View Poll Results: Should Parler be deplatformed?

Voters
172. You may not vote on this poll
  • No.

    58 33.72%
  • Yes.

    114 66.28%
Page 56 of 78 FirstFirst ...
6
46
54
55
56
57
58
66
... LastLast
  1. #1101
    Elemental Lord Kathranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    8,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    They are also politically motivated as @Edge- notes.

    It isn't one or another; they can do both.
    Only in so far as these bans were a result of public outcry over a right wing insurgency.

    If you think these massive, publicly-traded companies are doing anything out of sincere left wing activism, you're either naive or arguing in bad faith. They've had the opportunity to silence the right wing rhetoric and shape the narrative for over a decade now, yet they let it fester. They only acted after their platforms have been implicated in helping foment a terrorist attack.

    Nevermind that Trump was given warning after warning, second chance after second chance. It's not like we didn't all see this coming. Guy spent two months incessantly posting content that needed to be moderated and debunked. Same for Powell and Pillow and most of these other people peddling outright lies.

  2. #1102
    It's censorship, respecting the Freedom of Speech include giving them the right to rant.

  3. #1103
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr View Post
    It's censorship, respecting the Freedom of Speech include giving them the right to rant.
    So you'd be okay if I insisted on sitting in your living room while you're trying to watch TV and droning on endlessly about why socialism is a superior economic system in incredibly dry and unpleasant tones?

    You wouldn't say "how did you even get in here? Get out of my house!"

    Because that would be censorship, you see. And you're opposed to censorship. I have the right to free speech, do I not?

    Yes, that's a terrible fucking argument and it doesn't make sense. It's also the same argument you are trying to make.

  4. #1104
    Quote Originally Posted by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr View Post
    It's censorship, respecting the Freedom of Speech include giving them the right to rant.
    Just to confirm, that means you feel I should be able to come onto your property, and spew racist shit to your family, and you are not allowed to kick me out?

  5. #1105
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    So you'd be okay if I insisted on sitting in your living room while you're trying to watch TV and droning on endlessly about why socialism is a superior economic system in incredibly dry and unpleasant tones?

    You wouldn't say "how did you even get in here? Get out of my house!"

    Because that would be censorship, you see. And you're opposed to censorship. I have the right to free speech, do I not?

    Yes, that's a terrible fucking argument and it doesn't make sense. It's also the same argument you are trying to make.
    Chill bro, I'm not in the mood for an argument. But I have had experiences with being censored even when your opinions were valid and it's not pleasant. Media was censored during my mom's time and just complaining will get you killed, and back when I was still active in church helping drug addicts the current Duterte regime tried to censor us too (Due to his strictness in the drug war).

    Free Speech should be a fundamental right, after all isn't media considered the 4rth Estate? (Borrowing from Nomenclature of the French Revolution were the Clergy, Nobility, and Commoners are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Estates)

  6. #1106
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Just to confirm, that means you feel I should be able to come onto your property, and spew racist shit to your family, and you are not allowed to kick me out?
    Of course not that's an Argumentum ad extremum.

  7. #1107
    Quote Originally Posted by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr View Post
    Of course not that's an Argumentum ad extremum.
    Then, you support censorship...

  8. #1108
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Then, you support censorship...
    Not really. Also words don't harm people weapons do. I've been called all kinds of shit. I don't have thin skin. Insults are just insults.

  9. #1109
    Quote Originally Posted by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr View Post
    Not really. Also words don't harm people weapons do. I've been called all kinds of shit. I don't have thin skin. Insults are just insults.
    Then, you should have no problem if I sit in your living room, and insult you. Either that, or you want double standards.

    Other companies are free to kick them off their property, just as you are free to kick me off of yours.

  10. #1110
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Just to confirm, that means you feel I should be able to come onto your property, and spew racist shit to your family, and you are not allowed to kick me out?
    Trespassing? Not here. And singling out my kids gets what it deserves. In NJ that may construe assault.
    Arguing an extreme position gets extreme responses.

  11. #1111
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Trespassing? Not here. And singling out my kids gets what it deserves. In NJ that may construe assault.
    Arguing an extreme position gets extreme responses.
    Great, then you should have no problem with all those companies kicking Parler and the rest of the Nazi shit stains off their property.

  12. #1112
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Then, you should have no problem if I sit in your living room, and insult you. Either that, or you want double standards.

    Other companies are free to kick them off their property, just as you are free to kick me off of yours.
    Most situations are not really that black and white anyway, it's a case-by-case basis.

  13. #1113
    Quote Originally Posted by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr View Post
    Most situations are not really that black and white anyway, it's a case-by-case basis.
    You either support someone's property rights, or you don't.

    If you are going to complain that it's censorship, don't turn around and immediately call for censorship.

  14. #1114
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Great, then you should have no problem with all those companies kicking Parler and the rest of the Nazi shit stains off their property.
    I was trying for subtlety...not for you (because I agree), but for "Rene" who might see your argument better through my perspective.

  15. #1115
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You either support someone's property rights, or you don't.
    Lol bro, don't be an edgelord, you can do both without mutually excluding the other (Support property right vs respecting free speech). You can call the police and tranfer that person to the public square where he can yap all he wants. Or altenartively I let him yap in my living room and try to debunk his speech if I'm annoyed.

    The issue here is the issue of Freedom, especially freedom of speech. Property is only attached to the person, but a person's freedom, including freedom of speech is an inherent right. In the heirarchy of rights the freedom of a person is a higher right vs a right to roperty which is only a facet of ownership not a inherent right.

    After all even owning property is due to the fact that the person is free to acquire it, FREEDOM of speech being an aspect of Freedom itself should be classed higher than material things.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I was trying for subtlety...not for you (because I agree), but for "Rene" who might see your argument better through my perspective.

    Thank you for your input. You bring up valid points.

  16. #1116
    Quote Originally Posted by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr View Post
    Lol bro, don't be an edgelord, you can do both without mutually excluding the other (Support property right vs respecting free speech). You can call the police and tranfer that person to the public square where he can yap all he wants. Or altenartively I let him yap in my living room and try to debunk his speech if I'm annoyed.

    The issue here is the issue of Freedom, especially freedom of speech. Property is only attached to the person, but a person's freedom, including freedom of speech is an inherent right. In the heirarchy of rights the freedom of a person is a higher right vs a right to roperty which is only a facet of ownership not a inherent right.

    After all even owning property is due to the fact that the person is free to acquire it, FREEDOM of speech being an aspect of Freedom itself should be classed higher than material things.
    And in this case, these companies are choosing to stop doing business with them. Problem solved.

    If that's an inherent right, then why do you not want me to have it in your home? That's right, because you, as well as these companies, also have rights.

    So, unless you want to let me sit on your couch and yell racist shit at your family, then maybe you should understand that these companies are simply exercising their own freedoms, not denying others theirs.

  17. #1117
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-omar-tw...mp-ban-1561917

    OH GOD THIS IS SO GOOD!

    A patriotic snowflake is suing Twitter and Ilhan Omar/Ocasio-Cortez over...Trump being banned from Twitter.

    He has suffered "overbearing pain and suffering."

    Imagine how fuckin pathetic you gotta be to suffer because someone can't shitpost on Twitter anymore. Bonus points for the casual my soggy knee and racism present in naming Omar and Ocasio-Cortez in the lawsuit because...I honestly don't know why other than he's probably mad neither will sleep with him or something.
    Well, 3 parts of this I like.

    1. He is suing, not because he got banned, but because Trump got banned. For the tune of $88.7 million. And then claims each USER is entitled to $88.7 million each because of Trump's ban. BTW, he is also representing himself and demanding a ban for AOC and Omar because "communism".

    2. He is using a Supreme court case, Marsh v. Alabama, as precedent. Best part is, he is using the excuse that because Twitter is like a "company town", you cannot be banned. While Twitter can be argued that it is like a company town, unlike most company towns, you cannot just randomly walk into them and unlike most company towns, you have to actively sign up to partake in any activity other then viewing it from afar. Also, the judgement was based on the grounds they were suppressing religious speech which Twitter generally never does. Also, company towns, much like their modern day counterparts(HOAs), are all considered private grounds OTHER then the roads and right of ways which this person was on. There is no "Right-of-way" on Twitter.

    3. Here is an article about the Twitch lawsuit. Most definitely worth a read. Headline alone is perfect. "A Sex Addict Is Suing Twitch for Its ‘Sexually Suggestive’ Streamers". https://heavy.com/entertainment/2020...his%20lawsuit.

    It looks like this guy loves to sue because, well, he is a snowflake and cannot handle any type of thing that goes against what he likes.

  18. #1118
    Elemental Lord Kathranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    8,575
    @Machismo, you need to stop making these apples and oranges arguments.

    This is a simple situation. There's a reason Republicans are bitching about "freedom of speech" but aren't actually doing anything about it: their right to free speech isn't actually being infringed upon. Forcing these companies to host their rhetoric would actually be a violation of their freedom of association.

    I will repeat this again plainly: freedom of speech does not grant you a platform. No person or group or company is obligated to give you time or space to speak your mind. Twitter is not obligated to host your tweets, Fox News is not obligated to give you airtime, the NYT is not obligated to publish your opinions, your local grocery store is not obligated to let you hand out fliers to their customers.

  19. #1119
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathranis View Post
    @Machismo, you need to stop making these apples and oranges arguments.

    This is a simple situation. There's a reason Republicans are bitching about "freedom of speech" but aren't actually doing anything about it: their right to free speech isn't actually being infringed upon. Forcing these companies to host their rhetoric would actually be a violation of their freedom of association.

    I will repeat this again plainly: freedom of speech does not grant you a platform. No person or group or company is obligated to give you time or space to speak your mind. Twitter is not obligated to host your tweets, Fox News is not obligated to give you airtime, the NYT is not obligated to publish your opinions, your local grocery store is not obligated to let you hand out fliers to their customers.
    It's not, this is simple a matter of one's right to speak their mind, running into another's property rights. Since these "platforms" aren't the government, they are free to kick them right the hell off their property. Free speech remains intact.

    Companies also enjoy the Frist Amendment, which means they have freedom of association. They are exercising that freedom.

  20. #1120
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And in this case, these companies are choosing to stop doing business with them. Problem solved.

    If that's an inherent right, then why do you not want me to have it in your home? That's right, because you, as well as these companies, also have rights.

    So, unless you want to let me sit on your couch and yell racist shit at your family, then maybe you should understand that these companies are simply exercising their own freedoms, not denying others theirs.
    Your point is totally understandable. However, what I don't agree on is deplatforming entire forums where people use it to communicate with each other. My mom has experienced the horrors of Censorship during the dictatorship years. She once ran a underground press but was instead accussed of supplying firearms and imprisoned as a communist even when she believed in God. That's why she inculcated on me how the freedom of expression is a God given right considering how in her time, the press was censored, especially since even the mainstream news companies were being bribed by the dictator. Every voice whether Leftist or Rightwing deserves to be heard.

    In this regard I find twitter to biased and leaning left wing, during the Arab Spring Twitter didn't ban the Arabs who used Twitter to communicate with each other and riot in the streets. But they banned Trump. I myself hate Trump, but as an Acolyte and a very religious indvidual I lean rightwing and support the rightwing Republican Party, I just dislike the raging Atheism of the Left but otherwise, many facets of the Religious Rightwing like the emphasis on charity, sharing, and forgiveness; point to Jesus being a hippie leftie too you know.
    Last edited by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr; 2021-01-16 at 04:25 PM.

Posting Permissions

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