Spin Forum Dumping Bin

[tdawg87]

16 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

If you post proven lies or obviously incendiary info then the bans should be automatic and permanent. And to expect a for profit company to willfully broadcast your plans to overthrow the government is just fucking stupid 

But muh free speech

[Jason]

24 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

If you post proven lies or obviously incendiary info then the bans should be automatic and permanent. And to expect a for profit company to willfully broadcast your plans to overthrow the government is just fucking stupid 

This is true but I think there’s be less people hitching about it if these companies we consistent regardless of the political ideologies of those posting the stuff 

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

This is true but I think there’s be less people hitching about it if these companies we consistent regardless of the political ideologies of those posting the stuff 

So you think they only target cons?

[Jason]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

So you think they only target cons?

Only? No but they are more strict on cons 

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

So you think they only target cons?

You deny they are stricter on cons?

[St1ck]

7 minutes ago, Jason said:

Only? No but they are more strict on cons 

 

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

You deny they are stricter on cons?

Maybe the cons should learn how to conduct themselves in a better manner and follow the terms of agreement. 

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, st1ckboy said:

 

Maybe the cons should learn how to conduct themselves in a better manner and follow the terms of agreement. 

LOL, Dennis Prager is known for being so outrageous.  
some of you have already gotten your talking points down for trampling down on dissent.

[St1ck]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

LOL, Dennis Prager is known for being so outrageous.  
some of you have already gotten your talking points down for trampling down on dissent.

I dont even know who that is. 

[Lou]

st0mpboy!

[tdawg87]

11 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

You deny they are stricter on cons?

I have no evidence one way or another. 

My guess is if you're a conservative, you're going to think they're stricter on "your side".

[AngelsLakersFan]

Let's be honest here, so far they haven't banned anyone who wasn't at least being a real asshole.

The extent of the bias I've seen from twitter usually comes down to cases where two people were being assholes to each other and the conservative asshole got banned. Not fair, but fuck em.

[Rico]

6 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Or maybe because tik tok is being used the Chinese government to spy on the US and it’s citizens

Is it though?  I don't believe there is any evidence of this claim. 

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, Rico said:

Is it though?  I don't believe there is any evidence of this claim. 

You don’t think the Chinese are trying to get any information they can?

[Rico]

There have always been limits to free speech. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is a big no-no.

Inciting a mob to storm the capital building and 5 people dying because of it is far worse. 

[mtangelsfan]

7 minutes ago, Rico said:

There have always been limits to free speech. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is a big no-no.

Inciting a mob to storm the capital building and 5 people dying because of it is far worse. 

This is always the first argument used to justify silencing dissent 

[Rico]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

You don’t think the Chinese are trying to get any information they can?

They have nothing to gain from spying on me.  If you're really worried about it don't download the app. Big government shouldn't take that choice from me.

Our own government spy on us anyway, why should I care if the Chinese are trying to do the same?

[mtangelsfan]

1 minute ago, Rico said:

They have nothing to gain from spying on me.  If you're really worried about it don't download the app. Big government shouldn't take that choice from me.

Our own government spy on us anyway, why should I care if the Chinese are trying to do the same?

I am not worried about them spying on you rico

[Rico]

13 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

This is always the first argument used to justify silencing dissent 

5 people are dead. 

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, Rico said:

5 people are dead. 

True

[tdawg87]

To me, the right to free speech has always been about freedom to say what you want without restraint from the government. Basically, you can go outside and shout the N word and face no legal ramifications. As it should be.

But it doesn't mean freedom without consequences. You can't go call your boss a faggot and expect to not get fired because muh 1st amendment.

Wanna call a dude the N word at the 7-11? You ain't going to jail for it but you're probably getting a Twisted Tea.

As for social media, I think this opinion article paints a good picture:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/why-trump-bans-from-twitter-facebook-dont-violate-first-amendment-2021-1%3famp

[mtangelsfan]

2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

To me, the right to free speech has always been about freedom to say what you want without restraint from the government. Basically, you can go outside and shout the N word and face no legal ramifications. As it should be.

But it doesn't mean freedom without consequences. You can't go call your boss a faggot and expect to not get fired because muh 1st amendment.

Wanna call a dude the N word at the 7-11? You ain't going to jail for it but you're probably getting a Twisted Tea.

As for social media, I think this opinion article paints a good picture:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/why-trump-bans-from-twitter-facebook-dont-violate-first-amendment-2021-1%3famp

I didn’t argue it is is against the 1st Amendment.  That doesn’t mean it isn’t stifling dissent.

As I have already stated, this is an extremely complex issue with no easy answers.

 

[Taylor]

51 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

This is always the first argument used to justify silencing dissent 

I've only seen it used when someone makes the "free speech" argument to defend someone eliciting violence or unlawful activity with their speech.

[Kevin]

I agree with MT that it’s a tricky issue. Guess the question is, what level of dissent is acceptable and not crossing the line? For years, Trump derided anything and everything that Obama did via Twitter and they took no action against him.

With what he has been doing since the election two months ago (particularly the weeks leading up to January 6th), has he crossed that line of dissent via Twitter? I guess each individual is going to have a different opinion.

[Rico]

Q too crazy for Alex Jones.

[St1ck]

23 minutes ago, Rico said:

Q too crazy for Alex Jones.

No that's him trying to distance himself after the fact.