splashuum wrote: » Please give me examples of where PJW has engaged in inciting hate or violence?
MrFresh wrote: » Cienciano wrote: » I'm amazed at the amount of people who are completely ignorant of the concept of free speech. You should at least read the Wikipedia article about it so you know what it is. You thinking a persons ability to post whatever they like on facebook is free speech, that's fúcking hilarious They don't actually believe in free speech, it's just a slogan. splashuum wrote: » What about users like PJW? (which I have already brought up on this thread). They are slowly wiping the slate clean of any right leaning personality. Nuts Not right leaning personalities, hard right conspiracy theorists and bigots. Can you point to someone who was banned that hasn't engaged in pushing conspiracies or hate? Either the entire right is being attacked, in which case the entire right is represented seem to be like PJW, Sargon and Jones or there is a group of hard right people being banned because of their extreme views. which is it?
Cienciano wrote: » I'm amazed at the amount of people who are completely ignorant of the concept of free speech. You should at least read the Wikipedia article about it so you know what it is. You thinking a persons ability to post whatever they like on facebook is free speech, that's fúcking hilarious
splashuum wrote: » What about users like PJW? (which I have already brought up on this thread). They are slowly wiping the slate clean of any right leaning personality. Nuts
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » http://www.fox10tv.com/story/38822431/youtube-apple-and-facebook-remove-content-from-infowars-and-alex-jones The lunatic has been removed from the asylum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH4WF-JUdR4
Former Observer wrote: » Honestly I think people care way too much about what other people think. The article talks about it like it's some sort of crisis that one dude thinks the earth is flat, another has questioned aspects of the holocaust and another has doubts about 9.11. People are becoming tyrannical in what opinions they will tolerate from other people. Seriously, as long as no one evangelizing to you on a constant basis just leave other people and their opinions, no matter how unorthodox, in peace. No one owns the truth, we basically have no idea wtf is going on anyway.
splashuum wrote: » Allowing a billionaire oligarch monopolist to decide who has free speech and what opinions you can have is progressive apparently. Wow the current far left are insane.
Patty Hearst wrote: » Facebook moderators start believing the conspiracy theories they're charged with policing
Patty Hearst wrote: » LOL Facebook moderators start believing the conspiracy theories they're charged with policinghttps://www.gq.com/story/facebook-moderators-conspiracy-theories
Zorya wrote: » Don't you think discussions evolve to things that are tangential but still related to the opening argument?
Ipso wrote: » You couldn’t get paid enough to deal with the tapeworms of humanity.
biko wrote: » I'm sure the **** these moderator have to sift through is soul-killing. Many of them are on drugs to cope. They are just falling for the old "make the lie big and repeat it. Eventually people will believe it"
P_1 wrote: » Have to say I'm not a fan of no platforming. Irrespective of how abhorrent you may find someone's opinions its better to leave them in the open and open to public scrutiny and ridicule. As was mentioned in another thread its shït like this that will get the Orange Buffoon reelected in 2020.
Sonics2k wrote: » Zorya wrote: » Don't you think discussions evolve to things that are tangential but still related to the opening argument? Don't you think that putting limits on the parameters of a debate is a form of censorship? Or would you prefer discussions to always remain in some righteous circular spleen-venting mode where in-groups back slap and thank each other for saying the same things over and over, rather than seek solutions. My proffered solution is to become better debaters than the haters, rather than to cowardly shut down what one doesn't like, to get past sound bites and click bait and extremism on either side and move towards deeper consideration of issues and perspectives. But I knew I should not have waded back into this kind of thread - silly me - so I'll leave you to the echoes echoes echoes..... Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate. This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count. The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media. Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention.
Zorya wrote: » Don't you think discussions evolve to things that are tangential but still related to the opening argument? Don't you think that putting limits on the parameters of a debate is a form of censorship? Or would you prefer discussions to always remain in some righteous circular spleen-venting mode where in-groups back slap and thank each other for saying the same things over and over, rather than seek solutions. My proffered solution is to become better debaters than the haters, rather than to cowardly shut down what one doesn't like, to get past sound bites and click bait and extremism on either side and move towards deeper consideration of issues and perspectives. But I knew I should not have waded back into this kind of thread - silly me - so I'll leave you to the echoes echoes echoes.....
Zorya wrote: » Sonics2k wrote: » Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate. This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count. The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media. Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention. Yes this has been said ad nauseam. So you and others want him banned, censored. But it won't work and can't work because he hasn't been negated by effective methods but simply by an alternative form of bullying and weasel tactics. Far better to be the victor in the war for minds and hearts than to be the censors foot servant.
Sonics2k wrote: » Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate. This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count. The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media. Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention.
Sonics2k wrote: » Yes, it has been said ad nauseam because it's the reason he was banned. Not censorship, not proclaiming the Government is out to get him (Trump loves him by the way). We'll keep saying it until you understand it. The man openly and clearly -lied- about Sandyhook, then further proclaimed it over and over again. He's not being censored. A private company has removed him from their platform. And you can be damn, damn sure that if you were to go onto a right wing based website and start proclaiming the joys of gay marriage, interracial marriage and a whole lot more, they'd kick you off their platform too. Go on, go on over to huge site like Voat and start talking badly about Alex Jones and let me know how long you last. Oranges, meet apples. I'm sure you two have little in common. Firstly, I never actually believed Trump was directly involved in collusion with Russia, he's too stupid and arrogant and Putin is too smart. Secondly. Maddow reported on various findings, with sources, and claims made by people involved with the investigation. That is what journalists do. Alex Jones does not do this. He simply makes it up on the spot and then sticks to it if it's making him money. Alex Jones is, and always has been, far more interested in making money than taking on "the man" and deep state.
Sonics2k wrote: » claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors.
Zorya wrote: » Yes this has been said ad nauseam. So you and others want him banned, censored. But it won't work and can't work because he hasn't been negated by effective methods but simply by an alternative form of bullying and weasel tactics. Far better to be the victor in the war for minds and hearts than to be the censors foot servant.
Sweetemotion wrote: » So what? Racheal Maddow has made millions the last few years spreading the lie of collusion and exploiting the fears of people. Looks like she has gotten away scot free.
