Topic: Did you know that Democrats are claiming the "ok" hand gesture is a white supremacist signal?
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 years ago #78,395
Please, #walkaway from the insanity.Join the Republican Workers Party. People who are kind, accepting, tolerant, and have a healthy, happy, and positive outlook on life are members!
???MAGA???
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 3 years later[^] [v] #1,168,694
🆗
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 39 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,701
What are you, a ball gazer?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,702
Them scary librils gun getcha, boy.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,703
Sometimes it is the OK sign, but some white supremacists DO use it as a racist gesture too. It depends on context.
Meowth joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,704
Anonymous D replied with this 4 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,705
Meowth replied with this 4 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,707
Anonymous D replied with this 4 years ago, 34 seconds later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,709
Meowth replied with this 4 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,711
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,717
In some countries, the okay sign can mean that somebody is calling you an asshole so...
👌
👌
Anonymous D replied with this 4 years ago, 47 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,728
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 30 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,732
@1,168,703 (E)
Yes, there are people on the right that need to be replaced. Romney, Liz and McCarthy are three of them that I can think of right off the bat. Either they should be voted out of office or they should change parties since they already think like communists.
Yes, there are people on the right that need to be replaced. Romney, Liz and McCarthy are three of them that I can think of right off the bat. Either they should be voted out of office or they should change parties since they already think like communists.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,780
@previous (H)
LOL Imagine being scared of Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney.
I guarantee you they aren't "communists" nor do they think like that. You've probably fallen victim to the unfortunate syndrome of labeling anything you don't like or people you disagree with as "communist" without knowing what the fuck that even means or even thinking about what you're saying. Wake up, asshat.
PS: The next stage in your sheeple disease is yelling about how everyone is a pedophile except you and your shitheel political idols. Watch for it.
LOL Imagine being scared of Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney.
I guarantee you they aren't "communists" nor do they think like that. You've probably fallen victim to the unfortunate syndrome of labeling anything you don't like or people you disagree with as "communist" without knowing what the fuck that even means or even thinking about what you're saying. Wake up, asshat.
PS: The next stage in your sheeple disease is yelling about how everyone is a pedophile except you and your shitheel political idols. Watch for it.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 4 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,790
@previous (I)
My personal opinion is that facebook, twitter and youtube (google) should be classified as common carriers like the phone company. That would remove their power to censor users. When the Republicans regain the House and Senate, they should push a bill through both Houses which will make censoring free speech by big tech illegal.
My personal opinion is that facebook, twitter and youtube (google) should be classified as common carriers like the phone company. That would remove their power to censor users. When the Republicans regain the House and Senate, they should push a bill through both Houses which will make censoring free speech by big tech illegal.
Anonymous I replied with this 4 years ago, 19 hours later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,952
@previous (H)
I'm not sure that would change things.
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube already provide their services to anyone who wants them. They don't even charge a fee. And much the same as telephone companies can deny service to people who misuse their access to make obscene or harassing telephone calls or who set up robo-dialers, social media companies can, and do, deny service to bot accounts and people who misuse the service.
I'm not sure that would change things.
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube already provide their services to anyone who wants them. They don't even charge a fee. And much the same as telephone companies can deny service to people who misuse their access to make obscene or harassing telephone calls or who set up robo-dialers, social media companies can, and do, deny service to bot accounts and people who misuse the service.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,958
@previous (I)
If it wouldn't change things, why did you even make this post? Why bother putting up an argument if it makes no difference?
> Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube already provide their services to anyone who wants them. They don't even charge a fee.
The details of their corporate financials doesn't bear on the use the public derives from it and hence the nature of it being a common carrier or not.
> And much the same as telephone companies can deny service to people who misuse their access to make obscene or harassing telephone calls or who set up robo-dialers, social media companies can, and do, deny service to bot accounts and people who misuse the service.
There's a difference between disrupting a service and expressing an opinion. Standing in the middle of the street vs standing on the sidewalk holding a sign.
Even putting aside the common carrier status, it is not out of the question to expect certain standards from public facing enterprises. For instance, it is reasonable to require public facing companies not discriminate on the basis of skin color. Why then is it so hard to imagine we could insist on companies (particularly companies measured billions of dollars of market cap) not discriminate on the basis of speech?
It's funny, when the news cycle picks up a story about a business discriminating on the basis of race or sexuality, a significant fraction of people will go all "free market" on you and say this is okay. While everyone else denounces it. Yet mention protections on political speech and both sides take a 180. Now you get a whole lotta people talking about "free market" this, "free market" that, that were just talking about ensuring the public at large is protected just months, days, before during the prior news cycle.
Can we stop pretending like damn near anyone actually cares about freedom? Seems as if all we can care about are the meme issues "our side" cares about. Consistency be damned.
If it wouldn't change things, why did you even make this post? Why bother putting up an argument if it makes no difference?
> Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube already provide their services to anyone who wants them. They don't even charge a fee.
The details of their corporate financials doesn't bear on the use the public derives from it and hence the nature of it being a common carrier or not.
> And much the same as telephone companies can deny service to people who misuse their access to make obscene or harassing telephone calls or who set up robo-dialers, social media companies can, and do, deny service to bot accounts and people who misuse the service.
There's a difference between disrupting a service and expressing an opinion. Standing in the middle of the street vs standing on the sidewalk holding a sign.
Even putting aside the common carrier status, it is not out of the question to expect certain standards from public facing enterprises. For instance, it is reasonable to require public facing companies not discriminate on the basis of skin color. Why then is it so hard to imagine we could insist on companies (particularly companies measured billions of dollars of market cap) not discriminate on the basis of speech?
It's funny, when the news cycle picks up a story about a business discriminating on the basis of race or sexuality, a significant fraction of people will go all "free market" on you and say this is okay. While everyone else denounces it. Yet mention protections on political speech and both sides take a 180. Now you get a whole lotta people talking about "free market" this, "free market" that, that were just talking about ensuring the public at large is protected just months, days, before during the prior news cycle.
Can we stop pretending like damn near anyone actually cares about freedom? Seems as if all we can care about are the meme issues "our side" cares about. Consistency be damned.
Anonymous I replied with this 4 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,959
@previous (J)
What speech is Facebook or Twitter blocking? What speech is it that you feel would not be blocked should they be a common carrier?
What speech is Facebook or Twitter blocking? What speech is it that you feel would not be blocked should they be a common carrier?
Anonymous J replied with this 4 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,960
Also, since when did corporations become people? Why are we talking about them like they have unalienable rights?
It's a sad day that I have to say this, but corporations are not people. They are groups of people. We're talking about the rights (power) a group of persons (a corporation) has relative to other people (i.e., the public, everyone else). Isn't this the very nature of oppression? A subset of the population having rights, as a collective, that triumph the rights of the public at large?
/rant
It's a sad day that I have to say this, but corporations are not people. They are groups of people. We're talking about the rights (power) a group of persons (a corporation) has relative to other people (i.e., the public, everyone else). Isn't this the very nature of oppression? A subset of the population having rights, as a collective, that triumph the rights of the public at large?
/rant
Anonymous J double-posted this 4 years ago, 32 seconds later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,961
Anonymous I replied with this 4 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,962
@previous (J)
> What speech do you think?
I seriously don't know. I don't see these platforms barring any serious discussion. What is it you think they are banning? What speech is being barred that is making you upset?
> What speech do you think?
I seriously don't know. I don't see these platforms barring any serious discussion. What is it you think they are banning? What speech is being barred that is making you upset?
Anonymous H replied with this 4 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,977
@previous (I)
Remember Bill Nye the make believe science guy?
He said AGW deniers should be put in prison.
Literally anyone saying anything about the fraud in the last election is accused of "disinformation" and Nasty Piglousy openly stated that those doing so should be arrested and prosecuted.
Needless to say, the lamestream media deliberately putting out KNOWN false narratives are never questioned and never held accountable.
A perfect example being the attempted Crucifixion
of Kyle Rittenhouse and Nick Sandmann. Edited tapes and False accusations pushed 24/7 for weeks , but the results of the civil suits and the proof of their innocence got less than a minute of air time on the three big networks combined and no retractions or mention of the legal result in either the NYT or the Washington compost.
Remember Bill Nye the make believe science guy?
He said AGW deniers should be put in prison.
Literally anyone saying anything about the fraud in the last election is accused of "disinformation" and Nasty Piglousy openly stated that those doing so should be arrested and prosecuted.
Needless to say, the lamestream media deliberately putting out KNOWN false narratives are never questioned and never held accountable.
A perfect example being the attempted Crucifixion
of Kyle Rittenhouse and Nick Sandmann. Edited tapes and False accusations pushed 24/7 for weeks , but the results of the civil suits and the proof of their innocence got less than a minute of air time on the three big networks combined and no retractions or mention of the legal result in either the NYT or the Washington compost.
Meowth replied with this 4 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,986
Anonymous D replied with this 4 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,987
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,022
Stop being a freak, read a book and you are under attack.
Meowth replied with this 4 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,024
Anonymous D replied with this 4 years ago, 49 seconds later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,025
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,063
did eating quinoa get officially canceled?
Anonymous I replied with this 4 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,107
@1,168,977 (H)
> Remember Bill Nye the make believe science guy?
> He said AGW deniers should be put in prison.
LOL Did he actually say that (he didn't) or did you hear that from former Republican political aide who sells climate change denial "documentaries" online named Marc Morano?
> Literally anyone saying anything about the fraud in the last election is accused of "disinformation" and Nasty Piglousy openly stated that those doing so should be arrested and prosecuted.
Plenty of people have cast doubts on the 2020 election. No one who was simply doubting the outcome has been arrested. Seriously, point to one person who was jailed for simply voicing their doubts. I think you're conflating Jan. 6th participants with anyone having doubts.
> Needless to say, the lamestream media deliberately putting out KNOWN false narratives are never questioned and never held accountable.
People like Marc Morano, Alex Jones, or Tucker Carlson put KNOWN false narratives out there and are never held accountable for it. What are some of the worst examples of the "lamestream media" putting out false narratives in your opinion? What exactly are they saying that's wrong?
> Remember Bill Nye the make believe science guy?
> He said AGW deniers should be put in prison.
LOL Did he actually say that (he didn't) or did you hear that from former Republican political aide who sells climate change denial "documentaries" online named Marc Morano?
> Literally anyone saying anything about the fraud in the last election is accused of "disinformation" and Nasty Piglousy openly stated that those doing so should be arrested and prosecuted.
Plenty of people have cast doubts on the 2020 election. No one who was simply doubting the outcome has been arrested. Seriously, point to one person who was jailed for simply voicing their doubts. I think you're conflating Jan. 6th participants with anyone having doubts.
> Needless to say, the lamestream media deliberately putting out KNOWN false narratives are never questioned and never held accountable.
People like Marc Morano, Alex Jones, or Tucker Carlson put KNOWN false narratives out there and are never held accountable for it. What are some of the worst examples of the "lamestream media" putting out false narratives in your opinion? What exactly are they saying that's wrong?
21bitch !eCZNmSIqCg joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 56 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,109
@previous (I)
> What are some of the worst examples of the "lamestream media" putting out false narratives in your opinion? What exactly are they saying that's wrong?
This does happen. A very good example of the "lamestream media" promoting a known false narrative was the WMD hoax in the early 2000s which justified the invasion of Iraq, that's probably the worst example that comes to my mind. But there are many others, like the push for the NATO-led bombing of Libya in 2011 being framed as a "humanitarian intervention", or the constant demand for regime change and sanctions against Venezuela, again framed as "helping the people". The media can also effectively push a false narrative by not talking about an issue, thereby making the public less aware and concerned about it. One example is the minimal coverage given to the Saudi-led onslaught in Yemen that's heavily funded by America, which is often referred to as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. And these false narratives have disastrous consequences - the invasion of Iraq alone killed roughly 200,000 civilians and nearly 100,000 soldiers, and the war in Yemen has killed about a third of a million people, most of whom where children under five. Obviously not all of these deaths are attributable to irresponsible or malicious American journalists, but they contribute. And of course, they are never held accountable for these narratives.
Obviously this isn't what Anon H has in mind, though. He's pissed off about CNN and MSNBC telling him to get the vaccine and claiming Biden won the presidency.
> What are some of the worst examples of the "lamestream media" putting out false narratives in your opinion? What exactly are they saying that's wrong?
This does happen. A very good example of the "lamestream media" promoting a known false narrative was the WMD hoax in the early 2000s which justified the invasion of Iraq, that's probably the worst example that comes to my mind. But there are many others, like the push for the NATO-led bombing of Libya in 2011 being framed as a "humanitarian intervention", or the constant demand for regime change and sanctions against Venezuela, again framed as "helping the people". The media can also effectively push a false narrative by not talking about an issue, thereby making the public less aware and concerned about it. One example is the minimal coverage given to the Saudi-led onslaught in Yemen that's heavily funded by America, which is often referred to as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. And these false narratives have disastrous consequences - the invasion of Iraq alone killed roughly 200,000 civilians and nearly 100,000 soldiers, and the war in Yemen has killed about a third of a million people, most of whom where children under five. Obviously not all of these deaths are attributable to irresponsible or malicious American journalists, but they contribute. And of course, they are never held accountable for these narratives.
Obviously this isn't what Anon H has in mind, though. He's pissed off about CNN and MSNBC telling him to get the vaccine and claiming Biden won the presidency.