Twitter silencing conservatives again - Woman who posted Trigglypuff shadowbanned

[Orbitus]

There is similar evidence for face book, arguably stronger tbh.

Yes, but the Rules for this forum is clear and open - There is no hidden rules that you get infracted for (not actually true, but whatever) - there is no 'you are not allowed to be conservative on twitter' (though, it has more to do with specific positions, not all right wing).

Goblin, you really like siding with the losing side of debates don't you?

[nonameelf]

I support the banning of anyone that uses the word "cuck."

[Orbitus]

The batshit crazy far left in this country are out of control. Hopefully Trump will get elected. Maybe one day men will become men also and not crying little pussies.

Well considering there are no "far left" people in this country, I don't know why you are claiming they are out of control. The only reason you are saying they are far left is because you have moved so far to the right they seem like "far left". And no, if Trump gets elected, he will not be able to do anything. And that is a big IF. Basically he would have to take out the free speech part of the 1st amendment to do anything and that cuts both ways.

- - - Updated - - -

I support the banning of anyone that uses the word "cuck."

I am right there with you.

[Masark]

For someone supposedly being silenced, they seem to be awfully noisy.

[nonameelf]

The batshit crazy far left in this country are out of control. Hopefully Trump will get elected. Maybe one day men will become men also and not crying little pussies.

This is hilarious because Trump is a crying little pussy when he gets criticized. That's why he wants to limit freedom of the press.

[primalmatter]

Goblin, you really like siding with the losing side of debates don't you?

What losing side... that if you actually stand for something you should stand for it rather then cast it off the second you can beat a person you don't like with it?

[Atrea]

I support the banning of anyone that uses the word "cuck."

Exactly. That and people who use the word "triggered" as a way to mock someone who is objecting to their idiocy.

[Pangean]

The batshit crazy far left in this country are out of control. Hopefully Trump will get elected. Maybe one day men will become men also and not crying little pussies.

Do tell us what this means. How are men not already men? How will they become men once again?

[ujx]

Well considering there are no "far left" people in this country, I don't know why you are claiming they are out of control. The only reason you are saying they are far left is because you have moved so far to the right they seem like "far left". And no, if Trump gets elected, he will not be able to do anything. And that is a big IF. Basically he would have to take out the free speech part of the 1st amendment to do anything and that cuts both ways.

You are the shittiest troll I have encountered on these forums.

Infracted: Please do not call other users trolls

[Captain N]

This is hilarious because Trump is a crying little pussy when he gets criticized. That's why he wants to limit freedom of the press.

Maybe Trump and his Tribe need a Safe Space where all the mean people can't come and call them out on their bullshit?

[Bollocks]

Maybe Trump and his Tribe need a Safe Space where all the mean people can't come and call them out on their bullshit?

They have go visit The_donald it's actually hilarious

[Deleted]

Ahh, now you're moving goalposts. Now, all of a sudden, she's not being kicked out for her scarf, but because she's Muslim.

No, you confused my argument.
Should a shop owner have the right to refuse to serve another person who refuses to adhere to one of his religious tenets was my proposition.
The two examples being gay marriage, and wearing a headscarf in public for women.
So, should a shop owner have the right to require a woman to wear a headscarf or else not serve her?

Words often have multiple distinct meanings.

You're conflating two of them, here. It's a pointless semantic game. It's like protesting that someone who's angry is literally insane, because "mad" can be used to describe both.

I'm not conflating anything - I asked you to provide me with a good argument why some kinds of discrimination is okay, and others are bad.
- Why do some reach this 'new' meaning?

Because religions and political views are not comparable. You not liking that reality isn't going to change it.

You are arguing that religion is clearly distinct from an ideology?
And more importantly, what if the Nazi insists that Adolph Hitler was a prophet of the Aryan Lord?

[Bollocks]

No, you confused my argument.
Should a shop owner have the right to refuse to serve another person who refuses to adhere to one of his religious tenets was my proposition.
The two examples being gay marriage, and wearing a headscarf in public for women.
So, should a shop owner have the right to require a woman to wear a headscarf or else not serve her?




I'm not conflating anything - I asked you to provide me with a good argument why some kinds of discrimination is okay, and others are bad.
- Why do some reach this 'new' meaning?



You are arguing that religion is clearly distinct from an ideology?
And more importantly, what if the Nazi insists that Adolph Hitler was a prophet of the Aryan Lord?

Actually you can claim Hitler is your god , in Bolivia and the US iss easy to create a church dedicated to a specific religion and acquire all thr benefits. In bolivia we have a church to Che Guevara

[CMartel]

This whole thing just looks like a persecution complex. There's typically valid reasons for these bans on the individual level; it isn't because they're "conservative". It's generally because they're "acting like asshats".

There has been plenty of documentation by former workers on both sites. There are teams 24/7 that create/ ban news to prevent bad facts from being spread. Twice in one week twitter disabled top trending hashtags about moslems acting like mosems in Cologne Germany, with even German police being ordered not to talk about it. A c#* like you would infract for it also.

Have you not noticed people putting your pic on stories related to dieversecity or saying don't mention what you notice on the picture or endus will get you? Like the judge that ruled illegal aliens can vote last week.

- - - Updated - - -

Twitter is company and can censor whatever they like. It's not a right to tweet.

Bake me a gay KKcaKe

[Deleted]

Goblin, you really like siding with the losing side of debates don't you?

Well i find your comment weird, because i was not espousing any argument in that post.
I said there is similar evidence for face book, people who think they are being 'banned' their evidence for that, and then their claim that it is because of their political beliefs. In face books case there is also the ex employee who said they did it, (thus stronger).
Other than the bit about stronger, i never once made a valuation of the evidence, 'Similar' is what i said.

As for the other bit, i explained the argument people make, that their problem is the lying - and then i made a off hand comment about the fact that its not exactly conservatives who are being (or alleging that they are) banned, but a few specific positions.

What part of that did you think was either an argument or wrong?
Or are you just mindlessly posting shit?

[CMartel]

How would you even know? It could easily be based on private messaging, or tweets that they deleted for crossing a line, or any such thing. The simple truth is that you've got no actual evidence that they're being banned for their political views.

Tell my why you are more bothered by someone saying "I wish Israel well but don't think it needs $8billion a year in aid from US taxpayers" more than moslems that say "the holocaust didn't happen but it should have?" You shouldn't be bothered by the first at all since you are not in the US.

[Pangean]

Tell my why you are more bothered by someone saying "I wish Israel well but don't think it needs $8billion a year in aid from US taxpayers" more than moslems that say "the holocaust didn't happen but it should have?" You shouldn't be bothered by the first at all since you are not in the US.

Do you actually have a point to make other than slamming Endus? Reading your screeds is like listening to the homeless man on the corner screaming at people.

[Endus]

No, you confused my argument.
Should a shop owner have the right to refuse to serve another person who refuses to adhere to one of his religious tenets was my proposition.
The two examples being gay marriage, and wearing a headscarf in public for women.
So, should a shop owner have the right to require a woman to wear a headscarf or else not serve her?

I didn't "confuse" anything. You deliberately excluded any mention of religion, only to introduce it after the fact.

I'm not conflating anything - I asked you to provide me with a good argument why some kinds of discrimination is okay, and others are bad.
- Why do some reach this 'new' meaning?

You're arguing that there's no difference between "discriminating" by refusing service to black people, and "discriminating" by choosing a stout beer instead of a lager because that's what you'd prefer to drink.

Yes, you're conflating.

noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:
racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment:
She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

You're trying to argue that it's all #1 or #3, and deliberately ignoring the existence of meaning #2.

You are arguing that religion is clearly distinct from an ideology?
And more importantly, what if the Nazi insists that Adolph Hitler was a prophet of the Aryan Lord?

You're being deliberately ridiculous, at this point.

Yes, they're clearly distinct. No, it isn't my problem if you're going to feign ignorance.

[Orbitus]

What losing side... that if you actually stand for something you should stand for it rather then cast it off the second you can beat a person you don't like with it?

You are losing because you actually think these people were silenced because of their "CONSERVATIVE" views instead of their SHITTY and VITRIOLIC views about a certain conversation. But keep playing that victim complex, someday you might get it right. You guys keep calling us SJWs but right now you are playing the SJWs you hate so much.

[CMartel]

Some people have this really weird sense of entitlement to a privately-owned platform that they're provided access to for free.

This is some crazy liberal logic you wield, but I guess cake bakers don't count.

You mistake rights the US has for what is in your nation. When you say its impossible to deport 11 million illegals, you should be arrested for holocaust denial. You presume the US constitution which you can't understand to "living document" but you presume that 18th century colonial Englishmen conceived a governmental framework in a manner to ensure their posterity would be obliged to subsidize the incursions of parasitic Mayan squatters. I suppose it's possible, though the preamble and Federalist Papers are both coyly silent as to the intent. Fortunately that piece of paper's penumbras are not at all so reticent, and provide modern jurists with a generously well-lit path