do dems believe the censoring of conservative speech by social media giants is ok ?

[dblack]

I think it’s responsible to censor the

Of course, you do. But when you say, “habitual disseminators of misinformation”, every sane person reading your bullshit knows that what you really mean by that is people who are expressing legitimate opinions, and even hard, provable truths, that you do not like.

And what this really proves about you, is that you know taht you are completely full of shit, to the point that you have no hope of ever winning any argument legitimately and honestly, that you can only “win”, by cheating, by suppressing and censoring your opposition.

It proves that you are an intellectually-dishonest, cowardly piece of shit, as that is the only kind of subhuman who benefits from the sort of censorship that you openly and shamelessly defend.

You can't even use profanity effectively.

View attachment 417339

Trump was posting lies to sway the outcome of an election. Twitter let him but put a warning on the tweet.

I frankly think they should ban him as they did Bannon myself.

As for my winning an argument, I'm usually pretty good at winning because you guys are so unarmed. I mean...look at your post above...all personal attacks and not very cogent ones at at that.

You oppose freedom.

You automatically lose.

Banning someone from Twitter is opposing freedom? Make me laugh harder....

Laughing.......those lamenting their 1st amendment rights haven't read so much as the first word of the 1st amendment.

It's the first five words that matter: "Congress shall make no law ..."

If only they'd stopped right there.

You need go no farther than 'Congress' to see why whining about a Twitter fact checking policy has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

Yep. It sure as hell doesn't say "Twitter shall censor no content ..."

 

[Agit8r]

As it goes presently, it is up to the discretion of the business to decide what content is acceptable on their platform or not. Or in this case, it could be put more simply; they have the discretion to show discretion

As to whether it is "OK" or not, there is no moral hazard if one sides with facts, and suppresses the spread of lies. Lies can never properly be called journalism, after all.

"It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood." -- Thomas Jefferson

.

 

[anynameyouwish]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

The left wing of this nation's politics has grown up on the idea that only their viewpoints have merit and are worth fighting for even if that means unequal treatment. This is stock-in-trade progressive thinking. If you defend your viewpoint you're immoral because your viewpoint is wrong...if they cheat to advance their viewpoint that is not immoral because their viewpoint is correct.....you cannot penetrate this kind of obtuseness.

" The left wing of this nation's politics has grown up on the idea that only their viewpoints have merit and are worth fighting for even if that means unequal treatment. This is stock-in-trade progressive thinking. If you defend your viewpoint you're immoral because your viewpoint is wrong...if they cheat to advance their viewpoint that is not immoral because their viewpoint is correct.....you cannot penetrate this kind of obtuseness. "


you just described trump
limbaugh
steve bannon
breitbart
pjmedia
the blaze
hate radio
mitch mcconnell
every evangelical in the country
the oath keepers


" The right wing of this nation's politics has grown up on the idea that only their viewpoints have merit and are worth fighting for even if that means unequal treatment. This is stock-in-trade conservative thinking. If you defend your viewpoint you're immoral because your viewpoint is wrong...if they cheat to advance their viewpoint that is not immoral because their viewpoint is correct.....you cannot penetrate this kind of obtuseness. "

I'm sure that fantasy makes you feel better, but conservatives support the freedom of speech.

So are the Trump supporters who want to crack down on social media just not "conservatives"?

They want to be able to speak their minds. Leftist social media prevents that.

Yeah. And?

You realize this is exactly the same issue as the 'bake the cake' nonsense, right?

No, it's not. The baker clearly states his business is baking.

Leftist social media, however, are claiming to be content providers and thus not responsible for what appears on them, when, in fact, by curating what appears, they are publishers -- are are therefore responsible.

It's not difficult.

i support the bakers religious right to NOT bake a wedding cake for gays.

I support a gay bakers right to NOT bake a cake for a conservative that asks for an ANTI-GAY message to be placed on a cake

I support a conservative christian government employees right to oppose gay marriage

I do NOT support a conservative christian government employees "right" to deny gays a LEGAL, GOVERNMENT ISSUED marriage license based on THEIR religious beliefs.

as a government employee you are constitutionally and legally BOUND to ignore your own religious beliefs and just do your job.

if you can't do that you should be fired.

 

[daveman]

Not at all. I don't know why you're refusing to get this.

The government would be dictating no terms. Publishers are subject to suit by individuals harmed by the publisher's material and the government's sole activity is deciding the case. If no one is harmed, no one files suit, and the government is uninvolved.

Maybe we do need a hand jerking emoji. Better yet, you can use it as your avatar.

Cracking down would mean stop giving them legal protections they shouldn’t have if they are going to be “publishers”.
You either don’t censor and get the legal benefits that go with that public forum, or you don’t.
They are having. It both ways.

"It's different when we do it."

It's been explained very simply. You're making a deliberate effort to misunderstand.

What a child.

LOL - you're no better than liberals. For statists, the whole point of government is to bully people.

I'm not a statist, and nothing I've ever said supports that charge.

You're just not that bright. And that's a you problem, Skippy.

 

[daveman]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

The left wing of this nation's politics has grown up on the idea that only their viewpoints have merit and are worth fighting for even if that means unequal treatment. This is stock-in-trade progressive thinking. If you defend your viewpoint you're immoral because your viewpoint is wrong...if they cheat to advance their viewpoint that is not immoral because their viewpoint is correct.....you cannot penetrate this kind of obtuseness.

" The left wing of this nation's politics has grown up on the idea that only their viewpoints have merit and are worth fighting for even if that means unequal treatment. This is stock-in-trade progressive thinking. If you defend your viewpoint you're immoral because your viewpoint is wrong...if they cheat to advance their viewpoint that is not immoral because their viewpoint is correct.....you cannot penetrate this kind of obtuseness. "


you just described trump
limbaugh
steve bannon
breitbart
pjmedia
the blaze
hate radio
mitch mcconnell
every evangelical in the country
the oath keepers


" The right wing of this nation's politics has grown up on the idea that only their viewpoints have merit and are worth fighting for even if that means unequal treatment. This is stock-in-trade conservative thinking. If you defend your viewpoint you're immoral because your viewpoint is wrong...if they cheat to advance their viewpoint that is not immoral because their viewpoint is correct.....you cannot penetrate this kind of obtuseness. "

I'm sure that fantasy makes you feel better, but conservatives support the freedom of speech.

So are the Trump supporters who want to crack down on social media just not "conservatives"?

They want to be able to speak their minds. Leftist social media prevents that.

Yeah. And?

You realize this is exactly the same issue as the 'bake the cake' nonsense, right?

No, it's not. The baker clearly states his business is baking.

Leftist social media, however, are claiming to be content providers and thus not responsible for what appears on them, when, in fact, by curating what appears, they are publishers -- are are therefore responsible.

It's not difficult.

i support the bakers religious right to NOT bake a wedding cake for gays.

I support a gay bakers right to NOT bake a cake for a conservative that asks for an ANTI-GAY message to be placed on a cake

I support a conservative christian government employees right to oppose gay marriage

I do NOT support a conservative christian government employees "right" to deny gays a LEGAL, GOVERNMENT ISSUED marriage license based on THEIR religious beliefs.

as a government employee you are constitutionally and legally BOUND to ignore your own religious beliefs and just do your job.

if you can't do that you should be fired.

I agree.

 

[dblack]

i support the bakers religious right to NOT bake a wedding cake for gays.

I support a gay bakers right to NOT bake a cake for a conservative that asks for an ANTI-GAY message to be placed on a cake

I support a conservative christian government employees right to oppose gay marriage

I do NOT support a conservative christian government employees "right" to deny gays a LEGAL, GOVERNMENT ISSUED marriage license based on THEIR religious beliefs.

as a government employee you are constitutionally and legally BOUND to ignore your own religious beliefs and just do your job.

if you can't do that you should be fired.

Agree with all the above. Do you support Twitter's right to NOT serve as a propaganda conduit for the President?

 

[Beef_Supreme]

Not at all. I don't know why you're refusing to get this.

The government would be dictating no terms. Publishers are subject to suit by individuals harmed by the publisher's material and the government's sole activity is deciding the case. If no one is harmed, no one files suit, and the government is uninvolved.

Maybe we do need a hand jerking emoji. Better yet, you can use it as your avatar.

Cracking down would mean stop giving them legal protections they shouldn’t have if they are going to be “publishers”.
You either don’t censor and get the legal benefits that go with that public forum, or you don’t.
They are having. It both ways.

"It's different when we do it."

It's been explained very simply. You're making a deliberate effort to misunderstand.

What a child.

Cool thanks.

 

[anynameyouwish]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

Unfortunately, the law is on the side of Twitter and Facebook. The first amendment does not apply to private property. This is a Sup Ct ruling. What I suggest as a tactic to pressure the media is to boycott them. They survive on advertising revenue. If we the consumers don't read those ads, the media will lose money bigtime.

As an old man who has never gone to Facebook or Twitter, the poster's views seem sensible to me.

If people do not like those two platforms, why do they keep going there?

I, for example, do not like my hometown newspaper (because even its headlines are mini-editorials against President Trump), so I canceled my subscription last year. It fills me with pleasure to learn that other people have also dropped the paper (perhaps for other reasons) and that it is now in financial doo-doo.

i always enjoy destroying conservative businesses by boycotting them

i laugh at their humiliation as they lose everything.

Do you boycott them, or burn them down while wearing a black hoodie and mask?

i do not engage in violence

i do not condone violence

i boycott, peacefully and legally, all pro trump businesses.

i tell my friends and family about any pro trump businesses so they can boycott them, too

 

[anynameyouwish]

i support the bakers religious right to NOT bake a wedding cake for gays.

I support a gay bakers right to NOT bake a cake for a conservative that asks for an ANTI-GAY message to be placed on a cake

I support a conservative christian government employees right to oppose gay marriage

I do NOT support a conservative christian government employees "right" to deny gays a LEGAL, GOVERNMENT ISSUED marriage license based on THEIR religious beliefs.

as a government employee you are constitutionally and legally BOUND to ignore your own religious beliefs and just do your job.

if you can't do that you should be fired.

Agree with all the above. Do you support Twitter's right to NOT serve as a propaganda conduit for the President?

yes.

and i oppose conservative attempts to force private companies to do their bidding.

 

[Skylar]

As it goes presently, it is up to the discretion of the business to decide what content is acceptable on their platform or not. Or in this case, it could be put more simply; they have the discretion to show discretion

As to whether it is "OK" or not, there is no moral hazard if one sides with facts, and suppresses the spread of lies. Lies can never properly be called journalism, after all.

"It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood." -- Thomas Jefferson

.

The perception of persecution and victimhood is integral to the modern GOP's lone unifying ideology: that everyone is unfair to conservatives.

The pushing of 'alternative facts' as being just as viable and moral as actual facts is a core mechanism of this unifying ideology. In their minds its not 'fact' vs 'fiction', its 'opinion' vs 'opinion'. And thus, any fact checking is the excercise of (in the narrative a 'leftist') opinion to 'censor' their opinion.

Reinforcing their perception of their own victimization and persecution.

In the modern conservative mindset, there's *always* a dick in their ass.

 

[daveman]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

Unfortunately, the law is on the side of Twitter and Facebook. The first amendment does not apply to private property. This is a Sup Ct ruling. What I suggest as a tactic to pressure the media is to boycott them. They survive on advertising revenue. If we the consumers don't read those ads, the media will lose money bigtime.

As an old man who has never gone to Facebook or Twitter, the poster's views seem sensible to me.

If people do not like those two platforms, why do they keep going there?

I, for example, do not like my hometown newspaper (because even its headlines are mini-editorials against President Trump), so I canceled my subscription last year. It fills me with pleasure to learn that other people have also dropped the paper (perhaps for other reasons) and that it is now in financial doo-doo.

i always enjoy destroying conservative businesses by boycotting them

i laugh at their humiliation as they lose everything.

Do you boycott them, or burn them down while wearing a black hoodie and mask?

i do not engage in violence

i do not condone violence

i boycott, peacefully and legally, all pro trump businesses.

i tell my friends and family about any pro trump businesses so they can boycott them, too

Excellent.

 

[Nosmo King]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

If the content of "Conservative " speech is not designed to lie or undermine confidence in democratic institutions, I oppose censorship.

 

[daveman]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

If the content of "Conservative " speech is not designed to lie or undermine confidence in democratic institutions, I oppose censorship.

If the democratic institutions are corrupt, they don't deserve people's confidence.

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, the left believes censoring the right is perfectly acceptable.

 

[anynameyouwish]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

If the content of "Conservative " speech is not designed to lie or undermine confidence in democratic institutions, I oppose censorship.

agreed

any conservative who wants to say "America is a christian nation and all laws should come from the bible"

has a right to believe that
has a right to say it
and i will defend his right to say it

then I will explain to him how and why he is completely wrong......

however, "disagreeing" with Faucis' medical opinions by saying "cut off his head and put it on a pike as a warning to other people whose heads we might want to cut off and put on pikes"

is HATE SPEECH and deserves to be censored

 

[anynameyouwish]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

If the content of "Conservative " speech is not designed to lie or undermine confidence in democratic institutions, I oppose censorship.

If the democratic institutions are corrupt, they don't deserve people's confidence.

if trump is corrupt
and his immediate enablers commit crimes for him

then they, too, don't deserve the peoples confidence.

there is LOTS of evidence from the past that trump is corrupt

 

[daveman]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

If the content of "Conservative " speech is not designed to lie or undermine confidence in democratic institutions, I oppose censorship.

If the democratic institutions are corrupt, they don't deserve people's confidence.

if trump is corrupt
and his immediate enablers commit crimes for him

then they, too, don't deserve the peoples confidence.

there is LOTS of evidence from the past that trump is corrupt

Y'all ever going to get around to proving it, or do you think just repeating it constantly is sufficient?

 

[Nosmo King]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

If the content of "Conservative " speech is not designed to lie or undermine confidence in democratic institutions, I oppose censorship.

If the democratic institutions are corrupt, they don't deserve people's confidence.

They are deemed corrupt by the Orange man. So it is not necessarily true.

 

[Agit8r]

As it goes presently, it is up to the discretion of the business to decide what content is acceptable on their platform or not. Or in this case, it could be put more simply; they have the discretion to show discretion

As to whether it is "OK" or not, there is no moral hazard if one sides with facts, and suppresses the spread of lies. Lies can never properly be called journalism, after all.

"It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood." -- Thomas Jefferson

.

The perception of persecution and victimhood is integral to the modern GOP's lone unifying ideology: that everyone is unfair to conservatives.

The pushing of 'alternative facts' as being just as viable and moral as actual facts is a core mechanism of this unifying ideology. In their minds its not 'fact' vs 'fiction', its 'opinion' vs 'opinion'. And thus, any fact checking is the excercise of (in the narrative a 'leftist') opinion to 'censor' their opinion.

Reinforcing their perception of their own victimization and persecution.

In the modern conservative mindset, there's *always* a dick in their ass.

They are very fragile snowflakes indeed.

That sense of being extra special and unique is probably why they fell for the fallacy of the dead voters so easily:

'Just ridiculous': CNN speaks to Georgia voter the Trump campaign falsely accused of casting ballot in the name of a dead woman

President Donald Trump's campaign and Fox News host Tucker Carlson alleged last week that a vote cast by a Georgia woman named Deborah Jean Christiansen was fraudulent.

www.cnn.com

 

[Skylar]

As it goes presently, it is up to the discretion of the business to decide what content is acceptable on their platform or not. Or in this case, it could be put more simply; they have the discretion to show discretion

As to whether it is "OK" or not, there is no moral hazard if one sides with facts, and suppresses the spread of lies. Lies can never properly be called journalism, after all.

"It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood." -- Thomas Jefferson

.

The perception of persecution and victimhood is integral to the modern GOP's lone unifying ideology: that everyone is unfair to conservatives.

The pushing of 'alternative facts' as being just as viable and moral as actual facts is a core mechanism of this unifying ideology. In their minds its not 'fact' vs 'fiction', its 'opinion' vs 'opinion'. And thus, any fact checking is the excercise of (in the narrative a 'leftist') opinion to 'censor' their opinion.

Reinforcing their perception of their own victimization and persecution.

In the modern conservative mindset, there's *always* a dick in their ass.

They are very fragile snowflakes indeed. View attachment 418538

That sense of being extra special and unique is probably why they fell for the fallacy of the dead voters so easily:

'Just ridiculous': CNN speaks to Georgia voter the Trump campaign falsely accused of casting ballot in the name of a dead woman

President Donald Trump's campaign and Fox News host Tucker Carlson alleged last week that a vote cast by a Georgia woman named Deborah Jean Christiansen was fraudulent.

www.cnn.com

These are people that swallowed the 'fraud' Kool-aid without a scrap of evidence.

Why would they need evidence for all the *other* conspiracy horseshit they gladly gobble?