TheGreatGamble

Lol. While I agree with her, there goes her very slim chance of winning. And if I owned a multi-billion dollar company, I’d work to bury her too. If I owned google, and a candidate made comments like this, you’d only get a blank white screen when you searched her name.

this is everything I’ve said about twitter in your 2020 thread. They are too powerful to let control the political narrative. 

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

You realize those conservatives being banned from Twitter are banned for things like harassment and shit like that right?

That is an outright lie. Those banned for harassment should remain banned, but many have been banned for ideological shit, like misgendering. For blanket statements like “men can’t be women”. For speaking out against things they disagree with. It’s ridiculous.

25 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Also gabbard is an Assad apologist so still no thanks.

I know multiple marines and some seals who have been in Syria. They all seem to agree that the rebels are the problem, not Assad. But the media has constantly sided with the rebels, even printing lies about chemical attacks that all evidence shows never happened.

i don’t have an informed opinion on Syria to make a decision personally, but those I know that do tend to side with the lawful government.

41 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Blocking InfoWars doesn't hinder how they can spread their conspiracy theories that allow people to get harassed and allow people to get harassed. Television is also important for politics, but no racist has a right to its own television channel.

 

Saying white supremacists have a right to a megaphone is extremist. That's why what you're saying is not centered at all; it's far-right and music to the ears of the KKK and neo-Nazis. Nobody has a right to use Twitter.

So block those harassing others, not the one spreading a conspiracy theory.

and if free speech is a far right view to the left, then the left is as bad as the far right are.

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

They are allowed to express conspiracy theories and white supremacy. A private company is not obligated to say that it's OK on their platform. Don't they have a right to say white supremacy is against Terms of Service? SFLUFAN's not obligated to a let a racist post here.

 

Racists have no right to a megaphone.

When a platform becomes as important to politics as twitter has, so much so that foreign governments are using it to sway elections, then yes, they should have a right to that megaphone. Why is it everybody is so scared of speech they disagree with? You have the ability to block whoever you don’t want to hear.

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Read the edit: I think she should be forgiven. But don't pretend she's a centrist. She both took far-right, not centrist views, on LGBT Americans, and she was not trying to be a centrist leading up to this election; she was gunning for progressives by endorsing a Democratic-Socialist.

 

They should not be obligated, which is the extreme view imo. Trump should be held to the same standard as others; the extreme view is that other people get banned for things he can get away with. Places like InfoWars aren't hindered by individuals blocking them; they're hindered by not allowing them to spread their shit as easily. If "centrists" think that social media companies should be obligated to let white supremacy, neo-Nazis, and people (weirdos who think that nobody really died in Sandy Hook) who harass the parents of dead children to use their platforms, then I'd argue they have a far-right and extreme view of what social media companies should do, while progressives are making the only sensible argument.

 

That's putting aside how centrist Democrats and right-wingers almost always take the progressive position later.

There’s the thing, free speech and harassment are not the same thing. Jones should be free to say Sandy Hook didn’t happen, he should not be free to target specific people. And yes I think white nationalist (nazis do not exist in America) should be allowed to express their disgusting hatred, as long as it isn’t targeted hatred. So yes, absolutely, obligate them. Free speech doesn’t include the right to harass or harm others.

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

Or, even better, the tech companies like Facebook/Google/Twitter/etc. should be nationalized or broken up entirely.

This i agree with wholeheartedly. 

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

There is no "left" in the United States political system.

My point is that it has become "With us or against us". Its like its a crime to be a liberal and agree with conservatives on an issue (and vice versa). I've been called a republican because I support the 1st and 2nd ammendment proudly, but called a'libtard'because I support abortion and gay rights. Anyone who treats politics like a team sport needs to rethink their life. both sides have salient points on different issues. 

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

If it doesn't infringe on free speech, then free speech in ensured. No platform is obligated to make sure white supremacists can post freely. No platform is obligated to allow you to expand your reach if you think the Sandy Hook kids were actors and didn't really die.

 

It's extreme to think otherwise. Thinking they should be banned makes sense.

 

Furthermore, the views she held on LGBT issues were far right, not centrist. If someone want far right, the Republican Party is always looking for new voters.

And she repudiated those views, while also explaining why she had them. Is that where the left is>? No redemption, no forgiveness? 

And you are correct, they are not obligated. But they should be. If they can say Trump can't be banned because his account is important to public discourse (and twitter has said this), then anything said that doesn't incite violence should be fair game. We don't need these companies to censor for us. Offended people need to learn to use block buttons. 

On 3/6/2019 at 11:02 PM, thewhyteboar said:

Every DC journalist should be crucified as a warning to others. They are all such access whores that they don't give a damn about doing actual journalism, but rather care about their precious standing in DC society. 

Thats why Trumps claims of Fake News arent far off for most news corporations. Trump is still a dirtbag and deserves all the hate he gets, but theres countless twisted stories out there cut and misrepresented to fit their own needs and ideology (on both sides). 

Sounds fair compared to others who committed similar crimes. 

21 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Gabbard endorsed Bernie and put his name in at the convention. She wanted to be seen as a progressive, not centrist.

 

The wealth tax is popular. A platform banning you doesn't infringe on free speech. 

No, it doesn't infringe on free speech, but if a platform is turned into a political powerhouse like twitter is, then free speech should be ensured for all americans. Its vital to modern politics, the goddamn president uses it to affect policy, fire people, and make political statements. Twitter has too much effect on elections to allow them to ban speech the left doesn't like. The bias is too ridiculous. You can get banned for dead naming, but not for calling for the death and/or doxxing of a kid who stood in a line with a MAGA hat smiling. 

9 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

*Narrator* - She was in her 20s. 

 

Not saying she can't change but she never had a chance in hell of winning the nomination.

she was still young without fully formed opinions..

And yes, she has no chance of winning, because the left is eating itself, and having a less than perfect past is a disqualifier, unless you come to heel for idealogues and dreamers. Id much prefer a candidate who has their feet firmly planted in reality. The AOC's are a tiny, vocal minority. What she wants isn't what most democrats want. 

Picking a far left idealogue is a good way to push away democratic voters who feel the party is getting away from them. Its a good way to elect Trump again, but not a good way to win.

We desperately need a legitimate third party. This left/right bullshit is insane. 

21 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

.

.

.

 You didn’t even mention the really weird way Brie Larson runs!

Just like that uncoordinated kid we all made fun of in gym class. (Unless you were that uncoordinated kid).

It’s too bad that everyone wants to use Gabbards youthful ignorant teen years against her, because she’s a fantastic candidate. 

The need from the far left to have a super progressive candidate is nauseating to centrists like myself. 

The left wants ants to fuck with the first and second amendment, the right wants to destroy BLM and restrict voting rights. Both sides disgust me. At least Gabbard falls in line with the silent majority of centrist democrats who think the Trump GOP is disgusting, but want nothing to do with far left socialist policies (like wealth taxes), and restriction of free speech on campus and social media (platforms which have HUGE effects on our democratic republic, and are steering the conversation the way they want, while pushing out opinions they don’t agree with).

I certainly did not love it. Not for any ridiculous reasons, I just found it flat. The highs are pretty low, and some of the lows are unbearable. It’s not a bad movie, but it did nothing to make me more excited for endgame. It’s like she was shoehorned into the story because they needed a female standalone. 

I didnt hate it, but I certainly won’t see it again.

I wish most boards would get rid of the circle jerk option altogether, personally.

Lunar:Silver Star Story

Crystalis

Earthbound

just a few greats off the top of my head.