loosely affiliated with whatever hate these guys are blaming for their terrible lives realizes they can't swipe to pay for their red arm bands, hats or white hoods.
I see this every day on social networking from my liberal friends.
Historically, conservative leaders took the moral high road and measured their words carefully. But now the conservative standards bearer is saying crap like "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise".
Many more statements called "dog whistles" have been made, such as "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks... Although the Second Amendment people â" maybe there is, I donâ(TM)t know.â
Now you can say this is all just political hyperbole. You might even try to say it's merely coincidence that violent hate crime is up dramatically over the last 2 years.
But the point isn't about "proof" or causality. The point is trying to understand the opinions, rather than merely dismissing them as "must really really despise conservatives". This sort of speech which is likely to incite hate and maybe leads to violence is reckless. Until only 2 years ago, far outside the norm of what anyone would consider acceptable from the president or other elected officials.
Then again, maybe you'd prefer to believe Republican leaders have acted ethically or may be above questioning. In that case, I suppose the only explanation that fits is some folks must just really really despise conservatives.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
This partitioning is being driven by progressive extremists, for the express purpose of destroying America.
I think that's taking it a bit far and probably attributing reasons to most of the people who fall into that group that don't exist. In reality, the explanation is much more banal: They're doing it because they think it will impress other people like them. It's as simple and stupid as that. It's not really different than conservative Christians that try to take tough moral stances against homosexuality so that they can show everyone how Christian and moral they are.
Naturally this attracts a lot of sleazy people who want to hide behind the facade of moral superiority. They don't really care about the message, or even disagree with it, but find that they can hide behind it. Just like not all of those conservative Christians are closeted homosexuals, you can bet that of the people trying to appear to be the most virtuous, some are banging other men in private gay clubs. Just like you have no trouble finding many of the men who claim to be feminists have been harassing women and doing all of things they decry in public.
I don't think the political correctness really matters. Even if you quit dancing around some issues, the solutions that the different political factions have are so incompatible as to be incapable of compromise. In the end it comes down to dogma and you won't get the conservative Christian to go along with gay marriage any more than you'll get the super-woke progressive to agree that inherent gender differences exist. The gun nut will never agree to any form of gun control and the socialist will never agree that their economic policy just doesn't work. Once you hit the central tenants of some faith, it doesn't really matter.
In this case, does anyone that anti-Semitic ever listen to reason? Even if you let him run around screaming about the Jews on Twitter all day, is he ever going to listen to anyone who he doesn't already agree with, or does he just invent some reason to lump any disagreement as proof that the Jews are controlling everyone? I almost think that social media disconnects people from one and other to the point where it's not possible to solve this issue even if you have a single service that everyone gets to use no matter what. I think that requires actually sitting down with people and talking to them. Fortunately, there's good reason to be hopeful that something like that actually works.
In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship is state censorship. If Paypal had any competitors, they could be used. There aren't any that I've ever heard of. It's not a free market.
You might not have sympathy for Gab as an individual, but I'd still be worried about the legal precedence this sets. You might not presently live at the cliff edge yourself, but the gradual erosion of liberty will certainly ensure that you eventually do.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
> Twitter allows multiple terrorist organizations to operate on there.
Not the least of which is the leadership of the United States...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html
A political leader making inflammatory (and often empty) threats is not terrorism.
Trump Derangement Syndrome in action, people. It even got modded up. Sad.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I'm a Reagan era conservative. My party was hijacked by religious fundamentalists and whackjobs years ago. Although these days I guess I'm more libertarian than anything. I don't believe more government or more taxes is the solution to a problem
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
https://arrow-journal.org/why-... Which is hilarious because that's what segregation was.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Except this isn't "correlation". Using a word that's only used in a certain community is a pretty good reason to believe you have spent time in that community.
Do you have any evidence that the views on Gab are "conservative"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, the backlash is not for hosting that guy. He was on Twitter and Facebook too. No backlash there. The backlash is for not banning conservative speech in general. But that's just an excuse, really.
The is the Silicon Valley Cabal using this shooting as an excuse to destroy the competition - pure business. Gab was starting to get actual traction as a competitor, and there's nothing a monopoly hates more than a competitor!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yup, very poor choice of hosting providers. If only nearlyfreespeech.net was able to host real internet services, but they're pretty focused on the little guy.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm not sure there are any really good ones, all can be subject to Social Terrorism, DDoS attacks, etc.
Most fascenating thing to me about this "discussion" is that as I type this, the comment you're replying to was downmodded 1 point. I wonder what the triggered snowflake who did that thought they were accomplishing, it's not like people aren't going to notice when Gab goes offline in 19 and a half hours....
Any true conservative would have let the banks and auto makers go under back in 2008. The free market has showed their business model as unsustainable Instead the Republicans let them drink from the government tit.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
And what, prey tell, is a crime, if not today, then tomorrow? Already you're defining Gab's normal, better than Twitter policies and actions as a crime.
I think that the underlying issue there is that Republicans despise Democrats more than they hate Nazis or similar ilk. The same could be said of Democrats who despise Republicans more than they hate Antifa or similar groups. That is, they really don't like the most extreme elements of what could be broadly called their side, but they're too fixated on what the view as their main enemy to care or feel as though acknowledging that group in the same breath as themselves is just an attempt at a smear job. The more crafty (or perhaps the ones who don't minding playing with matches) among the parties even view those extremists as a kind of useful tool.
I think the only thing that really frees us from this is ultimately removing the first past the post election system so that we don't get a concentration of two parties that must naturally exist in opposition to each other. I wouldn't be surprised that if you took the platform for a party and asked everyone who considered themselves to be a part of that party about their honest opinion for all of the different issues, that on average you'd find people only supported about half of those positions personally. They're really only a member of that party because of a few, or perhaps maybe only one, key issue that they view as that important. You don't really find many candidates who are both pro-gun rights and pro-abortion rights for example. Once you free the Republicans from needing the white nationalist vote and the Democrats from needing the Antifa vote, I think you'll get both of those parties telling both of those other groups to fuck right off.
And where and how, precisely, did Gab do that?
When liberals hate conservatives, it is because they do not understand what conservatives believe, nor do they care to learn. When faced with questions such as "One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal" or "Justice is the most important requirement for a society," liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.
Jonathan Haidt's experiments ask liberals and conservatives to fill out questionnaires about their values, then to predict how someone from the opposite tribe would fill out the questionnaire. He finds that conservatives are able to predict liberals' answers just fine and seem to have a pretty good understanding of their worldviews, but that liberals have *no idea* how conservatives think or what they value.
One of the most telling discoveries was that conservatives tend to be curious about what liberals think and why, while liberals see conservatives as inferior "other," inherently incapable of thought. The slur as substitute for argument is glaring on this website.
One only needs to utter the name "Sarah Palin" to see how interested liberals are in women's rights, or "Clarence Thomas" to see how interested they are in racial equality.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
My 2 top comments in this story have each seen 10+ mod points expended on them, and they're still in rapid motion. And they're both fairly bland. Slashdot has been overtaken by tribalism, with modding going entirely by "are you fer em or agin em". That's exactly what destroyed Digg, and I'm not sure how much life Slashdot has left in it.
Heck, I saw posts downmodded yesterday for suggesting such notions as "the rich use their money to become richer, they don't just sit on it" and "healthcare is really expensive". Those are almost progressive talking points, but they're not exactly progressive talking points, so mods were triggered.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Then forums got banned, and they moved to different social media platforms.
Banned for breaking the rules, not for having a conservative political ideology. Mainstream social media platforms don't want people spewing hate speech on the company's dime. I've said it numerous times before, if bakers don't have to bake a gay wedding cake when it conflicts with their values, then Facebook/Twitter/etc. doesn't have to bake your KKK cake, either.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
So is religion, and it's a protected category.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If Paypal had any competitors, they could be used.
Gee, wouldn't it be great if someone had invented a decentralized means for transferring money online?
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
The DoJ can't exactly raid their headquarters and arrest their CEO. You should note that they also haven't dismantled more deadly and centralized protest groups on the right, such as the Proud Boys which are openly running "security" for Trump's rallies these days.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Leftists have little use for free speech and will happily silence those with whom they disagree. As is happening here.
Wrong. Gab hasn't been silenced, they can still happily Gab away at whatever "thinly-veiled-racism masquerading as a nationalist agendas" trips their trigger. They may have to find another web host or plug their own server hardware into the internet, and accept cryptocurrency instead of PayPal.
When you start telling business they can't choose to act on their own morals, you might end up telling Christian bakers they've gotta bake that gay wedding cake, too. I've always said it must take a lot of cognitive dissonance to be an alt-righter.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I've been told what killed Digg was it changing from a user generated discussion site to an advertising platform that favored the content generated by the advertisers.
That said, you're probably right about Slashdot's fate, it's the only major general tech discussion site I'm aware of that's trying to stay moderately neutral. The totalitarian tech Left is getting ever more intolerant of anything but NPC style agreement, so even if those of us on it don't tear it apart.... Although in the meanwhile, amping up metamoderation, and policing that might help.
Do you realize just how pathetic that argument is?
What argument? Your first sentence made no sense and was still more coherent than your logic.
The shooter posted that he hated Donald Trump. That's the shooter's words. Fucking argue with him if you want but stop posting such cuntish idiocy on here.
and you shouldn't be using that word. You're misusing it. Perhaps intentionally in order to get real conservatives on your side. I've said this before, but Hilary Clinton was and is the best true conservative in America. She'd have kept everything the same, only making a few minor changes to keep everything on course. She lost because Americans don't want actual conservatism. They want change, and it's no wonder why.
Also nobody is in favor of small government when it suits them. Folks who get it with a natural disaster want the Fed to come in and help. Most people support a large, national military for defense. And our interstate highway couldn't be built by a small government. The "Conservative" Red states get more money from the fed than they put in and if you touch those subsidies expect their Senators to fight tooth and nail against you.
What you're really in for is "small enough to drown in a bathtub" government. In other words, small, local governments that can be pushed around by large power organizations. Even if that's not what you want, it's what the folks who fund and run the "small gov't" movement do. And they make the rules.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
he was an active member of a community that in turn actively encourages folks like him to come to their side. You know this. You're trying to shift the narrative. I don't think anyone's gonna fall for it though. At least not anyone who doesn't _want_ to fall for it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The geek community was first constructed as a haven for the unfairly rejected. But in our rush, we forgot that sometimes, the rejection is fair. It's long past time to kick the fairly-ostracized back out into the cold where they always belonged, but better late than never.
Social networking is the WORST computer technology inflicted upon the unsuspecting public ever. From Russians influencing the US presidential election in 2016; to leaks of people's personal data; to all the killings and other violence in India, Myanmar, and the United States; to the enormous wealth which is only outdone by the enormous arrogance of Silicon Valley; social networking is a plague upon humanity. Boycott all social networks.
Religion is something you choose as well
Banned for breaking the rules, not for having a conservative political ideology. Mainstream social media platforms don't want people spewing hate speech
"Hate speech" is an ideological concept. Liberals are against it, and conservatives think it is "politically correctness" run amok.
Saying it is not about political ideology, because it is about "hate speech" (a politically ideological concept) is a contradiction.
Bans on "hate speech" may look reasonable if you look at the worst racist garbage being posted. But any power to ban will be abused, and "hate speech" has been used to justify censorship of calm rational express of conservative opinions, such as banning speeches at state run universities. That is government censorship of political speech, precisely what the Constitution was designed to prevent.
Even if you are unwilling to defend free speech on principle, you should defend it for practical reasons. As a liberal, you need to realize that you are LOSING the ideological debate. The right has been winning elections, and dominating nearly every branch of government. Much of this is because they try to convince their political opponents, while progressives try to silence theirs.
When people take the "ideological turing test" (a liberal tries to impersonate a conservative or vice versa), conservatives do way better. Conservatives understand liberals. They just disagree with them. But liberals tend to not even understand conservative viewpoints, misrepresent them, and sound fake to actual conservatives. It is hard to win over the middle ground, when you don't even understand your opponents.
then Facebook/Twitter/etc. doesn't have to bake your KKK cake, either.
I don't see anyone questioning their legal right to ban speech they don't like. They are private companies and can do whatever they want. The question is whether that is the right thing to do, and whether it is good for our society to have more and more segregation of people with opposing viewpoints.
While fox quite clearly show a bias, and they gladly admit it, CNN does not necessarily has such a bias. In fact if you both er to check you will find that when it happen they also report bad things said or done by democrats. e.g. just simply example if you want like anthony wiener sexting. This isn't equivalent to fox. that Fox and some right wing people managed to bring a narrative that cnn and co and other media are democrat aligned , shows that they have managed to really control media and people far more than they readily admit.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
There are "some very fine people" there.
- Donald J Trump
I'll just leave these Ku Klux Klan (KKK) application forms here for you and anybody else who thinks that Jews are "safe" from white supremacists. Jews, Blacks, and all other targeted groups must stand united or we will fall together.
http://www.lwkkkk.com/membership-application/
Multiple choice question:
https://www.unskkkk.com/application/wp/
True or False:
Damn near all my relatives are convinced that President Obama was a radical socialist. Of course, they were just parroting what right-wing media was propagandizing. After decades of such swill, they're total believers. All rationality is absent from their thinking processes.
You mean the Community Mental Health Act, passed in 1963 when Reagan was a private citizen (JFK's interest in the subject is obvious)?
You're sort of right about the cause, the Left decided there were better ways to buy votes, while the judiciary made it impossible to institutionalize people against their will, one judge went so far as to say being schizophrenic was just as "authentic" as being "normal".
Check the link, the process began long before in the mid-1950s when we developed anti-psychotic and somewhat later realized lithium carbonate was a very effective anti-bipolar drug. These were true miracles drugs, but they're nasty, and many people have to be forced to take them. Removing the feedback of force from the new system made sure it would never work for a very large fraction of the severely mentally ill population. Then Reagan became President and the media suddenly discovered the homeless.
You appear to know far more about the KKK than I do. Out of curiousity are they actually white supremacist or are they just racist idiots?
At a dance last night someone threatened a gentleman of the Jewish race and religion. I made my presence known and the idiot backed down and left the building. Would this behaviour be acceptable in the KKK?
(Not that the Jewish guy needed any actual help. He's a black belt in ju jitsu.. but being obviously outnumbered stops trouble starting in the first place)
Are you actually this fucking stupid?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Common carrier status doesn't apply to Twitter or Facebook. They are "information services" per the FCC.
Yeh, he was upset because Trump hadn't gone far enough getting rid of all the Jews. Are you truly as fucking stupid as your posts suggests? Yeh, that was rhetorical.... we already know you are.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
You are just a racist asshole yourself: if you support Trump. As someone else already posted, I meant that the shoot believed Trump wasn't racist enough against Jews.
Read the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
Idiocy? These are facts. The right wing racist Republican party doesn't like facts.
It's interesting that you are doing the exact thing you're complaining about liberals doing. Lets face it, conservatives project so much because they complain about things they PERCEIVE liberals would do....and they think liberals would do those things BECAUSE that's what conservatives would do in that position. Conservatives can't understand that other people can be better than their most basic vices.
As for you, we've already established your just a fucking idiot.... and you certainly don't know shit about liberals or how they think. As for what conservatives think... well, Jesus said to feed the hungry, heal the sick, cloth and shelter those in need.... and conservatives vote people into office that do EXACTLY OPPOSITE of that. Your rewriting of history in your post would be laughable if you weren't so fucking stupid as to believe yourself.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
In the 1940's the antifa in the US had a different name: the US military. You are placing yourself firmly on the side of nazi's.
https://www.splcenter.org/figh...
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Did you even read his comment? DNS&BIND referred to research where conservatives answered questions just as liberals themselves answered, but liberals couldn't do the same when asked to answer for conservatives.
Conclusion: Conservatives understand Liberals just fine, Liberals don't understand conservatives. You yourself show this with your own invective; and if your seething hatred prevents you from understanding a 7-sentence comment, what else is it keeping you blind to?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
And once again we see how deeply dishonest the fallacy of "whataboutism" is. If you want to deplatform people you accuse of being violent extremists you don't get to ignore the fact that all of these tech giants are actively defending groups like antifa and even very blatantly antisemitic fanatics like tankies.
When the entire argument is a claimed moral high ground, or the claimed unacceptability of certain things, then it's 100% legitimate and relevant to bring up when they actually do accept and condone those same things. You don't get to scream "blue shirts are unacceptable" and then turn right around and say "that's whataboutism!" when people start bringing up the thousands and thousands of people in r/commieblueshirtclub.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Bullshit. Twitter actively defends this kind of thing as long as it's someone like Sarsour or Farrakhan doing it. They're perfectly happy to allow people to advocate violence against jews, men, asians, anyone as long as they're using the right feminist buzzwords in the process and kiss the ring of social justice.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
That may be a problem, but I'm not sure what the solution is.
I expect Gab will find hosting somewhere and this may even attract more users.
I'm not in favor of (gov't) forcing Twitter to host content they don't want to as I believe that would violate their First Amendment. Shareholders and the public applying pressure is a different matter.
And the government can't block Gab unless they're somehow engaging in criminal activity and as far as I know, they're not. I've only looked at Bowers account, but I'm not sure any of his messages actually crossed legal lines in the US. I'm sure they would elsewhere in the world, but I'm not arguing for any changes to the First Amendment.
I'm just not sure anything violated US law (credible threats? inciting violence?), but I'm not a lawyer.
Of course the gov't could monitor the internet even more closely but it's often hard to tell the difference between trolls, crazy but harmless people and potential threats who may at some point do something. And before they do anything you can't do all that much.
I sort of like the idea of exiling extremists to their own corner of the internet (makes them easier to avoid, easier to monitor), but then that just amplifies their echo chamber.
What's particularly ironic is that SJWs are the most homogenously rich and white group out of basically everyone in the US.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Conservatives aren't the ones so bad at telling the difference between Nazis and literally anyone else in the world that they'll call even Orthodox Jews "Nazis". You're thinking of the regressive left.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
There aren't any that I've ever heard of.
That's because you have shit for brains, and don't know what you're talking about. Any business can setup a payment system through their own bank.... they don't have to rely on Paypal. They could also use a merchant bank.... and not rely on Paypal. Or, they could use any number of OTHER payment takers online like: Webpay, Square, Dwolla, Paydivvy, Wepay, Serve, Paytoo, Google Wallet, Skrill, Payoneer, Payza, 2Checkout, Intuit... or any one of LOTS more. But you're too fucking stupid to have heard of ANY of these... or you're a fucking liar. Again, my money is on the latter.
The LEGAL PRECEDENCE is that a business can set standards for it's members, and if they break them, they can boot them. It ain't a new concept... but what you want isn't to protect their free speech, it's that you want to insure they don't have any consequences to the things they say. You want to elevate THEIR free speech to being more important than anyone elses. But then, you're just a whiny little victim, aren't yah.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Not as much as it takes to be a leftist that calls orthodox jews "nazis"
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Bullshit. You can say all the sexist, racist, antisemitic things you want on mainstream social media as long as you use a few feminsit buzzwords now and again. If you actually gave a fuck about the values you pretend to have you'd be losing your shit over Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory continuing to be blue checkmarks on twitter.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
They call for genocide all the time. Against jews.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
That's interesting. Is like to learn more. Neither link was to the actual study (methodology, numerical results, ...) - only to takeaways. Do you have any idea where to find out about the actual study?
I'm curious because the guy said he asked 2000 "visitors" to fill out his questionnaire. I wonder which visitors? To where?
Ah yes the SPLC... the same organization that has no problem with Tamika Mallory taking selfies with a holocaust denier who publicly praises Hitler but thinks that anti-salafism women's rights activists like Ayaan Hirsi-Ali are "dangerous extremists".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
> The reason they haven't also banned Twitter is that Twitter has a policy of not allowing that kind of thing on its network.
Except they don't really enforce it. They will happily accept blatant anti-semitism if the perpetrator's politics or "identity" lines up correctly.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The problem is that Gab is filling a niche that Twitter has forced open through bans, and disproportionately just that niche.
I'm not sure that's true. It is true that many more people from the right have been banned, but the right is home to much more virulent rhetoric at this point. I've also seen complaints from people on the left that progressives are being banned for relatively benign things while people on the right are able to get away with extreme content.
The mail bomber Sayoc threatened multiple people on Twitter, they complained to Twitter, and he never got banned.
I think the process is just too random to accurately detect bias on Twitter's part.
Throw in the existing persecution complex of those groups and you've got a recipe for trouble, because you've created an even stronger echo chamber for the worst elements.
That is true. Ideally you'd find some way to encourage them to behave civilly but there doesn't seem to be an easy fix for that. And I don't know how you kick off the extremists without the exiled extremists gathering together somewhere else.
I stole this Sig
Different people have different lines for what is too much "political correctness".
Most Americans would agree that the "n-word" shouldn't be used in everyday conversation. That's why we even created the euphemism "the n-word". I certainly wouldn't want it banned though (either by rewriting Mark Twain or attempting to expunge it from history).
But we'll argue about whether saying electing the black candidate would "monkey this up" is a racist dog-whistle or just an innocent expression. It seems incredibly tone-deaf of him if he didn't mean it as the dog-whistle. In fact, IMO, it stretches credibility.
DeSantis says Florida shouldn’t ‘monkey this up’ by electing Andrew Gillum
Moving towards more questionable "PC" arguments, there's this FB post that a school district's police department deleted and apologized for.
(To save people the click, it's a picture of an overloaded bus (presumably in India) with people on top and hanging on to the back with the caption "Don't forget! It's National Bus Safety Week" and it seems obvious (to me anyway) the point was bus safety, not "look at all the Indians!")
Katy ISD apologizes after parents express outrage over what they call a racist Facebook post
And then we have cases of people not wanting children to play Cowboys and Indians or dressing up for Halloween as a Disney character from a different culture.
And should I really feel guilty that I enjoyed The Party starring Peter Sellers in "brownface"? Or Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's?
So, you believe the near-doubling of antisemitic violence since Trump was elected is just some weird coincidence?
https://www.theguardian.com/so...
And is a near-doubling of white supremacist propaganda since Trump was elected also just some weird coincidence.
https://www.adl.org/news/press...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I almost think that social media disconnects people from one and other to the point where it's not possible to solve this issue even if you have a single service that everyone gets to use no matter what.
That's probably true. If Twitter didn't ban anyone and they were the only option, people would quickly for their own echo chambers and there might be more interaction but that would mostly be posting to people of the "other side" until most people block all those people.
People forming their own gated communities all in one huge walled garden.
any true Conservative's first concern would be preserving the existing order and stability. That's what Conservatism is. It's what the word means.
Now, a libertarian would have let the banks fail. But not a Conservative.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the economic right wing own virtually everything. Talk radio is almost completely right of center (with NPR being a bit left on social issues but still centrist on the economy). Same with newspapers when it comes to money. Right of center.
What's more, America is not nearly as divided as the media tells you. 70% of us support medicare for all. You'll find similar numbers for marijuana legalization, infrastructure spending and putting a stop to our endless wars.
Americans are actually pretty well united. Our ruling class figured that out in the 50s. They used hot button wedge issues to motivate a fringe to vote against their interests and gerrymandering, voter suppression combined with our pseudo Democracy (e.g. Senate & Electoral College) to make sure the majority didn't get what they wanted.
But this created a problem. It was now too obvious America wasn't a Democracy anymore. So they bought up the media and started pushing a narrative that we're divided. We're not. Not on the issues anyway. We have a classic tyranny of the minority.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It may be more a question of how they interpret things.
"“One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal”"
The liberal might think, well conservatives are often avid hunters so they guess conservatives would disagree. The conservative might think, well most vegans are liberals so liberals would agree. In reality, many liberals hunt, many conservatives don't, few liberals are even vegetarians let alone vegan and define "defenseless".
We kill defenseless animals all the time, usually for food but also for wildlife management and even sport. But if we're talking about animal cruelty I think most people regardless of political belief would agree that's horrible.
That animal question is far too open to interpretation.
It could be a question of people saying one thing while really thinking another. I see nothing wrong with slaughtering defenseless cattle for their meat. If they're honest most people would agree that it's not one of the worst things but they think others will see them badly if they admit that.
And can we even agree on what is liberal or conservative anymore? Aren't most of us rather moderate? Were the liberals answering what they thought the extreme right would say?
> catering primarily to US conservatives
1. That's only seen as the case because they've been systematically deplatformed by twitter.
2. The idiotic notation that there are only two political perspectives is literally six times dumber than astrology.
I'm strongly left leaning, but more anti-authoritarian than left, so I'm seen as right wing buy left wing useful idiots because I oppose their aspirations of authority, and seen as left wing by right wing useful idiots because I oppose most of their social policy.
Gab is laudable for their free speech support. Smearing them is more reprehensible than being the mere host of speech you don't like will ever be.
>The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
—H. L. Mencken
Question everything
You mean the Community Mental Health Act, passed in 1963 when Reagan was a private citizen (JFK's interest in the subject is obvious)?
"Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.
He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization."
From: here
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Trump's own estimate is that he only controls about 70% of what's going on in America. Even though his buddy Putin says that he's 90% in charge compared to Putin's 80% control of Russia.
Time for another journalist joke:
Q: What's the difference between a Saudi reformer journalist and chopped liver?
A: We know where the chopped liver is!
And MBS is 100% in control of Saudi Arabia. Trump can only be envious.
Hey, here's a solution to solve ALL the problems in one swoop. Trump can build the wall out of prison cells. Several stories tall because he wants a YUGE beautiful wall! Plenty of cells for all the immigrants and asylum seekers AND their children!
"Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!"
My back of the envelope calculation says millions of cells, so there will still be plenty of empty ones for all of Trump's political enemies and journalists, too. If there are still any vacancies, they can convert some of the nice locations on the top floor into condominiums and sell them to Trump's great buddies from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and maybe some really stinking rich Asians who can qualify as honorary white people.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
They call for genocide all the time. Against jews.
That's a lie.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a peaceful, mostly secular charity organization. BLM is a pro-racial-diversity group. Antifa promotes open dialogue between people with differing ideological views
-- J. Brennan, B. Obama, M. Waters, N. Pelosi
You are just a racist asshole yourself: if you support Trump.
Oh dear. You appear to lack the ability to think.
Whether I support Trump or not does not dictate whether I am racist.
I do notice that you appear to have tried to skirt around the fact that Trump has a grand total of fuck all to do with this. I pity you that you're unable to look beyond the President of the United States when trying to account for the woes of the world. But as I said, you appear to lack the ability to think.
To make what I previously said more clear, it's bullshit, because the 1963 vision of deinstitutionalization as passed into law by a Democratic Congress and signed by JFK could not work because the usual suspects soon took force off the table. The "decisions" he made following that 1963 law when governor failed because ... force was very shortly afterwards as I recall taken off the table.
And it's not like the public health services for the indigent went "poof" when he "discarded" that law, several of my doctors in times past, including a psychiatrist, volunteered their time at them. On patent branded drugs, though ... those would have been an issue at times. But not the early ones, first generation anti-psychotics and probably lithium carbonate. Although the latter requires blood work to get the dosage right, it has a narrow therapeutic index.
Seriously, if you want to come off as better than a NPC, reply to my points, review the link I provided, instead of regurgitating talking points so old they've turned gray.
I have no idea. He was dancing the same way that the black, asian, other jewish and other white people at the dance were dancing.
The threatened violence was related more to his request that drunk Ukrainians kindly leave the venue as it was a private event and they weren't invited.
Liberal: The problem with Twitter is that there are too many Racists and Nazis.
Conservative: Oh so you're saying Twitter should ban conservatives?
Liberal: Uh, no, just Nazis, you know White Supremacists/Nationalists, people who describe themselves as such or even as Nazis, and often even include swastikas and stuff in their profiles.
Conservatives: Oh so you think conservatives are Nazis? Well I'll have you know that Nazis only applies to members of the German National Socialist Party between 1922 and 1946, so you ARE talking about banning conservatives.
Liberal: *headdesk*
A sizable number of conservatives have basically decided that Racists and Nazis are just ordinary conservatives. And the Nazis themselves have capitalized on it, with things like the "Unite the RIght" rally which wasn't a rally where people listened intently to speeches by Marco Rubio and Charles Krauthammer, and discussed the merits of flat taxes and deregulation, but, you know, involved flaming torches, chants against immigrants, blacks, and jews, and one flat out murder of a woman who had earlier in the day protested against neo-nazism.
And how many conservatives complained about "Unite the Right" and made it clear this bunch of lunatics had nothing to do with conservatism? None. Because you've gone completely blind in that area.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yeah, I think most data shows that any corporate social media bans/censorship have the independent left taking about 75% of the bans. Unfortunately, 0% of the bans are on the corporate left, so it's easier for the right wingers to pretend that it's an attack against them. Furthermore, they tend to be more public about the right-wing bans, and they blame a lot of the left-wing bans on 'Russians.'
Basically, social media giants are making the worst possible choices on their ban policy.
I would argue that we need the very opposite approach. The way you neuter extremists is to have the opposite of bubbles. Force people into having to interact and see people with drastically different viewpoints. But that's not much in line with what users want or what advertisers want. so we end up with a machine that breeds right wing extremists.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Is that what you tell yourself when you vote for a DNC candidate offering to "clean out the muddy waters" instead of "drain the swamp" like their opponent? The US is a one-party nation. Change my mind.
1. I'm not from Europe, and 2) I don't think you realize what the Le Pen clan's positions are if you claim that's communist.
Oh great, a deplorable. When was America great? Tell me exactly which period you're trying to get back to.
It also turns "socialism" into a bad word. I can't imagine America ever getting out of the thick bubble it's lost in, this far ahead into its decline.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a peaceful, mostly secular charity organization. BLM is a pro-racial-diversity group. Antifa promotes open dialogue between people with differing ideological views
-- J. Brennan, B. Obama, M. Waters, N. Pelosi
Heh, nice! Well played.
See, *this* is how you defeat intolerant busybodies on the Left *or* the Right!
Not with violence, not with incivility, nor with guns (unless it's the very, very last resort to save lives in the case of deadly force).
You bury them in *laughter*!
Authoritarians...Left or Right...are incapable of understanding humor or seeing there own absurdity. It's the exact reason why the NPC meme has gotten them so stirred up.
They can't meme. They can't joke. Comedians no longer do shows at Left-leaning colleges and universities. They have no ability to laugh at themselves and have no defense against being ridiculed for their anti-freedom views and blatant "some animals are more equal than others" hypocrisy.
Just reveal them as the wannabe-nanny laughingstocks that they are. Make it so whenever average people see these groups or hear them speak, they can't help but laugh. They won't give such people power for the same reasons one doesn't give a gun to a monkey or a toddler.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
incapable of understanding humor or seeing their
meh, oops
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
They are private companies and can do whatever they want. The question is whether that is the right thing to do, and whether it is good for our society to have more and more segregation of people with opposing viewpoints.
It really comes down to the sponsors not wanting their ads next to some neanderthal spouting off about how he hates $minority_group. YouTube used to have "almost anything goes, so long as it's not illegal" attitude right up until sponsors started freaking out.
As a liberal, you need to realize that you are LOSING the ideological debate. The right has been winning elections, and dominating nearly every branch of government. Much of this is because they try to convince their political opponents, while progressives try to silence theirs.
You don't even need to wait for an election to vote in the free market. Don't support the companies you disagree with, and if there isn't a competitor - start one. Surely there are enough like-minded individuals to support your venture. Unless what you're implying is the right is good at winning elections, but lousy at voting with their wallets.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
It was only a few months ago that a left wing Bernie Sanders nutter shot up some other place and advertised his views through FACEBOOK. I didn't see any tech company boycott Facebook at any point.
This shooting is just an excuse to censor anything that's not far-left. If you're not realizing the fact, then you are, like the Germans in 1935 or the Dixiecrats, just a member of the oppressing party in history.
The Democrats with Sanders and Clinton right now are going through the same process the Dixiecrats did in the 40's. Within 10-20y and perhaps even a civil war later, nothing will be left of these positions.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
No, you haven't seen those things, you've just heard about it on Fox News.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
of Government. See: Robber Barons. The Machiavellian Merchant Class. The Military Industrial Complex. Etc, etc.
The thing you've got to remember is that at the end of the day this is all about one thing: A small group of people want to have a lot of money in exchange for doing nothing but owning shit. Used to be the Monarchy & Aristocracy. Then it was the robber barons. Now it's the 1%ers. But it's all the same thing and it's all the same pattern.
Democratic Governments have been the only thing that's ever gotten us past those people, however briefly (and I do mean briefly, it's been less than 100 years since they had total control and abused it with impunity in all countries and they still have that control in 70% of the world).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm guessing that you are not from the US or Canada. The KKK is the most well-known white supremacist organization in the US and dates back to the immediate post civil war era. They are the original homegrown terrorists of the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan
The KKK didn't just threaten people, they tortured and murdered them. Their "cross burnings" were a method of intimidation but they didn't stop at threats. These days they try to present a civilized public face for better "optics".
In the 1920s there was significant Klan membership among elected officials both in Congress and various offices like state governors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/books/review/linda-gordon-the-second-coming-of-the-kkk.html
It can happen again.
I think it would be better to limit to how many down votes counted against your score. Let's say you have 10 upvotes and 12 downvotes, with the current system it would be buried. Obviously your comment is contentious and slightly against the mainstream, but it also brings something new to the discussion and deserves to be seen. People can read it for themselves and decide whether you're right or wrong.
The problem is, the internet is mostly made up of private networks and private service providers. Yet its purpose is more akin to the public square of the pilgrim years.
Without net neutrality, Comcast could decide to censor millions of people at any time. Without some government-mandated protections for free speech, companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google can prevent any idea they disagree with from being heard.
That may not seem like a problem to you because you think they're on your side right now. But they are multi-billion-dollar international corporations, not ordinary Americans. In the long run, it's going to poison our free society.
To answer your question: The Right's outgroup is non-Americans, but the Left's outgroup is the Right.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Jonathan Haidt has shown this most powerfully in his work on morality and how the moral positions we take are not governed, as we like to think, by our intellect and reason but by self-serving mental processes outside our awareness.
See Haidt, J (2012). The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Here's a book review on Areo Magazine. If you don't read Areo, you really should add it to your RSS. Quillette too. They're both outstanding websites that carry material that the usual sites would happily censor.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
More recently than that, the Republicans saw Russia as a threat and criticized the Democrats for being soft on the Soviets. How times change!
Is this really the level of discourse that slashdot has fallen to consider insightful? I realize the quality here has dropped considerably over at least the last decade and most knowledgeable "old-timers" have already left, but this is really a new low
the Democrats realised bigotry is retrograde humanity and changed. The Republicans with their fundamental christian friends took the opposite route and went retrograde. The wise ones learn from history, the dim ones repeat history
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Except, yknow, in the real world we already have years of very public examples of the left calling everyone up to and including orthodox and gay jews "nazis" just because they're not further left than the Khmer Rouge.
So really the conversation is more like this:
Regressive: Twitter is full of nazis like Shapiro and Rubin!
Conservative: What are you talking about they're jewish, Rubin's gay for chrissake
Regressive: OMG YOU'RE AN ALT-RIGHT NAZI TOO!
Ad Hitlerum. And also don't forget that rampant antisemitism is perfectly ok for anyone on the left.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
So, do you have an example of this? I'll hit the report button for you, I just need a link.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The summary alone cited several subhumans that use it, so that's already more than one. If you don't think Gab is a cesspool filled with scum then guess what ... You are also scum.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yes! We must protect subhuman scumbaggery at all cost!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yes, but how is that Gab's fault and not Twitter's or Facebook's? He's on every social media platform.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Trump is the most pro-Israel president we've had in quite some time. Of course that sparks reaction.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Who in this situation has a "monopoly position"?
I don't respond to AC's.
Leftists have little use for free speech and will happily silence those with whom they disagree. As is happening here.
Interesting. Aren't you doing to leftist's what you say they are doing?
Are rightist's any different?
Seems like the whole left right paradigm has had its day.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
No, "conservative" just means you can count on violent, willfully ignorant, loudmouth assholes being present in overwhelming numbers. It's not automatically bad, any more than a serious cockroach infestation is automatically bad.
You mean like the terrorist organization, Antifa?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There are certain traits that can allow someone to identify an Ashkenazi, Mizrahi or Sephardi Jew.
If someone spends enough time around them, they're as recognizable as the "Roman Nose" some people of Italian descent have or how it's usually easy to tell the difference between people of African descent and those of East Asian descent despite both groups having brown skin.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You're being unnecessarily pedantic.
How's this one for you? "Anti-Semite" isn't just someone who hates all semitic people, it's someone who hates Jews. Even non-semitic Jewish people can be the targets of "anti-semitism".
There, now you have two things to keep you riled.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Political views are something you choose, so they can never be a protected category
Unlike gender?
Nay. Name a time the Right has silenced anyone in the last two decades. The Right is committed to the Constitution. The Left views the Constitution as an outdated relic that needs to be trashed.
And it seems the US left side hasn't really learned from this. You're just doubling down on the criticism of The Other. Youtube and Facebook and all the big tech are censoring them, and people who claim to believe in Net Neutrality excuse this as 'a private company censoring people doesn't violate the First Amendment'. Which is true, but irrelevant.
Pushing people out of polite society is pushing them to the support the far right, and yet the media both old and new seems intent on this. So is excusing violence from AntiFa and the media seem intent on that too.
Something very nasty is happening to America, and you're not helping to stop it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
What do you think happens when you dehumanize people and deplatform them? Do you think they disappear? No, they who perceived themselves as persecuted now, actually persecuted, congregate elsewhere into louder and louder echo chambers. Your solution seems to be a game a wack-a-mole which would only serve to radicalize people with each attack.
Your the one who was just overtly antisemitic. Or are you clinging to the lie that one can be anti-Israel without being anti-Jew? Foolish.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That's a great idea IMO. After some number of mod points being spent, any future mods could be changed to "Interesting", since clearly the post would be. Of course, yo'd need some escape for the Slashdot Janitors to actually mod things down, to prevent trolls upmodding GNAA posts, but as long as that was visible I think people would be OK with it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Like I said in my first post. If the terrorists are bashing people and destroying property in the name of #YourGoals, it's all OK. When it's the other way around? It's downright hateful... Violence isn't good either way, and the moral indifference of so many on the Left is what gives rise to fascism - which is what the radical Left in the US is - fascist.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
but it's not a conservative response. The entire social and economic order was at stake. The banks really were too big to fail, at least not without a massive counter balance in the form of a total government bail out of the economy, which itself would have been a huge change to the current order and social/political systems.
Bailing out the banks was the correct response from a Conservative standpoint. It preserved as many of the existing power structures and systems as possible and with them the existing order.
From your post it's hard to infer your entire politics, but I don't think your a conservative, rather you like the sound of it. But it's not healthy to use the word incorrectly.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
See Haidt, J (2012). The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Yeah, I saw the book reference. I want to read about the actual scientific research that underpins it. I'm not used to seeing research published only in books - normally there are published articles first, and the book follows afterwards as a digest, but doesn't go into the same depth of details about methodology and raw results.
Do you think the book is the only source I can look at for this information?
... NPC style agreement...
Off-topic here: What the hell is NPC in this context? I always read it as "Non-player character," which probably tells you something about me. It is a little fun to imagine people sending you off on a quest to "Collect 5 codes of conduct" or what have you.
It's a very new meme, like only a couple of weeks or so old, that's driving the US Left crazy, see e.g. Know Your Meme on a graphical version of it that also explains the greater context. In short, way too many Leftists are acting like NPCs with a very limited script, a very limited set of responses to whatever rhetorical or dialectical challenges they get from the Right.
Heh. But that sounds like a job for Gamergators, for while the concept is amusing, such a game would be no fun at all to play. Unless of course that's the start of a greater quest, track down the authors or Inquisitors in their lairs etc. ^_^.
Fantastic, enjoy getting yourself banned from twitter and thrown in the pit as an evil alt-right nazi. Also I'm not responsible for your repetitive strain injury from the enormous amount of clicking you'll be doing. Why don't we start with left wing racism and violence in general since really it all comes from the same place. There's far more out there and I'm sure going through these tweets you'll be able to find it. (Ignore this: Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 25.3).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 25.3).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 25.3).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 25.3).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 25.3).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 25.3)Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 25.3)Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 25.3)..)
https://twitter.com/AnnaCafoll...
http://archive.is/C4e9C
https://twitter.com/karengeier...
http://archive.is/ZuDFs
https://twitter.com/zackroth/s...
http://archive.is/Ihyc5
https://twitter.com/stevehowey...
http://archive.is/7USCr
https://twitter.com/laraeparke...
http://archive.is/FbkD6
https://twitter.com/johnhornor...
http://archive.is/kJxO7
https://twitter.com/yosoymicha...
http://archive.is/xyc1N
https://twitter.com/tressiemcp...
http://archive.is/JxZqH
https://twitter.com/arthur_aff...
http://archive.is/hHK8M
https://twitter.com/zellieiman...
http://archive.is/lZY2J
https://twitter.com/andreagrim...
http://archive.is/rFlqZ
https://twitter.com/JeanGreasy...
http://archive.is/53kNY
https://twitter.com/moshekashe...
http://archive.is/rslxf
https://twitter.com/LouisPeitz...
http://archive.is/KwYN5
https://twitter.com/OrganikHip...
http://archive.is/SnD2K
https://twitter.com/ShinobiNin...
http://archive.is/qdMJ1
https://twitter.com/tomdefeat/...
http://archive.is/bup4m
https://twitter.com/travishelw...
http://archive.is/j6FLa
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You are very confused. I didn't dehumanize them. They dehumanized themselves.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The fact that half these posts are still up and the accounts not banned proves that there isn't a word/phrase filter.
As I said, it's down to user reporting and then Twitter staff make a decision based on context and account history.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No, I don't mean that. What kind of twat-head moron would even ask such a question?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
wrong. I live in Chicago. Plenty of "civil rights" leaders here have been spewing hatred and violence against whites for decades.
By the way, pastor of Obama's church is one of them.
Malcom X has said some particularly choice stuff over the years.
last sentence clipped off:
and his followers here keep up the tradition...
to mean "right wing" is that it's disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. You have people in favor of radical change using the word to get folks who just want stability under their tent. In the process those people lose the stability they seek when the radicals use the political power gained from those genuine conservatives.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a lefty and a progressive. I think our society should always be improving. But it's hard to get the conservatives to buy into that when the radical right have gotten so good at scaring the bejeebees out of them. If they recognized the radical right for what they are (radicals) worst case the real conservatives would push for stability (which, as a progressive I find preferable to regression; e.g. I voted for Hilary, the ultimate conservative) and it might make it easier to get them to agree to progress.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't know, I'd suggest looking at the references at the back of the book, or look up Haidt on the usual scholarly databases.
I get what you're saying, you don't believe it's true. Haidt is a liberal and attacks his own side very gently, with the intention of making it better. It's a fact that the Left, having ostracized the Right, no longer knows what Right positions are and feels free to just make up shit that makes them look like monsters. We see this all over our culture.
One of the reasons why it is important for an organization to stay committed to the truth is that any organization that systematically lies will eventually be populated entirely by people who _believe_ that lie. I believe this explains a lot of the Democrat's problems right now; for instance, the people who cynically stoked racial hatred and white hatred for their own political gains, but didn't _actually_ hate white people and knew better than to push too hard, are now gone. Now they are replaced by people who believe the surface lie, and truly hate white people. And the party is now being led not by people cynically exploiting the system, but people actually trying to burn it down, and voters who couldn't detect cynical exploitation are detecting the "burn it all down" aspect of the party.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I get what you're saying, you don't believe it's true.
I'm not saying that, and I'm not a liberal! I just want to know precisely what was found and what is being claimed.
Except twitter has repeatedly taken mass action far beyond the scope of what any human or team of humans could possibly accomplish, proving they are acting algorithmically. They've also clearly turned verified status into a way to heavily weight (or outright whitelist people from) their algorithms. Twitter is not acting in accordance with safe harbor provisions anymore and hasn't been for a long time.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Sure, they sometimes do mass bans based on things like association with verified fake accounts and the like. But that's still one off actions taken with human oversight. There is no automatic filter that simply removes tweets with certain words or phrases or anything like that.
Do you think that the larger actions based on what is basically spam detection are a problem? Telcos that benefit from safe harbour seem to be free to boot people abusing their ToS off, for example.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Religion is something you choose as well
Well it's usually something forced on you as a child but close enough.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Nay. Name a time the Right has silenced anyone in the last two decades. The Right is committed to the Constitution.
President W bypassed the US AG to grant himself wartime powers. Then passed the patriot act which effectively trashed the US Forth Amendment. The same acts were passed in every western country, all by right wing governments who trashed similar freedoms in those countries as well.
I read three of those acts and *specifically* identified issues like body cavity searching children as young as eight and wrote to over 100 politicians demanding that part of the act be removed if they had to pass these powers.
So what did you do back then to defend constitutional freedoms?
The Left views the Constitution as an outdated relic that needs to be trashed.
The Left maintains the status quo that the right establishes. That is why it is referred to as The Establishment. It's a thought pattern that is obsolete.
And it seems the US left side hasn't really learned from this. You're just doubling down on the criticism of The Other.
He said, doubling down on the criticism of The Other.
Youtube and Facebook and all the big tech are censoring them, and people who claim to believe in Net Neutrality excuse this as 'a private company censoring people doesn't violate the First Amendment'. Which is true, but irrelevant.
I'm glad you use your freedom of speech to show everyone how crazy you are.
Pushing people out of polite society is pushing them to the support the far right, and yet the media both old and new seems intent on this. So is excusing violence from AntiFa and the media seem intent on that too.
There are no ears in US politics, only mouths.
Something very nasty is happening to America,
Yes. Your country is leading the way in implementing the soviet criminal code in all western countries. Can you explain why the *right* is doing this? If you read the laws instead of watching TV you would understand this. Instead you're gaslit into attacking the people that are trying to defend you. Have you actually *read* the patriot Act?
and you're not helping to stop it.
A week ago I finished a month long project to analyse almost 200 pages of legislation and wrote a 30 page critique of a law designed to provide warrantless searches of people's mobile phones in every western country, including the US. You're trolling the person defending your freedom of speech and association.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You are aware that they themselves call themselves that, or White Nationalists, right? They've picked the name, not us.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It's pretty fucking obvious that they're stupid already. So much for your chance to differentiate yourself.
Well, you're going to have to chase down your own references then. Go to the library and look at the back pages. I can't do it for you.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Really all you're arguing here is that twitter doesn't have a biased algorithm it just deliberately employs every conceivable kind of silencing tactic against wrongthinkers.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You must be really interested to learn, then, that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings in the US have been committed by conservative white males.
So just as a survival mechanism, it is sensible to avoid US conservatives. Because if you're looking for murderous scumbags in America, that's where you're statistically most likely to encounter one.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Meanwhile, it's the so-called "tolerant" leftists that engage in censorship, whether it's overt censorship through the deletion of content and banning of users/customers, or whether it's causing indirect self-censorship through threats of harm to the reputations or bodies of anyone they disagree with.
It isn't right wingers who want to limit what people can express thanks to "political correctness". It isn't right wingers who want to block content they dislike. It isn't right wingers who want to ban users who they disagree with. It's leftists who engage in such behavior.
The political right promotes free and open discussion of all ideas. The political left tries to shut down all expression that doesn't conform to their very narrow world view and narrative.
The Patriot Act wasn't passed by the Right, it was passed by neo-conserative warmongers. The Left has never believed in the Constitution and it is arguing in bad faith to maintain otherwise. They believe it to be an outdated racist document written by white men. How would they ever defend it? An act of utter cynicism, like a Christian quoting the Koran to try and stop terrorists.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
The *fact* remains that *all* of the most oppressive legislative changes in the last 18 years have been constructed and passed by right wing governments in all western countries. You don't seem to have an explanation why those governments are putting Soviet era criminal codes in western law.
What you call the "Left" and "Right" of politics appear to have the same agenda and it's not just the US, it's all western countries. It's clear your expression of what you think is "free speech" is the rhetoric you have been programmed to think. That's the great thing about free speech, it exposes people locked into low levels of problem solving.
I doubt you've even written a letter to a congresscritter to try to defend your constitution otherwise you would have mentioned it and outlined the nature of your defense. What you have displayed is a bunch of projection onto your "opponents" of what you're upset about in yourself, your own failings. It's not your fault, you've been deceived into thinking that way. Only you can choose to break out of it however comforting you find the illusion.
If you are unable to evolve out of your limited mindset the end of the road you are participating in is neither communism or capitalism, it's feudalism. I encourage you to continue expressing your free speech as it is always funny to look at the attitude of feudalistic peons who choose to show how batshit crazy they are.
All the best to you however I don't see you contributing much more to this conversation.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I love how you dismiss anyone who comes to a different conclusion as you as "programmed" and "deceived." As if there is only one set of values: your own and everyone else is factually wrong. You people despise our Constitution, especially the First and boy do you hate the Second. Arguing in its favor is fundamentally a bad faith argument, like an American racist (but I repeat myself) pretending to care about black on black violence and using that to make a point. I also love experiencing your contempt calling me a peon. Boy I wonder why nobody is voting for you!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
it would be pretty bad if banks started booting customers who said things they didn't like.
That may be where we are headed.
I thought it was a standard operating procedure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.nysun.com/new-york...
I love how you dismiss anyone who comes to a different conclusion as you as "programmed" and "deceived."
You demonstrate traits of being emotionally unstable which makes you prone to being manipulated. I'm not blaming you, you didn't consent however only you can choose to step out of that.
As if there is only one set of values: your own and everyone else is factually wrong.
Not really, just that your actions are predictable.
You people despise our Constitution, especially the First and boy do you hate the Second.
You're projecting again. I've actually have a track record of defending free speech, anti-censorship, and democratic issues that goes back to the 1990s. I've got no problem with either of those amendment, though you might want to consider some mental health checks for firearms, especially for teenagers.
Arguing in its favor is fundamentally a bad faith argument, like an American racist (but I repeat myself) pretending to care about black on black violence and using that to make a point.
I don't really understand what that means.
I also love experiencing your contempt calling me a peon.
You're welcome. Maybe it will wake you up to your slavery but I can't do much more to help you, I don't care enough.
Boy I wonder why nobody is voting for you!
Hahaha - you think I have an agenda. I wouldn't make the sacrifice of leading you, it would be easier to trigger and manipulate you. How do you feel knowing deep down inside that I'm right because you've demonstrated you didn't have anything to add to the conversation.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.