Condemnation of censorship

[EvMetro]

I don't see any censorship. Point some out for me.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

View attachment 478480

Your wacky conspiracy theory cartoon isn't censorship, it's bullshit.

The point of my thread is that lefties will not disavow or condemn censorship. Your post validates the premise of my thread.

What censorship?

Anybody reading this thread can see that you are evading the fact that you won't condemn or disavow censorship. You are searching for a way to defend censorship, and you have no intention of disavowing it. Censorship is ugly, it cheating and scamming, so of course it is innate in lefties. Your evasion is natural lefty cheating as well, since you won't just come out and admit that you endorse censorship and that you do not disavow or condemn it.

Lefties are stuck in a bad place on this thread, since they can neither claim that they DO disavow it since they don't, nor admit that they DO NOT disavow it since they have to cheat and evade the truth. All lefties can do is attempt to derail the thread without ever asserting their true position.

 

[Crepitus]

I don't see any censorship. Point some out for me.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

View attachment 478480

Your wacky conspiracy theory cartoon isn't censorship, it's bullshit.

The point of my thread is that lefties will not disavow or condemn censorship. Your post validates the premise of my thread.

What censorship?

Anybody reading this thread can see that you are evading the fact that you won't condemn or disavow censorship. You are searching for a way to defend censorship, and you have no intention of disavowing it. Censorship is ugly, it cheating and scamming, so of course it is innate in lefties. Your evasion is natural lefty cheating as well, since you won't just come out and admit that you endorse censorship and that you do not disavow or condemn it.

Lefties are stuck in a bad place on this thread, since they can neither claim that they DO disavow it since they don't, nor admit that they DO NOT disavow it since they have to cheat and evade the truth. All lefties can do is attempt to derail the thread without ever asserting their true position.

I'm still asking the same question I have been since my first post in the thread. Who's evading here?

I'll ask again: What censorship?

 

[EvMetro]

" The First Amendment ensures that the government doesn't use its coercive power to silence people. The kind of censorship you guys are whining about is simply people not doing what you want them to do. Too bad. No one should be forced to help someone else propagate ideas that they find repugnant. "

It seems to me that if a social media platform is going to arbitrarily determine what is repugnant and what isn't according to their politics, then they should be held accountable for their decisions to silence someone's speech. It's one thing to have rules that are designed to promulgate open discussion like the USMB does or tries to do, but it is quite another thing to silence someone for political reasons, as Twitter and Facebook have done to Trump. They may find his opinions repugnant but that is an insufficient reason to ban him or delete his posts. Show me the tweet or post where Trump advocates violence that amounts to a specific threat to public safety and security. Show me the tweet or post that he wrote that was obscene.

Censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any speech or parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

It is the “tolerant” Left’s intolerance for dissent that leads them to censorship, but ONLY when the person or specific item opposes their politics. They have a progressive conception of diversity that does not include diversity of thought. IMHO, they are hypocrites.

In a thread like this, we need to be careful when introducing freedom of speech rights, since lefties like to think that censorship is not censorship unless the government is doing it. They will also "fight like hell" to evade getting cornered on how they will never disavow censorship. The lefties on this thread have an innate priority to defend censorship while never being held accountable for answering to the thread topic, so endless discussion of constitutional rights gives them cover.

 

[EvMetro]

The reason why you are evading my opening post is because you do not condemn censorship.

Why should I. I don't care one way or the other.

This admission of not disavowing censorship is remarkable, you are the only lefty here so far who has admitted that he does not condemn it. Your honesty about not disavowing such an ugly form of cheating and corruption is rare for lefties, so my hat is off to you sir.

 

[EvMetro]

I don't see any censorship. Point some out for me.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

View attachment 478480

Your wacky conspiracy theory cartoon isn't censorship, it's bullshit.

The point of my thread is that lefties will not disavow or condemn censorship. Your post validates the premise of my thread.

What censorship?

Anybody reading this thread can see that you are evading the fact that you won't condemn or disavow censorship. You are searching for a way to defend censorship, and you have no intention of disavowing it. Censorship is ugly, it cheating and scamming, so of course it is innate in lefties. Your evasion is natural lefty cheating as well, since you won't just come out and admit that you endorse censorship and that you do not disavow or condemn it.

Lefties are stuck in a bad place on this thread, since they can neither claim that they DO disavow it since they don't, nor admit that they DO NOT disavow it since they have to cheat and evade the truth. All lefties can do is attempt to derail the thread without ever asserting their true position.

I'm still asking the same question I have been since my first post in the thread. Who's evading here?

I'll ask again: What censorship?

Nice evasion. Go on now, post your next evasion.

 

[d0gbreath]

This admission of not disavowing censorship is remarkable, you are the only lefty here so far who has admitted that he does not condemn it. Your honesty about not disavowing such an ugly form of cheating and corruption is rare for lefties, so my hat is off to you sir.

Well, that was easy, thanks.

 

[Utilitarian]

Each time I post a thread about censorship, I learn more about how relevant it is to our current political landscape. My latest observation is that I have not seen any lefties condemn censorship. Every lefty who has ever replied to any of my censorship threads here has only defended censorship. I've watched lefty news and righty news, and I've never seen any lefties condemn censorship there either.

If anybody is aware of any lefties who condemn this form of cheating and corruption, I'd love to read about. Please post any links of lefties disavowing censorship if you see any or know of any. If you are a lefty who disavows censorship, I'd love to see you condemn it right here in the political topic section.

People don't seem to understand that private property rights don't function the same way when a monopoly or oligopoly exists.

It's like how others have pointed out that your electric provider can't refuse to serve you over your political views. Clarence Thomas has suggested that social media platforms are "common carriers", and due to their market share, Facebook can reasonably be seen as such. The same goes for Twitter.

 

[Crepitus]

I don't see any censorship. Point some out for me.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

View attachment 478480

Your wacky conspiracy theory cartoon isn't censorship, it's bullshit.

The point of my thread is that lefties will not disavow or condemn censorship. Your post validates the premise of my thread.

What censorship?

Anybody reading this thread can see that you are evading the fact that you won't condemn or disavow censorship. You are searching for a way to defend censorship, and you have no intention of disavowing it. Censorship is ugly, it cheating and scamming, so of course it is innate in lefties. Your evasion is natural lefty cheating as well, since you won't just come out and admit that you endorse censorship and that you do not disavow or condemn it.

Lefties are stuck in a bad place on this thread, since they can neither claim that they DO disavow it since they don't, nor admit that they DO NOT disavow it since they have to cheat and evade the truth. All lefties can do is attempt to derail the thread without ever asserting their true position.

I'm still asking the same question I have been since my first post in the thread. Who's evading here?

I'll ask again: What censorship?

Nice evasion. Go on now, post your next evasion.

I'm not evening anything, Son. I've asked the same question half a dozen times and you've not answered.

Who's evading here?

Now, once more, what censorship?

 

[Smokin' OP]

The reason why you are evading my opening post is because you do not condemn censorship.

Why should I. I don't care one way or the other.

This admission of not disavowing censorship is remarkable, you are the only lefty here so far who has admitted that he does not condemn it. Your honesty about not disavowing such an ugly form of cheating and corruption is rare for lefties, so my hat is off to you sir.

Good god, what a moron you are.
You seem to believe that a private company, forum or social media site MUST publish your drivel?
The USMB could censor this statement.
You know what?
I don't have a legal leg to stand on.
They're a private company.

 

[EvMetro]

Good god, what a moron you are.
You seem to believe that a private company, forum or social media site MUST publish your drivel?

Please quote what I have said about private companies in this thread that supports what you have posted, so I can respond to this. Are you sure you are on the right thread?

Also, do you disavow censorship, or are you going to have to evade answering that?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Good god, what a moron you are.
You seem to believe that a private company, forum or social media site MUST publish your drivel?

Please quote what I have said about private companies in this thread that supports what you have posted, so I can respond to this. Are you sure you are on the right thread?

Also, do you disavow censorship, or are you going to have to evade answering that?

Post 11.

"Censorship is ugly regardless of if it is legal or not, or if it is done by the government or private party. Censorship is still censorship, regardless of who does it".

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't see any censorship. Point some out for me.

What censorship?

I'll ask again: What censorship?

Now, once more, what censorship?

Your repeated attempts at an appeal to ignorance are not fooling anyone.

All you are doing is showing everyone your relentless willful ignorance.

 

[EvMetro]

Good god, what a moron you are.
You seem to believe that a private company, forum or social media site MUST publish your drivel?

Please quote what I have said about private companies in this thread that supports what you have posted, so I can respond to this. Are you sure you are on the right thread?

Also, do you disavow censorship, or are you going to have to evade answering that?

Post 11.

"Censorship is ugly regardless of if it is legal or not, or if it is done by the government or private party. Censorship is still censorship, regardless of who does it".

How is that connected to what you posted?

 

[surada]

" The First Amendment ensures that the government doesn't use its coercive power to silence people. The kind of censorship you guys are whining about is simply people not doing what you want them to do. Too bad. No one should be forced to help someone else propagate ideas that they find repugnant. "

It seems to me that if a social media platform is going to arbitrarily determine what is repugnant and what isn't according to their politics, then they should be held accountable for their decisions to silence someone's speech. It's one thing to have rules that are designed to promulgate open discussion like the USMB does or tries to do, but it is quite another thing to silence someone for political reasons, as Twitter and Facebook have done to Trump. They may find his opinions repugnant but that is an insufficient reason to ban him or delete his posts. Show me the tweet or post where Trump advocates violence that amounts to a specific threat to public safety and security. Show me the tweet or post that he wrote that was obscene.

Censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any speech or parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

It is the “tolerant” Left’s intolerance for dissent that leads them to censorship, but ONLY when the person or specific item opposes their politics. They have a progressive conception of diversity that does not include diversity of thought. IMHO, they are hypocrites.

In a thread like this, we need to be careful when introducing freedom of speech rights, since lefties like to think that censorship is not censorship unless the government is doing it. They will also "fight like hell" to evade getting cornered on how they will never disavow censorship. The lefties on this thread have an innate priority to defend censorship while never being held accountable for answering to the thread topic, so endless discussion of constitutional rights gives them cover.

Do you know the difference between the private sector and the government.

Trump says he will start his own social media in a couple of months. He can promote lies and conspiracy theories all day long and ban democrats and moderates Republicans.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This thread is a good illustration of the difference between a liberal and a leftist.

Winterborn has articulated a liberal position. He is the only one left of center here who has.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Good god, what a moron you are.
You seem to believe that a private company, forum or social media site MUST publish your drivel?

Please quote what I have said about private companies in this thread that supports what you have posted, so I can respond to this. Are you sure you are on the right thread?

Also, do you disavow censorship, or are you going to have to evade answering that?

Post 11.

"Censorship is ugly regardless of if it is legal or not, or if it is done by the government or private party. Censorship is still censorship, regardless of who does it".

How is that connected to what you posted?

HUH?
"Please quote what I have said about private companies in this thread that supports what you have posted, so I can respond to this. Are you sure you are on the right thread"?
'Censorship is ugly regardless of if it is legal or not, or if it is done by the government or private party. Censorship is still censorship, regardless of who does it".

Private companies can censor whomever they want, NOT illegal.

 

[Utilitarian]

In a thread like this, we need to be careful when introducing freedom of speech rights, since lefties like to think that censorship is not censorship unless the government is doing it. They will also "fight like hell" to evade getting cornered on how they will never disavow censorship. The lefties on this thread have an innate priority to defend censorship while never being held accountable for answering to the thread topic, so endless discussion of constitutional rights gives them cover.

Do you know the difference between the private sector and the government.

Trump says he will start his own social media in a couple of months. He can promote lies and conspiracy theories all day long and ban democrats and moderates Republicans.

...unless the service providers collude against the new platform and keep it from having any hosting service. That's what happened to Parler initially. They eventually found one hosting service willing to support them, but not before losing a lot of their members and market share.

The problem is that much of the internet has become very monopolistic and oligopolistic. Without healthy competition, the private property argument doesn't hold as much weight.

The common carrier argument is more relevant due to this lack of competition and presence of collusion.

 

[miketx]

I am not surprised to see you present what you like about censorship.

You may misunderstand what is meant by that. Private, like in my home for example, there are certain things folks would be asked to leave over. For example, if someone comes in my place and starts talking about how confiscating guns and raping little girls is good, they will be shut down.

 

[surada]

In a thread like this, we need to be careful when introducing freedom of speech rights, since lefties like to think that censorship is not censorship unless the government is doing it. They will also "fight like hell" to evade getting cornered on how they will never disavow censorship. The lefties on this thread have an innate priority to defend censorship while never being held accountable for answering to the thread topic, so endless discussion of constitutional rights gives them cover.

Do you know the difference between the private sector and the government.

Trump says he will start his own social media in a couple of months. He can promote lies and conspiracy theories all day long and ban democrats and moderates Republicans.

...unless the service providers collude against the new platform and keep it from having any hosting service. That's what happened to Parler initially. They eventually found one hosting service willing to support them, but not before losing a lot of their members and market share.

The problem is that much of the internet has become very monopolistic and oligopolistic. Without healthy competition, the private property argument doesn't hold as much weight.

The common carrier argument is more relevant due to this lack of competition and presence of collusion.

You know US Message can kick you and I off if they find us breaking the rules.

 

[Utilitarian]

In a thread like this, we need to be careful when introducing freedom of speech rights, since lefties like to think that censorship is not censorship unless the government is doing it. They will also "fight like hell" to evade getting cornered on how they will never disavow censorship. The lefties on this thread have an innate priority to defend censorship while never being held accountable for answering to the thread topic, so endless discussion of constitutional rights gives them cover.

Do you know the difference between the private sector and the government.

Trump says he will start his own social media in a couple of months. He can promote lies and conspiracy theories all day long and ban democrats and moderates Republicans.

...unless the service providers collude against the new platform and keep it from having any hosting service. That's what happened to Parler initially. They eventually found one hosting service willing to support them, but not before losing a lot of their members and market share.

The problem is that much of the internet has become very monopolistic and oligopolistic. Without healthy competition, the private property argument doesn't hold as much weight.

The common carrier argument is more relevant due to this lack of competition and presence of collusion.

You know US Message can kick you and I off if they find us breaking the rules.

Agreed, but this forum can't be reasonably considered a common carrier. If this forum held 90% of the internet's political activity in America, then they might be reasonably seen as such.

This is why Facebook and Twitter can't be viewed in the same light as a regular political forum.