Time to walk away, bad guy wins, good guy loses!
7 Likes
I am not saying what matters or what doesn’t.
All I’m saying is if social media platforms choose to censor, they must be equal with their censoring. (I’m done after this post)
6 Likes
We would ALL be surprised at the sites that might be considered “conservative” will actually censor conservative ideas and speech.
1 Like
Call me what you wish. You have picked your side. I have picked mine.
4 Likes
OH MY!!! That guy has definitely misread and misinterpreted what is being said… Isn’t there another thread about guys like this? Is There a Member’s Only Forum talks about such folks.
4 Likes
Totally misreading what people are saying and adding your personal interpretation.
4 Likes
President Trump drew a lot of people to social media because the Lame Stream Media and broadcasting companies continue to ignore and censor him.
7 Likes
Or misrepresent what he says and does.
7 Likes
Facebook is gone for me earlier today. 10 years. This is my only social media now. Glad of it.
6 Likes
A little long, I’m sorry, but I feel it could be one of my last.
If you are unable to identify the fact that ANY censorship on this scale, by ANY side or faction, is it self a grave problem , then you are like the man who argues that a hole in the bottom of his boat is ok, so long as the boat is swamped by the right kind of water.
Forgotten here is the reason free speech was protected.
- He is free to speak, and I am free to Ignore him. -
If he is not free to speak, my freedom to ignore him is irrelevant as I am denied the choice in the first place, and coincidentally , my power of choice over what I listen too is removed as well, because the only things remaining to listen too are already chosen for me, by censorship.
what if it were food instead of speech.? The food censor claims he’s not forcing you to eat what he likes, because he isn’t forcing you to eat. however there is none to eat but what he allows. so, you can refuse to consume the food of which he approves, but the only way to do so is to refuse to eat at all. Though oversimplified, you can none the less see how censorship is revealed as a forced diet in disguise. - He doesn’t have to force you to eat, because you must eat regardless.
The authority of Censorship must reside in the hands of the listener, and the listener only.
Protecting freedom of speech is about protecting freedom period. In my opinion, if you want the freedom of speech and expression, ( which I argue is essential to freedom in general ), it requires you to be prepared to exercise the other freedoms to ignore, or reject speech, as may be necessary.
As for those who wish to bring up yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. I would remind you that the word fire was not banned, nor was yelling, or being in a crowded theatre. What WAS addressed was an obvious malicious ACT, of which speech was only a part. And the act had to cause real, quantifiable harm, not “perceived”, or " claimed" harm due to some offense taken, or an unflattering interpretation accepted by choice.
I chose to reject nearly all of social media, because the freedom of speech has been removed, and therefore it has become a forced diet where my only option is to be controlled, or reject it all together.
Finally, I have read it said here that the government is not doing the censoring talked about in this thread. I would argue that assertion to be false. The censoring of social media is being done with the blessing and encouragement of portions of government that are allowing a now clearly voided excuse of neutrality of platform. This could not be carried out without the blessing and deliberate inaction of those in government who’s constitutional mandate is to have no part in quelling free speech, either by direct action, or, the indirect action of allowing wrongful protection of the perpetrators.
We are in grave trouble. Social media has become an enormous monopoly around which much of society revolves. And it should be abundantly clear by now that they seek to become a total monopoly, as evidenced by their current efforts to forcefully destroy any alternatives to their own platforms.
I would go so far as to caution everyone in this community that this community too, may not be tolerated much longer unless it too agrees to be ruled by the content and speech censors of the left.
And yes, it’s the left who is censoring. To doubt that, or claim otherwise, is to be either supremely unaware, or to be deliberately, maliciously, misleading. I do not need to “present” the evidence of that, rather, the evidence of that is so abundant and unmistakable that it must be intentionally avoided or deliberately ignored.
I know I could be “canceled” for this opinion. But my demographic is already under a cancel order no less than five times over, so this would simply be number six. According to the rules now in play, it is not even possible for me to extricate my self from the canceled classes, it literally is not even possible.
15 Likes
Bingo!
4 Likes
I agree with all you’ve said here. The problem is that even “conservative” sites like this forum can and do go too far with censorship in the name of unity and not hurting feelings, but the liberals are concerned with neither, only unity ON THEIR TERMS ALONE!.
8 Likes
Very much agreed. I would be just as alarmed if I saw conservatives using some strangle hold to choke off all liberal opinions, because nobody can be trusted with absolute power like that, nobody.
9 Likes
That is profound… I’d like to use that sometime if I may…
5 Likes
Personally don’t use any of those sights. Never have probably never will. But shutting down someone’s voice and opinion is completely wrong. I don’t have to agree with it and, or like it, but it’s somebody’s opinion! If your, my voice gets shut down, shut out, what’s next?
1 Like
The threads that I’ve seen closed seem to start with a liberal making unfounded comments and then gets insulting when confronted and then after the conservatives answer in kind… the thread is closed.
11 Likes
At the current pace and heading of things, it would seem inevitable. Being peaceful is no longer enough, you must be actively on their side, or you are judged to be " aggressively" silent.
6 Likes
I come to the opposite conclusion. If conservatives did not respond in kind to those inflammatory threads, they would die of disuse.
3 Likes
I can agree with that. It may not be “fair” that we can’t respond in kind, But it is “right” when we don’t.
edit: Besides, I’ve noticed if you put up a good, calm, quality argument against their claims, they will very quickly disappear.
5 Likes
Indeed.
3 Likes