60 minutes since its inception has been presented as an objective format.
Most people trust the news when you have a tone neutral speaker reading off prepared remarks accompanied with pre-taped and edited video in a professional presentation.
I don't think people realized how political and lacking objectivity that CBS News/60 minutes was until comparing the raw footage of Trump's interview that he leaked days ahead of broadcast against what CBS edited and ultimately aired.
Leslie Stahl was tone deaf and clearly partisan and the final CBS News product reflected extreme bias.
One month into the middle of a war and Zelenskyy is spending the majority of his time hob knobbing for personal showmanship
You think this guy would have better things to do than going on an awards show to virtue signal.
Edit:
Ok i see your reply was a sarcastic post based on Biden's older comments in 2020, my apologies
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1263269526721855488
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YOcoeCYW2c
..
commodities markets and reduced global fertilizer availability impact crop yields and the price of food.
Russia, Belarus, and China have all decreased exports of key earth minerals including potash and urea fertilizers in 2022. Last fall prices for fertilizer had begun to increased 4-5x the existing rate
Biden's increased regulations via EO shortly after taking office have resulted in less LNG production and development within the US. LNG is key component in production of nitrogen based fertilizers. Less LNG = higher LNG price = fertilizer price increase
Don't believe my lying eyes
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1507052235192254472
With regard to food shortages. Yes we did talk about food shortages. And it's going to be real. The price of these sanctions is not just imposed upon Russia, it's imposed upon an awful lot of countries as well including European countries and our country as well.
- Joe Biden - Mar 24, 2022
Trolling politicians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmfGiBL8JU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9mR36gJB6I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCLwfLbUeAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChM_DB1Ions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfjQHd8wTx8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn_idGvIogI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg8Rj6wd7RY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-FJ7NxD7is
Alex Stein's channels
https://www.youtube.com/c/AlexStein99/videos
https://www.youtube.com/c/ConspiracyCastle/videos
I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.
No, of course not.
You will find no issue with this post
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1504901417953243136
Ok so you are against the Babylon Bee being locked out of their Twitter account until they delete a tweet naming Rachel Levine as Babylon Bee's Man of the Year?
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505663712266493958
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505666033620815880
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1505899446722301954
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1507014373964886017
You would also be against Twitter recently locking the account of @TuckerCarlson until he deletes a tweet in support of Babylon Bee and for recent segments raising debate about biological males in women's competitions?
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506075101732737028
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1506679268373377024
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1507441160951721990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFl88Wkz6eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Jmv0vZvJ4
And you would also be against Twitter locking the account of the Babylon Bee's editor
https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1506281322695872517
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1506282198655242247
What you did was attempt to incite other people to hate on transgender people.
Nice dodge of my questions and comments in the parent comment.
Where have I seen this before?
I did not incite anyone to hate or promote violence against transgender people.
Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is not promoting hate or inciting violence.
That is called debate.
Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.
The argument is based on human biology.
What is the TOS violation?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
- Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?
None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.
The LGBTQ lobby has positioned itself within social media and intimidated, bullied, threatened, and canceled anyone that might say that a biological male is a transgender woman or question whether CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males receiving women's awards and competing in women's competitions.
Apparently LGBTQ and their acolytes do not want debate, they want compliance with their orthodoxy. Raise a question and you will be banned for wrongthink.
When they ban you for holding a different opinion ('wrongthink'), they don't want compromise, that is not enough, they want you to bend the knee and change your opinion to match their own world view.
That is why you were banned, and they told you right away in simple language.
Simple language lol It was ambiguous world salad.
I was provided Orwellian newspeak.
I repeatedly asked for clarification what in the submission or submission statement was a TOS violation. I was stonewalled and gaslit for days with evasive posts and doublespeak much like your own.
Again where have I seen this before?
You completely passed over my questions much like the mod
I think you are part of a coordinated effort, and I'm sure the mods there do to. Your game is to alley-oop your daily reminders of basic facts so your bros over at TMOR can swoop in with enough hate speech to get the attention of the admins (who are also your TMOR bros). Then the issue will by why they allowed you to do this in the first place and after a long debate the subreddit will be banned.
lol.
I really am getting the distinct impression you are a mod of r/conspiracy trolling here to defend running a honeypot while issuing perm bans using private blacklists for wrongthink.
I am no part of SPLC or TMOR, but your motives are fairly transparent here. Did you really think coming here anonymously to peddle the same nonsense and defend your actions was going to look convincing?
I repeatedly stated I was willing to post within a sandbox and asked for a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy to prevent further misunderstanding. Mods refused to answer.
I compromised and communicated that in the future I would not state in r/conspiracy that a 'biological male is a transgender woman'
That was not good enough for the mod. They wanted me to bend the knee, grovel, and conform to their world view that saying or implying that a 'biological male is a transgender woman' is 'hate speech' and a TOS violation. As stated, I can agree not to discuss a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy, but will not be bullied into saying this is 'hate speech' and disregarding human biology.
If they would have said, please refrain from discussing LGBTQ as it could subject the sub to reprisal from Admin, I would have honored the request.
I had no real problem with the r/conspiracy mod team up until last week with exception of selective enforcement of their rules about memes. Permitting some memes and banning for others was bewildering. It made no sense as some submissions with simple humor and no informational value were allowed to remain while other submissions that contained humor + informational value that could spur further debate were removed.
I see no reason to further continue responding to you if you are going to evade my questions, gaslight me, and not engage in honest discussion.
This is Kellie-Jay Keen a women's rights activist and founder of "Standing for Women"
https://twitter.com/StandingforXX
She was at the NCAA championship standing up for women's rights
https://twitter.com/madeleinekearns/status/1504541889999085575
https://twitter.com/madeleinekearns/status/1505892843247841288
https://twitter.com/madeleinekearns/status/1504637134472462336
https://twitter.com/madeleinekearns/status/1504541003969142789
More on Don 'Dawn' Ennis the transgender woman who got into a heated argument with Kellie-Jay Keen in one of the clips linked above.
Soon after becoming Dawn, Ennis and his wife of 17 years separated — but three months later, Dawn showed up at work as Don again. He claimed that he had suffered from amnesia and accused his wife of dressing him in a wig and creating a fake ID card with the name "Dawn" on it.
"I am now totally, completely, unabashedly male in my mind, despite my physical attributes," he said in an email to his colleagues at that time.
I'm getting vibes of Ketanji Brown Jackson fitting PCL-R criteria of a sociopath (learned/made) or psychopath (born) with the signs of blame shifting, evasion, and superficial charm similar to Hillary Clinton. A normal human being might show some empathy or remorse. She did not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychopathy_Checklist&oldid=657640926#Items
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#The_organizational_psychopath
She is probably used to people either accepting her nonsense or not being prepared.
Part of this comes from her normally having complete and total control over her environment by being a judge. In those instances where she does not have complete control she just typically isn't challenged.
You have the sim, deviceID, time, date, and location (GPS coordinates).
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that by revealing this, certain interests behind the fraud will try to make procuring cell phone data even more difficult or they will instruct the traffickers to not bring their phones with them when dropping off the ballots.
It's likely they got access to cell tower data for a limited number of locations where the vote drop boxes were located then limited the initial query to deviceID which were logged at one or more vote drop box locations multiple times. Once you identified that a deviceID has been cumulatively logged more than once at one or more drop box locations
Once a pattern was identified they probably expanded their research and bought data for more cell towers covering additional drop box locations as well as towers near the Zuckerbucks HQ to make the link.
Now if they could purchase cell metadata for specific devices you have already identified then they could cross reference specific devices outside of known locations to identify new locations that might be dead drops and meet up points.
Pro Ukraine accounts that publish photos and video are not being banned. The problem here is that they recycle old footage, or from other unrelated conflicts and sometimes it's faked footage as well, part of psyops and propaganda to shape and manipulate public perception of the war.
As someone else mentioned, Twitter and Facebook and several other US based social media companies are banning accounts that publish Russian footage.
ASBmil was suspended from Twitter and moved over to telegram and gettr. They recently they decided to stop reporting on Ukraine.
That's where @MapsUkraine was getting their videos until they were shutdown
ASB Military News
In light of recent developments in the information-sharing community/OSINT & news— the team has decided to end our coverage of the Ukraine-Russia war. It’s too risky for some members of our team who reside in countries where authorities don’t tolerate people providing alternative coverage to the mainstream narrative and they refuse to take that risk. We hope you guys find good coverage elsewhere. We will continue to cover the Middle East as normal.
Some of the remaining accounts do not always load with public preview on telegram. You might have to refresh several times.
ASB Military News
Alternative channels where you can find accurate coverage:
https://t.me/s/anna_news
https://t.me/s/intelslava <— in english, very reliable
https://t.me/s/Doninside
https://t.me/s/milinfolive
It all falls under the ominous and ambiguous 'hate speech' label.
What is 'hate speech'? We don't know but you have committed it!
The label is widely abused to censor, silence, and cancel anyone that has a contrary opinion no matter the topic and is most frequently used by authoritarians and the left on their political opponents.
I don't like you discussing this! I ban you for hate speech! But I don't hate you I simply disagree with you? I ban you for hate speech!
SPLC has been running this con game for decades on the corporate world and has been getting paid for it. Nobody pushed back on the con that includes safe spaces, so it eventually spread everywhere, through universities, schools, media, and the HR ladies in the business world.
Now you have SJW that are never satisfied getting triggered at every end of the spectrum demanding you 'change your behavior' and 'monitor your language' or else you are canceled.
You know it's gone to far when these people demand positions created for equity, inclusivity, and sensitivity oversight to rewrite decades of technical terminology in coding and programming languages because someone might emotionally react.
You are triggered by the term manpage? you want it rewritten to non-gender humanpage? but manpage is short form for manual page. You still want it changed, ok?
I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.
Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.
It's a biological fact.
Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.
Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.
The argument is based on human biology.
What is the TOS violation?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
- Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?
None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.
You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.
Simply responding that a submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
I am not a mind reader, I also did not click the perm ban button. I asked multiple times for clarification on what the mod deemed to be a TOS violation in the submission or submission statement.
Apparently you are free to discuss and criticize pedophiles in r/conspiracy,.
You are free to discuss and criticize killers, thieves, mass murders and so on.
On the other hand if you post a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raise the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions, then that is a bridge too far.
What is the TOS violation?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
- Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?
Simply responding your submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.
I wasn't the only person banned either apparently. I mentioned this in the pm chain. A different user was seemingly banned for a similar post a day after me, which was on the front page discussing both Lia Thomas and Rachel Levine. That user was nowhere near as polite or 'nuanced'. The self.text was removed by mods
That user posted a follow-up the next day after being perm banned.
Babylon Bee editor: We refuse to bow to Twitter's censorship of a joke by beeahh61 in Conservative
[–] MsKim 135 points 2 days ago
On r/conspiracy I was instantly banned for posting that a candidate for Woman of the Year and an NCAA female swim champ were both male. What is the deal with banning people for stating facts?
...
now back to your comments
The second message from them went into detail about you baiting users in a way that risks the existence of the sub. It's concise and clear.
If the mods have a private list of banned topics and they do not want users to discuss them, then they probably should tell the users what they consider wrongthink instead of running private blacklists and then perm banning users.
I did nothing to bait users. The submission statement was polite which I copied in the first reply as well as in the self.text.
If they have problems with LGBTQ topics then it's something they should say publicly instead of permanently banning people with no warning.
Your absurd responses about being confused and biological men just take their time and wear them down. Then you go around the Internet to say mods are compromised. It seems to me like you're just out to get them.
Way to blame the victim.
I didn't hit a perm ban button for wrongthink and then play evasive word games for the better part of four days while trying to get a false admission.
I said I was willing to compromise, I just asked for the list of banned topics to prevent any future misunderstanding. They refused. How exactly is a user supposed to comply and 'follow the rules' when the rules are ambiguous, private, unstated, and hidden?
This is incorrect.
It wasn't until four days and nearly 14 messages later that a mod specified saying a 'transgender woman is a biological male' was the reason for the ban.
Up until that point all I received was evasion, mental gymnastics, blame shifting, dodging, projection, and gaslighting from the mod.
Claiming to have permanently banned a user because similar posts were deemed a TOS violation is an ambiguous dodge that does nothing to explain the exact infringement by the user.
Let's assume you were the mod.
In my case it was the equivalent of blaming the victim for saying the sky is blue which is a factual statement and then refusing to acknowledge you banned the user for saying the sky is blue, but ambiguously telling the user that their submission was a TOS violation and linking to 'hate speech'. Saying 'the sky is blue' is hate speech? Are we also banning people for saying the earth is round?
Meanwhile you ignore that the person was willing to compromise and you again refuse to tell them exactly what offended you so there will be no future misunderstanding.
Again the admin didn't ban me or contact me. It was a mod.
Say you post a picture of Joe Biden being incompetent then write a submission statement saying some people might think Joe is incompetent, old, and looks to be losing his mind. I'm a mod, and I perm ban you claiming it's a TOS violation because I say similar posts were banned. You ask what exactly was wrong with the submission. I repeat stating it's a TOS violation and link to some ambiguous text claiming 'hate speech'. That doesn't tell you what was wrong with the submission or submission statement and attempts to pass the blame to Admin without explaining the infringement.
I've done nothing to harm r/conspiracy, if anything they've harmed their own community by not being open about banned topics while running private blacklists and banning people for wrongthink
You have done nothing but harm their community and you are still doing so.
This is nonsense. The mods wanted me to make a false admission stating that I committed a TOS violation. I disagreed.
I did however say I was willing to compromise if they explained what was the violation.
I gave the mods every opportunity to list the ban justification, and asked for a list of banned topics so I could compromise and follow their rules. They refused. The mods also rebuffed any suggestion that they should be open with the list of banned topics instead of running a honeypot and banning users for violating topics on private blacklists.
If the mods had not perm banned me for making a factual scientific statement while raising the question if CIS women felt disenfranchised about transgender women receiving women's awards we would not be at this juncture. This topic is not going away.
Similarly had a mod not played games and accepted that I was attempting to compromise and had been honest, I might not have typed this self.text to warn others about the duplicity taking place.
No I was not auto-banned
I know this because the original thread had been up an hour, was on the front page and had about 60 comments before a mod came in and started deleting after removing the thread
https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/tfgmpv/women_of_the_year/
The mod went back and deleted 40-50 comments. Wish I had archived it because most of the comments were not bad at all.
Business as usual