Fuck Twitter

Topics, links and pics that are interesting, weird, or irrelevant!
User avatar
NotUv2
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Canada
Contact:

bushwackerbob wrote:
2 years ago
Yes, I quite agree. I think the original intent of Femina's topic was to shine a light on cancel culture and Twitter's role in that aspect, and not devolve into this left vs right rigamarole.
Yeah, fair enough. I've said my piece, anyway.
Image

Check out my stories (and in some cases, books):

Amazon
Literotica
Mr. X Homepage (NEW STORiES ADDED 4/8/21)
Imagineer
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 614
Joined: 12 years ago

Nice to see people dragging Fuck Twitter off-topic to be a duplicate of an existing thread. Gives one horse town a new meaning.

Maybe there is a way to shrink Twitter's domain of terror. Convince media companies and major brands that Twitter's toxicity is so bad it's inevitable, so that they refuse to hire creators or spokespeople who use Twitter. Want a role on The Mandalorian? Delete your account. Eligible for the NFL Draft? Not until you delete your account. Much better if you never had one, at least not one that had many followers or replied publicly to enough people to get archived.

Make being on Twitter like being in porn.
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Imagineer wrote:
2 years ago
Nice to see people dragging Fuck Twitter off-topic to be a duplicate of an existing thread. Gives one horse town a new meaning.

Maybe there is a way to shrink Twitter's domain of terror. Convince media companies and major brands that Twitter's toxicity is so bad it's inevitable, so that they refuse to hire creators or spokespeople who use Twitter. Want a role on The Mandalorian? Delete your account. Eligible for the NFL Draft? Not until you delete your account. Much better if you never had one, at least not one that had many followers or replied publicly to enough people to get archived.

Make being on Twitter like being in porn.
You seem to be blaming Twitter for the people on Twitter, like blaming Gutenberg for Harlequin Romance Novels ....
Image
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
You seem to be blaming Twitter for the people on Twitter
With all due respect, there is something to be said for this though. Twitter incentivises that people lose nuance and politeness to fit the character limit and for virality.

We are, to a degree, also products of our environment. To some extent, the awful people on twitter would have still have existed without it, but I suspect would have been generally less bad.
User avatar
NotUv2
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Canada
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
You seem to be blaming Twitter for the people on Twitter, like blaming Gutenberg for Harlequin Romance Novels ....
Twitter can work a lot more actively to shape its users' behavior than any printing press ever could.
Image

Check out my stories (and in some cases, books):

Amazon
Literotica
Mr. X Homepage (NEW STORiES ADDED 4/8/21)
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

ivandobsky wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
You seem to be blaming Twitter for the people on Twitter
With all due respect, there is something to be said for this though. Twitter incentivises that people lose nuance and politeness to fit the character limit and for virality.

We are, to a degree, also products of our environment. To some extent, the awful people on twitter would have still have existed without it, but I suspect would have been generally less bad.
So bad people were less bad before Twitter? Timothy McVeigh was radicalized before the Internet. He read a paper copy of the Turner Diaries. Somebody was willing publish the Turner Diaries and distribute it (hint it wasn’t a Simon and Shuster or another big main stream publisher). It wasn’t the technologies fault. Paper books didn’t make him bad.

The short form of Twitter is a medium, not a message. That we had President that thought he could rule by Tweeting or there were people who took those tweets as authoritative, has little to do with the technology and everything to do with the users.
Image
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

NotUv2 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
You seem to be blaming Twitter for the people on Twitter, like blaming Gutenberg for Harlequin Romance Novels ....
Twitter can work a lot more actively to shape its users' behavior than any printing press ever could.
If a Twitter user was encouraging children to engage in pornography, would you expect, or hope those users would be shut down? What about cyber bullies encouraging a victim to commit suicide? If someone was swindling the elderly to give up their life savings, would you expect Twitter to shut them down? How about promoting unsubstantiated medical treatments that not only don’t work but endanger the user?

Twitter doesn’t have to allow every user to have access to their platform, just like the owner of a printing press doesn’t have to publish every book. I recall how conservatives were so impassioned to protect the rights of a baker to not have to make wedding cakes for gays. Why does the private enterprise, Twitter, have to provide a platform to Charlatans and frauds? They can still go on other platforms like 4chan.

The problem here may be a desire to believe in something that is simply not true. People that are spreading those untrue things may believe them, but still doesn’t make them true. Masks work, there is systemic racism in America, vaccines work, Trump lost a fair election, white supremacy is the leading form of US domestic terrorism. Twitter does have to provide a platform to those promoting lies and inciting violence.

Q was publishing on 4chan for a reason.
Image
User avatar
Philo Hunter
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 644
Joined: 9 years ago
Location: The Great (mostly) Frozen North
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Twitter does have to provide a platform to those promoting lies and inciting violence.
Is the word "not" missing from this sentence?
User avatar
NotUv2
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Canada
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
NotUv2 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
You seem to be blaming Twitter for the people on Twitter, like blaming Gutenberg for Harlequin Romance Novels ....
Twitter can work a lot more actively to shape its users' behavior than any printing press ever could.
If a Twitter user was encouraging children to engage in pornography, would you expect, or hope those users would be shut down? What about cyber bullies encouraging a victim to commit suicide? If someone was swindling the elderly to give up their life savings, would you expect Twitter to shut them down? How about promoting unsubstantiated medical treatments that not only don’t work but endanger the user?

Twitter doesn’t have to allow every user to have access to their platform, just like the owner of a printing press doesn’t have to publish every book. I recall how conservatives were so impassioned to protect the rights of a baker to not have to make wedding cakes for gays. Why does the private enterprise, Twitter, have to provide a platform to Charlatans and frauds?

. . .

Q was publishing on 4chan for a reason.
Yes, well, completely agreed to all of that. I guess that's a big part of what I meant, really. Twitter makes specific decisions to allow certain things to proliferate on the platform and they know that conflict drives engagement numbers. They certainly don't need to let that happen, and their terms of service theoretically should not allow that to happen, but it does. They're managing (or choosing not to manage) a community, not just providing a neutral tool. I guess in that sense the comparison with a publisher choosing what to publish makes sense.

What I was getting at was that Twitter has other tools at its disposal too (like algorithms that can manipulate what viewers see in their feeds and thus increase the likelihood of conflict, for instance). It also makes decisions not to employ or provide certain tools. It doesn't need to be as easy to engage in brigading on Twitter as it is, but here we are.

Not to say that Twitter hasn't done anything b/c they have, but somehow their periodic attempts to clean up their image never seem to make the platform more livable.
Image

Check out my stories (and in some cases, books):

Amazon
Literotica
Mr. X Homepage (NEW STORiES ADDED 4/8/21)
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

Not to derail the topic but your signature pic quote Notu, could better be applied to Luke snogging Leia, :giggle:

Glad to see it all staying civil carry on fellows
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

NotUv2 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
NotUv2 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
You seem to be blaming Twitter for the people on Twitter, like blaming Gutenberg for Harlequin Romance Novels ....
Twitter can work a lot more actively to shape its users' behavior than any printing press ever could.
If a Twitter user was encouraging children to engage in pornography, would you expect, or hope those users would be shut down? What about cyber bullies encouraging a victim to commit suicide? If someone was swindling the elderly to give up their life savings, would you expect Twitter to shut them down? How about promoting unsubstantiated medical treatments that not only don’t work but endanger the user?

Twitter doesn’t have to allow every user to have access to their platform, just like the owner of a printing press doesn’t have to publish every book. I recall how conservatives were so impassioned to protect the rights of a baker to not have to make wedding cakes for gays. Why does the private enterprise, Twitter, have to provide a platform to Charlatans and frauds?

. . .

Q was publishing on 4chan for a reason.
Yes, well, completely agreed to all of that. I guess that's a big part of what I meant, really. Twitter makes specific decisions to allow certain things to proliferate on the platform and they know that conflict drives engagement numbers. They certainly don't need to let that happen, and their terms of service theoretically should not allow that to happen, but it does. They're managing (or choosing not to manage) a community, not just providing a neutral tool. I guess in that sense the comparison with a publisher choosing what to publish makes sense.

What I was getting at was that Twitter has other tools at its disposal too (like algorithms that can manipulate what viewers see in their feeds and thus increase the likelihood of conflict, for instance). It also makes decisions not to employ or provide certain tools. It doesn't need to be as easy to engage in brigading on Twitter as it is, but here we are.

Not to say that Twitter hasn't done anything b/c they have, but somehow their periodic attempts to clean up their image never seem to make the platform more livable.
It is actually quite the opposite. Platforms like FB and YouTube tend to feed you confirmation bias. I am pretty certain Twitter works the same way. If you watch a video, YouTube will offer you similar videos. If you like Pawn Stars, it makes getting pawn stars videos even easier. The same would be true of sports clips or hobby activities. If you like right wing or (left wing) politics, it will shovel more of that your way too. The problem is that it creates a echo chamber filled with a seemingly unified voice that mask mandates are taking away your civil liberties (they don’t) or vaccines are way more dangerous that they really are (the J&J vaccine had 15 clotting injuries out of seven million doses), or that Trump was cheated out of the election.

If Twitter starts cracking down on these demonstrably incorrect facts, it may seem like all the conservative voices are being silenced. The reality is a group of people have been repeating the same inaccurate information to one another. Because they all believe it and keep hearing it repeated, they assume it must be true and Twitter is trying to silence political speech, when they are really just trying to stop the spread of false information.
Image
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
So bad people were less bad before Twitter? Timothy McVeigh was radicalized before the Internet.
That there was a bad person in the past, doesn't preclude that there might be more bad people now. Personally, I blame industrial society, and worry about its future.
User avatar
NotUv2
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Canada
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
It is actually quite the opposite. Platforms like FB and YouTube tend to feed you confirmation bias. I am pretty certain Twitter works the same way.
Yes and no. Definitely, there's an element of that. But Facebook is much more focused on creating these kinds of silos and echo chambers. You can absolutely find them on Twitter and fall into them, but Twitter's alogrithm, sharing and trending functions are more complicated. They don't function like YouTube, which tries to guess what you want based on what you watch and then serve you more of that.

The Trending function is largely indifferent to Trends you've previously muted or dismissed, for example. The Twitter algorithm inserts posts into your feed that it judges "popular" and "relevant" regardless of whether you followed the poster: sometimes this is innocuous, like the algorithm judging that you might be interested in a Tom Brady post because you follow sports. But they do it with news and politics, too, often actively spreading the kind of false and incendiary content they claim to be fighting and following patterns that don't fit simply showing users more of what they are judged to want.

This was first remarked on in 2019 and it doesn't seem to have stopped. I tend to be with those who think it's hard to explain except as a considered effort to drive conflict and rage-clicks.

That said, as I said above, this dynamic happens on Twitter too:
The problem is that it creates [an] echo chamber filled with a seemingly unified voice that mask mandates are taking away your civil liberties (they don’t) or vaccines are way more dangerous that they really are (the J&J vaccine had 15 clotting injuries out of seven million doses), or that Trump was cheated out of the election.

If Twitter starts cracking down on these demonstrably incorrect facts, it may seem like all the conservative voices are being silenced. The reality is a group of people have been repeating the same inaccurate information to one another. Because they all believe it and keep hearing it repeated, they assume it must be true and Twitter is trying to silence political speech, when they are really just trying to stop the spread of false information.
That is definitely an element of Twitter and I think the weird behavior of the feed algorithm in a way fuels the development of even more fevered sub-universes of retweets and quote tweets that are extra-outraged by fake "facts" or obsessed by completely trivial crusades. The two dynamics are related. It's a pity Twitter wasn't more consistently dedicated to stopping the spread of false information, it would be a much more positive platform just generally if it were.
Image

Check out my stories (and in some cases, books):

Amazon
Literotica
Mr. X Homepage (NEW STORiES ADDED 4/8/21)
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
It is actually quite the opposite. Platforms like FB and YouTube tend to feed you confirmation bias. I am pretty certain Twitter works the same way. If you watch a video, YouTube will offer you similar videos. If you like Pawn Stars, it makes getting pawn stars videos even easier. The same would be true of sports clips or hobby activities. If you like right wing or (left wing) politics, it will shovel more of that your way too. The problem is that it creates a echo chamber filled with a seemingly unified voice that mask mandates are taking away your civil liberties (they don’t) or vaccines are way more dangerous that they really are (the J&J vaccine had 15 clotting injuries out of seven million doses), or that Trump was cheated out of the election.

If Twitter starts cracking down on these demonstrably incorrect facts, it may seem like all the conservative voices are being silenced. The reality is a group of people have been repeating the same inaccurate information to one another. Because they all believe it and keep hearing it repeated, they assume it must be true and Twitter is trying to silence political speech, when they are really just trying to stop the spread of false information.
that mask mandates are taking away your civil liberties (they don’t)
They do when its a government mandate.
If Twitter starts cracking down on these demonstrably incorrect facts
We don't need a ministry of truth. Hegalian dialectics are healthy. What we need are various cross referencing sources. You don't want one source since that source will always be perverted, usually by creepy social engineering types.
when they are really just trying to stop the spread of false information
They people being "silenced" are not discussing covid. They are discussing things like how bad critical race theory is or the facts behind the Floyd shooting. Again you do NOT want a ministry of truth. If what you say is true then it can survive an open arena of discussion.

Also the other problem here is if you think the "right" are one source zombies (even though studies show they get 1/3rd of their news from left sources) then cutting them off, isolating them and not allowing them to communicate to refute their claims is the worst thing to do. NOW twitter, facebook and youtube and amazon have 100% confirmed their conspiracy theories by cutting them off. The foolishness here is if you cut off their communication... your communication with them is cut off. The left has no way to communicate with the right. No way to refute claims. These people won't watch the media sources you watch. They won't go to your movies or watch your TV shows.

So you have 43% of the population isolated, their conspiracy theories confirmed, they are stewing in their own juices and they absolutely will not trust the left regardless of what they do or say. At this point you're pretty much stuck sending tanks down the street. How are you going to stop them from destructively voting. And you have people aiming to misbehave who will, upon their own time and place, attack the left. Fight your opponent where they are not.

What Twitter, Facebook, Google and amazon did was the worst thing possible. What are you going to do when these people flat out say "NO" to everything you back just to spite you? You think they'll listen to your "denier" claims or faux guilt trips especially when they can't voice a different view?
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Their toys, their rules... 4chan allows you to post what ever you want. Most of what gets kicked off of FB, YouTube and Twitter is not done by humans, but done by algorithms. I wanted to sell a speargun on FB Marketplace and Craig’s list. Both of them nixed it because of the “gun”. A lot of Twitter is social networking and marketing. If Kim K want wants to sell whatever she sells, or Christina Carter wants to build her fetish brand, the short form of Twitter works really well. Over throw the government or coordinate a race war? It was not really designed for that. I don’t have a Twitter account, but I will still look at post occasionally for things like movie trailers, what actress looks hot as fuck and new music.

Nobody has a “right” to post on any given forum any more than you have a “right” to editorial space on theNew York Times Op-Ed or Fox News or Breitbart. Tucker Carlson is a huge advocate for “replacement theory” which has deep roots in white supremacy, antisemitism. Fox allows him a platform, I seriously doubt they would offer Hillary Clinton a similar platform. As long as Tucker makes them money and doesn’t put them the hook for a multi-billion dollar lawsuit, he has a job. Twitter, likewise may be worried about consumer and legal backlash from giving hate speech unchecked on their platform. You can get banned from Parlor also.

Freedom of speech doesn’t not guarantee you a platform anymore than it guarantees you protection from the consequences of what you say. It just really means the government won’t go after you.
Image
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Their toys, their rules... 4chan allows you to post what ever you want. Most of what gets kicked off of FB, YouTube and Twitter is not done by humans, but done by algorithms. I wanted to sell a speargun on FB Marketplace and Craig’s list. Both of them nixed it because of the “gun”. A lot of Twitter is social networking and marketing. If Kim K want wants to sell whatever she sells, or Christina Carter wants to build her fetish brand, the short form of Twitter works really well. Over throw the government or coordinate a race war? It was not really designed for that. I don’t have a Twitter account, but I will still look at post occasionally for things like movie trailers, what actress looks hot as fuck and new music.

Nobody has a “right” to post on any given forum any more than you have a “right” to editorial space on theNew York Times Op-Ed or Fox News or Breitbart. Tucker Carlson is a huge advocate for “replacement theory” which has deep roots in white supremacy, antisemitism. Fox allows him a platform, I seriously doubt they would offer Hillary Clinton a similar platform. As long as Tucker makes them money and doesn’t put them the hook for a multi-billion dollar lawsuit, he has a job. Twitter, likewise may be worried about consumer and legal backlash from giving hate speech unchecked on their platform. You can get banned from Parlor also.

Freedom of speech doesn’t not guarantee you a platform anymore than it guarantees you protection from the consequences of what you say. It just really means the government won’t go after you.

And most people are fine with that as long as they lose the #230 protection

But lets not pretend that Jack Dorsey is doing this on a rules of conduct reason

He had the terrorist leader of Iran on while he banned the NY Post and he never banned Maxine Waters a racist agitator encouraging violence
User avatar
NotUv2
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Canada
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Freedom of speech doesn’t not guarantee you a platform anymore than it guarantees you protection from the consequences of what you say. It just really means the government won’t go after you.
Yeah, naturally. Again, nothing to disagree with there.
Image

Check out my stories (and in some cases, books):

Amazon
Literotica
Mr. X Homepage (NEW STORiES ADDED 4/8/21)
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Their toys, their rules... 4chan allows you to post what ever you want. Most of what gets kicked off of FB, YouTube and Twitter is not done by humans, but done by algorithms. I wanted to sell a speargun on FB Marketplace and Craig’s list. Both of them nixed it because of the “gun”. A lot of Twitter is social networking and marketing. If Kim K want wants to sell whatever she sells, or Christina Carter wants to build her fetish brand, the short form of Twitter works really well. Over throw the government or coordinate a race war? It was not really designed for that. I don’t have a Twitter account, but I will still look at post occasionally for things like movie trailers, what actress looks hot as fuck and new music.

Nobody has a “right” to post on any given forum any more than you have a “right” to editorial space on theNew York Times Op-Ed or Fox News or Breitbart. Tucker Carlson is a huge advocate for “replacement theory” which has deep roots in white supremacy, antisemitism. Fox allows him a platform, I seriously doubt they would offer Hillary Clinton a similar platform. As long as Tucker makes them money and doesn’t put them the hook for a multi-billion dollar lawsuit, he has a job. Twitter, likewise may be worried about consumer and legal backlash from giving hate speech unchecked on their platform. You can get banned from Parlor also.

Freedom of speech doesn’t not guarantee you a platform anymore than it guarantees you protection from the consequences of what you say. It just really means the government won’t go after you.

And most people are fine with that as long as they lose the #230 protection

But lets not pretend that Jack Dorsey is doing this on a rules of conduct reason

He had the terrorist leader of Iran on while he banned the NY Post and he never banned Maxine Waters a racist agitator encouraging violence
You forgot to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene. If you are going to mention racists on the Internet, make sure you include her. I mean, she is trying warn us about those damnable Jewish space lasers.....
Image
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

I don't think anyone (including me) think there ought not to be consequences for one's freedom of speech, I just feel those consequences ought to be organic. Before social media, there were examples such as MLB executive Al Campanis and CBS NFL analyst Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder who said incredibly stupid and racist remarks on television. There was understandably justifiable outrage from most folks over those remarks and those men were summarily fired. These days though it is hard to discern legitimate justifiable outrage and disapproval from the masses and well organized Twitter phony cancel culture mobs designed to harm folks they happen to disagree with. It is often hard to know the difference. Femina's friend is a good example of good folks who get enmeshed in these Twitter echo chamber mobs.
User avatar
NotUv2
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Canada
Contact:

bushwackerbob wrote:
2 years ago
I don't think anyone (including me) think there ought not to be consequences for one's freedom of speech, I just feel those consequences ought to be organic.
This. Like, at the risk of getting repetitive, Twitter executing its terms of service is absolutely not the same thing as brigading campaigns that target people for little or no reason at all and hound them off the site. The first doesn't happen enough (and the fraudsters it inconveniences still squall about it, of course), the latter happens way too much.
These days though it is hard to discern legitimate justifiable outrage and disapproval from the masses and well organized Twitter phony cancel culture mobs designed to harm folks they happen to disagree with. It is often hard to know the difference.
Sometimes one follows the other. The example that kicked off this thread started off with some people who had at least an arguable (albeit trivial and questionable) beef with some random, minor thing the target had said. The mob seized on this and blew the non-issue up into a reason to hound her and proceeded to make up further so-called "sins" to attribute to her. People often get kicked off of Twitter by Twitter for genuine offenses they were allowed to get away with until they finally weren't (not that Twitter always gets it right, and often they take far too long to notice the obvious). People often get brigaded off of Twitter by mobs for no reason at all, or over trivial gripes that get exaggerated beyond all reason.
Image

Check out my stories (and in some cases, books):

Amazon
Literotica
Mr. X Homepage (NEW STORiES ADDED 4/8/21)
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Mr. X wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
It is actually quite the opposite. Platforms like FB and YouTube tend to feed you confirmation bias. I am pretty certain Twitter works the same way. If you watch a video, YouTube will offer you similar videos. If you like Pawn Stars, it makes getting pawn stars videos even easier. The same would be true of sports clips or hobby activities. If you like right wing or (left wing) politics, it will shovel more of that your way too. The problem is that it creates a echo chamber filled with a seemingly unified voice that mask mandates are taking away your civil liberties (they don’t) or vaccines are way more dangerous that they really are (the J&J vaccine had 15 clotting injuries out of seven million doses), or that Trump was cheated out of the election.

If Twitter starts cracking down on these demonstrably incorrect facts, it may seem like all the conservative voices are being silenced. The reality is a group of people have been repeating the same inaccurate information to one another. Because they all believe it and keep hearing it repeated, they assume it must be true and Twitter is trying to silence political speech, when they are really just trying to stop the spread of false information.
that mask mandates are taking away your civil liberties (they don’t)
They do when its a government mandate.
You are aware that you aren’t allowed to take a shit on a public street or masturbate on on public transportation? You also have to wash your hands after toileting when handling food in at work. Those are government mandates that take away your civil liberties. They are there to protect the health and well being of the public at large. They are to prevent your feces from contaminating the public water and food supply. This is pretty much why cholera is rare in the US. When you build a house you have to have a way dealing with sewage. Your right’s end where other people’s rights start. Why should your “liberty” to go maskless be more important than someone else’s right to be disease free? I know someone who was in an induced coma for 31 days on a ventilator, 50 days in the ICU and four weeks in rehab. Why does you “civil Liberty” to go maskless trump his right to live?

571,000 people died so far. Where is you respect for them? What about their civil liberties? Again, why are people having hissy fits about not being allowed in private businesses that require masks? No shirt, no shoes, no service? Don’t recall that being all that controversial... weren’t the Republicans the ones screaming about breast feeding in public just a couple of years ago? Civil liberties seem pretty situational these days....
If Twitter starts cracking down on these demonstrably incorrect facts
We don't need a ministry of truth. Hegalian dialectics are healthy. What we need are various cross referencing sources. You don't want one source since that source will always be perverted, usually by creepy social engineering types.
when they are really just trying to stop the spread of false information
They people being "silenced" are not discussing covid. They are discussing things like how bad critical race theory is or the facts behind the Floyd shooting. Again you do NOT want a ministry of truth. If what you say is true then it can survive an open arena of discussion.

Also the other problem here is if you think the "right" are one source zombies (even though studies show they get 1/3rd of their news from left sources) then cutting them off, isolating them and not allowing them to communicate to refute their claims is the worst thing to do. NOW twitter, facebook and youtube and amazon have 100% confirmed their conspiracy theories by cutting them off. The foolishness here is if you cut off their communication... your communication with them is cut off. The left has no way to communicate with the right. No way to refute claims. These people won't watch the media sources you watch. They won't go to your movies or watch your TV shows.
You are aware the term conspiracy theory is used specifically to reference improbable and unlikely explanations that would require collusion of hundreds or thousands of people, right?
So you have 43% of the population isolated, their conspiracy theories confirmed,
It wouldn’t be a conspiracy theory if it was confirmed, it would just be a conspiracy
they are stewing in their own juices and they absolutely will not trust the left regardless of what they do or say. At this point you're pretty much stuck sending tanks down the street. How are you going to stop them from destructively voting. And you have people aiming to misbehave who will, upon their own time and place, attack the left. Fight your opponent where they are not.

What Twitter, Facebook, Google and amazon did was the worst thing possible. What are you going to do when these people flat out say "NO" to everything you back just to spite you? You think they'll listen to your "denier" claims or faux guilt trips especially when they can't voice a different view?
No, the worst thing they did was let these theories spread unchecked for so long. You know why conspiracy theories are so prevalent now? Because any dipshit sitting in a basement (or Russian office park) can claim to be an anonymous government source accusing top Democrats are running a pedophile ring out of the basement of a DC pizzeria. And other dipsticks will retweet and repost it over and over until they think it it real.
Image
Imagineer
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 614
Joined: 12 years ago

bushwackerbob wrote:
2 years ago
I don't think anyone (including me) think there ought not to be consequences for one's freedom of speech, I just feel those consequences ought to be organic. Before social media, there were examples such as MLB executive Al Campanis and CBS NFL analyst Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder who said incredibly stupid and racist remarks on television. There was understandably justifiable outrage from most folks over those remarks and those men were summarily fired. These days though it is hard to discern legitimate justifiable outrage and disapproval from the masses and well organized Twitter phony cancel culture mobs designed to harm folks they happen to disagree with. It is often hard to know the difference. Femina's friend is a good example of good folks who get enmeshed in these Twitter echo chamber mobs.
It's not that hard to know the difference. You look for the context.

But Twitter assassins see context only as a potential weapon, and inference as something only other people do.

Of course there are shitty people on Facebook and in every comment section everywhere, but Twitter is the purest form of taking that casual comment you made to your friends at lunch (today or three years ago) and making it visible, so that the people most able to take offense can put their chocolate into the peanut butter of the people who already don't like you and make you sit in it. It's not content with comments, it's all comments, with good threading, searching, and permanence.
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Their toys, their rules... 4chan allows you to post what ever you want. Most of what gets kicked off of FB, YouTube and Twitter is not done by humans, but done by algorithms. I wanted to sell a speargun on FB Marketplace and Craig’s list. Both of them nixed it because of the “gun”. A lot of Twitter is social networking and marketing. If Kim K want wants to sell whatever she sells, or Christina Carter wants to build her fetish brand, the short form of Twitter works really well. Over throw the government or coordinate a race war? It was not really designed for that. I don’t have a Twitter account, but I will still look at post occasionally for things like movie trailers, what actress looks hot as fuck and new music.

Nobody has a “right” to post on any given forum any more than you have a “right” to editorial space on theNew York Times Op-Ed or Fox News or Breitbart. Tucker Carlson is a huge advocate for “replacement theory” which has deep roots in white supremacy, antisemitism. Fox allows him a platform, I seriously doubt they would offer Hillary Clinton a similar platform. As long as Tucker makes them money and doesn’t put them the hook for a multi-billion dollar lawsuit, he has a job. Twitter, likewise may be worried about consumer and legal backlash from giving hate speech unchecked on their platform. You can get banned from Parlor also.

Freedom of speech doesn’t not guarantee you a platform anymore than it guarantees you protection from the consequences of what you say. It just really means the government won’t go after you.

And most people are fine with that as long as they lose the #230 protection

But lets not pretend that Jack Dorsey is doing this on a rules of conduct reason

He had the terrorist leader of Iran on while he banned the NY Post and he never banned Maxine Waters a racist agitator encouraging violence
You forgot to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene. If you are going to mention racists on the Internet, make sure you include her. I mean, she is trying warn us about those damnable Jewish space lasers.....
Fine mention her , but the point is Dorsey does not remove leftists. He and his so called arbiter were interviewed on the Joe rogan show. They said they could not remove Antifa. but we fine with removing Milo for calling the female Ghostbusters a terrible movie
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Their toys, their rules... 4chan allows you to post what ever you want. Most of what gets kicked off of FB, YouTube and Twitter is not done by humans, but done by algorithms. I wanted to sell a speargun on FB Marketplace and Craig’s list. Both of them nixed it because of the “gun”. A lot of Twitter is social networking and marketing. If Kim K want wants to sell whatever she sells, or Christina Carter wants to build her fetish brand, the short form of Twitter works really well. Over throw the government or coordinate a race war? It was not really designed for that. I don’t have a Twitter account, but I will still look at post occasionally for things like movie trailers, what actress looks hot as fuck and new music.

Nobody has a “right” to post on any given forum any more than you have a “right” to editorial space on theNew York Times Op-Ed or Fox News or Breitbart. Tucker Carlson is a huge advocate for “replacement theory” which has deep roots in white supremacy, antisemitism. Fox allows him a platform, I seriously doubt they would offer Hillary Clinton a similar platform. As long as Tucker makes them money and doesn’t put them the hook for a multi-billion dollar lawsuit, he has a job. Twitter, likewise may be worried about consumer and legal backlash from giving hate speech unchecked on their platform. You can get banned from Parlor also.

Freedom of speech doesn’t not guarantee you a platform anymore than it guarantees you protection from the consequences of what you say. It just really means the government won’t go after you.

And most people are fine with that as long as they lose the #230 protection

But lets not pretend that Jack Dorsey is doing this on a rules of conduct reason

He had the terrorist leader of Iran on while he banned the NY Post and he never banned Maxine Waters a racist agitator encouraging violence
You forgot to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene. If you are going to mention racists on the Internet, make sure you include her. I mean, she is trying warn us about those damnable Jewish space lasers.....
Fine mention her , but the point is Dorsey does not remove leftists. He and his so called arbiter were interviewed on the Joe rogan show. They said they could not remove Antifa. but we fine with removing Milo for calling the female Ghostbusters a terrible movie
I think it had more to do with the ongoing racist post posts and the campaign of associated harassment he was encouraging and his prior history of harassment on the platform. Again, Dorsey received a direct complaint from the victim about something on going about a user with a long history of harassment. Nobody told Milo he couldn’t speak, but there is no requirement that Twitter provide him a platform. Or should the government step in and force Twitter give him a platform? Can’t he still go on Breitbart, OAN, and talk about conversion therapy and pedophilia (great guy).

You do know that Antifa is not a person? Unlike the Oath Keepers, they do not have a membership role. It is more of a philosophy than an actual group. Some small groups self identify, but usually they are not trying to overthrow the government or anything like that. They haven’t shot up any Walmarts, or chased down survivors of mass shootings and harassing them online, I would hope they get banned. Taylor Greene, has not been banned yet and Trump was only banned after the Capital insurrection.
Image
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Their toys, their rules... 4chan allows you to post what ever you want. Most of what gets kicked off of FB, YouTube and Twitter is not done by humans, but done by algorithms. I wanted to sell a speargun on FB Marketplace and Craig’s list. Both of them nixed it because of the “gun”. A lot of Twitter is social networking and marketing. If Kim K want wants to sell whatever she sells, or Christina Carter wants to build her fetish brand, the short form of Twitter works really well. Over throw the government or coordinate a race war? It was not really designed for that. I don’t have a Twitter account, but I will still look at post occasionally for things like movie trailers, what actress looks hot as fuck and new music.

Nobody has a “right” to post on any given forum any more than you have a “right” to editorial space on theNew York Times Op-Ed or Fox News or Breitbart. Tucker Carlson is a huge advocate for “replacement theory” which has deep roots in white supremacy, antisemitism. Fox allows him a platform, I seriously doubt they would offer Hillary Clinton a similar platform. As long as Tucker makes them money and doesn’t put them the hook for a multi-billion dollar lawsuit, he has a job. Twitter, likewise may be worried about consumer and legal backlash from giving hate speech unchecked on their platform. You can get banned from Parlor also.

Freedom of speech doesn’t not guarantee you a platform anymore than it guarantees you protection from the consequences of what you say. It just really means the government won’t go after you.

And most people are fine with that as long as they lose the #230 protection

But lets not pretend that Jack Dorsey is doing this on a rules of conduct reason

He had the terrorist leader of Iran on while he banned the NY Post and he never banned Maxine Waters a racist agitator encouraging violence
You forgot to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene. If you are going to mention racists on the Internet, make sure you include her. I mean, she is trying warn us about those damnable Jewish space lasers.....
Fine mention her , but the point is Dorsey does not remove leftists. He and his so called arbiter were interviewed on the Joe rogan show. They said they could not remove Antifa. but we fine with removing Milo for calling the female Ghostbusters a terrible movie
I think it had more to do with the ongoing racist post posts and the campaign of associated harassment he was encouraging and his prior history of harassment on the platform. Again, Dorsey received a direct complaint from the victim about something on going about a user with a long history of harassment. Nobody told Milo he couldn’t speak, but there is no requirement that Twitter provide him a platform. Or should the government step in and force Twitter give him a platform? Can’t he still go on Breitbart, OAN, and talk about conversion therapy and pedophilia (great guy).

You do know that Antifa is not a person? Unlike the Oath Keepers, they do not have a membership role. It is more of a philosophy than an actual group. Some small groups self identify, but usually they are not trying to overthrow the government or anything like that. They haven’t shot up any Walmarts, or chased down survivors of mass shootings and harassing them online, I would hope they get banned. Taylor Greene, has not been banned yet and Trump was only banned after the Capital insurrection.
Antifa is a domestic terrorist group, and they have done far more damage than the Oath keepers. been to Portland or Seattle recently. As far as attacking people, name Andy Ngo mean anything to you.

I'll give you a name Luis Marquez, people know who the leaders of Antifa are. I'll give you a name of a Wikipedia admin who is a member Doug Weller.

Trump was banned before the mostly peaceful protest. Almost everyone in D.C was peaceful
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago



And most people are fine with that as long as they lose the #230 protection

But lets not pretend that Jack Dorsey is doing this on a rules of conduct reason

He had the terrorist leader of Iran on while he banned the NY Post and he never banned Maxine Waters a racist agitator encouraging violence
You forgot to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene. If you are going to mention racists on the Internet, make sure you include her. I mean, she is trying warn us about those damnable Jewish space lasers.....
Fine mention her , but the point is Dorsey does not remove leftists. He and his so called arbiter were interviewed on the Joe rogan show. They said they could not remove Antifa. but we fine with removing Milo for calling the female Ghostbusters a terrible movie
I think it had more to do with the ongoing racist post posts and the campaign of associated harassment he was encouraging and his prior history of harassment on the platform. Again, Dorsey received a direct complaint from the victim about something on going about a user with a long history of harassment. Nobody told Milo he couldn’t speak, but there is no requirement that Twitter provide him a platform. Or should the government step in and force Twitter give him a platform? Can’t he still go on Breitbart, OAN, and talk about conversion therapy and pedophilia (great guy).

You do know that Antifa is not a person? Unlike the Oath Keepers, they do not have a membership role. It is more of a philosophy than an actual group. Some small groups self identify, but usually they are not trying to overthrow the government or anything like that. They haven’t shot up any Walmarts, or chased down survivors of mass shootings and harassing them online, I would hope they get banned. Taylor Greene, has not been banned yet and Trump was only banned after the Capital insurrection.
Antifa is a domestic terrorist group, and they have done far more damage than the Oath keepers. been to Portland or Seattle recently. As far as attacking people, name Andy Ngo mean anything to you.

I'll give you a name Luis Marquez, people know who the leaders of Antifa are. I'll give you a name of a Wikipedia admin who is a member Doug Weller.

Trump was banned before the mostly peaceful protest. Almost everyone in D.C was peaceful
I am sure that is of great comfort to the 140 officers injured on January 6th. I understand it is so easy to misinterpret an eye gouging... I sure he didn’t mean to actually take the eye out (I guess we should blame MrPotatohead...

Speaking of Wikipedia, here is what they say about domestic terrorism:
A June 2020 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reported that over 25 years of domestic terrorism incidents, the majority of attacks and plots had come from far-right attackers. The trend had accelerated in recent years, with this sector responsible for about 66% of attacks and plots in 2019, and 90% of those in 2020. The next most potentially dangerous group was “religious extremists”, the majority “Salafi jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaida”, while the number planned by the far left had reduced to a minute fraction since the mid-2000s.[16][17]
Image
Damselbinder

But can we REALLY not, though?
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
the majority “Salafi jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaida”, while the number planned by the far left had reduced to a minute fraction since the mid-2000s.[16][17]
How is Islam a "right wing" group? I mean I guess if you consider "right wing" to be religious then... ok. But then the left should NEVER defend Islam.

This kind of reeks of very horrible broadly defined terms ie casting a net way too wide. I wouldn't call US leftists "communists" for example. Is 911 a "right wing" attack? Gee.... not sure what you're defining right wing here. But if you go this route then left has to include all atrocities committed by communists and socialists.

Also this is kind of a slanted argument given that if the state commits terrorism its not considered terrorism yet communist China and N. Korea as well as other regimes have clearly committed acts well above religious issues.

Dazzle I believe was dealing with US incidences and NOT world wide. So I don't think a world wide claim is valid.

BTW someone posted above that making negative comments about Islam was "white supremacy" or "nazi" issue.
Sneakly wrote:Should Twitter ban ISIS calling for violence against the US and completely ignore neo-Nazi calling for the destruction of Islam?
But if what you posted is true and that Islam is a big contributor to this world wide terrorism then these anti-Islam people are actually in the right. Wouldn't a good progressive be anti-religious zealot and anti-LGBT killers? Shouldn't one WANT an ultra-conservative ideology that uses terrorism to go extinct? How is that neo-Nazi? Its seems like doing the right thing to me.

Not to belabor the point but I don't think anyone who identifies as "left" wants every single atrocity that every leftist regime in history has committed associated with them. That's why I think the whole Nazi thing is unfair. No leftists in the US accept the blame of the soviets or communist china or N. Korea so how is it fair to throw some Nazi card on the table. I'm sure a lot of Nazis had "good intentions". And state atrocities ARE terrorism since we accept this when the US bombs some other country.

Don't call people Nazi if you don't want to be called a communist who starved or murdered 100 mil people.
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Mr. X wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
the majority “Salafi jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaida”, while the number planned by the far left had reduced to a minute fraction since the mid-2000s.[16][17]
How is Islam a "right wing" group? I mean I guess if you consider "right wing" to be religious then... ok. But then the left should NEVER defend Islam.

This kind of reeks of very horrible broadly defined terms ie casting a net way too wide. I wouldn't call US leftists "communists" for example. Is 911 a "right wing" attack? Gee.... not sure what you're defining right wing here. But if you go this route then left has to include all atrocities committed by communists and socialists.

Also this is kind of a slanted argument given that if the state commits terrorism its not considered terrorism yet communist China and N. Korea as well as other regimes have clearly committed acts well above religious issues.

Dazzle I believe was dealing with US incidences and NOT world wide. So I don't think a world wide claim is valid.

BTW someone posted above that making negative comments about Islam was "white supremacy" or "nazi" issue.
Sneakly wrote:Should Twitter ban ISIS calling for violence against the US and completely ignore neo-Nazi calling for the destruction of Islam?
But if what you posted is true and that Islam is a big contributor to this world wide terrorism then these anti-Islam people are actually in the right. Wouldn't a good progressive be anti-religious zealot and anti-LGBT killers? Shouldn't one WANT an ultra-conservative ideology that uses terrorism to go extinct? How is that neo-Nazi? Its seems like doing the right thing to me.

Not to belabor the point but I don't think anyone who identifies as "left" wants every single atrocity that every leftist regime in history has committed associated with them. That's why I think the whole Nazi thing is unfair. No leftists in the US accept the blame of the soviets or communist china or N. Korea so how is it fair to throw some Nazi card on the table. I'm sure a lot of Nazis had "good intentions". And state atrocities ARE terrorism since we accept this when the US bombs some other country.

Don't call people Nazi if you don't want to be called a communist who starved or murdered 100 mil people.
Nicely clipping off the first half the paragraph there... the part that said the Right wing domestic terrorism AND also Religious extremism.

Also, I was unaware that China and North Korea were playing a big part in Twitter... not saying they aren’t, but why would Kim Jong Un be trolling America after the epic bromance with Trump?
Image
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Nicely clipping off the first half the paragraph there... the part that said the Right wing domestic terrorism AND also Religious extremism.

Also, I was unaware that China and North Korea were playing a big part in Twitter... not saying they aren’t, but why would Kim Jong Un be trolling America after the epic bromance with Trump?
China not being an issue on Twitter? Seriously? China has been in the news for the last decade. Look up the whole Hong Kong thing and how Twitter keeps pulling stories from Twitter that are sympathetic to Hong Kong protestors. Notice CNN doesn't report on Hong Kong at all. Yeah twitter is most certainly China's lap dog.

And no the link posted from Wiki was associating ALL religious extremism WITH right wing including claiming Islam is somehow right wing, which I'm not denying given the broad definition. One cannot argue a comparison of left and right terrorism then lump religion, polar bears, telephone poles, lightning strikes, alien invasion.... a bunch of nonsense... on the right side.

Its OK to associate all US right wingers with Nazis from 80 years ago in another part of the world.
Its OK to associate all whites with slavery from 150 years ago.
Its OK to associate Islamic terrorism as a right wing act cause religion=religion.

BUT

You can't associate all leftists with communism or socialism.
You can't associate all Islamists with terrorism committed by Islamist groups.
You can't associate slavery committed BY africans (even TODAY!!!!!!) with US blacks.

Yup some mighty fine set of standards there.

Lets be clear. The left NOR the right will EVER in 1000 years be the good guys or on any moral high ground. Its a pissing contest on who is the shiniest of two turds.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

Notice CNN doesn't report on Hong Kong at all.
cnn hong kong google date range jan31 to apr26 top of page 1.png
cnn hong kong google date range jan31 to apr26 top of page 1.png (211.13 KiB) Viewed 9874 times
cnn hong kong google date range jan31 to apr26 top of page 2.png
cnn hong kong google date range jan31 to apr26 top of page 2.png (221.73 KiB) Viewed 9874 times
cnn hong kong google date range jan31 to apr26 top of page 3.png
cnn hong kong google date range jan31 to apr26 top of page 3.png (221.36 KiB) Viewed 9874 times
A simple search for 'cnn hong kong' brought up multiple pages of cnn reporting on Hong Kong. Who knew!?

Using same custom date range (jan31 to apr26) but changed 'cnn hong kong' search words to 'cnn superheroines' brought up one cnnradio link. So all is somewhat not lost. Although CNN really needs to evaluate their priorities.
cnn superheroines google date range jan31 to apr26 top of page 1.png
cnn superheroines google date range jan31 to apr26 top of page 1.png (42.34 KiB) Viewed 9874 times
:lynda1:
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Its OK to associate all US right wingers with Nazis from 80 years ago in another part of the world.
Its OK to associate all whites with slavery from 150 years ago.
Its OK to associate Islamic terrorism as a right wing act cause religion=religion.

BUT

You can't associate all leftists with communism or socialism.
You can't associate all Islamists with terrorism committed by Islamist groups.
You can't associate slavery committed BY africans (even TODAY!!!!!!) with US blacks.
A lot to unpack, but....
NAZIs today Image
From the “mostly peaceful” demonstration that left five dead and 140 police officers injured.
Image
And from some of those fine people in Charlottesville. I believe one of them drove a car into a crowd and killed a woman. You might also notice the confederate battle flag next to the Nazi flag. Two great institutions built on slave labor....
As for equating the right with Islamic terrorism, that paragraph you couldn’t seem to decode also mentioned left wing terrorism. It was talking about domestic terrorism, but english comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit...

As for a connection between slavery occurring in Africa today and American blacks, that is just straight up racism. The slave trade that brought blacks to America ended two centuries ago. Saying there is a connection is going to require something more than “Q said...” It is just straight up racism, American blacks have nothing to do with modern Africa, other than the color of their skin.

I have not brought up communism and socialism because, as far as I know, they haven’t been whining about how unfair Twitter has become...

I am also unaware of any Democrats endorsing Islamic Terrorism (I do recall Trump being okay with the Saudis killing and chopping up an American journalist in Turkey, is that what you were talking about? Or do you mean when Obama administration killed Bin Laden?). Or are you talking about that Democrats don’t have a problem letting Muslims practice their religion( the whole “freedom of religion thing” the right keeps bringing up?)

You may want to clarify your points with....facts?
Last edited by sneakly 2 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
NotUv2
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Canada
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
You may want to clarify you points with....facts?
Image
Image

Check out my stories (and in some cases, books):

Amazon
Literotica
Mr. X Homepage (NEW STORiES ADDED 4/8/21)
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Its OK to associate all US right wingers with Nazis from 80 years ago in another part of the world.
Its OK to associate all whites with slavery from 150 years ago.
Its OK to associate Islamic terrorism as a right wing act cause religion=religion.

BUT

You can't associate all leftists with communism or socialism.
You can't associate all Islamists with terrorism committed by Islamist groups.
You can't associate slavery committed BY africans (even TODAY!!!!!!) with US blacks.
A lot to unpack, but....
NAZIs today Image
From the “mostly peaceful” demonstration that left five dead and 140 police officers injured.
Image
And from some of those fine people in Charlottesville. I believe one of them drove a car into a crowd and killed a woman. You might also notice the confederate battle flag next to the Nazi flag. Two great institutions built on slave labor....
As for equating the right with Islamic terrorism, that paragraph you couldn’t seem to decode also mentioned left wing terrorism. It was talking about domestic terrorism, but english comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit...

As for a connection between slavery occurring in Africa today and American blacks, that is just straight up racism. The slave trade that brought blacks to America ended two centuries ago. Saying there is a connection is going to require something more than “Q said...” It is just straight up racism, American blacks have nothing to do with modern Africa, other than the color of their skin.

I have not brought up communism and socialism because, as far as I know, they haven’t been whining about how unfair Twitter has become...

I am also unaware of any Democrats endorsing Islamic Terrorism (I do recall Trump being okay with the Saudis killing and chopping up an American journalist in Turkey, is that what you were talking about? Or do you mean when Obama administration killed Bin Laden?). Or are you talking about that Democrats don’t have a problem letting Muslims practice their religion( the whole “freedom of religion thing” the right keeps bringing up?)

You may want to clarify your points with....facts?
I'll give you some Democrats that support Islamic terrorism, all 4 members of the Squad, AG of MN Keith Ellison

They activly support the TransJordanian terrorists
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

When one member of the squad, Rep. Omar said of the 9/11 attacks "Some people did something", while yes, in the proper context what she is saying that some Muslims committed a heinous act and good and decent Muslims everywhere will be tainted by that broad brush, I still do feel however that "some people" reference is too vague, that I would argue that the "some people did something" is a way of downplaying or minimizing Saudi and Yemeni Muslims role on that sad day. I think everybody ought to have the courage of their convictions to call out and correctly identify intolerance of every kind, whether it be religious, racial, or cultural differences.
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

bushwackerbob wrote:
2 years ago
When one member of the squad, Rep. Omar said of the 9/11 attacks "Some people did something", while yes, in the proper context what she is saying that some Muslims committed a heinous act and good and decent Muslims everywhere will be tainted by that broad brush, I still do feel however that "some people" reference is too vague, that I would argue that the "some people did something" is a way of downplaying or minimizing Saudi and Yemeni Muslims role on that sad day. I think everybody ought to have the courage of their convictions to call out and correctly identify intolerance of every kind, whether it be religious, racial, or cultural differences.
When someone bombs an abortion clinic, and uses god as the excuse, are they called radical Christian terrorists? I don’t see anyone insisting that they be called “Christian Terrorists”. They are. Lots of Klan iconography has Christian overtones. Few Americans want to emphasize the religious connection or even acknowledge the connection. Why do you feel the need to rub the noses of American Muslims noses in the actions terrorist who were as Muslim as the Klan is Christian?

Even then why are you dragging the rest of “the Squad” into this? Half the Republican Party isn’t even willing to admit that if Pelosi, AOC or Pence had been caught by the insurrectionists, they would likely have been lynched.

If you are going to create these ridiculous criteria about “courage of convictions” feel free to demonstrate them first. Ilhan Omar certainly knows more about Islamic radicals than you do, she was four years in a refugee camp and got to enjoy the generosity of America growing up black, foreign and Muslim in America. She didn’t shed her hijab or hide her faith to make idiots on the Internet feel better...
Image
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
2 years ago
When one member of the squad, Rep. Omar said of the 9/11 attacks "Some people did something", while yes, in the proper context what she is saying that some Muslims committed a heinous act and good and decent Muslims everywhere will be tainted by that broad brush, I still do feel however that "some people" reference is too vague, that I would argue that the "some people did something" is a way of downplaying or minimizing Saudi and Yemeni Muslims role on that sad day. I think everybody ought to have the courage of their convictions to call out and correctly identify intolerance of every kind, whether it be religious, racial, or cultural differences.
When someone bombs an abortion clinic, and uses god as the excuse, are they called radical Christian terrorists? I don’t see anyone insisting that they be called “Christian Terrorists”. They are. Lots of Klan iconography has Christian overtones. Few Americans want to emphasize the religious connection or even acknowledge the connection. Why do you feel the need to rub the noses of American Muslims noses in the actions terrorist who were as Muslim as the Klan is Christian?

Even then why are you dragging the rest of “the Squad” into this? Half the Republican Party isn’t even willing to admit that if Pelosi, AOC or Pence had been caught by the insurrectionists, they would likely have been lynched.

If you are going to create these ridiculous criteria about “courage of convictions” feel free to demonstrate them first. Ilhan Omar certainly knows more about Islamic radicals than you do, she was four years in a refugee camp and got to enjoy the generosity of America growing up black, foreign and Muslim in America. She didn’t shed her hijab or hide her faith to make idiots on the Internet feel better...
Omar and Tlaib are not better than Hamas and Hezbollah they seek the extermination of the Jewish people

they deserve to be in a Supermax
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
When someone bombs an abortion clinic, and uses god as the excuse, are they called radical Christian terrorists? I don’t see anyone insisting that they be called “Christian Terrorists”. They are. Lots of Klan iconography has Christian overtones. Few Americans want to emphasize the religious connection or even acknowledge the connection. Why do you feel the need to rub the noses of American Muslims noses in the actions terrorist who were as Muslim as the Klan is Christian?
This is very good reasoning but then is it fair to call people Nazis simply because there is some loose connection between something in the US and some similar Nazi positions? Nazis were also socialist though I doubt you want to connect them to leftists.

I'm all for denouncing these loose connections but it has to be universal. That means there is NO Nazi issue in the US.

And I think right to life xtians blowing thing up were terrorists. As a side note these are the same kinds of people that antifa are today. If Antifa were around in 1990 they'd be blowing up clinics. Its not the cause - its the kind of person who latches onto a righteous cause to use it to commit violence. 1990 was abortion bombings. 2020 its small businesses and police cars.
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: 10 years ago

Mr. X wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
When someone bombs an abortion clinic, and uses god as the excuse, are they called radical Christian terrorists? I don’t see anyone insisting that they be called “Christian Terrorists”. They are. Lots of Klan iconography has Christian overtones. Few Americans want to emphasize the religious connection or even acknowledge the connection. Why do you feel the need to rub the noses of American Muslims noses in the actions terrorist who were as Muslim as the Klan is Christian?
This is very good reasoning but then is it fair to call people Nazis simply because there is some loose connection between something in the US and some similar Nazi positions? Nazis were also socialist though I doubt you want to connect them to leftists.

I'm all for denouncing these loose connections but it has to be universal. That means there is NO Nazi issue in the US.

And I think right to life xtians blowing thing up were terrorists. As a side note these are the same kinds of people that antifa are today. If Antifa were around in 1990 they'd be blowing up clinics. Its not the cause - its the kind of person who latches onto a righteous cause to use it to commit violence. 1990 was abortion bombings. 2020 its small businesses and police cars.
There is also no White Supremacy problem. Are there white racists? Sure but they have almost no political power.
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
2 years ago
When one member of the squad, Rep. Omar said of the 9/11 attacks "Some people did something", while yes, in the proper context what she is saying that some Muslims committed a heinous act and good and decent Muslims everywhere will be tainted by that broad brush, I still do feel however that "some people" reference is too vague, that I would argue that the "some people did something" is a way of downplaying or minimizing Saudi and Yemeni Muslims role on that sad day. I think everybody ought to have the courage of their convictions to call out and correctly identify intolerance of every kind, whether it be religious, racial, or cultural differences.
When someone bombs an abortion clinic, and uses god as the excuse, are they called radical Christian terrorists? I don’t see anyone insisting that they be called “Christian Terrorists”. They are. Lots of Klan iconography has Christian overtones. Few Americans want to emphasize the religious connection or even acknowledge the connection. Why do you feel the need to rub the noses of American Muslims noses in the actions terrorist who were as Muslim as the Klan is Christian?

Even then why are you dragging the rest of “the Squad” into this? Half the Republican Party isn’t even willing to admit that if Pelosi, AOC or Pence had been caught by the insurrectionists, they would likely have been lynched.

If you are going to create these ridiculous criteria about “courage of convictions” feel free to demonstrate them first. Ilhan Omar certainly knows more about Islamic radicals than you do, she was four years in a refugee camp and got to enjoy the generosity of America growing up black, foreign and Muslim in America. She didn’t shed her hijab or hide her faith to make idiots on the Internet feel better...
You are jumping all over the place here, obfuscating the point. Almost 3000 people died on 9/11, with folks saying goodbye to their loved ones on airplanes and at the WTC, not to mention the folks jumping out of windows rather than burn to death, and Omar says "some people did something". I can't help it, I get a visceral reaction every time I hear those feeble and vague words and remember the innocent lives that were lost on that tragic day. Is it rubbing noses in American Muslims to call those vague words to account? I don't think so. I happen to think the Islamic religion is a peaceful religion that is hijacked by a vocal minority of followers, and I feel every American of every ethnic descent, whether they be Muslim, Irish, black, white, or whatever, ought to be honest and acknowledge the folks responsible for that terrible day. I hardly think Omar would be betraying her peaceful and honorable religion by calling out that vocal minority of bad actors that happen to share her religion. I denounce acts of violence of all political stripes.
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Mr. X wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
When someone bombs an abortion clinic, and uses god as the excuse, are they called radical Christian terrorists? I don’t see anyone insisting that they be called “Christian Terrorists”. They are. Lots of Klan iconography has Christian overtones. Few Americans want to emphasize the religious connection or even acknowledge the connection. Why do you feel the need to rub the noses of American Muslims noses in the actions terrorist who were as Muslim as the Klan is Christian?
This is very good reasoning but then is it fair to call people Nazis simply because there is some loose connection between something in the US and some similar Nazi positions? Nazis were also socialist though I doubt you want to connect them to leftists.

I'm all for denouncing these loose connections but it has to be universal. That means there is NO Nazi issue in the US.

And I think right to life xtians blowing thing up were terrorists. As a side note these are the same kinds of people that antifa are today. If Antifa were around in 1990 they'd be blowing up clinics. Its not the cause - its the kind of person who latches onto a righteous cause to use it to commit violence. 1990 was abortion bombings. 2020 its small businesses and police cars.
I don’t disagree, but if you are on the same side as Nazis, you may want to re-evaluate the side you are on. Not all Republicans are racist or NAZIs, but a lot of Republicans are leaving the party because the Trump wing of the party has been, to say the least, feeding them.

Antifa, you may want to read up on, because it is a very loose association of groups. The vast majority of protests on both the right and the left are peaceful. BLM protests over the summer involve between 15 and 26 million people. My kids went to several. No violence, no arrests. There were provocations, the use of tear gas and kettling by police were used to create confrontations. Boogie boys used protests as cover to murder two officers. Fires were set, by whom, it is hard to be sure in a lot of cases.

There is a difference between a peaceful protest breaking down and someone bringing guns to a protest or planting pipe bombs like they did in DC. I don’t think planting bombs at abortion clinics or assassinating doctors is the same as a crowd burning a store. One of them is clearly premeditated.
Image
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago

I don’t disagree, but if you are on the same side as Nazis, you may want to re-evaluate the side you are on. Not all Republicans are racist or NAZIs, but a lot of Republicans are leaving the party because the Trump wing of the party has been, to say the least, feeding them.
WHAT?! There is no "NAZIS" or "feeding nazis". That's nuts. There is no wide spread nazism in the US. Its always some edge case. This argument isn't even worth considering. "Nazis" has effectively boiled down to a swear word no different than "fascism". Even Orwell noted this in one of his article in 1944 when even Jews were called Nazis by some groups.

Trump was a democrat for decades. Your comment right here is why no one can have a rational discussion. Its tantamount to calling a group "pedophiles" cause you don't like them.

And lets be clear, every ideology in history has common threads so simply saying Nazis were X and repubs advocate X does not make them the same. The Nazis ALSO wanted socialism and national health care and national education and welfare. Does that make them socialists or lefties? They drove cars. You drive a car. Are you a Nazi?



And this 1944 and the definition is already screwed up.
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
Mr. X wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
When someone bombs an abortion clinic, and uses god as the excuse, are they called radical Christian terrorists? I don’t see anyone insisting that they be called “Christian Terrorists”. They are. Lots of Klan iconography has Christian overtones. Few Americans want to emphasize the religious connection or even acknowledge the connection. Why do you feel the need to rub the noses of American Muslims noses in the actions terrorist who were as Muslim as the Klan is Christian?
This is very good reasoning but then is it fair to call people Nazis simply because there is some loose connection between something in the US and some similar Nazi positions? Nazis were also socialist though I doubt you want to connect them to leftists.

I'm all for denouncing these loose connections but it has to be universal. That means there is NO Nazi issue in the US.

And I think right to life xtians blowing thing up were terrorists. As a side note these are the same kinds of people that antifa are today. If Antifa were around in 1990 they'd be blowing up clinics. Its not the cause - its the kind of person who latches onto a righteous cause to use it to commit violence. 1990 was abortion bombings. 2020 its small businesses and police cars.
I don’t disagree, but if you are on the same side as Nazis, you may want to re-evaluate the side you are on. Not all Republicans are racist or NAZIs, but a lot of Republicans are leaving the party because the Trump wing of the party has been, to say the least, feeding them.

Antifa, you may want to read up on, because it is a very loose association of groups. The vast majority of protests on both the right and the left are peaceful. BLM protests over the summer involve between 15 and 26 million people. My kids went to several. No violence, no arrests. There were provocations, the use of tear gas and kettling by police were used to create confrontations. Boogie boys used protests as cover to murder two officers. Fires were set, by whom, it is hard to be sure in a lot of cases.

There is a difference between a peaceful protest breaking down and someone bringing guns to a protest or planting pipe bombs like they did in DC. I don’t think planting bombs at abortion clinics or assassinating doctors is the same as a crowd burning a store. One of them is clearly premeditated.
Nope most of the protest were violent and disruptive.

Especially in the Northwest and in MN

Of course BLM was founded on a lie, Hand up don't shoot and the contiued lie of systemic racism

BLM is the new KKK
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago

Nope most of the protest were violent and disruptive.

Especially in the Northwest and in MN

Of course BLM was founded on a lie, Hand up don't shoot and the contiued lie of systemic racism

BLM is the new KKK
Total Garbage post.

BTW, Netanyahu is the most corrupt racist on the planet. All my Jewish friends agree. People need to know the truth. Shalom.
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote:
2 years ago
Mr. X wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago
When someone bombs an abortion clinic, and uses god as the excuse, are they called radical Christian terrorists? I don’t see anyone insisting that they be called “Christian Terrorists”. They are. Lots of Klan iconography has Christian overtones. Few Americans want to emphasize the religious connection or even acknowledge the connection. Why do you feel the need to rub the noses of American Muslims noses in the actions terrorist who were as Muslim as the Klan is Christian?
This is very good reasoning but then is it fair to call people Nazis simply because there is some loose connection between something in the US and some similar Nazi positions? Nazis were also socialist though I doubt you want to connect them to leftists.

I'm all for denouncing these loose connections but it has to be universal. That means there is NO Nazi issue in the US.

And I think right to life xtians blowing thing up were terrorists. As a side note these are the same kinds of people that antifa are today. If Antifa were around in 1990 they'd be blowing up clinics. Its not the cause - its the kind of person who latches onto a righteous cause to use it to commit violence. 1990 was abortion bombings. 2020 its small businesses and police cars.
There is also no White Supremacy problem. Are there white racists? Sure but they have almost no political power.
White Supremacy = White Racists. They absolutely have political power. Scary!
racist kemp signing voter suppression illegal law.jpg
racist kemp signing voter suppression illegal law.jpg (145.11 KiB) Viewed 9738 times
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

Screw this. Not going to take the race baiting bait here.

One cannot have a rational discussion with people who see KKK, Nazis and white supremacists around every corner.
Last edited by Mr. X 2 years ago, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
NotUv2
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Canada
Contact:

I was contemplating leaving the forum on account of some of this stuff. But it occurs to me that I'd be missing out on some fine unintentional comedy. "BLM is the new KKK" is fucking hilarious.

Image
Image

Check out my stories (and in some cases, books):

Amazon
Literotica
Mr. X Homepage (NEW STORiES ADDED 4/8/21)
User avatar
NotUv2
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Canada
Contact:

(Hint: You'll know they're "the new KKK" when they can actually murder and terrorize you with impunity and get away with it in the courts. Notice how it's a super-duper-unusual thing that Derek Chauvin got convicted of murder and manslaughter for openly murdering George Floyd in public view and on camera? To the point where a certain type of fuckhead who shall here go unnamed is ranting about "Mad Maxine" and how her "threats" must have been responsible? That's what white supremacy and the KKK is. When Black people can do that to you instead of getting shot, brutalized or strangled by the cops for walking in the wrong place or having a delinquent ticket on a minor crime, that's when you'll know that there's a "new KKK." ADDED HINT: It's probably never gonna happen.)
Image

Check out my stories (and in some cases, books):

Amazon
Literotica
Mr. X Homepage (NEW STORiES ADDED 4/8/21)
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Mr. X wrote:
2 years ago
sneakly wrote:
2 years ago

I don’t disagree, but if you are on the same side as Nazis, you may want to re-evaluate the side you are on. Not all Republicans are racist or NAZIs, but a lot of Republicans are leaving the party because the Trump wing of the party has been, to say the least, feeding them.
WHAT?! There is no "NAZIS" or "feeding nazis". That's nuts. There is no wide spread nazism in the US. Its always some edge case. This argument isn't even worth considering. "Nazis" has effectively boiled down to a swear word no different than "fascism". Even Orwell noted this in one of his article in 1944 when even Jews were called Nazis by some groups.

Trump was a democrat for decades. Your comment right here is why no one can have a rational discussion. Its tantamount to calling a group "pedophiles" cause you don't like them.

And lets be clear, every ideology in history has common threads so simply saying Nazis were X and repubs advocate X does not make them the same. The Nazis ALSO wanted socialism and national health care and national education and welfare. Does that make them socialists or lefties? They drove cars. You drive a car. Are you a Nazi?



And this 1944 and the definition is already screwed up.
Trump wasn’t really a Democrat any more than he is a Republican. He was always a conman and little else. He wants to be an oligarch, but that hasn’t been working out that well either.... Like any good conman he went where he could find the most rubes.

And speaking of pedophiles, it looks like Matt Gaetz is look at a vacation at Club Fed.
Last edited by sneakly 2 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
Image
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Mr. X wrote:
2 years ago
Screw this. Not going to take the race baiting bait here.

One cannot have a rational discussion with people who see KKK, Nazis and white supremacists around every corner.
I don’t see them around every corner, but they have been showing up consistently at Trump rallies. And Trump has never made a serious attempt to distance himself from them.
Image
Post Reply