-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +3 / -6

I agree that incentivizing violence is a strategy of provocateurs, however I encourage you to look at the user profiles of the people doing that incentivization. I mean, even the guy I quoted above -- who literally suggested storming and occupying Congress -- has been on TDW for a year and has about 30,000 comment/post points.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. However, a significant amount of the threats of violence were coming from genuine, verifiable users, not shills.

0
newuserfromreddit 0 points ago +2 / -2

To be fair, both radical wings are shit for free speech. TheDonald.Win censors any opinion that digresses from MAGA. I've heard Parler is equally shit for those kind of bans, but I don't have the firsthand knowledge on that as I do with TDW.

by Spoonks
-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +2 / -5

Not anymore. The courts, but he lost there.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

Mine is:

We will have to achieve a an actual tactical victory like storming and occupying Congress, to have the intended effect

0
newuserfromreddit 0 points ago +6 / -6

The EU and UK would literally implode without U.S. military assistance.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +4 / -6

For comparison, here is the graveyard of a comment section on that post after the mods attempted to delete all violent comments after January 6th.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

The difference is, back then, they were trying to install a democracy to replace a monarch. Today, the copers are trying to install a monarch to replace a democracy.

The disillusion is real here with the new influx of former-TDW users.

1
newuserfromreddit 1 point ago +2 / -1

No worries! I ditched FB years ago so I wasn't aware of it until I googled it. Fair points.

-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +1 / -4

You realize it was just the page that got removed, not the accounts, right?

1
newuserfromreddit 1 point ago +1 / -0

This would be viable if a successful alternative could be made. Every time people try to do that, however, it's either horribly nonfunctional (e.g., Voat) or becomes so violent and hateful that the host delists it (e.g., TDW, Parler). The only viable alternative thus far seems to be 4chan lol

-5
newuserfromreddit -5 points ago +2 / -7

This same line has been repeated since November and, frankly, 2016. He's conceded. I'm sorry that you're having trouble coming to terms with that.

0
newuserfromreddit 0 points ago +1 / -1

Says the active TDW user lol

1
newuserfromreddit 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yup, constitutionally protected classes, of which LGBTQ -- which you seem to specifically target -- is not. Surprise, private companies can refuse service to members of that group, absent specific anti-discrimination laws. Employees are protected, via the CRA of 1964, from termination on the sole basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. See, Bostock v. Clayton Co., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). However, the Court punted, in the business' favor, when asked to rule on whether a business could deny services to same-sex couples on a religious basis. See, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm., 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018). Given the new composition of the Court, I suspect they will soon take another case asking that question and rule in the business' favor.

If you're going to make legal arguments, at least get them right.

2
newuserfromreddit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ah. I see why your post got removed.

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +1 / -2

I wonder what most of these people were saying during the multi-month war to silence millions of Biden voters.

Trump should not have been banned from Twitter. However, it's extremely ironic who's arguing it.

-12
newuserfromreddit -12 points ago +4 / -16

The storm has also, reportedly, been here since last week. As well as the week before that; and that; and that; and that, ad nauseam. No doubt, it will also be said to be here next week; and the one after that; and that; and that.

I stand by my prediction.

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +1 / -2

I think you're confusing political polarization with authoritarianism. The U.S. has been undergoing a massive wave of polarization since the 1960s, i.e., there are significantly less moderates and party ideologies are further apart. I agree that this is a huge issue.

However, that doesn't mean authoritarianism is on the horizon. For that matter, the suggestion that companies acting on political ideologies show this is absolutely asinine and not supported by history. Recall the Red Scares and McCarthyism, both of which resulted in private companies blacklisting and firing individuals with communist ideologies. Consider also the extreme private media bias in the Revolutionary War. The last decade is not an anomaly that signals doom. Further, firm ideologies -- when present -- tend to reflect the employees of the firm, and not whatever third-party authoritarian you're suggesting exists, see, e.g., here.

You're confusing the desire of companies to ban people -- "walking liabilities" might be a better term -- that promulgate disinformation, violence, and attempt to overturn elections with Nazi Germany, which (now that I type that out) is extremely ironic. I suggest that you might be the one who isn't self-aware. I also find it hard to believe the future will find anyone but those who attacked the capitol to be on the wrong side of history, but you're welcome to keep thinking that.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›