"We will never give up we will never concede"
"We will never take our country back with weakness"
Wut did he mean by dis
"Trial by combat!!!!!!!!!"
Wut did he mean by dis
Wut did she mean by dis
Dude if you cant admit Twitter has an anti-conservative bias youíve either been living under a rock for the past century or are just plain stupid. In your case I think its the latter.
Not sure why you're resorting to ad-hom attacks here, my dude.
I'm trying to ask you very directly what kind of conservative opinions will get one banned on Twitter because I want to understand your position. Can you not answer that? Surely, if there's an anti-conservative bias, you can give examples of the type of stuff people have been getting banned for on Twitter that you think are unacceptable because they are legitimate conservative opinions and viewpoints. Why aren't you able to do that?
Last edited by oops_ur_dead; January 14th, 2021 at 12:14 PM.
Spoiler : Catch up For Grey :
(It would be like me saying "We should save lives by killing 95% of the population" and you then use it by saying "I agree with SJ we should save lives")
Then you select Murdoch as an example of what would happen if a rich person controlled the distribution of information. But this already happens and Murdoch already does this and it heavily influences politics.
And then you claim newspapers don't matter and they don't go out there way to paint a certain candidate (Which has been and still is easily disprovable) followed by you claiming you don't even know if they do or not. Which is a horrible way to make your point "X is true about Y, but you can't blame me if I'm wrong because I don't know"
At this point I point out
-You can't agree with restricting social media, if you are fine with other media moguls like Murdoch (Which you poorly used as an example) being able to control media
-You can't agree with only part of a statement from a leader and disregard the rest of what the said
-When mentioned newspapers, I was rather referring to the entire media of Paper/TV/Internet in which is already controlled.
-Newspapers are also not obsolete and still have a huge impact in politics
You still can't understand me. So here we go AGAIN. (Will number them for easier reply's, but feel free to refer to earlier posts.)
1). Which statement from Merkel are you referring to?
2). If it is
It is incorrect to agree with only part of the statement (Where she says its not for social media to have to decide).The fundamental right [of freedom of expression] can be interfered with, but along the lines of the law and within the framework defined by the lawmakers. Not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms
Whilst ignoring the rest of the statement (Where she says laws should be put in place to stop the free speech instead of the social media)
so, you either believe in free speech, or you believe in censorship which is it?
3)How is it fair to restrict social media in fear of allowing billionaires to control political information, yet not treat the rest of the media with the same passion (Newspapers/TV/Online News) which already have billionaires controlling political information?
4)We have shown how important "Newspapers" are. and we have shown that other media already heavily control politics (Like Murdoch).
Do you agree with this?
5)Is this a problem?
Cryptonic made this sig
I Am Kira! I Am Justice!! I Am The Champion Of The Light!!! Death To The False Gods!!!!
LIGHT YAGAMI, THE LOSER JAPANOAMERICAN, IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN NANCY "TRANNY" PELOSI, WHICH IS QUITE THE ACHIEVEMENT!
2. I donít think Trump should be censored even on legal grounds; free speech is paramount, but there are reasonable restrictions on free speech. The point is that not just anyone can censor speech if they feel like it for arbitrary reasons; restricting this Ďrightí, if you want to call it that, to a government, ensures that only truly disruptive speech is censored (and only after found to be so in court of law. Remember that when a restriction on free speech is challenged in court, it is always assumed to be invalid unless proved otherwise - the Government has to make a case that the defendant should have their speech restricted. This is distinct from Twitter decidint on their own to censor the most powerful person in the world, a person which they share a fundamental disagreement with politically (conflict of interest)).
3. I will take a think about this
5. I donít think it is, but thatís just a gut feeling on my part. Newspapers have been influencing ppl forever, but I have an issue with how some of them engage in... literal character assassinations. I am fairly certain this is mainly a US phenomenon, but I see no real end to that.
I found an article saying these are conservative viewpoints that will get you banned:
Is a jokeViolent threats, harassment, inciting violence, targeted abuse, doxxing, pro-Nazi tweets, and racist slurs.
Donald Trump got banned from Twitter for being a conservative. Lol!
like every loser hacker on sc2mafia, why doesn't donald just make himself a smurf account? Then he can play whackamole with the twitter mods
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
Funny thing is, I actually think illegal immigration is one of the central issues in America today. Iím not very happy with how being against illegal immigration is being painted as somehow being a racist. I think that speaks levels to how important that issue is to both parties ^^
Who has been banned for Conservative viewpoints on immigration and COVID-19? What viewpoints were those?
It's like if you were having a debate with someone about climate change, and one of the people in the debate refuses to even define what climate change is. How can you have any further discussion about the topic when one person hasn't even made an argument?
That makes my question now even more relevant, since I'm wondering what kind of points should Conservatives be allowed to make on Twitter that they're currently being banned for, if you think them being banned for certain viewpoints like racism is ok.
I mean I suppose if your argument is that twitter is more trigger-happy about the rules (rules that you're otherwise ok with them enforcing, that is) when it comes to Conservatives then that's something else and something that can be discussed.
Last edited by oops_ur_dead; January 17th, 2021 at 03:06 PM.