341–350 of 983 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't "talk" to Ben, he broadcast Ben's ideas to millions of listeners (the majority of which happen to be white).
What is wrong with that? He did the same with Sanders and they were both interesting.
When I, a white young boy, grew up in The South and saw the Klan, my father taught me to never do business with them, never enable their behavior, never let their organization rent rooms from venues I may own, and to decline all of their business even if they were paying extra to be your customer. For as long as he could remember, and his father before him, the Klan and other fringe organizations would always cry and…
It's a purge. It won't stop with these three. The censorship will continue to get worse and be disproportionately applied to those on the right until all is left with the world. Conservatism has a place in society. I'm not endorsing any of these guys viewpoints nor am I associating them with conservatism in general, because it's a broad group of over 100 million people in the U.S. with a diverse range of opinions tha…
>The problem is they are not approaching the left's extremists with the same fervor This is a false equivalence. The worst of the alt-right are far, far worse than the worst of the extreme left (antifa, maybe? Though there is no alt-left). Good riddance to them, I say. If you want to lead the KKK, and advocate for a white ethnostate, I won't lose any sleep when you can't post videos trying to convince others of the s…
Nope it’s just equivalence: https://panampost.com/panam-staff/2020/06/23/the-links-betwe...
(FWIW: I’m quite pro-BLM. I don’t believe in guilt by association. My point is that there are high-profile people in relatively mainstream organizations that are proponents of murderous leftist dictators.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Veterans are a protected class (at least under labor law) in the US based on a 1974 (VEVRAA).
I'm surprised that makes the jump from employment/labor law to speech/politics policies. Strawman: If I were a politician campaigning and were to say something like, "Veterans do not deserve benefits and I don't think we should fund veteran benefits" or "Veterans do not deserve our blind respect", am I now discriminating and will get banned from the platform?
My understanding dates to the 1990s but a covered company does not get to pick and choose what areas a protected class may be discriminated against. So, if a class is considered protected from labor discrimination you cannot discriminate against that class in any of your business areas (based on membership in that class. Basically: if someone is a member of a protected class, you cannot discriminate against them, you cannot foster discrimination against them by your employees, products, or services.
My personal opinion is that a candidate who said that veterans should lose benefits as part of their campaign would probably slide through this sort of prohibition, however if that politician called for some sort of action against veterans then they would get censored/banned/whatever.
Again, not a lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is an increasingly cynical view to expose given that the people who decide to do that just get blacklisted by the financial elite. https://twitter.com/TheEbonyMaw/status/1277120076186112000 , https://reclaimthenet.org/gab-andrew-torba-visa-blacklisted-...
It's like everything about ads and tracking: your business model is not my problem. Some businesses are just unviable. Compete or die.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A purge of white supremacists sounds great to me.
sounds great to me to until I turned my brain on and realized that if you can purge one ideology, you can justify purging any other ideology.
But this is a purge like being asked not to come back to target is a purge.
And it's just as much of an infringement on your rights: none.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Apparently they're going to ban a large number of subs on Monday and frame it as an anti-racism initiative" Frame it? It is an anti-racism initiative. It may have side effects as well but that is the main driver.
They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. They are literally racially segregating users.
lmao give me a break
When I, a white young boy, grew up in The South and saw the Klan, my father taught me to never do business with them, never enable their behavior, never let their organization rent rooms from venues I may own, and to decline all of their business even if they were paying extra to be your customer. For as long as he could remember, and his father before him, the Klan and other fringe organizations would always cry and…
100%. If you are still in this thread defending the ability for white supremacists to spew racism and hate on these platforms, then that means that you wish for them to continue relaying their awful message, in which case you are a white supremacist by definition. These awful people do not "add to the discourse" in a meaningful way. Their insane ideas should not be entertained.
Soon to be found on Telegram I guess. Seem to be the only growing platform that does not ban opinions. Probably because they do not need to make advertisers happy. Conclusion: Ads still ruin the internet.
EDIT: just checked their faq and they claim they are non profit for now.