Tommy Robinson jailed

GinAndBitter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But a convicted fraudster is?

Jesus do you ever shut up repeating the same shìte over and over you're boring. We all know about his conviction. You should go back to your echo chamber in the politics forum.

Yeah he's a convicted fraudster, so what? I've lied on loan applications in the past big deal.

It doesn't mean what he's saying now isn't true.

batgoat

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Paul sums it up nicely
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1100396039893323776?s=19

Ah yes, the man who works for a conspiracy site that claimed families of the Sandy Hook massacre were actors... I guess both Robinson and him do some pretty extreme propaganda.

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Left wing in the US basically means you're not on board the MAGA train.

That's absolutely not true.

Alright, this is pointless.

ancapailldorcha

GinAndBitter wrote: »

It doesn't mean what he's saying now isn't true.

No but the fact that you couldn't make that point without the ad hominem says a lot.

This cult of Tommy thing is getting a bit weird to be honest. It's like Christianity with a crap Jesus.

But maybe we should just leave it at that. Last word's yours if you want it.

GinAndBitter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No but the fact that you couldn't make that point without the ad hominem says a lot.

This cult of Tommy thing is getting a bit weird to be honest. It's like Christianity with a crap Jesus.

If it's getting a bit weird for you then see yourself out of thread. I can't imagine spending my time repeating the same crap over and over again about someone I hate. Go hand out some bans or something that's what you're for.

mcmoustache

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Paul sums it up nicely
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1100396039893323776?s=19

Who's he and what's his expertise? Is he one of those supplement salesmen that the incels consider an intellectual?

mcmoustache

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Obviously you don't need to agree with whatever you read, but I am a centrist, and I make an effort to read the news on both sides of the political spectrum, and it is extremely obvious there is strong left wing bias amongst the tech companies and their employees. Even if you don't believe me, surely it's common sense - San Fransicso is overwhelmingly left wing. This is the location of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. So the banings generally follow this political bias.

Reading the fringes on both sides will not make you more informed. You need to first figure out which sources tend to be reliable as far as factual reporting goes and correcting mistakes. You need to be able to separate them from sources that tend to be deceptive. You should also learn the difference between a report and an opinion piece.

GinAndBitter

mcmoustache wrote: »

Reading the fringes on both sides will not make you more informed. You need to first figure out which sources tend to be reliable as far as factual reporting goes and correcting mistakes. You need to be able to separate them from sources that tend to be deceptive. You should also learn the difference between a report and an opinion piece.

Can you give us some examples of what you see as reliable sources?

OMM 0000

mcmoustache wrote: »

Reading the fringes on both sides will not make you more informed. You need to first figure out which sources tend to be reliable as far as factual reporting goes and correcting mistakes. You need to be able to separate them from sources that tend to be deceptive. You should also learn the difference between a report and an opinion piece.

Where did I say I only read the fringes?

Where did I say I think reports and opinion pieces are the same?

Are you one of those people who think everyone who doesn't share your political opinion must be a MAGA hat wearing nazi?

Billy Mays

mcmoustache wrote: »

Who's he and what's his expertise? Is he one of those supplement salesmen that the incels consider an intellectual?

Remember that time the White House shared a doctored video of Jim Acosta putting his hands on a White House intern to justify removing Acosta's press credentials?

PrisonPlanetPaul was the scource of said doctored video.

mcmoustache

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Can you give us some examples of what you see as reliable sources?

The Wall Street Journal has excellent factual reporting and very deceptive editorials and opinion pieces. I'm providing this one as an example because it demonstrates how one organisation can provide factual reporting while being less factual with opinion pieces. This is common in many news organisations.

The kind of media that I tend to avoid are the vitamin salesmen and basement video producers from social media.

Billy Mays

Billy Mays wrote: »

Remember that time the White House shared a doctored video of Jim Acosta putting his hands on a White House intern to justify removing Acosta's press credentials?

PrisonPlanetPaul was the scource of said doctored video.

jesus...

no.

Skylinehead

GinAndBitter wrote: »

If it's getting a bit weird for you then see yourself out of thread. I can't imagine spending my time repeating the same crap over and over again about someone I hate. Go hand out some bans or something that's what you're for.

Mod: I will, if you don't stop the personal abuse and overly aggressive posts.

Boggles

In November, PayPal said it would no longer process payments for Mr Robinson

:pac:

Does Stephen actually have a job?

GinAndBitter

mcmoustache wrote: »

The Wall Street Journal has excellent factual reporting and very deceptive editorials and opinion pieces. I'm providing this one as an example because it demonstrates how one organisation can provide factual reporting while being less factual with opinion pieces. This is common in many news organisations.

The kind of media that I tend to avoid are the vitamin salesmen and basement video producers from social media.

Fair enough, anything from this side of the pond? I don't like to watch or read American news.

OMM 0000

Boggles wrote: »

:pac:

Does Stephen actually have a job?

I would be fairly confident he's getting funding from organisations who support his political views.

His job is an activist?

mcmoustache

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Where did I say I only read the fringes?

I didn't say that you did. I did imply that you read the fringes of whom convicted fraudster Tommy would be a member, not to be confused with only reading the fringes. My point was that they aren't worth bothering with.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Where did I say I think reports and opinion pieces are the same?

You provided an opinion piece earlier as a source for a claim. It suggests that you either don't know the difference or are acting in bad faith. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Are you one of those people who think everyone who doesn't share your political opinion must be a MAGA hat wearing nazi?

No. I'm Irish and have been on the internet long before people started thinking "I'm left wing" or "I'm right wing". My opinions on economic matters would lean heavily to the right while my views on social issues would lean left although my views on some social issues such as those relating to travellers and trans women in women's sport would probably have me leaning right again.

This nonsense of identifying as left or right is just that. Nonsense.

So no, I don't view those who disagree with me as being MAGA hat wearing nazis.

ohnonotgmail

Boggles wrote: »

:pac:

Does Stephen actually have a job?

Is grifting not a job?

GinAndBitter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is grifting not a job?

Well brains, what do you think?


Mod-Banned

mcmoustache

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Fair enough, anything from this side of the pond? I don't like to watch or read American news.

The Telegraph is basically the WSJ equivalent over here. Good reporting, not so good editorialising. The Indo, closer to home is what I use to keep up to date with Irish news but it's just OK and has a lot of lunatics writing opinion pieces.

GinAndBitter

mcmoustache wrote: »

The Telegraph is basically the WSJ equivalent over here. Good reporting, not so good editorialising. The Indo, closer to home is what I use to keep up to date with Irish news but it's just OK and has a lot of lunatics writing opinion pieces.

I appreciate your recommendations, thanks.

Boggles

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I would be fairly confident he's getting funding from organisations who support his political views.

Just not via paypal, Western Union? :pac:

OMM 0000 wrote: »

His job is an activist?

So is he actually registered with Her Majesty as a self employed activist?

OMM 0000

mcmoustache wrote: »

I didn't say that you did. I did imply that you read the fringes of whom convicted fraudster Tommy would be a member, not to be confused with only reading the fringes. My point was that they aren't worth bothering with.

You provided an opinion piece earlier as a source for a claim. It suggests that you either don't know the difference or are acting in bad faith. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

No. I'm Irish and have been on the internet long before people started thinking "I'm left wing" or "I'm right wing". My opinions on economic matters would lean heavily to the right while my views on social issues would lean left although my views on some social issues such as those relating to travellers and trans women in women's sport would probably have me leaning right again.

This nonsense of identifying as left or right is just that. Nonsense.

So no, I don't view those who disagree with me as being MAGA hat wearing nazis.

You implied I am reading fringes and don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.

If you seriously think I was "trying to act in bad faith" by linking to a USA Today opinion piece about conservatives being silenced, then you need to stop taking boards so seriously. Just google "social media bias against conservatives" and you'll find a million articles talking about this.

As I stated earlier, it is common sense that moderators working for Facebook, Instagram, Youtube & Twitter in ultra left wing San Francisco are going to have a left leaning bias. If you pay attention to this topic (conservatives being silenced) you will see it's not paranoia.

I agree with you on the following: This nonsense of identifying as left or right is just that. Nonsense.

It doesn't make sense. If we're being honest with ourselves, we are conservative about some things, and liberal about other things. And even then, there's things like being politically conservative and being socially conservative. They're not the same.

ricero

The censorship and lack of free speech which goes against the globalist and liberal agenda is frightening in this day and age.

Love or loathe Tommy Robinson or Alex Jones but what has happened to them is dangerous and disturbing. Scary times we are living in. The era of fake news is alive and kicking.

ohnonotgmail

ricero wrote: »

The censorship and lack of free speech which goes against the globalist and liberal agenda is frightening in this day and age.

Love or loathe Tommy Robinson or Alex Jones but what has happened to them is dangerous and disturbing. Scary times we are living in. The era of fake news is alive and kicking.

You do realise that robinson and Jones, in particular jones, are the biggest proponents of fake news? That is basically all jones did

batgoat

ricero wrote: »

The censorship and lack of free speech which goes against the globalist and liberal agenda is frightening in this day and age.

Love or loathe Tommy Robinson or Alex Jones but what has happened to them is dangerous and disturbing. Scary times we are living in. The era of fake news is alive and kicking.

Alex Jones is currently being sued by families he claimed were actors after their children died. He is a self promoting scumbag.

OMM 0000

ricero wrote: »

The censorship and lack of free speech which goes against the globalist and liberal agenda is frightening in this day and age.

Love or loathe Tommy Robinson or Alex Jones but what has happened to them is dangerous and disturbing. Scary times we are living in. The era of fake news is alive and kicking.

I find it quite amazing how fake news is defined.

Do you ever notice if you're an expert in a topic, whenever you read an article about that topic on mainstream news source (e.g. the BBC), you're always scratching your head thinking what is this nonsense?

For example, I'm a HIV expert and practically every article on HIV is wrong. It's always a mix of misinformation and old wives tales. I've also a strong background is statistics, and I constantly see statistics being abused to make fake points.

And then there's all the political agendas. Look how many BBC articles are written from a feminist perspective.

It's become very difficult to find genuinely truthful news sources.

I quite like the commentator Tim Pool. He at least tries to be fair.

Alex Jones was always kind of ridiculous, but he has really lost the plot these days.

Outlaw Pete

All just far left liberals closing ranks given the release of Panodrama, doing their bit for the side as it were.

Free speech used to be something that classic liberals fought for, now these so called liberals want their opponents muzzled whenever it doesn't suit their narrative.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Your examples are not equivalent. Almost no one knew about these rape gangs. There is a strong argument to make that the courts blocking any reporting was business as usual (their rapes had been covered up for decades).

My understanding of free speech is not vague. The issue is most people here have never thought it through, yet for some reason they have strong opinions on it...

Of course extremist Islamic clerics and anti-semites should have free speech. Again, I think you don't understand what free speech is. It doesn't mean freedom of consequences.

To have free speech you have to accept speech you don't like. I understand this is an outrageous concept for some people.

And you see no consequences with extremists having free speech?

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And you see no consequences with extremists having free speech?

Of course there are negative consequences, but the positives outweighs the negatives.

You think there are no consequences to curbing speech?

You should try to think it through. When you properly understand the benefits of free speech, it's impossible to not want it.

lbc2019

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I find it quite amazing how fake news is defined.

Do you ever notice if you're an expert in a topic, whenever you read an article about that topic on mainstream news source (e.g. the BBC), you're always scratching your head thinking what is this nonsense?

For example, I'm a HIV expert and practically every article on HIV is wrong. It's always a mix of misinformation and old wives tales. I've also a strong background is statistics, and I constantly see statistics being abused to make fake points.

And then there's all the political agendas. Look how many BBC articles are written from a feminist perspective.

It's become very difficult to find genuinely truthful news sources.

I quite like the commentator Tim Pool. He at least tries to be fair.

Alex Jones was always kind of ridiculous, but he has really lost the plot these days.

Expert? Any link to published papers?

OMM 0000

lbc2019 wrote: »

Expert? Any link to published papers?

No thanks.

lbc2019

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No thanks.

How are you an expert?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Of course there are negative consequences, but the positives outweighs the negatives.

You think there are no consequences to curbing speech?

You should try to think it through. When you properly understand the benefits of free speech, it's impossible to not want it.

So, no - you do not see consequences. You could use the same argument to disband police, promote pedophilia or declare war.

I've no problem saying I don't agree with free speech because I do see the consequences. And no, they do not outweigh the preservation of human life.

When people are caught inciting hatred and promoting violence you better believe I want them censored.

And when the pretend to be honest when they lie, pretend to be open when they're racist and pretend to want peace when they are trying to share people into commuting violence acts they should be called out on it, not idolised

OMM 0000

lbc2019 wrote: »

How are you an expert?

College + employment.

I don't work in that area anymore. But I still read the papers.

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, no - you do not see consequences.

I've no problem saying I don't agree with free speech because I do see the consequences. And no, they do not outweigh the preservation of human life.

When people are caught inciting hatred and promoting violence you better believe I want them censored.

And when the pretend to be honest when they lie, pretend to be open when they're racist and pretend to want peace when they are trying to share people into commuting violence acts they should be called out on it, not idolised

I just said there are negative consequence, but it doesn't fit your narrative so you have to pretend I said there are no consequences. This is literally what I wrote in response to you:

Of course there are negative consequences

You have a very shallow knowledge of this topic.

Try to think through this little problem:

How do you define hate speech?

Anti black? OK.
Anti gay? OK.
Anti muslim? OK.
Anti jew? OK.
Anti fat? OK.
Anti skinny? OK.
Anti ginger? OK.
Anti Irish? OK.
Anti conservative? OK.
Anti whatever-people-get-offended-about? OK?

Seriously, try to draw the line for what is and is not hate speech. It's impossible.

lbc2019

OMM 0000 wrote: »

College + employment.

I don't work in that area anymore. But I still read the papers.

As? I worked in a courthouse doesnt make me a law expert

OMM 0000

lbc2019 wrote: »

As? I worked in a courthouse doesnt make me a law expert

I have no interest in sharing my qualifications and work history with you.

donkeykong5

stefanovich wrote: »

Tommy Robinson is a hero

Hes not **** scared of pcbrigade. Guys a legend. !

lbc2019

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I have no interest in sharing my qualifications and work history with you.

But a self appointed HIV expert

I dont buy it

OMM 0000

lbc2019 wrote: »

But a self appointed HIV expert

I dont buy it

I don't care. Get over yourself.

Boggles

WTF is a HIV expert?

Surely that would be a doctor, no?

Are you a Doctor?

moonage

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

When people are caught inciting hatred and promoting violence you better believe I want them censored.

In the UK there are laws against inciting hatred and promoting violence but Tommy Robinson has never been charged with them.

Panorama should have been about how he's been harrassed and persecuted by the state over the years for expressing his opinions.

lbc2019

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I don't care. Get over yourself.

Says the self appointed expert... lolz

lbc2019

Why are there so many Tommy fanboys in Ireland?

OMM 0000

lbc2019 wrote: »

Says the self appointed expert... lolz

No one can be an expert without explaining their qualifications to you?

Do you have a slight ego by any chance?

lbc2019

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No one can be an expert without explaining their qualifications to you?

Do you have a slight ego by any chance?

No but when someone self declares themselves expert I expect proof!

lbc2019

Boggles wrote: »

WTF is a HIV expert?

Surely that would be a doctor, no?

Are you a Doctor?

Like the anti abortion Nurse that was a temporary porter...

Boggles

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No one can be an expert without explaining their qualifications to you?

Well you are either a scientist or a doctor who has extensively studied HIV and probably has been published.

Which one are you?

No need for a CV.

OMM 0000

lbc2019 wrote: »

No but when someone self declares themselves expert I expect proof!

Yeah, well that's your problem, and says nothing about me.

Do you ask people for proof in real life? Why are you doing it online? Why do you find it difficult to be civil?