Toggle sidebar

This works on multiple levels

atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,587
6,174
113
dave said:
The have to label the speech on Parler because they can censor/control it.
Click to expand...

That's the point. The speech they didn't like on Twitter they banned. So those folks went somewhere else...and now the speech police don't want them expressing themselves over there on Parler either! So you either say what the thought police want to hear, or they'll make sure you can't say anything.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
atlkvb said:
That's the point. The speech they didn't like on Twitter they banned. So those folks went somewhere else...and now the speech police don't want them expressing themselves over there on Parler either! So you either say what the thought police want to hear, or they'll make sure you can't say anything.
Click to expand...
They cant stop it.
 
N

NYC_Eer

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2010
10,631
48
0
Darth_VadEER said:
I've never visited. I try not to contribute to those places.

I think it's odd you feel necessary to put Free Speech in quotations...like you think its imaginary.

You think words should be illegal. I do not. I think some words and speech are wrong and socially unacceptable but I would never take it to the extreme that you do and outlaw opinions.

Criminalizing thoughts is incredibly dangerous. I do not understand how you support that type of behavior.
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent. It’s dangerous but sometimes necessary.

And to be clear, I don’t think free speech is imaginary. I understand it’s importance. The reason I used “” was to signify that “free speech” is being used as a shield. Whoever started those sites is opportunistic. Just as Trump saw a flock that would be easily manipulated, so did the people that started those sites. They pitch that and provide it, but it’s to make money and/or provide a place for people to foment distrust in the government. It’s too dangerous to let places like that thrive. It’s like the 1900s-2000s Afghanistan. No oversight = terrorists.

Just as Trumpers probably feel torture was justified to get info on terrorists...this is a necessary evil.
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,587
6,174
113
NYC_Eer said:
I agree to an extent. It’s dangerous but sometimes necessary.

And to be clear, I don’t think free speech is imaginary. I understand it’s importance. The reason I used “” was to signify that “free speech” is being used as a shield. Whoever started those sites is opportunistic. It’s too dangerous to let places like that thrive.
Click to expand...
@NYC_Eer using the Constitution to support your argument, can you explain what limits the Founders placed on "free" speech? What type of speech should be restricted or is "too dangerous" as you stated here in this post?
 
D

Darth_VadEER

All-Conference
Dec 14, 2010
23,025
3,212
0
NYC_Eer said:
I agree to an extent. It’s dangerous but sometimes necessary.

And to be clear, I don’t think free speech is imaginary. I understand it’s importance. The reason I used “” was to signify that “free speech” is being used as a shield. Whoever started those sites is opportunistic. Just as Trump saw a flock that would be easily manipulated, so did the people that started those sites. They pitch that and provide it, but it’s to make money and/or provide a place for people to foment distrust in the government. It’s too dangerous to let places like that thrive. It’s like the 1900s-2000s Afghanistan. No oversight = terrorists.

Just as Trumpers probably feel torture was justified to get info on terrorists...this is a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

Free Speech IS a shield.

It is a shield given to us in the Constitution to protect against a government who no longer served its people.

I agree that the people who started these sites are opportunistic. They saw that current social media was discriminatory and they created an alternative - which was very successful.

The social.media companies should lose their government provided legal shields and be responsible for their own products - that isnt radical.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
NYC_Eer said:
I agree to an extent. It’s dangerous but sometimes necessary.

And to be clear, I don’t think free speech is imaginary. I understand it’s importance. The reason I used “” was to signify that “free speech” is being used as a shield. Whoever started those sites is opportunistic. Just as Trump saw a flock that would be easily manipulated, so did the people that started those sites. They pitch that and provide it, but it’s to make money and/or provide a place for people to foment distrust in the government. It’s too dangerous to let places like that thrive. It’s like the 1900s-2000s Afghanistan. No oversight = terrorists.

Just as Trumpers probably feel torture was justified to get info on terrorists...this is a necessary evil.
Click to expand...
The only speech that is dangerous is ignorant simple fanatics like you labelling people terrorists because they want to be treated fairly. You are the problem in America and.you are too dumb to understand why.
 
D

Darth_VadEER

All-Conference
Dec 14, 2010
23,025
3,212
0
atlkvb said:
@NYC_Eer using the Constitution to support your argument, can you explain what limits the Founders placed on "free" speech? What type of speech should be restricted or is "too dangerous" as you stated here in this post?
Click to expand...

It's all subjective and a matter of interpretation.

Stripe them of their liability shields and they will clean house fast. They benefit from chaos events...like at the capital and riots over the summer.

They (social media) are used to organize and plan terrorism and violence, live stream crimes, promote riots, and then afterwards...they act like they give a **** and do PR (which is what they are doing now...its PR).
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,587
6,174
113
Darth_VadEER said:
It's all subjective and a matter of interpretation.

Stripe them of their liability shields and they will clean house fast. They benefit from chaos events...like at the capital and riots over the summer.

They (social media) are used to organize and plan terrorism and violence, live stream crimes, promote riots, and then afterwards...they act like they give a **** and do PR (which is what they are doing now...its PR).
Click to expand...

I just think it's a very slippery slope you step on when you start deciding which speech is acceptable and which is not? That's why I asked @NYC_Eer to explain to us what type of speech the Founders had in mind to restrict and why?
 
N

NYC_Eer

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2010
10,631
48
0
Darth_VadEER said:
Free Speech IS a shield.

It is a shield given to us in the Constitution to protect against a government who no longer served its people.

I agree that the people who started these sites are opportunistic. They saw that current social media was discriminatory and they created an alternative - which was very successful.

The social.media companies should lose their government provided legal shields and be responsible for their own products - that isnt radical.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. Twitter was a major reason why this **** happened and these crazy ******* are whipped up into a frenzy. Now they are finally doing something. Hopefully it’s not too late.

And Gag and Parler have done well so far. I don’t expect that to last long. They’ll be send messages via carrier pigeon or smoke signals soon.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
Darth_VadEER said:
It's all subjective and a matter of interpretation.

Stripe them of their liability shields and they will clean house fast. They benefit from chaos events...like at the capital and riots over the summer.

They (social media) are used to organize and plan terrorism and violence, live stream crimes, promote riots, and then afterwards...they act like they give a **** and do PR (which is what they are doing now...its PR).
Click to expand...
Strip them from their liability shield and they will be screwed. They cant clean house if they are forced to abide by their own TOS or face lawsuits.
 
D

Darth_VadEER

All-Conference
Dec 14, 2010
23,025
3,212
0
NYC_Eer said:
I don’t agree. Twitter was a major reason why this **** happened and these crazy ****ers are whipped up into a frenzy. Now they are finally doing something. Hopefully it’s not too late.

And Gag and Parler have done well so far. I don’t expect that to last long. They’ll be send messages via carrier pigeon or smoke signals soon.
Click to expand...

And why now? If you really believe Twitter was a major reason for this particular act, then you should agree they should be held legal responsible.

Make them responsible for the bad events they cause - riots, bullying, harassment, revenge porn, doxxing, smearing, ect.

Twitter promoted hate, violence and riots all year...

Are riots OK or not? Easy question.

Twitter helped riots for 6 months...during a time of social distancing. They.dont.care.

Pulling Trump's account is a PR move. Its marketing. Don't swallow their ****.

They will keep letting people stir up chaos and then stepping in after the fact and pretend to be the hero. They arent the fireman...they are the arsonist.
 
N

NYC_Eer

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2010
10,631
48
0
Darth_VadEER said:
And why now?

Twitter promoted hate, violence and riots all year...

Are riots OK or not? Easy question.

Twitter helped riots for 6 months...during a time of social distancing.

Twitter doesnt actually care. Pulling Trump's account is a PR move. Its marketing. Don't swallow their ****.

They will keep letting people stir up chaos and then stepping in after the fact and pretend to be the hero. They arent the fireman...they are the arsonist.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe riots are OK. Should shut down accounts that promote violence across the board.
 
D

Darth_VadEER

All-Conference
Dec 14, 2010
23,025
3,212
0
NYC_Eer said:
I don’t believe riots are OK. Should shut down accounts that promote violence across the board.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I believe you.

But if the Tweets ive seen made by Trump are considered inciting riots, then Twitter has some major cleaning to do....because those were nothing compared to what I see there.
 
N

NYC_Eer

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2010
10,631
48
0
Darth_VadEER said:
Fair enough. I believe you.

But if the Tweets ive seen made by Trump are considered inciting riots, then Twitter has some major cleaning to do....because those were nothing compared to what I see there.
Click to expand...
So, are you OK with people on Parler exchanging info on what guns and ammo to bring to DC and which streets have the smallest police presence?

Seriously.
 
D

Darth_VadEER

All-Conference
Dec 14, 2010
23,025
3,212
0
NYC_Eer said:
So, are you OK with people on Parler exchanging info on what guns and ammo to bring to DC and which streets have the smallest police presence?

Seriously.
Click to expand...

No.

But it's no worse than what I saw on Twitter.

Twitter promoted disbanding police. So you don't get to have it both ways.

Do you really want to pull up random posts from social media to prove a point?

I'm looking on Twitter right now with accounts calling for white genocide...
 
N

NYC_Eer

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2010
10,631
48
0
Darth_VadEER said:
No.

But it's no worse than what I saw on Twitter.

Twitter promoted disbanding police. So you don't get to have it both ways.

Do you really want to pull up random posts from social media to prove a point?

I'm looking on Twitter right now with accounts calling for white genocide...
Click to expand...
As you said earlier fair enough. I agree is a dangerously slippery slope. So, is domestic terrorism. You have to balance the 2, and for me it starts with social media companies policing themselves.
 
D

Darth_VadEER

All-Conference
Dec 14, 2010
23,025
3,212
0
NYC_Eer said:
As you said earlier fair enough. I agree is a dangerously slippery slope. So, is domestic terrorism. You have to balance the 2, and for me it starts with social media companies policing themselves.
Click to expand...

Policing themselves isnt good enough.

The public needs tools to combat their intrusion...re: fair laws for litigation

If a riot is organized on Twitter and results in a business/public building being harmed - sue twitter. Sue them hard every time.
 
N

NYC_Eer

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2010
10,631
48
0
Darth_VadEER said:
Policing themselves isnt good enough.

The public needs tools to combat their intrusion...re: fair laws for litigation

If a riot is organized on Twitter and results in a business/public building being harmed - sue twitter. Sue them hard every time.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily disagreeing with that. Just saying this is a good start.
 
P

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
NYC_Eer said:
I agree to an extent. It’s dangerous but sometimes necessary.

And to be clear, I don’t think free speech is imaginary. I understand it’s importance. The reason I used “” was to signify that “free speech” is being used as a shield. Whoever started those sites is opportunistic. Just as Trump saw a flock that would be easily manipulated, so did the people that started those sites. They pitch that and provide it, but it’s to make money and/or provide a place for people to foment distrust in the government. It’s too dangerous to let places like that thrive. It’s like the 1900s-2000s Afghanistan. No oversight = terrorists.

Just as Trumpers probably feel torture was justified to get info on terrorists...this is a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

lame. add logic to your "needs improvement" list
 
N

NYC_Eer

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2010
10,631
48
0
dave said:
I fully expect this proof is never offered.
Click to expand...
Here you go moron.





 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
NYC_Eer said:
Here you go moron.





Click to expand...
None of that is proof of anything you claimed. It is not illegal to post pics of your guns.

If you insist on calling people names you shouldnt follow on to own yourself.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,231
3,298
113
dave said:
None of that is proof of anything you claimed. It is not illegal to post pics of your guns.

If you insist on calling people names you shouldnt follow on to own yourself.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I have all kinds of pics of me out practicing and I have zero intention of doing anything beyond just honing my skills for my own personal benefit.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
DvlDog4WVU said:
Exactly. I have all kinds of pics of me out practicing and I have zero intention of doing anything beyond just honing my skills for my own personal benefit.
Click to expand...
This guy is confusing dangerous with things that make him uncomfortable. His estrogen is leaking.

I love watching shooting videos. I have a lot to learn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom