Twitter silencing conservatives again - Woman who posted Trigglypuff shadowbanned

[Tijuana]

I think I don't care what you look like. It meaningless to what goes on in the forum. It's meaningless to the quality of the argument. And I had no doubt you would have no interest in overcoming your childishness. It's your defense mechanism.

- - - Updated - - -



Not quite true. Depends on where you live. Illinois, New York and California for example have laws that do indeed provide protected status for sexual orientation.

My point was specific to a post that said "in my country". I love when we play operator on MMO-C.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure why you think that's over the line. They were misrepresenting Facebook's actions, on Facebook, so Facebook banned them. The final, where it says the ban is 30 days, makes it clear this wasn't her first time breaking those rules.

There's zero evidence that this had anything to do with anyone being "conservative". That's the part that there's never been any evidence for.

- - - Updated - - -



Not in every State, but in some States, it is, including the State where the bakery in question was located. Hence the ruling.

It was in Oregon; here's the State's website detailing the civil rights law for the State, with a list (including sexual orientation) partway down; https://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/Pages/C_Crprotoc.aspx

My point was specific to a post that said "in my country". I love when we play operator on MMO-C.

[Deleted]

https://twitter.com/Trigglycuck/stat...55024735113216


Wonder why twitter hates women?

"Pray for this acc"

Nothing of value was lost.

[judgementofantonidas]

You do realize the irony of making that claim when I'm here, being skeptical, in a thread about someone crying victim, right?

The only people playing "victim olympics" here are the ones claiming they're persecuted, while providing no evidence of any such.

Ok. If I were to provide evidence it would be an infractible offense. So where does that leave us?

[Tijuana]

Ok. If I were to provide evidence it would be an infractible offense. So where does that leave us?

Really man....

[purebalance]

People are having fun being upset about something? That seems paradoxical.

Well you could deem it minor and think it's hilarious and have fun with being faux upset in that regard.

[Televators]

Allowing fringe conservatives to speak freely is one of the best advertisements against that mode of thinking. No reason to stifle it.

[Jotaux]

"Pray for this acc"

Nothing of value was lost.

I think it was obvious that was meant in jest.

- - - Updated - - -

Allowing fringe conservatives to speak freely is one of the best advertisements against that mode of thinking. No reason to stifle it.

I didn't see anything on her twitter that made me think shes a conservative aside from laughing at SJWs.

[Pangean]

My point was specific to a post that said "in my country". I love when we play operator on MMO-C.

And in your country it indeed is, it just depends where. It's not operator, you were simply incorrect. "It might be in Canada, but it certainly is not in the US." was what you stated. "In the US" it is indeed protected but not all states unless you want to claim that Illinois, California and New York amongst others aren't "in your country".

[Mehrunes]

People have this notion that they wil be treated fairly and equally, because they have no reason to suspect otherwise and giving people the benefit of the doubt is common decency in modern society.

But then they discover that certain people on some platforms have no intention of treating them fairly or equally, they are only interested in pushing their agenda and shutting down debate they do not like. Unsurprisingly that disappoints people.

And yet, here we are, totally surprised. I mean, not really, but without pretending so his Voice of Wisdom wouldn't be nearly as wise.

Yeah, how dare those shitlords have a set of standards they hold companies to

It's kinda weird to see someone who says SJWs are "marching progress" (which they totally are) defending corporate conduct so much. Usually they are more on the government side since they need Big Brother to use its authority to make their world a safe space. Bug I guess as long as the corporations do something they agree on, that flies out of the window.

The stances presented in this thread that I was referring to has been with an assumption that it was for their political stances. Whether or not that is actually the case doesn't change what values people hold about the hypothetical. Paying attention to the thread is as important when responding as paying attention to the specifics of the OP.

But if they paid attention they wouldn't be able to sit on high horse. Silly polar bear. Anyway, Endus already graced you with his wisdom. It's OK and consistent because political convictions aren't a protected class. So as long as it's legal to discriminate someone, discriminate to your heart's content.

[Cthulhu 2020]

she is fat = Fact
she should be ashamed of herself = Fact

put 2 facts together = still a fact

if you get offended by facts there is something wrong with who you are as a person

Fact is one of the most abused terms by conservatives. Sure she's fat, the other one not so much. That's your opinion. I think people should take care of their bodies, but shame is what keeps people from getting skinnier. It makes them depressed and causes them to eat more and get out less. I work with friends to help them realize they are overweight and need to do something about it without shaming them, and it helps them tremendously more than just shaming them and otherwise not giving a fuck. Someone caring about you being healthy actually motivates them to exercise. Shamers are the ones who should be publicly ridiculed because they're the ones who are lazy, don't give a fuck and just want to make their sorry lives feel a bit better by putting others down.

[purebalance]

I would more than likely.

I have no expectation a for profit company is to uphold my right to express views using their platform. That is irrational.

Yes, but a for profit company should also have things like this exposed so those with similar views know to stay clear.

If the shoe were on the other foot and tumbler feminists like Anita and Zoe were shadow banned, people would be rioting and certain others in this thread(not you as you're pretty ambivalent to things) would be changing their tune.

If a for profit company is banning people, those who would engage in business with said company might want to know they did this and money talks, so if said profit goes down due to their actions, they might change their tune. So yes making this known and stating it's morally wrong is worthwhile.

[Tijuana]

And in your country it indeed is, it just depends where. It's not operator, you were simply incorrect. "It might be in Canada, but it certainly is not in the US." was what you stated. "In the US" it is indeed protected but not all states unless you want to claim that Illinois, California and New York amongst others aren't "in your country".

Obviously I was referring to Federal law, in reference to "in my country". You are twisting the context, which is no better than getting the context wrong really. But who really cares, right?

[Pangean]

Obviously I was referring to Federal law, in reference to "in my country". You are twisting the context, which is no better than getting the context wrong really. But who really cares, right?

Not twisting it at all. "In your country" LGBT is a protected class, simply not in all states. And who cares? Obviously you did.

[Tijuana]

Not twisting it at all. "In your country" LGBT is a protected class, simply not in all states. And who cares? Obviously you did.

Last word freak.

[Runenwächter]

The second women make a cent less then men do it is sexism, blacks make less then whites it is racism, disregarding any proof of causation. Laws are put into place, equal opportunities commissioners are appointed.

But a suprising number of the latest trending news on the conservative side gets in any form censored or bared from the platform, the mod defense force springs to life, expressing all kinds of reasons the common rabble should not concern itself with it. Nothing to see here gentlemen, move along please.

no thank you, biggotry is biggotry even if you feel moraly superior in commiting it.

[Spunt]

Social media is a cancer that needs to be cut out. All it does it allow people who have no idea how the world works to spout ignorance and expect a pat on the back.

Social media is garbage and anyone who uses it is only making things worse. NOTHING of importance has ever happened on social media. Just a bunch of random noise.

[Orby]

oh my god she looks like my ex, that's creepy...

[Fencers]

Yes, but a for profit company should also have things like this exposed so those with similar views know to stay clear.

Thus far all "exposure' of the issue is unfounded and speculation at best. So it's little more than persecution complex and conspiracy theory. Which one should (in my opinion) ideally not give a flip about regardless of political stance.

Making claims of what people would/would not do is pretty absolute in your phrasing. That is obvious suspect and not provable by any means sans time machine. Again, this is merely fantasy.

Morality has nothing to do with this "story". This is not a moral issue- Twitter does not have to abide by some object moral stance. They only need to obey the law. The law does not reflect poorly on Twitter in this regard. If you mean, unethical (and you likely do) instead of immoral, that too is in favor of Twitter as they are expressly clear in their TOS of the use of their platform.

Screaming about persecution doesn't make those with particular viewpoints any more valid in a conspiracy of the blind. Not anymore than the "tumbler feminists" are right for screaming about their pet peeves and woe-is-me complex(es).

There is no evidence of wrong doing on Twitter's part (there will never be more than likely) and Twitter has no obligation to allow anyone to say whatever they feel like on any given Wednesday. They are within their rights legally and ethically.

- - - Updated - - -

Well you could deem it minor and think it's hilarious and have fun with being faux upset in that regard.

"Faux" upset. That means they aren't upset. That means false, fake, imitation.

So the position would still be paradoxical- if one were upset they would not be having fun. To be upset rules out having fun with the object dissatisfaction.

[purebalance]

Thus far all "exposure' of the issue is unfounded and speculation at best. So it's little more than persecution complex and conspiracy theory. Which one should (in my opinion) ideally not give a flip about regardless of political stance.

Making claims of what people would/would not do is pretty absolute in your phrasing. That is obvious suspect and not provable by any means sans time machine. Again, this is merely fantasy.

Morality has nothing to do with this "story". This is not a moral issue- Twitter does not have to abide by some object moral stance. They only need to obey the law. The law does not reflect poorly on Twitter in this regard. If you mean, unethical (and you likely do) instead of immoral, that too is in favor of Twitter as they are expressly clear in their TOS of the use of their platform.

Screaming about persecution doesn't make those with particular viewpoints any more valid in a conspiracy of the blind. Not anymore than the "tumbler feminists" are right for screaming about their pet peeves and woe-is-me complex(es).

There is no evidence of wrong doing on Twitter's part (there will never be more than likely) and Twitter has no obligation to allow anyone to say whatever they feel like on any given Wednesday. They are within their rights legally and ethically.

- - - Updated - - -


"Faux" upset. That means they aren't upset. That means false, fake, imitation.

So the position would still be paradoxical- if one were upset they would not be having fun. To be upset rules out having fun with the object dissatisfaction.

Faux upset is more implying that the degree of being upset is being exaggerated in order to have fun with it while yes I'm sure people are still mildly upset.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm fine with it as long as it triggers Milo.