statefan91 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Yes, if you were using my platform to say something that caused me to lose money in my business I would censor you. Any company that doesn't is dumb.

---

Ok. I was pretty sure that you don't believe in freedom of speech, and are fully on board with the Leftist agenda to censor the right-wing in every way possible. It's just a bonus to have you admit it.

---

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying? Do you think Fox News should be forced to air BLM commercials? Do you think TPUSA should have to host content about LGBTQ+ rights? If a message is incompatible with their target audience then they shouldn't be forced to air it / show it.

Seems weird that you would want to tell private companies how they should operate.

---

I'm talking about companies like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter that when they were originally founded held themselves out to be "public commons", in which ALL viewpoints were allowed and everyone was able to speak freely without censorship. Since their foundings, however, they have obviously changed from that position and now heavily censor their sites -- mostly censoring right-wing and anti-Establishment views.

It's one thing if the site is clearly identified as a right or left wing site -- in which it clearly makes sense for them to have a bias, and censor one way or the other. But I'm talking about websites that pretended as if they supported free speech for everyone, when that is obviously not the case.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Sure - you should have free speech until the board owners / mods feel that your speech is infringing upon their ability to make money from their site. I'm not sure what's so hard about that.

---

You are dodging the question again. Of course I understand the thought process and factors that any private website owner may go through in deciding if/when to censor people's speech.

What I'm asking is if YOU would censor right-wing speech. If you ran IPS or YouTube or Twitter, would you be censoring right-wing speech...for any reason you can come up with, financial or otherwise?

---

Regardless of the responses you get here you can rest with total assurance that, when given the chance, secular liberals will indeed suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree.
The body of evidence is in and it's overwhelming.
Western liberals, like all of the heathen fascist/Marxist/communists that came before them, survive and grow by cutting off decenting viewpoints.

The very last thing a "co-exist" liberal wants is to "have a conversation" about any topic with anyone who doesn't form ranks and goose-step the way they've been told.

Is there somewhere I missed that Youtube or Facebook or Twitter said they were a no rules sounding board for anyone to have a voice no matter what? If it's in a mission statement or something please point me in that general direction. Otherwise any company will reduce ability for someone to use their platform for something they disagree with / loses them money.

statefan91 said:

---

So let me confirm - i'm naive because I don't think big tech company CEOs are deciding that they are going to do things detrimental to their companies bottom lines (all public companies BTW that have a fiduciary commitment to their shareholders and can be replaced) because they dislike Donald Trump?

---

Do you think silencing conservative voices yet allowing Khameni (sp?) to tweet about eradication of Jews is fulfilling their fiduciary agreement to shareholders?

Pretty scary that big tech, and apparently their shareholders, thinks conservative voices are worse than the murder of Jews.

You can "utilize" the First Amendment. This argument is red herring.

I don't follow twitter enough to know what this is in reference to. What Conservative voices have been banned from Twitter?

PackBacker07 said:

---

TONS of left-wing censorship on Facebook!

---

Those are milktoast RINO/Establishment fake conservatives. Of course they aren't going to be censored and banned. They are part of the con game, and are complicit in advancing the overall Marxist/globalist/NWO agenda (while pretending to oppose it). That is what the Republican party is. It's a fake conservative movement, infiltrated and controlled by closet stooges of the NWO agenda.

But Facebook has gone on a jihad to ban REAL conservatives (ie, anti-Establishment, hardcore right-wingers). They refer to these people as "alt right", for example. And why "alt right"? Because they are an "alternative" to the Establishment Republican fake conservative paradigm. There are dozens of prominent "alt right" figures and huge groups that Facebook has banned, and surely tens of thousands of "smaller" accounts that express similar views -- including Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, huge pro-Trump groups, etc.

Now, that's not to say that Trump himself is anti-Establishment. He's not. Trump is another RINO fake conservative, and minion of the overall NWO agenda. But Trump's supporters are "alt right" and anti-Establishment, and so Facebook censors them.

statefan91 said:

---

---

You can't just dismiss the idea of a "New World Order" like this. It's now basically an "open" conspiracy. In this recent New York Times article (deceptively titled "The End of the New World Order", on the subject of concern over the NWO in relation to government response to the "coronavirus" scam) they admit that there is an agenda for a "new world order":

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-the-new-world-order.html

Quote:

---

The End of the New World Order

On the one hand, the coronavirus is inspiring a surge of N.W.O. paranoia, a renewed fear of elite cabals that aspire to rule the world. But at the same time, the actual new world order, the dream of global integration and transnational governance, is disintegrating before our very eyes.

---

So they admit that there is a REAL agenda ("dream") for a new world order of "integration" and "transnational governance" -- aka something close to a one-world government.

For the past several decades, numerous world leaders have specifically called for a new "international" world order, which is based on "globalism" and "international law founded in the laws of the United Nations", and often using the exact phrase "new world order". Essentially, they are admitting they want a one-world government.

Such as what the Pope said back in 2004:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/02/catholicism.religion

Quote:

---

Pope calls for a new world order

[...]

"More than ever, we need a new international order that draws on the experience and results achieved in these years by the United Nations," he declared during a service to mark the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Peace, celebrated on January 1.

---

That's just one small example of world leaders openly and publicly calling for a "New World Order", and specifically using that exact terminology. There are hundreds of other examples of prominent world figures and leaders calling for a "New World Order" over just the past few decades. Just search the internet, and you'll find dozens of articles easily.

And, of course, George H.W. Bush gave his infamous "New World Order" speech from the White House and broadcast on television back in 1991, where he explicitly stated that we needed a "New world order" that consisted of a "credible United Nations" that was essentially governing world affairs -- ie, having a system of international law that governed all nations (aka one world government).

statefan91 said:

---

---

So this is an argument? This is serious argumentation? No, it's childish and has no substance. It's actually a tactic of disinformation. You are attempting to distract from the issue, and prevent a serious consideration of the issue from taking place.

And note what is actually taking place here. You are attempting to "mock" and "ridicule" me -- and for WHAT exactly? For pointing out an agenda that is now blatantly obvious and even admitted to exist. It would be like ridiculing and mocking me for pointing out that the Democrats are in favor of gun confiscations -- which is actually what Leftist propagandists do...when someone points this out, they laugh at you and say "Haha, no one is coming for your guns".

This is gaslighting. It's lying to someone's face when they point out an obvious truth, and thinking that this ridicule will persuade them to deny an obvious reality. Do you really think this works? Do you really think that people can't see that there is a clear agenda for "globalism", "international integration", and even a one world government? Those things are all obviously taking place. It's right out in the open, and easily seen. Are you going to deny that these things are taking place?

Oh, right...don't try to substantively address that question. Just post another gif like an 8th grade child in an internet argument.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSH7qcS6EQ7_8y6ovCxxdIiBKktYHhvm1rKeQ&usqp=CAU

Ncstatefan01 said:

---

"Milk toast" haha. Try a dictionary smart guy.

---

Oh wow. You got me. That invalidates anything I ever said. Great work, grammar nazi.

statefan91 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Yes, if you were using my platform to say something that caused me to lose money in my business I would censor you. Any company that doesn't is dumb.

---

Ok. I was pretty sure that you don't believe in freedom of speech, and are fully on board with the Leftist agenda to censor the right-wing in every way possible. It's just a bonus to have you admit it.

---

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying? Do you think Fox News should be forced to air BLM commercials? Do you think TPUSA should have to host content about LGBTQ+ rights? If a message is incompatible with their target audience then they shouldn't be forced to air it / show it.

Seems weird that you would want to tell private companies how they should operate.

---

So you agree that Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, etc are publishers and not platforms like they claim. Good to know we can find common ground there. The issue is they claim they're platforms while deplatforming those with views with which they don't agree.

Can you educate me on the distinction? I'm honestly not sure I know the difference in this sense.

statefan91 said:

---

Can you educate me on the distinction? I'm honestly not sure I know the difference in this sense.

---

Publishers edit content bc they can be held libel (i think that's the journalistic term, don't hold me to it) in court. Platforms don't have the same standards because they are just a platform for discourse. The more platforms, Twitter and Facebook especially, target certain speech as not fit for "publication" on their "platform" the closer they become to editors and then exposed to lawsuits.

I'm not a lawyer but that's the situation as I understand it. Maybe others could expound or correct as needed.

PackBacker07 said:

---

---

"Covid-19 falsehoods"

Translation: Anything deviating from the Establishment lies about the covid-19 scamdemic.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Google are now moving towards censoring what they label as "false information". At first they censored stuff they claimed was "racist" or "hateful". Now it's moving way beyond that. Next they will be banning videos on YouTube exposing the "moon landing" as a hoax, exposing "global warming" as a lie, arguing 9/11 was an "inside job", arguing that vaccines are not safe, and basically any view that deviates from the "official" Establishment position on anything of importance.

A new Leftist/Establishment "Ministry of Truth" is being implemented by Big Tech. Big Brother knows best. No dissent from Leftist/Establishment propaganda and lies will be allowed. No freedom of speech or thought. Only forced conformity to their Leftist totalitarian agenda.

Sounds like they just **** up all the time?

statefan91 said:

---

Sounds like they just **** up all the time?

---

Maybe. I'm not above admitting I might have created an echo chamber with how I consume news. I listen to Joe Rogan a lot and he also seems to believe it is happening. He's definitely not conservative, but definitely fits in the conspiracy theory camp.

Yeah - I just assume the big tech firms do things for a combination of most importantly, what will make them money, and then secondly what they think they can get away with without pissing off too many people.

UNC professor responds to the nutty lunacy of the NCSU professor by telling her, "Hold my beer".



"UNC Professor: 'They Have Deputized All White People to Murder Us'"

https://firstinfreedomdaily.com/unc-professor-they-have-deputized-all-white-people-to-murder-us/