Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Renegade

Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.04 seconds.

  1. Replies
    21
    Views
    153

    ►►Re: GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA◄◄

    He one hundred percent verifiably lost. Get over it.

    Dems in 2016 never contested the election like this. Asking if he got help from the russians is NOT THE SAME as inciting insurrection in our capitol to overturn the results.
  2. Replies
    21
    Views
    153

    ►►Re: GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA◄◄

    OOO I don't know lots of people are saying their was fraud!!!!


    Literally the EXACT SHIT Trump has said and it is fucking bullshit. Reject it.

    Burden of proof is on YOU. None exists, so you resort to this BULLSHIT whataboutism.

    Fuck off.
  3. Replies
    21
    Views
    153

    ►►Re: GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    people already did that, there was a huge conspiracy when trump got elected that he got helped by Russia in the election, twitter won’t mind
    regardless, since when does twitter get to decide whats false and whats not?
    and, i dont think its ‘verifiably false’ that trump won the election, its not clear to me what happened exactly. there were some inconsistencies that i didn’t really understand, and while im not jumping the gun and saying he 100% won and there was widespread fraud, i dont think its fair to qualify the statement that he lost it as verifiable either
    Whataboutism, that's all they got anymore.

    BUTTEREMAILS.

    There is no "conspiracy" about the russians, the Trump's welcomed Russian agents to Trump Tower because they had "dirt" on Hillary.

    Quit guzzling Breitbart for once!

    If you believe there was evidence of fraud, how come not a single lawsuit has been meaningfully ruled in Trumps favor? Oh! All of the courts are in on it too!
  4. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Your post is a little ambiguous, but no I'm not trying to suggest you're responsible for site toxicity. Not even half of it. That would be ridiculous.
    Sarcasm?
  5. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    -1

    Nah you aren't going to blame me for how your friends behave here.
  6. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    ROFLOL you are to much. My point has been the same with you Read the Book before bashing the book. Every post has shown me you have not read it. this is meant for Rene only. some of you I can tell you have read it and know what you are talking about.

    Rene you don't have to believe it. You don't have to agree with it. Just Read it before trashing it. Don't give me the BS you have because your statements are prof you have not. I know people who have Read it and still don't believe it so be it. But they at least know what they are talking about. You talk just to talk argue just to argue and never have any relevant facts. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

    In other words I am done talking to a child.
    Springs! I tell you! Springs!

    Ignore everything else about the bible, I find one thing that is true!!!!

    Give me a break, and learn some proper spelling.
  7. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    How do you reconcile your claim that religious people lack critical thinking skills when physicists are the scientists who are most likely to believe in God? You’re nor arguing against religion here; you’re arguing against fundamentalism.
    This sounds like fake news to me. Are you saying physicists have the highest chance of belief in god among all scientists? Sure 5% may be higher than 4%, but what about all of the other scientists who reject the christian fantasy?
  8. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Religious folks by their very nature unfortunately often lack critical thinking skills. I mean, that is the point of "faith" right, have "faith" and disregard everything else.

    So this argument is kind of pointless, because for every inaccuracy I could present from the bible there will be a hand waving away of it.

    SPRINGS I tell you, SPRINGS!
  9. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    But none of the bible states that. "My guess is, just like how they believe god created the earth" The bible says how they believed the oceans where created. So now what you are doing is trying to warp it around to make facts seem fiction.

    Have you not notice everything has a perfect balance to it? all life everywhere has a perfect balance. Now let look at science. any time you randomly create anything there is no balance to it it is always chaotic. unless you have a controlled environment. But no science experiment will work outside the controlled environment. My point is the perfect balance we have is created.

    That is another fallacy. We have nothing to compare your "balance" to, because this is literally the ONLY reality we know.

    I guess you should praise your god for all of the balance he brings via his words, actions, and inactions. Wash away in a flood those that don't believe!

    Give me a break.
  10. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Mike if your belief in the bible hinges on "springs in the sea" then I have a nice timeshare to sell you.

    If that is the only evidence you can come up with, then that is sad.

    Enjoy the comfort food. Be careful of eating too much sugar!
  11. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    This is your response? Just ignore the Question? Well that is your Choice.
    And cherry picking is done by people who dont read it.
    They love to take the bible out of context like you are doing.


    For example

    A woman walked to the Store. As the woman was walking to the store she saw a Man. The woman see that the man is holding a Knife about to murder a small 11 year old Girl. The woman sees a gun on the ground. The woman knows if she does not shoot the man that the man will kill this small 11 year old girl. The woman then picks up the gun from the ground and shoots the Man. The woman just saved the 11 year old girls life.

    now lets cherry pick some sentences.
    A woman walked to the Store. As the woman was walking to the store she saw a Man. The woman sees a gun on the ground. The woman then picks up the gun from the ground and shoots the Man.

    This is a prime example what people do with the bible all the time. The will not read the whole book. but they will pick parts of it to bash it.

    I answered your question. Now answer mine. What do we do with the many more inaccuracies of the bible, or do you set them aside in favor of your cherries you have picked?
  12. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    There is 4 that talk about the springs under the ocean. There is more proof than that. But can you even Answer This one???? HOW DID THEY KNOW DURING THAT TIME????
    My guess is, just like how they believe god created the earth, the writers believed that god used a "spring" that flooded the oceans. (Which by the way, is not how the oceans were even created.)

    Deep sea vents do not create the oceans.

    A spring is a water feature from which water "springs" forth (really, flows from somewhere else). What other explanation would they have for oceans magically appearing? God already created it. Seems to fit to me.
  13. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

  14. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Read this and research the facts for your self. You will see it is not all BS as you claim.

    https://www.icr.org/article/springs-ocean
    Okay, then you cite a single instance where you think the bible was irrefutably correct.

    Do we need to trot out the hundreds (thousands?) of places where it is irrefutably incorrect?

    Good -> thanks jeebus
    bad -> DEVILL!?

    bible seems correct -> LOOK WORD OF GOD IS TRU
    bible obviously incorrect -> DONT TAKE IT LITERALLY!

  15. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    I know, the universe seems empty, even scary without some higher power, but that is what it is.

    Religion and "word of god" is merely comfort food.
  16. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    @Renegade

    Job 38:16
    Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

    Please explain to me if Foke lore and Stories.

    How they knew there where Springs in the sea. During that time period. During that time that would be absurd.
    This passage is where God talking about what he has done.
    Saying there are springs in the depths of the sea.
    We only learned of this in My lifetime.
    Your belief in the bible is established on the phrase "springs of the sea"? Wut?

    What "springs" in the sea are you even referring to? Fault lines? Plate tectonics?

    Yikes

    Again a PERFECT example of cherry picking and mental gymnastics. Here you take "springs of the sea" literally, but we aren't supposed to take literally the age of the earth calculated by the blood lines described as 6000 years old?

    Exhausting.
  17. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    So, you are saying If we do not think exactly as you do we are a far right cesspool? I have not discussed Politics. This is you already Judging others before learning who they are. You seem to do that alot Judge things you dont know without first reading or learning. HMM there is a word for that. you may want to look it up.

    Stay in School Dont do Drugs.

    Name: 18-03_Article2-1-952x476.png
Views: 3
Size: 889.4 KB
    Has nothing to do with thinking the same as me. A cursory review of posts on this forum well establish my point. From talk of politics, to even the harassment and discourse that gets a wrist slap in forum mafia games. Far right!
  18. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Isn’t that more of an argument against organized religion
    Surely god wouldn't let his word be so easily abused?

    Oh yeah problem of evil time now.
  19. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Have your read the Bible??? to make this statement?? Sounds to me you have not read it. It is hard to judge something you have not read fully. There are posts in here of people who have Read the whole book and it shows that do not agree with it and that is there right. Your statement shows you have not read it and are just trying to stir the pot.
    I've read it and stand by my statement.

    Folk tales and fantasy. Multiply those baskets of bread.
  20. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    I don't expect any love here for what I'm trying to say, this site is after all a known far right cesspool.
  21. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    And the bullshit about what to cherry pick - I've read plenty of the bible to know it is a shitshow. Don't shave your beard!

    But now that times have changed, desperate religious zealots move the goalposts - "You just don't UNDERSTAND what it is trying to say!!!" "Don't take it literally!!!"

    So the word of god is an amalgamation of endlessly moving goalposts to serve the culture of the time? Doesn't sound like very sound word to me.
  22. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    A long line of Popes, chief arbiters of the word of god for catholics, have long oversaw the abuse of children at the hands of God sanctioned predators, as a simple example.

    Word of god!
  23. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    The bible is a mish mash of goofy folk tales that were handed down by oral tradition until some people decided to wrap it up with a central story of "Jeebus" and tack on the new testament.

    Nothing more than folk tales and fantasy.

    Sure the bible has some very basic moral instructions - ten commandment stuff - but the atrocities throughout history that have been committed in the name of the "word of god" far outweigh any moral teachings you can get from it.

    You don't need religion for morality, this is the trap most religious zealots fall into. "How can an atheist have a moral compass!!!???" style pearl clutching.

    Religion served its purpose in human history, time to let it go.
  24. Replies
    120
    Views
    670

    ►►Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?◄◄

    It is funny when religious folk attribute anything positive in their life to jeebus but anything negative to.. not jeebus?

    Something something logical fallacy.

    Even if god existed I wouldn't worship that self absorbed fuck.
  25. ►►Re: 70 million pissed off republicans and not one city burned to the ground.◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    I don’t think there’s any authoritarian regimes with an armed populace, and for a good reason. Europe and the like may not have authoritarian governments, so they don’t need guns yet. But wait until some dictatorship starts to emerge, and ppl will wish they had guns.

    To address your points about the US and its stance on gun rights though, the problems in America are much older than ppl marching on the Capitol and trying to take over Congress by force: guns have played a very minor role in this... situation thus far.

    Hillbillies with rifles are a real threat, but I think paying that price is worth it if it means you can defend yourself if the government wants to take your shit. Imagine how the Cuban/Russian Revolutions would’ve gone if ppl were armed. Imagine how Hitler’s rise to power could’ve been averted or at least Jews could’ve defended themselves if they were as well armed as Americans are.
    Holy shit, yikes (!!!)
  26. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    FREEZEPEACH!!!

    can i negrep you at least
    Why? My contributions are perfectly on topic.
  27. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    I'd kindly like to point out that this:


    is the cause of this thread, so let's not get carried away from the fun, gentlemen.
    Don't censor us.
  28. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄



    Wut did she mean by dis
  29. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    "Trial by combat!!!!!!!!!"



    Wut did he mean by dis
  30. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    "We will never give up we will never concede"

    "We will never take our country back with weakness"

    Wut did he mean by dis
  31. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Funny thing is, it’s actually the government’s fault for the mess we are in. Section 230 is practically a government sanctioned monopoly. If it hadn’t existed many of these companies would’ve gotten sued into oblivion.
    An even more pressing problem are Google and Amazon. Sure if you get banned from Twitter you can just go to Parler, but what happens once Amazon decides to take Parler off the Internet? And what happens once Google’s algorithm decides to make it very hard for you to find information it doesn’t like?
    https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/...icises_parler/
  32. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    You’re actually flat out wrong there. Twitter does claim to be for free speech and until around 2016 this was true but then they changed their Terms & Policies, and they reserved the right for any reason, including none (and potentially for their sexual orientation/religion/skin colour/etc), to ban posts and accounts. Their claim was actually part of a lawsuit leveled at them in 2018, as two users got banned when they respected Twitter’s (terms) at the time that they made their accounts - and were banned with the supposed reason that they were linked to groups who incited violence (nobody named the group they were affiliated with and they in fact did not promote violence themselves either - not even off Twitter). The judge who presided over the case wanted to find them guilty, but was ordered by a higher court to reverse his decision, and the lawsuit ended there, for a couple of reasons. First, if it had been appealed, it would’ve reached the same chair who overruled the judge, and second, it would’ve set a legal precedent had their appeal been denied.

    Also, because Twitter could them be liable for damage for deciding which tweets get deleted.
    I find it amazing how the people using freedom of business as an argument are the same people who believe the rich are evil and believe in more regulation. Apparently freedom of business is nice when it suits you xD. It’s fine now because Trump is the one getting hit, but I’m curious how some of you will react when Twitter and Facebook start attacking something or someone you believe in. Will you still hide behind this argument, or will u finally realize there’s a problem? European leaders did the latter, because they’re genuinely afraid it could happen to them as well.
    I'm not really worried because I'm not a white supremacist.
  33. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Laws. The government cannot restrict freedom of speech other than in some specific circumstances. If it was the Government and not Twitter doing this I believe they would be getting sued or attacked by the Supreme Court non-stop. There have been lawsuits leveled at twitter’s feet anyways over censorship but Section 230 protects them.
    1. Supreme Court doesn't sue anyone.

    2. This is exactly what everyone has been saying. Freezepeach doesn't apply to Twitter.
  34. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    I look forward to the cryptos here to scream censorship.
  35. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    Are you talking about the law or the principle.
    Both!
  36. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...snt-like.shtml
  37. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Ya'll keep saying FREEZEPEACH but I don't think you have a damn clue what that even is.

    Free speech isn't the ability to say whatever the fuck you want on a social media platform. If you can't understand that then you are really lost and will continue to be utterly disappointed
  38. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    I understand that none of these platforms are breaking laws by kicking people off them.

    But the heart of the question is do you think if we had it so these companies were led by extreme racists/white supremecists. Lets say they kick off anyone who says anything bad about the police, the government, and only whites.

    Would you still have the stance of "These companies can do what they want".

    If u are fine with people getting kicked off because you don't give a shit about their speech, but care when they kick someone off for speech u agree with, then its not about "they have the right to do this!" its about "they are doing something i support because X speech is bad".

    These companies can do this. It is their right. We can criticize them for their actions and anti free speech principles they stand for. I think those who are for it should just admit they are against free speech as a principle instead of obfuscating that "THEY ARENT DOING ANYTHING IILLEGAL!"
    If they were lead by supremacists I wouldn't be on their platform. Kind of why I question if I should even have an account here.

    It is also why I'm not interested in a Parler or Gab account. Both of those cites censor the left quickly despite what they say and they are allowed to.

    If twitter wants to ban the libs then I would be fine with that. They are a business. I'll stand by that too. I won't cry about censorship.
  39. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    its so annying to see this image in every discussion about free speech
    I know, you would think people would see it once and understand. Guess not!
  40. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    I didn't have freezepeach until twitter came along. Wow the 21st century is amazing.
  41. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Hybrid Richard Dawkins View Post
    Imagine you want to publish a book full of conspiracy theories. You go to different book publishers and they tell you that they don't want to publish your book and distribute your conspiracy theories. Are they now in trouble for suppressing free speech?
    https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1347327743004995585

    One of the traitors calls it an assault on the freedom of speech.
  42. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...vil-rights-act

    The same people lmfaoooo
  43. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

  44. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Twitter is affecting freedom of speech by doing this. It’s not just Trump that’s getting deplatformed and it’s not as if it’s even the first time ppl have gotten censored. Ppl have gotten censored before for speaking out against COVID (on YouTube, and now on Twitter as well, lately), and the message is clear to everyone - disagree with Twitter and Facebook and you’ll get your tweets removed, account banned, videos deleted from YouTube.

    The problem with FaceBook and Twitter engaging in journalism is that they have a high reaching influence; post something on Twitter and FB and pretty much the entire planet can see what you wrote. When you have such a monopoly on media channels as they do, you can do a lot of real damage by preventing ppl from speaking there. You’ve effectively cut off the person from a very important venue of communication. That is censorship and against freedom of speech. It isn’t protected by freedom of business, simply because of how pervasive these companies how and they can affect public opinion and essentially control a large part of the information available.
    We didn't have speech before twitter?
  45. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Here you go:

    inb4 NYT is fake news!

    Trump and Rudy called for Trial by Combat.

    It happened.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-timeline.html
  46. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Despite what you may think, social media companies are under no obligation to be a public square. The public square still exists, Trump can go down there and incite violence if he wants.

    Again, Twitter, Facebook, et. al. don't have to be party to Trump's fictitious, fradulent, and violent claims and calls for action anymore.

    They kept him up for years, through all of his bullshit, but he crossed a line and got the boot. What is so hard to understand?

    What did politicians do before twitter? Trump can do that.
  47. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Censoring a head of state on social media is not a right a business has and it has nothing to do with ‘refusing service’ to a customer. Deleting and flagging posts is clearly picking a certain political camp and social media platforms are not supposed to have opinions of their own (they’re meant to be unbiased), anymore than the town square is. When they start telling you what’s right and what’s wrong they’re no longer a social media platform - they’re engaging in journalism.
    Source please
  48. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Hybrid Richard Dawkins View Post
    Yes it does. Twitter is a business, and a business should have the freedom to refuse service to any customer for any reason, should they not? Except for when it comes to discrimination of protected classes - a political affiliation is not, however, a protected class.

    Or do you disagree that businesses shouldn't be able to refuse service to any customer for any reason? Including establishing a terms of service and refusing service to customers that break that terms of service?
    He isn't even refused for political affiliation. He is refused service for INCITING VIOLENCE.

    Plenty of republicants are still on Twitter.
  49. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitte...amenei-tweets/
    Ayatollah Khamenei was not censored by Twitter when he made a post calling for the genocide of Israelis.
    Funnily enough when he started questioning the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine his post did get edited out.

    I think it’s a dangerous precedent for a social media platform to be able to moderate content and spin the story they want. It’s okay right now because Twitter is liberal and pro-Biden, but I’m wondering what’s going to happen once Twitter and the Democratic Party have a major disagreement. Will they censor them too? Only time will tell.

    Also, this has nothing to do with the freedom of a business to do what it wants, they are overstepping their boundaries and attempting to prevent a major political figure from taking to his supporters (and preventing a President from speaking to his country, which is even worse). In terms of them being free to do what tbey want, and somehow them ‘being forced to broadcast Trump’s bs’ being against their freedom, this would be akin to saying the City of Pittsburgh is having its freedom violated by letting Trump speak at a rally there. Like, what? Lol
    Trump can talk to his supporters, just not on twitter.

    They are a private business. If you don't have to bake for the gays why do you have to host server space for Trump? Because he is a politician? What did politicians do before twitter? Are you saying in 1980 politicians' were censored because Twitter didn't exist?

    Say it with me: kicking Trump off Twitter is NOT censorship. He isn't censored in any way shape or form.

    And your point on Pittsburgh, wrong, freedom of assembly is guaranteed. Forcing a private company to host Trump's bullshit, is not.

    I know I know it is hard to accept, considering the same people crying are the ones who would gladly do away with the civil rights act of 1964 and allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of skin color.
  50. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Thread Author:Donald J. Trump

    Post Author:Renegade

    Replies
    137
    Views
    1,554

    ►►Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!◄◄

    It is not a violation of his first amendment, it is in fact a violation of everyone elses' if they are being forced to broadcast bullshit like whatever Trump spews.
Results 1 to 50 of 2000
Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4