dark crystal wrote: » I never said they were. However, sticking to the point, are you aware of any similarities between the Palmer Report and Alex Jones on Facebook which displays the double standards previously mentioned?
2 Scoops wrote: » I don't know, when someone is routinely posting tweets like the one below and has a platform built on fake news and hatred , I don't see much of a difference. I don't trust small groups of people with enormous power making decisions on what qualifies as hate speech and what qualifies as fake news and I don't believe Jones was pulled off 5 platforms in 12 hours due to "hate speech", in my view it was a coordinated effort. The NYT's openly hired a racist and made excuses for her so you can probably understand where I'm coming from. When you start banning individuals you open up a scary precedent.https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1010658220950487040
DickSwiveller Returns wrote: » I don't know anything about the Palmer Report. Never heard of t. Here's a few:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-flip-flops-in-ben-shapiros-double-standard-experiment-over-obscene-rosie-odonnell-tweetshttps://www.mediaite.com/tv/insincere-outrage/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-chairman-twitter-net-neutrality_us_5a1dc1c6e4b04abdc6146d48http://thehill.com/homenews/media/389858-conservatives-sees-double-standard-on-roseanne-cite-olbermann-joy-reidhttps://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-twitter-which-highlights-double-standards-of-the-platform/news-story/5245dd1c1cf06671f254d0fd9472ed11
white devil wrote: » Elections coming up in the US this November. No dissenting voices allowed. Remember, only vote for who the mainstream say you are allowed to vote for.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you mean Fox news?
white devil wrote: » First they came for the conspiracy theorists, but I ....
2 Scoops wrote: » I don't know, when someone is routinely posting tweets like the one below and has a platform built on fake news and hatred , I don't see much of a difference. I don't trust small groups of people with enormous power making decisions on what qualifies as hate speech and what qualifies as fake news and I don't believe Jones was pulled off 5 platforms in 12 hours due to "hate speech", in my view it was a coordinated effort. This is a day and age where the NYT's can openly hire a racist and make excuses for her so you can probably understand where I'm coming from. When you start banning individuals you open up a scary precedent.https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1010658220950487040
2 Scoops wrote: » Recently in the space of a few weeks there's been what I consider a coordinated effort pushing for them to be banned. That's probably why it's happened now.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/facebook-pledge-to-eliminate-false-information-is-itself-fake-newshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07/14/facebook-wants-to-cut-down-on-misinformation-so-why-isnt-it-doing-anything-about-infowars/?utm_term=.3c58102924aahttps://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/media/facebook-infowars/index.html
Grayson wrote: » Are there a lot of people saying kill all whites? I don't think I've ever heard of it.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » yeah cos that really stacks up to the stuff that Jones puts online. And, again, that is twitter. this banning has nothing to do with twitter. twitter has not banned jones.
dark crystal wrote: » But that Tweet isn't anything resembling hate speech. Can't you see the difference? Besides, as already stated, Twitter hasn't banned him anyhow. I made my stance clear on the Sarah Yeong thread that I believe the NY times made a huge error hiring her, as her tweeting history is blatantly racist. Going forward they won't have a leg to stand on whenever Trump tweets something moronic/ offensive/ inflammatory if they have someone up to the same lark writing for them. In Jones' case, surely the fact he's being sued by parents who lost their young children in a mass shooting he stated was a hoax, would make you question this guy's basic moral decency, no? If not, it's quite clear he just makes horrible sh!t up just to inflame and ignite division, hate and paranoia. If you want to ingest that poison, you can easily go to his website and listen to it to your heart's content. This isn't like Gerry Adams voice being muted in the 1980's. His speech is free and widely available, just not on certain platforms.
dark crystal wrote: » If you want to ingest that poison, you can easily go to his website and listen to it to your heart's content.
In Jones' case, surely the fact he's being sued by parents who lost their young children in a mass shooting he stated was a hoax, would make you question this guy's basic moral decency, no?
mcmoustache wrote: » Like every opinion in the world, you can be sure that it has been expressed on the Internet. South African twitter probably has a heap of it. I'm not sure how common it is since I don't follow those types but Sarah Jeong, who was recently added to the NYT editorial board, was in the news in the last few days for a bunch of racist anti-white tweets.
2 Scoops wrote: » I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election. Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk ) I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I believe you allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.
Grayson wrote: » You said people kill all blacks is hate speech but kill all whites isn't. So you've never seen an occasion where someone said kill all white, never mind where it was tolerated?
2 Scoops wrote: » I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election. Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may not qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk )
2 Scoops wrote: » I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I think you should allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.
De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner have moved seven times since their son was killed in a school shooting in an effort to avoid the continuous death threats and other harassment. They now live hundreds of miles from Noah's grave. “I would love to go see my son’s grave and I don’t get to do that," De La Rosa told The Times.https://www.bustle.com/p/these-sandy-hook-parents-cant-even-visit-their-sons-grave-because-of-harassment-9958926
2 Scoops wrote: » I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election. Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may not qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk ) I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I think you should allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.
Grayson wrote: » You said people kill all blacks is hate speech but kill all whites isn't. So you've never seen an occasion where someone said kill all white, never mind where it was tolerated? How can you say that kill all whites is tolerated whereas kill all blacks isn't? As for Sarah Jeong, that's whatabouttery since she didn't call for any group of people to be killed, and she was responding to trolls mimicking their own language. She never said any racist views except when already presented with that language. As opposed to your example which was kill all whites/blacks or even what Alex Jones did when he said burn all drag queens.
A Gauteng government official, Velaphi Khumalo, in 2016 stated on Facebook "White people in South Africa deserve to be hacked and killed like Jews. [You] have the same venom. Look at Palestine. [You] must be [burnt] alive and skinned and your [offspring] used as garden fertiliser".[32] A complaint was lodged at the Human Rights Commission and a charge of crimen injuria was laid at the Equality Court, however, as of 2018, no conviction has occurred.[33] In March 2018 a screenshot of a controversial Facebook post allegedly written by EFF Ekurhuleni leader Mampuru Mampuru surfaced. The post read "We need to unite as black People, there are lessthan 5 million whites in South Africa vs 45 million of us. We can kill all this white within two weeks. We have the army and the police. If those who are killing farmers can do it what are you waiting for. Shoot the boer, kill the farmer." [sic]. Mampuru denies making the statement.[34]
Grayson wrote: » just scrolling through the first page it's just the guy using the work fcuk in tweets. You do realise that swearing isn't hate speech or even hatred?
2 Scoops wrote: » Many of his tweets are based in hate and violent rhetoric. He's no different to Jones in that regard. I'd love someone to explain how those Salon stories which they regularly publish attacking white people aren't considered hate speech. Their facebook page has 1 million likes.
2 Scoops wrote: » So the likes of Salon are promoting hate speech?
batgoat wrote: » I'll repeat, families lives have been further ruined because of claims of families of victims being actors.... You are not comparing like with like and are ignoring what Jones has been doing for years.
batgoat wrote: » I don't actually agree there was anything racist about the article you linked to, did you read beyond the title? It's actually pretty well thought out as an article and you'd really have to be searching to be offended. It's also written by a white guy.
