Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

You keep using free speech but don't know what it is.

 

You are free to call your boss a cocksucker. Just don't expect to be taken seriously for saying you have first amendment rights and can't be fires. All sites have a terms of service and white supremacy and Nazism (which isn't peaceful by default) typically go against it for obvious reasons.

 

Progressives are correct as usual. Your moderate stances are hilariously all far right and you wonder why progressives think the center in this country is right wing.

And Twitter specifically has gender and gender identity as a class protected from harassment or discrimination. If that means conservatives are being banned oh fucking well try not bring transphobic

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Don't forget Alex Jones.

what about him? he's a friend of joes who he's known for twenty years, and had on his podcast to clear up personal issues. Alex wasnt attacking anyone on joes show. 

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

And Twitter specifically has gender and gender identity as a class protected from harassment or discrimination. If that means conservatives are being banned oh fucking well try not bring transphobic

Yes, and banning people for misgendering is disgusting. they made a protected class. Whats the next protected class? Furries? its ridiculous. Unless a person is targeted, it should be left alone. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

what about him? he's a friend of joes who he's known for twenty years, and had on his podcast to clear up personal issues. Alex wasnt attacking anyone on joes show. 

Giving platform and a sympathetic ear to a true piece of shit like Alex Jones should not be commendable

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Yes, and banning people for misgendering is disgusting. they made a protected class. Whats the next protected class? Furries? its ridiculous. Unless a person is targeted, it should be left alone. 

Oh fuck you with your slippery slope bullshit. Not allowing hating on a class of people isn't some slippery slope to protecting furries from mockery or ridicule

[TheGreatGamble]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Giving platform and a sympathetic ear to a true piece of shit like Alex Jones should not be commendable

I disagree. Joe has on people he wants to talk to, not people you want him to talk to. He's not a journalist, just a guy talking to people. Why shouldnt he talk to his friend?

[CitizenVectron]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

what about him? he's a friend of joes who he's known for twenty years, and had on his podcast to clear up personal issues. Alex wasnt attacking anyone on joes show. 

 

"Yeah me and Adolph go way back. I know he's actively working to eliminate the Jews but all we spoke about on my show was gardening!"

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, TheGreatGamble said:

I disagree. Joe has on people he wants to talk to, not people you want him to talk to. He's not a journalist, just a guy talking to people. Why shouldnt he talk to his friend?

Do you even know who Alex Jones is?

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Oh fuck you with your slippery slope bullshit. Not allowing hating on a class of people isn't some slippery slope to protecting furries from mockery or ridicule

Forcing someone to your ideology is wrong. just like christians trying to force gays to convert is wrong. but until its personal, it should be left alone. And somebody refusing to call a biological male a woman should not be considered bullying. 

[TheGreatGamble]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Do you even know who Alex Jones is?

Ya, hes a nutcase who makes up conspiracy throeries,. But what he doesnt do is tell his fans to target others, they do that on their own and should be destroyed for it. 

[PaladinSolo]

Took like 30 seconds to find him calling Mueller a demon and that hes going to get it or hes going to die trying.

[TheGreatGamble]

Just now, PaladinSolo said:

Took like 30 seconds to find him calling Mueller a demon and that hes going to get it or hes going to die trying.

so you take a person who rants and raves about demons, aliens, false flags, and eating babies ptuitary glands seriously? is this like the time he talked about getting his spiritual battle rifle ready, and it was cut to make it sound like he was about to commit armed massed murder? 

 

As another person in this thread put it, wheres the context?

 

Also, did he say this on twitter?

 

Im not arguing that jones is a piece of shit, im not even sure how he got into this, he's a ban I agree with, he has tried to incite things, imo. But Jones is not a normal, stable human. I dont defend him. But I certainly defend Rogans right to talk to him. 

 

The idea that you people would rather fear ideas than fight them is sad. I dont like it, so it should be locked away. Thats a horrible approach,. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, TheGreatGamble said:

The idea that you people would rather fear ideas than fight them is sad. I dont like it, so it should be locked away. Thats a horrible approach,. 

Personally, I'd rather torture the people who hold those ideas and their families to death.

 

I consider that to be a vastly better approach!

[SaysWho?]

31 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

You keep making false equivelancies. Work is not the same as a national social media platform that has become highly important to our electoral process. Every american, if not harrassing or threatening anyone, should be able to participate in that without restriction to speech. 

\

You keep using this work analogy, but it doesnt hold any weight, because work has no bearing over the electoral process. 

 

Free speech isn't right wing, neither is protecting our democracy and right to participate in it. Twitter has become more than a private company, its integral to the nations politics. So stop with the paper thin arguments. 

 

It holds considerable weight. Your equivalency is false because claiming twitter is important is irrelevant. You can be fired, you can be deplatformed, but you're free to hold that view that got you there. Just as they're free to tell you to fuck off lol. Like most self proclaimed moderates, you don't understand free speech, nor do you understand that your ideas helped fringe conspiracy theorists and dangerous people gain reaction.

 

Your views are far right anyway, and I highly doubt you're a centrist Democrat unless centrists are conservative Republicans.

[TheGreatGamble]

8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Personally, I'd rather torture the people who hold those ideas and their families to death.

 

I consider that to be a vastly better approach!

Its certainly a better approach than being afraid to hear what they say. 

[TheGreatGamble]

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

It holds considerable weight. Your equivalency is false because claiming twitter is important is irrelevant. You can be fired, you can be deplatformed, but you're free to hold that view that got you there. Just as they're free to tell you to fuck off lol. Like most self proclaimed moderates, you don't understand free speech, nor do you understand that your ideas helped fringe conspiracy theorists and dangerous people gain reaction.

 

Your views are far right anyway, and I highly doubt you're a centrist Democrat unless centrists are conservative Republicans.

Im a social liberal and fiscally conservative. I don't agree with the views of anyone im arguing about, I just agree with their right to hold those views on a platform as politically important as twitter. And politicians by and large agree that Social media needs to be nationalized for that reason. 

 

I do understand free speech. Its not the restricted version you cite. 

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

I didn’t buy the argument that Joe Rogan is a gateway to the alt-lite but he’s really trying to change my mind

[TheGreatGamble]

Just now, RedSoxFan9 said:

I didn’t buy the argument that Joe Rogan is a gateway to the alt-lite but he’s really trying to change my mind

Except maybe 1 in 10 guests he has on is right wing. 

 

Hell, he had Bari Weiss on, she made a complete fool of herself speaking out her ass, and people attacked Rogan for making her look bad (by pointing out factual innaccuracies she was stating as fact). To the left, everyone who doesn't agree is alt right, and to the right, everyone who isn't an asshole is a libtard (the one word that when someone uses to describe another, i stop talking to them). Tghe fact is,  both have gone too far. 

[stepee]

lol

[Jwheel86]

8 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Except maybe 1 in 10 guests he has on is right wing. 

 

Hell, he had Bari Weiss on, she made a complete fool of herself speaking out her ass, and people attacked Rogan for making her look bad (by pointing out factual innaccuracies she was stating as fact). To the left, everyone who doesn't agree is alt right, and to the right, everyone who isn't an asshole is a libtard (the one word that when someone uses to describe another, i stop talking to them). Tghe fact is,  both have gone too far. 

The left has some crazies, sure, but the critical difference is the left's 'crazy' have zero political power compared to the right who've got their crazy in Congress and White House. 

[CitizenVectron]

38 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Im a social liberal and fiscally conservative.

 

 

That doesn't exist. If you are a social liberal then you believe in fighting income equality, programs to help disfranchised groups, etc, and that means spending money. I guess you could argue it's possible by raising taxes (and instituting a wealth tax) on the upper-class, but I've never seen someone label themselves a fiscal conservative and be okay with raising taxes (even though it should really be about a balanced budget).

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

44 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Im a social liberal and fiscally conservative.

The ABSOLUTE WORST of all possible political worlds!

[TheGreatGamble]

25 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

That doesn't exist. If you are a social liberal then you believe in fighting income equality, programs to help disfranchised groups, etc, and that means spending money. I guess you could argue it's possible by raising taxes (and instituting a wealth tax) on the upper-class, but I've never seen someone label themselves a fiscal conservative and be okay with raising taxes (even though it should really be about a balanced budget).

It most certainly exists. I believe in equal rights, I believe in LGBTQ rights, I believe in womens rights. I certainly don't believe in income equality, but I do support higher taxes for medicare for all and mental health. I do not believe in wealth distribution. I strongly believe in the first and second ammendment. Its pretty simple. I believe everyone has the right to upward mobility, but I don;t believe that mobility should be given to anyone, but earned. I believe in equality, but im totally against equity of outcome. Im totally against racism, but I think you should be able to express it if you so choose. Im against creating more debt to fund social programs, but I am for higher taxes. 

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

It most certainly exists. I believe in equal rights, I believe in LGBTQ rights, I believe in womens rights. I certainly don't believe in income equality, but I do support higher taxes for medicare for all and mental health. I do not believe in wealth distribution. I strongly believe in the first and second ammendment. Its pretty simple. I believe everyone has the right to upward mobility, but I don;t believe that mobility should be given to anyone, but earned. I believe in equality, but im totally against equity of outcome. Im totally against racism, but I think you should be able to express it if you so choose. Im against creating more debt to fund social programs, but I am for higher taxes. 

And I thought I had a talent for holding mutually contradictory ideas in my head at the same time and considering them to be completely valid!

[Guest]

A few of those things are legitimately “I believe in this, but oppose the mechanisms of correcting the problem”.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

A few of those things are legitimately “I believe in this, but oppose the mechanisms of correcting the problem”.

This is the reason why "libertarianism" is an intellectually bankrupt political philosophy.

[SaysWho?]

8 hours ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Im a social liberal and fiscally conservative. I don't agree with the views of anyone im arguing about, I just agree with their right to hold those views on a platform as politically important as twitter. And politicians by and large agree that Social media needs to be nationalized for that reason. 

 

I do understand free speech. Its not the restricted version you cite. 

 

 

 

Mine is correct. Your idea of free speech does not exist in America. You literally are for putting a megaphone in front of and enhancing the views of white supremacists, which goes well beyond the simple freedom to be racist. You have very little understanding of the fact that there's no freedom of tweeting.

 

You also have contradictory views. If you don't believe in racism, believing in a system that's helped screw them and poor people in general contradicts itself. People like to point to civil rights leaders and only believe up to "be nice to black people" without realizing civil rights leaders called for legislation that the DSA would love.

[TheGreatGamble]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

A few of those things are legitimately “I believe in this, but oppose the mechanisms of correcting the problem”.

yeah. I don't believe we should be telling others what they can/can't believe or say. My beliefs are just that, belief. They aren't absolute. Just because I want nothing to do with racists, doesn't mean I don't believe they have a legal right to be racist. 

[SaysWho?]

Also, who are the politicians "by and large" calling for nationalizing social media? Receipts please. It's mostly the elected officials you're scared of, like Warren and Sanders.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, TheGreatGamble said:

yeah. I don't believe we should be telling others what they can/can't believe or say. My beliefs are just that, belief. They aren't absolute. Just because I want nothing to do with racists, doesn't mean I don't believe they have a legal right to be racist. 

 

They do.

 

They don't have a right to be untouched on twitter.

[TheGreatGamble]

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Mine is correct. Your idea of free speech does not exist in America. You literally are for putting a megaphone in front of and enhancing the views of white supremacists, which goes well beyond the simple freedom to be racist. You have very little understanding of the fact that there's no freedom of tweeting.

 

You also have contradictory views. If you don't believe in racism, believing in a system that's helped screw them and poor people in general contradicts itself. People like to point to civil rights leaders and only believe up to "be nice to black people" without realizing civil rights leaders called for legislation that the DSA would live.

You keep ignoring the fact that I've told you multiple times that I KNOW THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF FREE SPEECH ON TWITTER. You are either trolling, or refusing to read what I wrote. I think it should be regulated BECAUSE ITS SO IMPORTANT TO OUR DEMOCRACY. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Need to be regulated= mocking trans people because they are trans and not respecting their wish on what name or pronoun to use should be fine got it

[SimpleG]

1 minute ago, TheGreatGamble said:

You keep ignoring the fact that I've told you multiple times that I KNOW THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF FREE SPEECH ON TWITTER. You are either trolling, or refusing to read what I wrote. I think it should be regulated BECAUSE ITS SO IMPORTANT TO OUR DEMOCRACY. 

He understands and hes trolling you,the idea that twitter should be regulated so everyone gets to post is so moronic that it deserves the trolling.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, TheGreatGamble said:

You keep ignoring the fact that I've told you multiple times that I KNOW THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF FREE SPEECH ON TWITTER. You are either trolling, or refusing to read what I wrote. I think it should be regulated BECAUSE ITS SO IMPORTANT TO OUR DEMOCRACY. 

Uh huh. You said I believe in restricted free speech. That runs contrary to understanding that you don't have a right to a megaphone. You think they should be untouched and allowed to amplify on a private platform. That came from you.

 

If you truly believe they should be broken up, that would put you in the "far left" and maybe you should listen to them more instead of "bOtH sIdEs." The far left is always called extreme until everyone ends up agreeing with them anyway. Moderate Democrats thought voting for the Iraq War with a frown on their faces would make then seem as patriotic as Republicans. Now you're just an idiot if you thought it was a good idea lol.

[SaysWho?]

I'm also going to add that what is moderate or extreme is either a media creation or the media going along with what comes out of a Republican's mouth. If you believe that the entire spectrum is tilted right in America, then you don't believe that the center is a true center.