Would you unfriend or blacklist someone over politics?

...

 

6

You call these people ‘conservatives’?

And are you saying you support the “violent racist thug and fraudster” Tommy Robinson?

Anyway this isn’t proof of the supposed left wing bias of all ‘silicon valley’.

 

6

LOL nice use of words - well I don’t think even Alex is crazy enough to ‘literally’ say ‘go out and threaten to kill these people’ (well not yet).

But he has said that the massacre was "completely fake", using actors and staged by the government in order to promote its agenda for nationwide gun control

And he did make a video titled "Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed", which implied Veronique De La Rosa, mother of a 6-year-old killed at Sandy Hook, was an actor.

I mean are you honestly saying that if someone pushes hatred of someone or something that doesn’t result in others being hateful toward them?

Again are you saying you think Jones is right and that you support his hogwash?

 

6

Sorry mate but not been able to refute it doesn’t mean it ‘didn’t work’

I mean you even agreed with it - admitting that there is a difference between free speech and incitement, so you could say Bob did his job.

 

6

Oooooh is that the level of your argument these days? But then I suppose that’s not much further down the ladder than you were before LOL.

OK once again I will warn you against your tendency toward black and white thinking, the way that you seem to see everything as either been one way or another way with no shade or nuance in between.

I’ll try and explain again, there are many forms of socialism from hard-line Stalinist communism to wishy washy social liberalism and yes the National Socialists has been described as ‘socialism’ but mainly by those that no nothing of history or socialism.

It has to be remembered that in the early part of the 20th century socialist ideas were popular in Europe amongst those who were disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of governments of the time, which they saw as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests. But while there were many legitimate socialist organisations there were others who were just using the guise of socialism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

National Socialists may have used some of the words and ideas of regular socialism but to me the party and Hitler’s goals had more to do with using people grievances to seize power with some very un-socialist scapegoating. It has to be remembered that the first victims of the Nazis regime were the real socialist.

There are movement in Europe today that are taking that same route. But in the US I see something different but similar.

It seems to me to that free market libertarianism is attractive to many Americans who are disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of government, which they see as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests.

But while there may be legitimate libertarians I feel that there are those that might be just using the guise of libertarianism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

Sometimes talking to some ‘libertarian’ types I get the impression that just like many of the Nazis they are less interested in genuine political thought and debate and more interested in promoting grievance and in trying to misdirect and in scapegoat others. For example in blaming all problems on shadowy ‘left wing’ conspiracies of lefties, socialists, globalists, feminists, political correctionists and identity politics social justice warriors.

 

6

Again yet more posts of your spite and grievances but again nothing of substance, booo hooo extreme right wingers are been got at - baaaa haaaa people are so mean to the alt-right…..

LOL come on man.

The problem I have with your ideas is that they don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny, the problem I have with you is that while you don’t seem able to address the many criticisms of your ideas but still seem to hold on to them and seem to think that promoting such flawed ideas is a good thing.

I ask again why do you hold on to idea that you can’t even defend in public debate?

 

I was talking to someone the other day and he was saying to understand one facet of US society just look at the ways it is reacting and responding to the present day ‘opioid crises’ compared with the ‘crack epidemic’ of the 1980’s 90’s.

He pointed out to begin with the difference in wording to a lot of the reporting – one was an epidemic, a disease compared with a crisis, one had addicts in the other its victims and while one was seen as a black persons problem in the other it is a white community emergency. One a law enforcement issue the other a healthcare issue.

What do people here think?

 

So why does the free market not start a right wing service for these people? Maybe because there is no money.

Sites like Youtube or Twitter are private just as a bakery is private. If the life of the owners does not agree they do not have to allow that lifestyle in their business.Funny how when it suites the right wing this is allowed yet when it's not it's some sort of free speech issue.

The people you listed are ignorant and raicst. Society will not tolerate them. And the lack of a venue for them now is evidence of it.

 

Not a "conservative" in the lot. Radicals, one and all!

 

@6-eyed shaman , aside from regurgitating the NPC meme, which I think is a weak ad hominem, you have provided many interesting points and imo essentially 'winning' this discussion in most respects.

What the fuck did Owen Benjamin do (or say) to get banned from Twitter?

 

Presumably his bizarre rant about teenager David Hogg's genitals, or lack of "pubes".

 

Yeah.It's called the Free Enterprise system. If they don't like the way Twitter and YouTube are treating them, why don't they start their own alternative services? What kind of "libertarians" would object to that?

 

I think the free market has already spoken. There is a reason why American TV only has 1 or 2 shows that are "conservative". They go out of their way to bring politics into everything and portray a middle class family. Yet Hollywood as a whole is thought to have a liberal basis. Don't you think Hollywood wants to make money? If there was money in being Rosanne they would be. Which is why if you watch most shows and movies don't really bring up politics. They do this so everyone can relate to the show. It's not good for business to divide. They seem to think everyone is against them.

We only need one Roseanne though and the niche is filled. Between this and loosing majority of votes in elections it shows Conservatives are not the "silent majority". They are just a vocal minority. Give them their one show to rally around and they will be fine. Meanwhile literally dozens of other TV shows and movies show a world view they do not like yet most agrree with.

 

I think there is a disillusionment with social media and it's approach to censorship. It's not necessarily whether or not they can do it in respect to the Constitution, it's more that it seems in stark contrast to alot of the ideals the web and computer networking were founded on.

It seems like there is a "selling out" to appease the status quo, which sounds odd given the fact we're talking about conservatives being the targeted here, but that is what it appears to be.

6-eyed shaman asked about left-wing people who have been deplatformed to no response, so unless you got some examples, your last sentence is a baseless point.

 

Bedlam

Sorry I don’t see the ‘winning’ mainly I see the running away or bitching.

So can you please explain your opinion - what interesting points has 6 made and why do you think them so ‘winning’?

Are you saying you know of left-wingers that you think should be ‘deplatformed’

6 put up two ‘example’ of people and things he seem to imply should be censored - Sarah jeong and Peter fonda, I don’t know the context of the Fonda tweet but as to those of Sarah jeong and according to wiki - Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong apologized for the comments, which she said were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color’ and ‘ Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context and comparing the episode to the harassment of women during the Gamergate controversy’

I would say that would seem to fit in with this also from wiki

‘in 2015, Jeong published The Internet of Garbage, a non-fiction book on online harassment and responses to it by media and online platforms. The book discusses active moderation and community management strategies to improve online interactions. In January 2016, Jeong posted a tweet criticizing some Bernie Sanders supporters' online behavior towards women and supporters of Black Lives Matter. A campaign harassing Jeong ensued that lasted for weeks and included threats of sexual violence; it drove her to make her Twitter account private and take an unpaid leave from her job at Motherboard.’

 

It's pointless to say they see it as a free speech issue? I don't think so that is their whole argument. Right wing is allowed since it's only speech.

 

@Balbus he's winning because he knows how to properly quote.

Ok, so you said..

6-eyed shaman asked for some examples of left-wing individuals being deplatformed, What are they?
If you cannot provided any, then there isn't anything that "suits" their side, so that argument is baseless.

 

I'm a proud Disciple of Balbus.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

what part do you need explained?