View Poll Results: Should they be labeled as a terrorist organization?

Voters
60. This poll is closed
  • No [I'm Conservative]

    8 13.33%
  • Yes [I'm Liberal]

    33 55.00%
  • Yes [I'm Conservative]

    2 3.33%
  • No [I'm Liberal]

    17 28.33%
Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
14
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Right there isn't a boot on your throat if it isn't the government's boot. Forgive me I forgot the demographics I was speaking to...
    That's not a boot on your throat. That's the free market and freedom of association.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Why complain about Qanon at all then it's being dealt with from your perspective no?
    It's not being dealt with? I mean, some sites have taken action, but most have not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    The thread to me seemed to imply that more was needed so I pointed out the hazards of that.
    And if you look, a lot of folks are in agreement that they don't fit the label of a terrorist organization but do remain a potential threat.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    So you'd put your boot to the throats of people running these sites? Force them to let anyone and everyone, regardless of how terrible, have a voice there?
    Well yes. I don't believe that level of control is something an elected official should have much less a private corporation. At some point you have to acknowledge that times have changed and protections for person freedoms have to be expanded.

    My view is the many over the one.

  3. #63
    Over 9000! Milchshake's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Shitposter Burn Out
    Posts
    9,977
    I'm thinking a competent DoJ could roll up Qanon pretty quickly.

    No shortage of people to flip.



    Eric "T" from 725 5th Ave, New York, would also like to speak to nice FBI lady.
    Government Affiliated Snark

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    How about individual citizens? Same as the rest?
    I'm not really sure what your trying to get at with your response to be honest can you add more meat to it maybe an example?

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Well yes. I don't believe that level of control is something an elected official should have much less a private corporation. At some point you have to acknowledge that times have changed and protections for person freedoms have to be expanded.

    My view is the many over the one.
    So, you support draconian laws that attack freedom of speech freedom of association, and private property rights.

    Ypu are opposing personal freedoms.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, you support draconian laws that attack freedom of speech freedom of association, and private property rights.

    Ypu are opposing personal freedoms.
    You post a lot of sound bites but you seem to have only a lose understanding of them. Can you explain how my personal beliefs attack all three of those points? I can see a strong argument for property but not the rest.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I'm not really sure what your trying to get at with your response to be honest can you add more meat to it maybe an example?
    You are arguing that I should be able to come to your house, or your place of business, yell whatever racist shit I want, and you and your employer cannot kick me out.

    You are opposing personal freedom.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    You post a lot of sound bites but you seem to have only a lose understanding of them. Can you explain how my personal beliefs attack all three of those points? I can see a strong argument for property but not the rest.
    You want to force a private entity to host racists and Nazis against their will.

    You are opposing the First Amendment rights of all those property owners.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    I'm trying to figure out how far you're going with this. You already can't kick someone out of your restaurant for yelling obscenities at people while they organize their terrorism, what about your house?
    Why could I not? You are posting different conceptual things to a social media platform that shows either a utter misunderstanding of the conversation or deliberately trying to move goal posts.

    Yes I believe you are have the right to remove people from a physical location that are disruptive. I don't believe a social platform should be regulated in an identical manner.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You are arguing that I should be able to come to your house, or your place of business, yell whatever racist shit I want, and you and your employer cannot kick me out.

    You are opposing personal freedom.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You want to force a private entity to host racists and Nazis against their will.

    You are opposing the First Amendment rights of all those property owners.
    I'm not and you have misunderstood the conversation to a comedic degree.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Well yes.
    Good to know you're apparently pro-boot-on-throat for folks you agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I don't believe that level of control is something an elected official should have much less a private corporation.
    Private companies have every right to decide what content and speech they allow on their platform/in their place of business. Your argument remains functionally that a person shouting racial slurs in a restaurant has a right to do so and the restaurant does not have a right to kick them out for being racist asshats and disrupting other customers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    At some point you have to acknowledge that times have changed and protections for person freedoms have to be expanded.
    The US already has some of the most extensive free-speech laws in the world.

    What you're arguing is for the US government to forcefully mandate that private companies allow all speech, infringing on the rights of private companies across the country big and small. Should I be forced to allow any speech at my home as well? Can people just walk off the street onto my doorstep and start shouting shit and I should have no recourse to have them removed lest I infringe on their free speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    My view is the many over the one.
    No, it's most absolutely not.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Why could I not? You are posting different conceptual things to a social media platform that shows either a utter misunderstanding of the conversation or deliberately trying to move goal posts.

    Yes I believe you are have the right to remove people from a physical location that are disruptive. I don't believe a social platform should be regulated in an identical manner.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I'm not and you have misunderstood the conversation to a comedic degree.
    I have not misunderstood it at all. You lied about supposed laws that don't exist, then want to push laws that forces private entities to platform people against their will.

    Of course, that's what happens when you get caught vaguebooking, people call you out on your bullshit.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Good to know you're apparently pro-boot-on-throat for folks you agree with.



    Private companies have every right to decide what content and speech they allow on their platform/in their place of business. Your argument remains functionally that a person shouting racial slurs in a restaurant has a right to do so and the restaurant does not have a right to kick them out for being racist asshats and disrupting other customers.



    The US already has some of the most extensive free-speech laws in the world.

    What you're arguing is for the US government to forcefully mandate that private companies allow all speech, infringing on the rights of private companies across the country big and small. Should I be forced to allow any speech at my home as well? Can people just walk off the street onto my doorstep and start shouting shit and I should have no recourse to have them removed lest I infringe on their free speech?



    No, it's most absolutely not.
    If you honestly believe a physical location and a digital platform are completely identical no argument I can make will move you from your view.

    I don't agree with it but it's the fundamental difference in what I'm saying.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    If you honestly believe a physical location and a digital platform are completely identical no argument I can make will move you from your view.

    I don't agree with it but it's the fundamental difference in what I'm saying.
    They are both private property.

    I don't see why a Christian website should be forced to host gay porn, why do you wish to force them to do that?

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I have not misunderstood it at all. You lied about supposed laws that don't exist, then want to push laws that forces private entities to platform people against their will.

    Of course, that's what happens when you get caught vaguebooking, people call you out on your bullshit.
    You've misunderstood everything I've not even mentioned laws beyond stating they would have to be expanded to handle the group in question. Is English your first language?

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    You've misunderstood everything I've not even mentioned laws beyond stating they would have to be expanded to handle the group in question. Is English your first language?
    You spoke about draconian laws, you brought it up. When question about that, as well as your "means of control" you ran away.

    No, we've pointed out that laws don't need to be expanded, private companies can simply stop platforming them of their own free will. No new laws are needed.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    They are both private property.

    I don't see why a Christian website should be forced to host gay porn, why do you wish to force them to do that?
    Your confused rambling does touch on a actual point. I would argue purpose needs to be considered. A social media company by definition invites users to post their own content. A gay porn site is providing content for consumption.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Your confused rambling does touch on a actual point. I would argue purpose needs to be considered. A social media company by definition invites users to post their own content. A gay porn site is providing content for consumption.
    So, not only do you want to be authoritarian, but you want to be inconsistent in your authoritarianism.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    A social media company by definition invites users to post their own content.
    And that does not mean they can post anything they want.
    A Fetus is not a person under the 14th amendment.

    Christians are Forced Birth Fascists against Human Rights who indoctrinate and groom children. Prove me wrong.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    And that does not mean they can post anything they want.
    Of course not I believe local laws should be enforced.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    If you honestly believe a physical location and a digital platform are completely identical no argument I can make will move you from your view.

    I don't agree with it but it's the fundamental difference in what I'm saying.
    What is different between ownership of a physical location and a private website that other can use? Do I not have control over my property? Do I not get to choose who I do and don't allow on my property? Do I not get to choose to remove asshats from my property for any reason I see fit, because it's my property and nobody else has any right to be on it?

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Of course not I believe local laws should be enforced.
    What local laws, exactly?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •