*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/stat...429120005?s=20
I love the look on his face when he realizes he should have checked what show he's going on.

So let me get this straight......

This guy has a TV show where he points out that Trump lied to the press. A politician told a fib to the news media to cover up a nothing-story that doesn't matter.

What exactly is your beef with Trump here?

When did you suddenly become supportive of a standard of conduct that requires that the president be 100% honest and forthcoming with a press that's trying to destroy him?

[Poopadoop]

So let me get this straight......

This guy has a TV show where he points out that Trump lied to the press. A politician told a fib to the news media to cover up a nothing-story that doesn't matter.

What exactly is your beef with Trump here?

When did you suddenly become supportive of a standard of conduct that requires that the president be 100% honest and forthcoming with a press that's trying to destroy him?

lolz at bolded.

[oskar]

Ok then why doesn't his pundit acknowledge that the president lied, instead of going straight on to lying about the Mueller report being a "total exoneration of Trump"?

Do you honestly believe that in an alternate universe where Hilary Clinton is president and she tried to fire the head of an investigation into her campaigns ties to a hostile foreign nation, you'd call that a nothing-story? Can I remind you that you thought it was noteworthy that she called easter worshippers "easter worshippers."

[oskar]

lolz at bolded.

We're at: 'Trump saying it's ok to murder innocent children, and then acting on it by offering support to a navy seal who murdered innocent children' - being a nothing-story that doesn't matter.

Also: a foreign nation interfering in US presidential elections is so much of not a big deal that it's ok for the president to deny it happened in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[Poopadoop]

she called easter worshippers "easter worshippers."

Now THAT'S a story!!

[Poopadoop]

I also like how it's such a nothing story that Trump felt compelled to lie about it.

Oh wait, he lies about everything. Nvr mind, it's ok then.

[TheSpoonald]

Ok then why doesn't his pundit acknowledge that the president lied,

Is that a serious question? Cmon man.

Do you honestly believe that in an alternate universe where Hilary Clinton is president and she tried to fire the head of an investigation into her campaigns ties to a hostile foreign nation, you'd call that a nothing-story?

I see what you did there CNN. you say "campaign's ties" as if that's a thing that exists.

Can I remind you that you thought it was noteworthy that she called easter worshippers "easter worshippers."

One more time.....

It's simply not possible that SO MANY prominent democrats suddenly and simultaneously invented the term "easter worshipers". The use of that phrase was coordinated by some entity. I find that noteworthy. Yes. Someone decided to use that phrase, and not a more accurate term. I would like to know why.

You seem to be confused though. My concern in that matter is the coordinating entity, and its reasons for choosing its words. I'm not impugning Clinton, or anyone else who used the phrase. I realize they are part of the club. I just wanna know who is running the club.

[TheSpoonald]

We're at: 'Trump saying it's ok to murder innocent children, and then acting on it by offering support to a navy seal who murdered innocent children' - being a nothing-story that doesn't matter.

Exactly how many innocent children are dead because of Trump policy? Do you have a number?

Also: a foreign nation interfering in US presidential elections is so much of not a big deal that it's ok for the president to deny it happened in the face of overwhelming evidence.

What exactly do you want the President to say about it? Do you want him to de-rail foreign relations because Russia bought some google ads? It's not really the president's job to coddle his enemies and be contrite to a hostile press. He knows what Russia did.

Mueller found that the Russians began their efforts to interfere into the election as early as 2014. What does that even have to do with Trump?

Who was in charge back then?

Obama needed to maintain relations with Russia to secure the Iran Deal. So he looked the other way on Russia's other bad behavior.

But in CNN-world, that's fine. The real problem is that Trump lied to a reporter about a time that nothing almost maybe happened.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/185142...uction-justice

Legally, an attempt at obstruction of justice is still a crime, even if it fails.

But it certainly makes sense why you would want to lie about it.

[TheSpoonald]

Legally, an attempt at obstruction of justice is still a crime, even if it fails.

What "attempt"?

I'm not seeing what Trump 'failed' at?

If you're saying Trump "attempted" to do something, and it "failed"....then why did it fail?

I'm not going to wait for you to make up a lie. The truth is that nothing 'failed'. Trump just changed his mind.

[TheSpoonald]

BTW poop, you're dodging again. The question is, why does the Al Jazeera pundit have a problem with Trump lying to a news media hellbent on destroying him?

That's literally his whole beef. Trump lied to CNN.

I'm asking you why that fucking matters at all?

[Poopadoop]

Attempting to obstruct justice is a crime in the USA.

I don't see how much simpler I can make that for ya.

I don't care if Captain Retard lies to CNN. What else is new? But it's interesting that he chose to lie about attempting to obstruct justice. Which whether you like it or not, is a crime.

[Poopadoop]

"I ordered several people to kill him Your Honor, but after none of them agreed, I changed my mind. Can I go now?"

[oskar]

Exactly how many innocent children are dead because of Trump policy? Do you have a number?

Why are you pivoting? Do you realize you're pivoting?
The question is: The president has called for the killing of the families of terrorists many times on his campaign trail. Now he's acting on it by interfering in a military trial of a navy seal who on the account of his own Seal team has indiscriminately killed civilians, among them children. How do you feel about that?

loaded questions and whataboutism

I can only explain why those are not sound arguments so many times.

[TheSpoonald]

Why are you pivoting? Do you realize you're pivoting?

I'm not pivoting. you clearly seem to have a problem with one of Trump's policy positions. I'm simply asking what effect it's had.

The question is: The president has called for the killing of the families of terrorists many times on his campaign trail. Now he's acting on it by interfering in a military trial of a navy seal who on the account of his own Seal team has indiscriminately killed civilians, among them children.

"called for"? "Many times"? "Acting on it"? "Interfereing"? It's funny how later in this post you get on my shit for using loaded language. You seem to be concluding that this guy is a killer and Trump is his cheerleader. Call me when the case has been properly adjudicated and all the facts are known. As far as Trump goes....you're really spinning yourself into a tizzy to connect Trump to this.

That's kinda deranged.

How do you feel about that?

I'm glad the military is taking the time to do a thorough investigation and ascertain the facts. I trust that the military system of justice will be fair, and adjudicate based on facts. I have faith that the correct outcome will be found, whatever it is. Beyond that, I have no opinion.

loaded questions and whataboutism

Dude, are your arguments really this shallow and weak. YOU posted a clip of a TV guy bitching about Trump for telling a fib. His whole beef is that he caught the President telling an off the cuff falsehood to a hostile news media. That was YOU that complained about that. That was YOU who felt it noteworthy to post this expose. It was YOU who thinks this matters. It was YOU who impugned the Trump surrogate for using tactics learned in Public Relations 101.

It's not a loaded question to simply ask you....what should Trump have said instead? Since YOU care so much about this "lie".....what do you think Trump should have said instead?

[Poopadoop]

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/stat...429120005?s=20
I love the look on his face when he realizes he should have checked what show he's going on.

All I get from this post is 'lol @ this guy - he goes on Al J without having the foggiest what he's in for.'

The rest of the 'outrage' he's expressing is just you reductio ad banananumming.

[oskar]

You said you think military courts should be left to do their thing. When I tell you that Trump openly voiced his support and intervened to have the accused released pending his trial, your response is "has trump killed anyone?" - this is pivoting. You're changing the question and you still have not answered the question I asked.

And again you make me google something you can find immediately: https://youtu.be/qSgmAMjtYcw?t=13 - I'm on the edge of my seat how you don't think this means he thinks families should be killed.

He interfered by signing an order to have an accused war criminal released pending his trial. This isn't the only person being accused of war crimes, but it is one who is accused of killing civilian families in a war zone. Why the leniency here?
Oh and on the side - I find your trust in US military courts hilarious. Why do you think that nobody involved in this has done time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw
Oh I'm sorry, the person who leaked it was sentenced to 30 years. justice at last!

[oskar]

All I get from this post is 'lol @ this guy - he goes on Al J without having the foggiest what he's in for.'

The rest of the 'outrage' he's expressing is just you reductio ad banananumming.

I've watched more of this guy. He's doing the Tucker Carlson act down to the shocked-face. I'm not even sure if many republicans have an agenda. Many of them seem to just want the spotlight and will just support any agenda that is the most convenient at the time.

[Poopadoop]

So Capt. R. (DJT) meets with head of twitter, and spends most of the time complaining about how he lost a bunch of followers (twitter cleaned out some bot accounts), and how there's a 'anti-conservative bias' (there doesn't appear to be, in fact twitter has had difficulty devising an algorithm to identify and ban some white supremacist accounts because the algorithm has difficulty distinguishing them from some congressional members of the GOP).

Sounds like another productive meeting lol.

[Jack Sawyer]

So, that elephant in the room, shouldn't he get his account back? He's been in purgatory for a while atoning for his sins

[TheSpoonald]

and how there's a 'anti-conservative bias' (there doesn't appear to be,

Come back to earth please

[Poopadoop]

If anything, refusing to ban white supremacists because it would mean having to ban some GOP congressmen seems like a right-wing bias to me.

[TheSpoonald]

When I tell you......
.....you still have not answered the question I asked.

WTF? Are you telling me something? Or asking me something? My understanding is that you told me something, and asked me how I feel about it. I told you that I flat out don't give a fuck. How is the matter not closed?

he thinks families should be killed.

A selectively edited video on TYT is not really convincing. The context was obviously in regards to collateral damage. Trump simply stated his policy position that we should be willing to take out the families of terrorists when those terrorists use their families as a shield. His statements are clearly (even on a TYT clip) referring to previous US policy of allowing terrorists to hide behind their own children.

You seem to believe that Trump wants the US Military to actively hunt women and children just to piss off the jihadists. You need more IQ's sir.

Why the leniency here?

Maybe he's just trolling TYT.

Why do you think that nobody involved in this has done time

There's a reason why military court is separate from regular court. It keeps entitled clowns like you who have never been to war from judging people who have. Your hissy fit over a lawfully adjudicated outcome is exactly why they keep people like you out.

Oh I'm sorry, the person who leaked it was sentenced to 30 years. justice at last!

Yeah because he put lives at risk to bathe himself in a news cycle.

[TheSpoonald]

If anything, refusing to ban white supremacists because it would mean having to ban some GOP congressmen seems like a right-wing bias to me.

There's just too many instances of shady shit happening to right-leaning people for it not to be a coordinated campaign. Cmon...wake up..

Watch Jack and his hot Indian sidekick go on Joe Rogan's podcast and try to explain this. Jack won't even show his eyes on camera for fuck's sake. They sat there for two hours and lied through their teeth about the anti-right bias. You talk about Trump's lies....Twitter is WAY more powerful than Trump!! But they can blatantly lie to a camera and you just think "oh, the algorithm must need work"

Jeez man......

[Poopadoop]

There's just too many instances of shady shit happening to right-leaning people for it not to be a coordinated campaign. Cmon...wake up..

Watch Jack and his hot Indian sidekick go on Joe Rogan's podcast and try to explain this. Jack won't even show his eyes on camera for fuck's sake. They sat there for two hours and lied through their teeth about the anti-right bias. You talk about Trump's lies....Twitter is WAY more powerful than Trump!! But they can blatantly lie to a camera and you just think "oh, the algorithm must need work"

Jeez man......

None of this is factual. Explain what the 'shady shit' is and provide some evidence it is happening more to right-leaning people than anyone else.

Then, assuming you can do that, explain why Twitter is required to be apolotical, and why this standard doesn't apply to other media.

[TheSpoonald]

None of this is factual. Explain what the 'shady shit' is and provide some evidence it is happening more to right-leaning people than anyone else.

Dude....they held senate hearings about it. Do we really have to have a debate about whether this is actually happening or not?

explain why Twitter is required to be apolotical, and why this standard doesn't apply to other media.

The standard does apply to other media. If you pick up the phone and call Oskar to talk about how much you hate muslims, and how schools would be better if they were segregated by color, that's fine. The phone company can't take away your phone just because you're using it for racist things.

And you might be saying "yeah but Oskar is a willing participant in that call and its private". Doesn't matter. You can open up the phone book, pick out any name, dial the number and say "Hello, my name is Poop, and I'd like to talk to you today about why Bruce Jenner is still a man". That's all completely legal, and if the phone company tried to stop you, they would be breaking the law.

Let's say you and your friends used your telephones to communicate while planning a bank robbery. YOu got caught, went to prison, and got out. You move into a new apartment and try to have the phone hooked up.....as long as you can pay, they have to hook you up. They can't say "Sorry sir, you can't be trusted not to use our phone lines for bad things"

That completely apolitical, apathetic, and unwavering neutral stance on all things at all times is absolutely necessary for public platforms that become integrated into our economy enough to become infrastructure. There are laws governing phone lines, and the electric grid for exactly this reason. Access to these services is completely necessary to function in the economy. Allowing discrimination by a private company, which is not bound by the constitution, undermines the fairness of the marketplace.

The law simply has to catch up to the technology now. Twitter and Facebook qualify as necessary economic infrastructure. So a choice must be made. Are they a platform, or a publisher? That's the question that congress has to decide.

If they are platforms, then they are part of the economic infrastructure and thus have to be fair to all people at all times. The same laws that govern public utilities and communication companies would simply apply to Twitter and Facebook. We don't even have to do anything. The laws are already written.

The other option, is that Twitter and FB are publishers. In that case, they are responsible for everything that they publish. If you published a book that said that I was not a handsome genius, then I would have a case against you for libel. But I would also have a case against your publisher. They would be just as responsible for your statements as you are. So if that's the route Twitter and FB wanna go, then they are legally culpable for *EVERY* instance of slander, incitement, bullying, and defamation that exist in those cesspools of humanity.

What they don't get to do is say "Hey man, we're just a private company conducting our private business in our own way. If folks don't like it they don't have to be on our platform"

Legality aside, there is a moral argument to be made here. America's system of individual freedom and the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has created the ideal environment for these companies to thrive. Part of that system is the unequivocal freedom of speech, and by extension, the freedom of thought. I don't care if these are private entities or if the constitution technically applies. Only a supremely narcissistic dick head would think "It's bad for the government to regulate speech because they would do a bad job. I would do a good job, so it's ok for me to compromise this principle that I supposedly believe in very deeply. I'm smart enough, right enough, moral enough, 'woke' enough, and *GOOD* enough to censor speech in a way that works and is good for everybody"

It makes me sick that people who think like that are actually getting rich in America.

EDIT: It also makes me sick that people like that are allowed to be forum moderators in America

I hope Jack Dorsey gets AIDS and Zuckerberg wakes up with terminal cancer tomorrow.

I mean that. I really really do.

[Poopadoop]

Dude....they held senate hearings about it. Do we really have to have a debate about whether this is actually happening or not?

Are these the same ones where they asked why you get pictures of Trump if you google 'idiot'? Lol.

The standard does apply to other media. If you pick up the phone and call Oskar to talk about how much you hate muslims, and how schools would be better if they were segregated by color, that's fine. The phone company can't take away your phone just because you're using it for racist things.

And you might be saying "yeah but Oskar is a willing participant in that call and its private". Doesn't matter. You can open up the phone book, pick out any name, dial the number and say "Hello, my name is Poop, and I'd like to talk to you today about why Bruce Jenner is still a man". That's all completely legal, and if the phone company tried to stop you, they would be breaking the law.

Let's say you and your friends used your telephones to communicate while planning a bank robbery. YOu got caught, went to prison, and got out. You move into a new apartment and try to have the phone hooked up.....as long as you can pay, they have to hook you up. They can't say "Sorry sir, you can't be trusted not to use our phone lines for bad things"

That completely apolitical, apathetic, and unwavering neutral stance on all things at all times is absolutely necessary for public platforms that become integrated into our economy enough to become infrastructure. There are laws governing phone lines, and the electric grid for exactly this reason. Access to these services is completely necessary to function in the economy. Allowing discrimination by a private company, which is not bound by the constitution, undermines the fairness of the marketplace.

The law simply has to catch up to the technology now. Twitter and Facebook qualify as necessary economic infrastructure. So a choice must be made. Are they a platform, or a publisher? That's the question that congress has to decide.

If they are platforms, then they are part of the economic infrastructure and thus have to be fair to all people at all times. The same laws that govern public utilities and communication companies would simply apply to Twitter and Facebook. We don't even have to do anything. The laws are already written.

The other option, is that Twitter and FB are publishers. In that case, they are responsible for everything that they publish. If you published a book that said that I was not a handsome genius, then I would have a case against you for libel. But I would also have a case against your publisher. They would be just as responsible for your statements as you are. So if that's the route Twitter and FB wanna go, then they are legally culpable for *EVERY* instance of slander, incitement, bullying, and defamation that exist in those cesspools of humanity.

What they don't get to do is say "Hey man, we're just a private company conducting our private business in our own way. If folks don't like it they don't have to be on our platform"

Legality aside, there is a moral argument to be made here. America's system of individual freedom and the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has created the ideal environment for these companies to thrive. Part of that system is the unequivocal freedom of speech, and by extension, the freedom of thought. I don't care if these are private entities or if the constitution technically applies. Only a supremely narcissistic dick head would think "It's bad for the government to regulate speech because they would do a bad job. I would do a good job, so it's ok for me to compromise this principle that I supposedly believe in very deeply. I'm smart enough, right enough, moral enough, 'woke' enough, and *GOOD* enough to censor speech in a way that works and is good for everybody"

It makes me sick that people who think like that are actually getting rich in America.

I hope Jack Dorsey gets AIDS and Zuckerberg wakes up with terminal cancer tomorrow.

I mean that. I really really do.

tl;dr. Try to make your point in 10000 words or less please. I don't need hypothetical situations outlined in detail. Just get to the point.

[TheSpoonald]

Are twitter & facebook content publishers? Or content platforms?

If they're publishers, then they are legally responsible for everything that is said on their services. Everything. So if they censor everything that leaves them vulnerable to legal action....then there wouldn't be any tweets left.

If they are platforms, then they should be legally withheld from censoring the content on those platforms.

[Poopadoop]

Also, when you start your argument about twitter by talking about a phone call, you're getting off on the wrong foot.

[TheSpoonald]

Also, when you start your argument about twitter by talking about a phone call, you're getting off on the wrong foot.

no, I'm not

[Poopadoop]

Are twitter & facebook content publishers? Or content platforms?

If they're publishers, then they are legally responsible for everything that is said on their services. Everything. So if they censor everything that leaves them vulnerable to legal action....then there wouldn't be any tweets left.

If they are platforms, then they should be legally withheld from censoring the content on those platforms.

Let's say they're platforms. Why should they required to allow any content on their platforms that anyone wants to post?

Why can't they decide for themselves what people are and aren't allowed to post? They're the ones who set it up, they get to make the rules. You can argue whether or not the rules are fair, but no-one is being forced to use their service. If they have a rule against posting content related to goats, you can say 'i don't like this', but you can't take them to court and force them to put up your goat tweets..

Why do they have to let someone come on and spread hatred?

[Poopadoop]

If someone sets up 'right-wing-looney-posts-only.com' and bans anyone who isn't expressing right-wing views, they're not breaking the law.

[TheSpoonald]

Let's say they're platforms. Why should they required to allow any content on their platforms that anyone wants to post?

It's the same reason that they can't deny you access to telephone lines if you happen to say racist things on them. I'm sure the phone company hates racism just as much as Twitter does. Why does the phone company have to let everyone on, but Twitter is allowed to discriminate?

Careful poop....you almost sounded like a libertarian there.

[Poopadoop]

If I go on a cooking forum and start talking about how to build your own spaceship out of tin cans, I'm a retard and should be banned. I can't then take them to court and say 'they're cooking only talk rule is unfair. waah, I'm a snowflake.'

[Poopadoop]

It's the same reason that they can't deny you access to telephone lines if you happen to say racist things on them. I'm sure the phone company hates racism just as much as Twitter does. Why does the phone company have to let everyone on, but Twitter is allowed to discriminate?

Careful poop....you almost sounded like a libertarian there.

It's not a good analogy because it's 1) impossible to monitor all phone conversations; 2) AT&T or whoever doesn't have their name associated with whatever goofy shit you say on the phone because of 1) above, plus the fact that it's private; and 3) there are plenty of alternatives to online communication than twitter, facebook, and youtube. If you really want to get your dumb shit message out there you can find a place that allows if not encourages you to say dumb shit.

[Poopadoop]

Further you can say dumb shit on twitter/youtube/facebook as well, there's just certain lines you're not allowed to cross. My understanding is you don't get instantly banned by tweeting 'arrrarggghg!! MAGA"!, but if you tweet 'arrrrrghgggh! Kill the ____" you get a temp-ban and a warning. If you break the rules three times you get a perma-ban.

If you lack the self-control to follow the rules three times, then you can't complain when you get banned.

[TheSpoonald]

By the way, I looked into that Navy Seal guy that caused Oskar to get all that sand in his vagina. For anyone interested in sorting out the truth from the bullshit, here is the truth.

Navy Seal guy is currently on trial. He is alleged to have done some bad things, but is entitled to the presumption of innocence. If he is guilty, then the system is working exactly as it should. He is under arrest, he has entered a plea, and he is entitled to a fair trial. None of this is in dispute.

The guy that runs the place where the defendant is being kept - the military equivalent of a prison warden - has placed unusual restrictions on this particular defendant. The warden has wide latitude on this subject, and may not technically be breaking the law. However, the defense has some strong points as well.

The guy claims he is forced to remain in uniform during unusual periods of time and is entirely denied access to civilian clothing. He is also restricted to an area without a proper cafeteria and is forced to live out of vending machines and convenience store food. If this is true, it is a violation of his 6th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

The guy also claims that he is not allowed unsupervised access to a phone. Some kind of guard has to be standing over him at all times while he uses a phone in a public area. The presence of the guard denies him the ability to have a private conversation. Therefore he is literally unable to conduct a privileged conversation with his attorney. This would be a violation of his 5th amendment right to due process.

It doesn't matter how heinous the man's crime may be, no citizen should ever be denied these rights. Period. End of discussion.

Oskar claims that Trump "intervened". That's a really crummy way to put it. Trump exercised his power as commander-in-chief to overrule the prison warden and allow the Navy Seal guy to have the exact same accommodations as every other prisoner facing a military court marshal.

That's all Trump did....enforce the constitution. He didn't let the guy off the hook. He didn't pardon him. He definitely did not "intervene" in the case. He simply stood up for the right to a fair trial. In Oskar-land, that means Trump is indirectly condoning child-murder. WTF??

Oskar....if this guy is such a monster....wouldn't you *WANT* him to have a fair trial? Trump just nullified legitimate claims that this guy might have to an appeal. Why does that bother you?

[TheSpoonald]

It's not a good analogy because it's

Just because the law lags behind the technology does not mean the analogy is not apt. It's actually a rock solid comparison.

1) impossible to monitor all phone conversations;

Why do they have to be monitored? What if they just caught you some other way saying something racist on the phone? They still can't ban you from the phone.

2) AT&T or whoever doesn't have their name associated with whatever goofy shit you say on the phone

How are you arriving at this conclusion?

plus the fact that it's private;

No it isn't. The phone company still prints giant books full of people's names and phone numbers. You can call up a member of the public right now and say "I want you to know that Caitlyn Jenner is a man!". Totally legal. And if they take your phone away for doing that....it's illegal.

3) there are plenty of alternatives to online communication than twitter, facebook, and youtube

Wrong again. There are lots of people who depend on those sites for their livelihood. Banning them, suddenly, with no recourse, for perfectly legal speech is the kind of shit that Stalin could only jerk off to.

[Poopadoop]

Why do they have to be monitored? What if they just caught you some other way...

Such as what?

How are you arriving at this conclusion?

Common sense.

No it isn't. The phone company still prints giant books full of people's names and phone numbers. You can call up a member of the public right now and say "I want you to know that Caitlyn Jenner is a man!". Totally legal. And if they take your phone away for doing that....it's illegal.

But you can't go around phoning people and saying 'Kill the ____".

And they can take away your phone if you are found to be harassing people.

There are lots of people who depend on those sites for their livelihood. Banning them, suddenly, with no recourse, for perfectly legal speech is the kind of shit that Stalin could only jerk off to.

Then they should follow the rules. I depend on my university for my livelihood. That doesn't mean they dont have the right to sack me if I start every lecture with 'Kill the ___.!'

Also, they're not banned suddenly. They get three strikes.

[Poopadoop]

By the way, I looked into that Navy Seal guy that caused Oskar to get all that sand in his vagina. For anyone interested in sorting out the truth from the bullshit, here is the truth. ...

Can't find any confirmation of what you wrote after this. The best I can find is the warden had a hard-on for this guy, not much more.

Also, Trump claimed he was intervening owing to the guy's 'past service'. So, if the guy wasn't a 'hero' then Trump would be ok with his civil rights being abused?

Something not quite adding up here.

[TheSpoonald]

Can't find any confirmation of what you wrote after this. The best I can find is the warden had a hard-on for this guy, not much more.

So you're saying you did confirm the story. Great.

Also, Trump claimed he was intervening owing to the guy's 'past service'. So, if the guy wasn't a 'hero' then Trump would be ok with his civil rights being abused?

Stop. Throwing some platitudes to soldiers doesn't mean that the Trump did anyone any favors for any special reason.

But regardless of Trump's reasoning....he's negated some potential credible grounds for this guy to appeal a conviction. That cannot be denied. I'm now asking you or Oskar to explain why that's bad?

[Poopadoop]

reductio ad bananum

No, I'm saying the details of your story are difficult to corroborate. Just because the warden didn't like him doesn't mean he abused his rights.

regardless of Trump's reasoning....he's negated some potential credible grounds for this guy to appeal a conviction. That cannot be denied. I'm now asking you or Oskar to explain why that's bad?

So if you do the right thing for the wrong reasons you're moral?

[TheSpoonald]

Such as what?

Stop being stupid on purpose. The contents of telephone conversations can be exposed any number of ways. The point is, it doesn't matter how they catch you, how many times they catch you, or what they catch you doing. Access to a phone is necessary to compete in a fair marketplace. Therefore, the government enacted rules that prevents the phone company from having undue influence on commerce.

The exact same conditions exist on social media. The gov't just needs to catch up.

Common sense.

When someone spots something offense of twitter, and they report it.....to whom do they report the infraction? That's right...to twitter. So if someone was heard saying something un-woke on the phone....to whom might it be reported?

But you can't go around phoning people and saying 'Kill the ____".

Incitement to violence has always been a crime. On the phone, on twitter, everywhere. But if you instead said "I think the world would be a better place of all the _____ had a heart attack tomorrow", that would be totally acceptable, and should be everywhere.

And they can take away your phone if you are found to be harassing people.

Harassment is a crime. That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the use of a platform for the exercise of free speech, and how much influence the platform itself should have over that speech.

And who is "they" that you refer to? If you're caught harassing people, the government, bound by the rule of law, and through constitutional due process may issue an order precluding you from using the phone. However, if you call the phone company and ask that a phone be installed, you'll probably get it. It's not the phone company's job check and make sure everyone is complying with court orders. You're responsible for obeying the law. If you get caught using the phone unlawfully you have to answer to the law...not the phone company.

Then they should follow the rules. I depend on my university for my livelihood. That doesn't mean they dont have the right to sack me if I start every lecture with 'Kill the ___.!'

You keep using an incitement to violence as a representative example. It's not really relevant at all. That would be a special case where your actions would violate law, not just school policy. BTW, are you familiar with the Brett Weinstein story?

Your analogy is also shit because there are lots of universities where you could work and have virtually the same opportunity. There's only one YouTube and no viable competition that comes anywhere close. Let's say your buddy David Pakman somehow runs afoul of Googles rules....where does he go then?

Also, they're not banned suddenly. They get three strikes

Not always. Also, if a "strike" is "any bullshit that happens to offend some snowflake", then you could have 300 strikes and still expect to be banned.

[Poopadoop]

Sorry, it's your job to be stupid on purpose.

What is your complaint exactly? That someone can't go on twitter and break their rules? That they shouldn't have rules? That if I choose to make a living off an online platform I shouldn't bother to follow their rules?

[Poopadoop]

Your analogy is also shit because there are lots of universities where you could work and have virtually the same opportunity.

How am I going to get a job at the same quality university after I get fired from the one I'm at now? lol, that's not how things work. Getting fired is not a good look on your CV. So, given my university will fire me if I break their clearly-stated rules, how are they the ones at fault if I break them?

Getting fired from an actual job is clearly much more damaging to one's career than getting banned from twitter.

[TheSpoonald]

What is your complaint exactly?

That Twitter and Facebook have taken unfair disciplinary action for speech that does not violate the law.

For example, I sincerely believe that Caitlyn Jenner is a man. I can't say that on twitter. That's not an exaggeration...if this were twitter..I'd be banned for saying that. They've taken a strict policy on pronoun use. I'm not making that up.

Why can't I say that on twitter? Is it a threat to the public? What if I'm a biologist making a youtube video on chromosomes?

What if I'm a legislator, or political candidate explaining my policy position on transgendered bathroom facilities? What if my views don't comport with the mainstream "woke" left? Does that mean that twitter gets to deny me access to an audience?? Does the person I'm running against get to use twitter? If so, why? Is it because his policy position comports with Twitter's?

I really can't believe you don't see how dangerous this is.

If Russia manipulates Twitter to influence an election....that's like....a threat to our democracy or something.

If the DNC donor tech oligarchs manipulate twitter to influence and election.....that's ok?????

[TheSpoonald]

How am I going to get a job at the same quality university after I get fired from the one I'm at now? lol, that's not how things work. Getting fired is not a good look on your CV. So, given my university will fire me if I break their clearly-stated rules, how are they the ones at fault if I break them?

"Clearly stated"?? Google the name "lindsey shepard" She worked at a placed called "wilfred lauriet university". I probably fucked up the spelling in there somewhere but google will still find it. Anyway, she allegedly violated some rules. They weren't clearly stated. She just didn't comport with the "woke" left.

And your analogy is still shit. I'm done explaining why. You already know, I suspect you're just being a dink on purpose.

Getting fired from an actual job is clearly much more damaging to one's career than getting banned from twitter.

What if your job was on twitter??

[Poopadoop]

That Twitter and Facebook have taken unfair disciplinary action for speech that does not violate the law.

They have rules. They're rules include the law, but aren't limited to them.

For example, I sincerely believe that Caitlyn Jenner is a man. I can't say that on twitter. That's not an exaggeration...if this were twitter..I'd be banned for saying that. They've taken a strict policy on pronoun use. I'm not making that up..

You're distorting the facts to suit your argument. You can go on twitter and say that. What you can't do is repeatedly tweet to CJ and call them a man. See the difference?

What if I'm a legislator, or political candidate explaining my policy position on transgendered bathroom facilities? What if my views don't comport with the mainstream "woke" left?

Nothing.

Does that mean that twitter gets to deny me access to an audience??

If you rage-tweet at a trans person, get warned, do it again, get warned, and do it a third time, yes you get banned.

Does the person I'm running against get to use twitter? If so, why? Is it because his policy position comports with Twitter's?

No, it's because he's following their rules and you aren't.

I really can't believe you don't see how dangerous this is.

It's not a true representation of their policy, that's why.

If Russia manipulates Twitter to influence an election....that's like....a threat to our democracy or something.

If the DNC donor tech oligarchs manipulate twitter to influence and election.....that's ok?????

Oh it's the DNC that's behind it all now eh? Too bad Alex Jones isn't around to fill us all in lol.

[Poopadoop]

"Clearly stated"?? Google the name "lindsey shepard" She worked at a placed called "wilfred lauriet university". I probably fucked up the spelling in there somewhere but google will still find it. Anyway, she allegedly violated some rules. They weren't clearly stated. She just didn't comport with the "woke" left.

She's suing the university, not twitter. And yeah, the uni were dicks and out of order.

Stick to the topic.

What if your job was on twitter??

Then I would be careful to follow their rules, just like I am at my job now.

[Poopadoop]

What is it about twitter having rules that people object to, I wonder? Is it the fact you're not allowed to go on there and bully and abuse people? That seems to be all they're trying to curtail.

[TheSpoonald]

Dude....just stop.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/twitter...-the-election/

[Poopadoop]

Dude....just stop.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/twitter...-the-election/

They asked him to remove a tweet that had misleading election info in it. They said they did that to everyone regardless of orientation. What is your problem with that? That you should be allowed to try to trick people into not voting?

[Poopadoop]

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/twitter...courage-voting

[TheSpoonald]

They asked him to remove a tweet that had misleading election info in it.

They should not have done that. It's not a crime to lie. He didn't slander anyone. And his post was CLEARLY satirical. Twitter doesn't allow jokes?

They said they did that to everyone regardless of orientation.

Except they didn't. The proof is right in the article. They found other people playing the same joke on the other side without consequence.

What is your problem with that?

Something something first amendment something something

That you should be allowed to try to trick people into not voting?

You should be allowed to try

[Poopadoop]

Are you outraged by this too?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twit...term-elections

[Poopadoop]

They should not have done that. It's not a crime to lie. He didn't slander anyone. And his post was CLEARLY satirical. Twitter doesn't allow jokes?

It didn't look satirical to me.

Except they didn't. The proof is right in the article. They found other people playing the same joke on the other side without consequence.

Maybe nobody complained about those other tweets?

Also, apparently this was this numbnut's third offense, so obviously he was having problems following the rules.

Something something first amendment something something

Twitter is worldwide, it doesn't have to follow something something USA country's ideology.

You should be allowed to try

You can. Just not on twitter.

[TheSpoonald]

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/twitter...courage-voting

What's your point? This comports with the exact complaints I've been making.

Let's see twitter do the same thing to "bots" that are trying to discourage republicans from voting

[Poopadoop]

What's your point? This comports with the exact complaints I've been making.

Let's see twitter do the same thing to "bots" that are trying to discourage republicans from voting

How do you know they aren't?

[Poopadoop]

So, when FTR banned you for repeatedly breaking their rules, were they impinging on your first amendment rights to be abusive on a public forum?

[TheSpoonald]

So, when FTR banned you for repeatedly breaking their rules, were they impinging on your first amendment rights to be abusive on a public forum?

I've only had this account for a few weeks, so I don't know what you're talking about. To my knowledge, it's never been banned.

If once upon a time, FTR banned someone for doing the same things everyone else does...then yeah, FTR is a dick.

[TheSpoonald]

Honestly, if you can watch this and tell me Twitter is totally on the up and up......then you should probably stop bathing yourself with confirmation bias. It is affecting your intelligence.

[Poopadoop]

I've only had this account for a few weeks, so I don't know what you're talking about. To my knowledge, it's never been banned.

Let's not pretend you're fooling anyone but yourself with this statement.

It doesn't take the guy who cracked the unabomber case to see the similarity in language patterns between you and bananastand.

If once upon a time, FTR banned someone for doing the same things everyone else does...then yeah, FTR is a dick.

Case in point.

[Poopadoop]

Honestly, if you can watch this and tell me Twitter is totally on the up and up......then you should probably stop bathing yourself with confirmation bias. It is affecting your intelligence.

I found that myself and watched the first hour. The guy with the snowhat (or whatever you call a toque in America) is clearly pushing an agenda. The woman is trying to explain to him the same things I've been trying to explain to you, and like you he's not listening.

What is also interesting is that the woman is happy to admit twitter makes mistakes from time to time. Hardly sounds like a major cover-up to me.

[TheSpoonald]

Sorry man, if you watch that woman and don't think "that cunt is fucking lying", then I'm sorry but you are no longer allowed to critique anything Trump says. Your reading skills are a steaming wet pile of hot dog shit.

But honestly, you don't even need to identify the lies. You can just watch Joe and Tim hand-hold these ideologues into a logical cul-de-sac, and then watch the twitter people just shit their pants on camera.

here's the cliffs if you don't wanna watch the whole thing.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/...an-experience/

[Poopadoop]

Let's take the example where the guy says that some radical feminist got into it with a trans person. The feminist repeatedly refused to refer to the trans person in their conversation as 'she' or 'he' or whatever their preference was. The trans person reported this as abuse. Twitter said to the feminist 'hey don't do that', the feminist said, in effect, 'fuck you i use whatever language i want even if the other person views it as abusive'. They kept calling them the wrong word. Twitter gave the feminist a second warning, the feminist told them 'fuck you i do what i want'. They did it a third time and twitter then banned them.

Break the rules, get banned.

note that if the trans person hadn't complained, twitter wouldn't have banned the feminist. Twitter also didn't force that person to talk to the trans person. So it's their own fault.

Also, it's hard to argue that Twitter is 'targeting feminists' with this policy.

But, if a right-wing person had done the same thing and got banned, you would take it as evidence of a 'conspiracy to silence the right.'

[Poopadoop]

Sorry man, if you watch that woman and don't think "that cunt is fucking lying", then I'm sorry but you are no longer allowed to critique anything Trump says. Your reading skills are a steaming wet pile of hot dog shit.

But honestly, you don't even need to identify the lies. You can just watch Joe and Tim hand-hold these ideologues into a logical cul-de-sac, and then watch the twitter people just shit their pants on camera.

here's the cliffs if you don't wanna watch the whole thing.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/...an-experience/

lol, 'heres the cliffs - from Breitbart'

Why not just say 'here's how the right-wing media tries to twist the logic to make the argument that twitter is against us.'

For someone who claims to be unbiased, you sure quote a lot of biased sources.

[Poopadoop]

Is it possible that, just perhaps, there's some correlation between being an abusive jerk whose behaviour - independent of any political views they might hold - will tend to them get banned from social media platforms, and holding right-wing views?

Would that also explain why more r-w people are being banned on twitter than l-w?

[oskar]

^^ Their newest light hearted meme is frenworld - it's a pepe in a clown costume who wants to preserve the white race, cleanse the world of jews and muslims but hold on guys, it's actually just a meme, lol u got trolled, bro... but actually we do want those things unironically too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/frenworld/c...ns_spent_many/

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/...right_violence
Also a big meme: White supremacists were responsible for every single domestic terrorist attack in the US last year. And what was their motivation? Because they were afraid of muslims and jews!

[oskar]

Is denying objective reality to hold on to your dumbass ideas really so much fun? I guess it works for religions and cults and all that stuff. I guess there's something soothing about pretending there is something that is unchanging and unmoving... to divide the entire world in two opposing camps, one of which is good and the other one is evil where your camp is always good and the other camp is always evil; Much like the ancient archetypes of the WWE.

[TheSpoonald]

Is denying objective reality to hold on to your dumbass ideas really so much fun? I guess it works for religions and cults and all that stuff. I guess there's something soothing about pretending there is something that is unchanging and unmoving... to divide the entire world in two opposing camps, one of which is good and the other one is evil where your camp is always good and the other camp is always evil; Much like the ancient archetypes of the WWE.

lol, so your "Trump wants Navy Seals to eat babies" fantasy got debunked and now you're resorting to "yeah...w..ww..well...you're so dumb"

Should I say "I know you are but what am I?"

Or should I use the rubber and glue defense?

God damn I love being right.

[TheSpoonald]

lol, 'heres the cliffs - from Breitbart'

Why not just say 'here's how the right-wing media tries to twist the logic to make the argument that twitter is against us.'

For someone who claims to be unbiased, you sure quote a lot of biased sources.

Really man, you don't get to say this when you quote Vox and David Pakman

I'm not playing the "my sources are right and yours are wrong..nyah Fox News GRRRAAAGGGGHEHH" game

If you take issue with something in the article, feel free to call it out. Otherwise make an adult argument.

[TheSpoonald]

your dumbass

BAN

[TheSpoonald]

Here's the bottom line on Twitter. The fact that they even have a policy that they use to ban people is evidence of corruption.

You don't get to say "we're for free speech" and "we are a free speech platform" like they did on Joe Rogan, and also have a policy that singles out any kind of speech for censorship. If you do that, you're an insane corrupt narcissist.

Jack is basically saying "I believe in free speech. Our rulers should not have the power to censor our thoughts, it's too dangerous and we can't trust them not to become corrupt. On the other hand, you can trust me not become corrupt. If I were the benevolent tyrant, then I could really sort out what speech is ok, and what isn't. I would really do it right, not like that dumb government"

There isn't a more dangerous and pathological line of thinking than that. Think about how much influence Twitter has, and then think about the fact that it's run by a man who thinks exactly like that.

Same thing goes for Facebook. I meant what I said. I hope Zuckerberg and Dorsey find themselves on top of a very tall building and run into some very angry Islamic fundamentalists while wearing some rainbow t-shirts. I hope it happens tomorrow.

[oskar]

lol, so your "Trump wants Navy Seals to eat babies" fantasy got debunked and now you're resorting to "yeah...w..ww..well...you're so dumb"

Are you really under the perception that you "debunked" that by saying that you think the quote "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," doesn't mean he wants to kill families, and that regarding him intervening in the military justice system you said you "flat out don't give a fuck".

You think "debunked" is the correct word to describe what you did there? Are you impressed with yourself?

[Poopadoop]

Really man, you don't get to say this when you quote Vox and David Pakman

I'm not playing the "my sources are right and yours are wrong..nyah Fox News GRRRAAAGGGGHEHH" game

If you take issue with something in the article, feel free to call it out. Otherwise make an adult argument.

I've already countered all your arguments.