Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

Post by joejohnson » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 8:45 PM UTC

akvadrako wrote: post #67

joejohnson wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem the commenters on this site are mostly Americans who don’t know that their two-party system only represents two flavors of pro-capitalist neoliberalism. But left and right political spectrum and the corresponding terms have meaning outside of the limited political window of centre-right US mainstream discussion.

They don't have meaning in terms of "liberal media" vs "left media" though, at least how the poster you replied to was using the term. It doesn't do any good to introduce jargon to people who are unfamiliar with it without defining your terms.

Post by gnusty_gnurc » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

joejohnson wrote: post #44

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #34

The left is obsessed with suppressing anything that’s “dangerous” cause they think the lowly under-class can’t be trusted to review information and form opinions. If they had less authoritarian instincts, they’d realize that prohibitions generally spectacularly fail. I suspect any of the things they wanted to ban just got attention they never would have otherwise due to the Streisand effect.

The left did not suppress this story, liberal media did. You’re responding to a post criticizing this suppression written by a leftist.

Post by nwienert » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

tmaly wrote: post #74

LOL this post got suppressed ( flagged ) I think the post definitely has some merit on the discussion of free speech on the modern platforms that have become the new town square.

Post by chowchowchow » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #66

chowchowchow wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there’s other evidence of that! And the trouble here is the evidence from the story is not verified (the FBI has not confirmed its HB’s laptop, has it? The screenshots of the Russian blackberry seem... dubious...). And that’s the sort of thing that most news organizations would gate reporting on. I do agree it’s a bit strange for Twitter to step in and try to apply editorial standards where NYP didn’t when they…

> And that’s the sort of thing that most news organizations would gate reporting on. I don't think that's true. The Steele Dossier ("Trump pays Russian Hookers in Moscow to pee on him") wasn't treated special in any way, and it was much more questionable at the time than this story (where the unclear part is what they got for their bribes, not whether they payed his son for access to the VP). Of course, one argument…

Post by firebaze » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #78

firebaze wrote: post #76

Simply stop taking twitter seriously. If there's something posted which interests you, read it. If not, ignore it. Whatever emotion it causes in you, just walk around the block and ignore it. Just don't give a s..t, and twitter will get back to normal in the long run.

So you argue elsewhere this article was worthy of suppression, and yet here you are discussing it? Hypocritical.