ADVERTISEMENT

Censorship

Predictably, he had nothing and can’t discuss beyond flaccidly expressing smugness.
What can I say besides sometimes doing the right thing requires sacrifice, in this case a relatively small one.
 
No. I didn’t.
CNN are experts at getting Trump stories wrong and underselling him. Not always. But often.

First piece of advice I have regarding stories like this is to ask yourself if you are open to the idea that he actually does have a good relationship with them and that the perception he doesn’t may be yet another troll job. If you can’t acknowledge that as at least a possibility it’s hard to discuss. In my opinion you are the best shot on this board of a liberal (probably not a leftist) that can have an interesting convo.

All that said, he may have bad relationships with some of them. If he does they’ll be replaced. Is that bad?

And just like that, Ann Coulter was a liberal hero.

By the way dummy, Greenwald is the non-leftist liberal @Ponca Dan advised you to learn about. Quit being stupid and try to learn something. Collusion is over.

She’s a throwback liberal that seems more 90’s than 2010’s.

Also, wood.

@Been Jammin is probably a perfect example of this. Nice classic liberal guy that never speaks out on things he (probably) finds repulsive because he’s brand loyal. He just avoids the threads that would put him in team conflict by having to choose between openly support leftist politics that he (probably) finds disgusting and calling them out with the rest of the centrists (aka far right republicans, according to @Syskatine @07pilt etc) that some leftist policies are blatantly anti-Constitution, anti-American and in some cases (3rd trimester abortions) objectively evil.

Wasn’t there some kind of study about the average every day Germans who turned a blind eye to Nazi atrocities? Whatever facilitates that kind of passive acquiescence to bad ideas then is the same problem average centrist democrats are facing today. No idea what it’ll take to wake them up at this point and take back control of their formerly liberty focused party.

Ah... cool. What do we call “involuntarily celibate” leftists who only hate non leftist women?

First I’m hearing about this incel stuff’s origin story but it seems overly categorized - at least as far as the women go. I’ve never noticed a sexual difference in women who’ve voted “conservative” vs “liberal” myself.

Are you just spitballing regarding the housewife theory? Housewives are great if you can afford them.
 

I would ignore this part too if I were you.

I rarely even use the word. I used it today and asked, “when did liberals stop believing in free speech?”

I asked it that way because I respect “liberals.” They were always champions of free speech. And now, any of them that speak up in its defense are labeled “conservative.”
 

Thanks for proving me right I guess?

The Ann Coulter comment is the closest thing you can find. I always point out the difference between liberals (free speech warriors) and leftists (commie scum).
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
59887461_1086375928235108_5788088135011270656_n.jpg


*leftists
 
You cant be a platform if you are picking and choosing what people can post

Such as shame that spreading deliberate lies isn't easier.

Amazing how irrelevant truth and accuracy is in the age of MAGA.
 
Thanks for proving me right I guess?

The Ann Coulter comment is the closest thing you can find. I always point out the difference between liberals (free speech warriors) and leftists (commie scum).
Your point is that you are very specific about liberals?

Does continuing to pay facebook money count as free speech warrioring?
 
Brain pill mongers should be a protected class in the constitution. Not only do they have a right to free speech they have a right to be heard.
 
Brain pill mongers should be a protected class in the constitution. Not only do they have a right to free speech they have a right to be heard.

The question here is whether social media needs to be a protected class. Clearly you think so, but you have yet to provide a case for your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
The question here is whether social media needs to be a protected class. Clearly you think so, but you have yet to provide a case for your opinion.
social media? a protected class? FOH
 
The question here is whether social media needs to be a protected class. Clearly you think so, but you have yet to provide a case for your opinion.

Thats like saying bumper stickers are a protected class.
 
Have you not been paying attention? Are you so busy projecting both sides of the debate here that you don't know what people have been stating in the thread?
You are going to have to state your case instead of dancing around it. I already answered the section 230 red herring.
 
You are going to have to state your case instead of dancing around it. I already answered the section 230 red herring.

It's not my case, it's the US government's case via legislation and court rulings. Links have already been posted.

But let's start with you. Why is the case of immunity provided by Section 230 and court cases a "red herring" in your eyes?
 
Your point is that you are very specific about liberals?

I was answering your baseless allegation that you have wholly failed to back up. I do throw around "the left" and "leftists" because they suck and need to be culturally and politically ground into the dust. I do not throw around "liberals" as a pejorative - as you lied about me doing right here.

114124_down_512x512.png


You sure do throw around "the left" and "liberals" a lot for a someone who is so allergic to labels.

And then you proceeded to pull a handful of times I used the world "liberal" and in every case but one, I made a clear distinction between liberals (whom I respect) and leftists (whom I loathe). You proved my point nicely. Thanks?

They are not the same thing, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a liberal while spouting anti-free speech propaganda from corporate information monopolies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
It's not my case, it's the US government's case via legislation and court rulings. Links have already been posted.

But let's start with you. Why is the case of immunity provided by Section 230 and court cases a "red herring" in your eyes?
Because it is legal framework the internet is built on. You want to see free speech curtailed, repeal 230.
 
I was answering your baseless allegation that you have wholly failed to back up. I do throw around "the left" and "leftists" because they suck and need to be culturally and politically ground into the dust. I do not throw around "liberals" as a pejorative - as you lied about me doing right here.

114124_down_512x512.png




And then you proceeded to pull a handful of times I used the world "liberal" and in every case but one, I made a clear distinction between liberals (whom I respect) and leftists (whom I loathe). You proved my point nicely. Thanks?

They are not the same thing, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a liberal while spouting anti-free speech propaganda from corporate information monopolies.
who said anything about prejorative? You are parsing language that isn't even there.
 
who said anything about prejorative? You are parsing language that isn't even there.

I see. So you are claiming that wasn't the context of your quote? How then do I "throw the word around?" I doubt it's in the top 2000 words I use the most frequently in my posts. Can you look into that?
 
I see. So you are claiming that wasn't the context of your quote? How then do I "throw the word around?" I doubt it's in the top 2000 words I use the most frequently in my posts. Can you look into that?
The context of my quote is you use political labels a lot for some one who objects to the word "conservative" being uttered.
 
You think people have the right to deny them public accommodation on the basis of religion.

Public accommodation... like... say social media?

Great point.

I mean, there's only one Facebook, but there are literally dozens of bakeries on any local google search.

Oh, and yes. If you aren't a public utility (or don't essentially operate as one) any small business should be able to refuse to do any kind of business they don't want to do, for whomever they don't want to do it for. Absolutely.

Someone wants to hire me to shoot a white nationalist wedding, I'm under no obligation to serve them and would decline because I don't agree with their politics. I don't need any other reason than that. But some other photographer turns down a lesbian couple's wedding, and I would be happy to take their money.

But I hate gays because I also think a small business should be able to serve or not serve whom they want? You do realize the last time this bakery was harassed, they wanted a dildo cake? I don't shoot porn and I wouldn't expect a reputable baker to have to bake it.
 
Because it is legal framework the internet is built on. You want to see free speech curtailed, repeal 230.

You clearly don't know what any of this is about. The internet goes beyond American borders, the Communications Decency Act pertains only to what happens here.

It's not about repealing 230 either, it's a question of whether those that receive extra protections are expected to maintain standards of fair and unbiased moderation. Facebook, et.al, claim they support free speech -- in their congressional testimony for example -- but do they really and how/should we hold them accountable?
 
Lazy how so?

You never actually engage in debates. You make a few jabs here and there with points that would be interesting to discuss and debate, and the second you encounter pushback, you retreat into sarcasm. I feel you could do better. Not sure why, but that's always been my opinion.
 
Public accommodation... like... say social media?
Yeah if a social media platform discriminated on the basis of sex or race that would be covered by the CRA

I mean, there's only one Facebook, but there are literally dozens of bakeries on any local google search.
There is only one facebook, but there are literally dozens of social networks. I mean any ol' bakery will do if you don't care about the quality of your buttercream

Oh, and yes. If you aren't a public utility (or don't essentially operate as one) any small business should be able to refuse to do any kind of business they don't want to do, for whomever they don't want to do it for. Absolutely.
Megapoke: small businesses should be able to discriminate against gay people.
True ally.
Also you keep saying "utility" I am not sure you know what that means.

Someone wants to hire me to shoot a white nationalist wedding, I'm under no obligation to serve them and would decline because I don't agree with their politics. I don't need any other reason than that. But some other photographer turns down a lesbian couple's wedding, and I would be happy to take their money.
That's right, it is okay to discriminate based on politics, not sexual orientation. You nailed the distinction.

But I hate gays because I also think a small business should be able to serve or not serve whom they want? You do realize the last time this bakery was harassed, they wanted a dildo cake? I don't shoot porn and I wouldn't expect a reputable baker to have to bake it.
Wow so far you have compared gay people wanting a wedding cake to white nationalists and satanists harassing bakers. I guess you are a true ally to the gays the same way you are a free speech warrior.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT