Tommy Robinson jailed

lbc2019

malinheader wrote: »

Because we have seen what has happened in the UK and also alot of other European countries. And I for one don't want Ireland following suit.

What happened? Ugly white men blamed their problems on someone else and voted to leave the EU?

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

All of those examples are an incitement to violence, apart from the calling Muslim filthy scumbags.

so you dont have an issue with FB banning him then?

sirmanga

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Facebook is an independent, private company. They have no duty to provide anyone with free speech - you are bound by the terms and conditions you agree to when you create the account. Same with twitter. Same with boards.ie. Same with indymedia and stormfront for that matter.

Also, they could be held liable for anything libelous written on their platforms. There was aver serious case involving this very platform and a major events management company not so long ago.

Indeed. But the problem is they don't enforce their rules fairly. Many people will be banned for saying something about e.g. black people and they will be rightly banned. A black person will say something derogatory about whites and they won't be banned. Just a general example, but I've seen things like this.
Also, if they start banning people for saying nasty things about Muslim they'll have to ban people for making fun of Christians. Or at least they should, to be fair.
The point is that Facebook, if they keep up this selective banning, will one day be forced to admit that they are an editorial website rather than a social media platform.

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you dont have an issue with FB banning him then?

If he said those things, then no I don't.

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Indeed. But the problem is they don't enforce their rules properly. Many people will bebanned for saying something about e.g. black people and they will be rightly banned. A black person will say something derogatory about whites and they won't be banned.

The point is that Facebook, if they keep up this selective banning, will one day be forced to admit that they are an editorial website rather than a social media platform.

there was nothing selective about their banning of tommy

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there was nothing selective about their banning of tommy

Ok, well I mean in general it tends to be right leaning people who get de-platformed. Alex Jones got banned from Twitter and the Twitter CEO admits he doesn't really know why. (By the way, I think Alex Jones is crazy.)

Yet Peter Fonda tweeted out that he thinks Trump's 12 year old son should be locked in a cage a raped and he didn't even get a suspension.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sirmanga wrote: »

Indeed. But the problem is they don't enforce their rules fairly. Many people will be banned for saying something about e.g. black people and they will be rightly banned. A black person will say something derogatory about whites and they won't be banned. Just a general example, but I've seen things like this.
Also, if they start banning people for saying nasty things about Muslim they'll have to ban people for making fun of Christians. Or at least they should, to be fair.
The point is that Facebook, if they keep up this selective banning, will one day be forced to admit that they are an editorial website rather than a social media platform.

I'd need to see specific examples of selective racism bans, to be honest. Also, saying "nasty things" about one religion and then "making fun" of another; - interesting change of phrase there.

Ultimately, they can claim whatever they want to be. They can be a social media platform and practice whatever rules they want. They ban be a social media platform and be inconsistent. Why would this go against the definition of a "social media platform"?

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Ok, well I mean in general it tends to be right leaning people who get de-platformed. Alex Jones got banned from Twitter and the Twitter CEO admits he doesn't really know why. (By the way, I think Alex Jones is crazy.)

Yet Peter Fonda tweeted out that he thinks Trump's 12 year old son should be locked in a cage a raped and he didn't even get a suspension.

maybe because they are the ones spreading the hate

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe because they are the ones spreading the hate

Advocating a child be raped because you don't like his father's policy is not spreading the hate? Okay

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Advocating a child be raped because you don't like his father's policy is not spreading the hate? Okay

i have no idea who the peter fonda you referred to is. I have no idea what sanctions twitter against them assuming they did even tweet what they said. How can i comment on something i have no knowledge of?

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe because they are the ones spreading the hate

Also, it's not about spreading the hate. Right wingers are just as entitled to have an opinion on something as left wingers. It just so happens that all of the social media platforms are based in the ultra liberal California. So to think their is no bias is just silly.

Seathrun66

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

You mean same edl hes no longer part of ? That one ?

Have you even looked into the good he has done ?

Raised thousands for kids and people in need

That where the mortgage fraud cash went?

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Also, it's not about spreading the hate. Right wingers are just as entitled to have an opinion on something as left wingers. It just so happens that all of the social media platforms are based in the ultra liberal California. So to think their is no bias is just silly.

can you point me to somebody who was banned because they happened to have a different opinion?

sirmanga

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd need to see specific examples of selective racism bans, to be honest. Also, saying "nasty things" about one religion and then "making fun" of another; - interesting change of phrase there.

Ok then, if you get banned for bashing Islam then you should get banned for bashing Christianity. Happy?

malinheader

lbc2019 wrote: »

What happened? Ugly white men blamed their problems on someone else and voted to leave the EU?

This tells me you know sweet fa what your supposed to be debating about.

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you point me to somebody who was banned because they happened to have a different opinion?

Alex Jones, like I said. They initially said he was banned for spreading conspiracy theories. Then they said they didn't know why he was banned.

But Minister Farrakhan, a black man in the Nation of Islam, is a horrific anti-Semite and said Jews were termites but he has not been banned or suspended. Which is worse, spreading nutty fake stories or being a disgusting anti-Semite?

Anyway, back to Tommy Robinson. (Who I think is a clown, incidentally. )

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Alex Jones, like I said. They initially said he was banned for spreading conspiracy theories. Then they said they didn't know why he was banned.

But Minister Farrakhan, a black man in the Nation of Islam, is a horrific anti-Semite and said Jews were termites but he has not been banned or suspended. Which is worse, spreading nutty fake stories or being a disgusting anti-Semite?

Anyway, back to Tommy Robinson. (Who I think is a clown, incidentally. )

sure

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sirmanga wrote: »

Ok then, if you get banned for bashing Islam then you should get banned for bashing Christianity. Happy?

Speaking as an athiest, as long as you're not inciting hatred or violence, I don't think you should be banned at all. But if you're going to demand consistency, you should at least recognise consistency with your own posts first.

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sure

Whatever "sure" means. I just said a few posts back that I think he's a thug who has this notion that he's a freedom fighter, a kind of free speech activist. But underneath it all he's a hooligan.

However, he is only being banned because he is gaining a bit too much influence for the left leaning Facebook's liking.

ancapailldorcha

sirmanga wrote: »

However, he is only being banned because he is gaining a bit too much influence for the left leaning Facebook's liking.

Can you prove that Facebook is left leaning?

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Whatever "sure" means. I just said a few posts back that I think he's a thug who has this notion that he's a freedom fighter, a kind of free speech activist. But underneath it all he's a hooligan.

However, he is only being banned because he is gaining a bit too much influence for the left leaning Facebook's liking.

no, he was banned for inciting violence. You admitted this yourself.

Seathrun66

sirmanga wrote: »

Advocating a child be raped because you don't like his father's policy is not spreading the hate? Okay

Fonda was reacting to Trump's policy of separating Latin mothers from their children at the border. He said that Trump's son should be taken from his family and thrown in a cage with paedophiles. Utterly stupid and horrific but something that could never happen due to secret service protection, etc. He apologised following criticism.

Robinson & his cohorts express social media hatred of muslims that can directly lead to attacks on people that are not protected and thus more vulnerable. This violence can easily happen. And these bigots don't apologise.

Thus Islamaphobic and other race hatred should lead to bans. Peter Fonda should also have been banned from Twitter.

sirmanga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can you prove that Facebook is left leaning?

Well, Mark Zuckerburg himself admitted that he was concerned about Facebook treating right leaning individuals and companies unfairly and he hoped to correct it. And he said it was due to Facebook being based in the highly liberal Silicon Valley. He said this when he was brought before Congress.

ancapailldorcha

sirmanga wrote: »

Well, Mark Zuckerburg himself admitted that he was concerned about Facebook treating right leaning individuals and companies unfairly and he hoped to correct it. And he said it was due to Facebook being based in the highly liberal Silicon Valley. He said this when he was brought before Congress.

That's a bit vague to be honest.

Seathrun66

sirmanga wrote: »

Ok then, if you get banned for bashing Islam then you should get banned for bashing Christianity. Happy?

Bashing Islam and Christianity as religions? Fire away to your heart's content.

Inciting hatred and violence towards individual Muslims or Christians. That's a different matter. That's a crime and bans from social media are the least of your worries.

sirmanga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a bit vague to be honest.

Well, the fact that there was a Congressional committee into Facebook left wing bias in the first place should say something to you.

ancapailldorcha

sirmanga wrote: »

Well, the fact that there was a Congressional committee into Facebook left wing bias in the first place should say something to you.

Was it specifically into left wing bias? Given how far right the current US government is, pretty much all of Europe is left wing.

sirmanga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Was it specifically into left wing bias? Given how far right the current US government is, pretty much all of Europe is left wing.

Well, this isn't the thread to go into it, but the current government isn't that right wing. In fact, they are basically the Bill Clinton administration from circa 1995, including the border wall, which Clinton called for (and he was given a standing ovation.)

It's just that the mainstream left has gone so far left, to the extreme, that it's hard to have a civilised conversation without someone screaming "bigot" and "racist"

sirmanga

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Fonda was reacting to Trump's policy of separating Latin mothers from their children at the border.

Illegal immigrants I think you mean.

Seathrun66

sirmanga wrote: »

Well, the fact that there was a Congressional committee into Facebook left wing bias in the first place should say something to you.

Nonsense. The inquiry was into data sharing. Something that led to the right-wing successes of Brexit and Trump and thus directly contradicts your left-wing bias theory.

piplip87

Robinson was banned for violating the hate speech policy of FB. Whenever Tommy Posted anything it would be mass reported. Alot if the stuff would be deleted minutes after it was posted and not seen by many people.

It was getting to the stage lately where I was convinced he had somebody working at FB or some of the outsourced moderators feeding him information. He knew exactly how to word things to get his messages access but not violate policy. (I can't elaborate on this point or I'd get a p45)


What has really done it for him though is embracing other figures that have been banned and deleted. When banned and designated a hate figure you go into a group that includes Hitler, David Duke and the KKK. So him promoting his Australian event with MC Innes, encouraging Generation Identity to show up at his marches.

Take that Syrian boy that was splashed with water on his face for example. Yes it was blown out of all porportion but Robinson posted his details, made serious allegations that where proved wrong against the young lad.

He also lead to a rape crisis line getting calls of abuse.

He has continually posted and shared stories that have been proven false.

As a public figure and an activist he was protected more than you or me on the platform. He abused the protection and he also had far far more chances than we would get before an account is banned.

The policy of FB lets you make points against Religion and ideas but it does not allow you to attack a person based on Thier religion.... Robinson attacked people for no other reason than Thier religion.

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Illegal immigrants I think you mean.

separating illegal immigrants from their children and putting their children in cages. In many cases actually losing the children and having no idea where they ended up. Is that better?

btw you need to adjust your mask. Its starting to slip

sirmanga

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Nonsense. The inquiry was into data sharing. Something that led to the right-wing successes of Brexit and Trump and thus directly contradicts your left-wing bias theory.

Oh spare me. Brexit and Trump happened because people were sick and tired of being told they were racist for having a different opinion to the "tolerant" left.
It's only gotten worse since 2016. This is why Trump will win again next year.

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

separating illegal immigrants from their children and putting their children in cages. In many cases actually losing the children and having no idea where they ended up. Is that better?

btw you need to adjust your mask. Its starting to slip

Just like Obama did.

Seathrun66

sirmanga wrote: »

Illegal immigrants I think you mean.

No, Latino families separated in direct contravention of international refugee law and the 1951 UN convention. They ask for refugee status and are then investigated. Returned to their country of origin if found not to be genuine refugees.
Read up on the situations in Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela and El Salvador for an idea of how civil society is at present. Plenty of scope for refugee status for many from all those nations.

Snake Plisken

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Speaking as an athiest, as long as you're not inciting hatred or violence, I don't think you should be banned at all. But if you're going to demand consistency, you should at least recognise consistency with your own posts first.

Some would say you should be banned for your Pink haired Hitler boards Avatar as it insults my Jewish heritage! I take it if I put a Pink haired Avatar of Mohammed I'd be banned fairly quickly!

sirmanga

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No, Latino families separated in direct contravention of international refugee law and the 1951 Un convention.

Economic refugees. Which are totally different to people coming from war torn countries.

I lived in the States for years but had to leave when I lost my job and was no longer covered under my visa. Should I have just gone to the border and declared myself a refugee and demand to be let in?

Incidentally, anytime I travelled to Mexico it was like a fortress. They take their borders very, very seriously.

Anyway, back to Tommy before a mod comes down on this conversation.

Seathrun66

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Some would say you should be banned for your Pink haired Hitler boards Avatar as it insults my Jewish heritage! I take it if I put a Pink haired Avatar of Mohammed I'd be banned fairly quickly!

Is this sleazy flirtation a bannable offence?

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Economic refugees. Which are totally different to people coming from war torn countries.

I loved in the States for years but had to leave when I lost my job and was no longer covered under my visa. Should I have just gone to the border and declared myself a refugee and demand to be let in?

Incidentally, anytime I travelled to Mexico it was like a fortress. They take their borders very, very seriously.

Anyway, back to Tommy before a mod comes down on this conversation.

You mean tommy the little thug and convicted criminal who has been banned from several social media platforms for spreading hatred and inciting violence, that tommy? what of him?

ohnonotgmail

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Some would say you should be banned for your Pink haired Hitler boards Avatar as it insults my Jewish heritage! I take it if I put a Pink haired Avatar of Mohammed I'd be banned fairly quickly!

its more of a red

Seathrun66

sirmanga wrote: »

Economic refugees. Which are totally different to people coming from war torn countries.

I lived in the States for years but had to leave when I lost my job and was no longer covered under my visa. Should I have just gone to the border and declared myself a refugee and demand to be let in?

Incidentally, anytime I travelled to Mexico it was like a fortress. They take their borders very, very seriously.

Anyway, back to Tommy before a mod comes down on this conversation.

How can you discern? If you're in jeopardy in Honduras or Venezuela you probably fit the refugee bill. Until you've been investigated thoroughly your status remains unclear. Thus separating infants from mothers broke UN, international and refugee law. Some triple whammy. And thus the policy was rapidly reversed by US courts. Your own example is irrelevant.

donkeykong5

Support for Tommy Robinson all over the internet is amazing. Delighted. Real man standing up for real people.

Moghead

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Support for Tommy Robinson all over the internet is amazing. Delighted. Real man standing up for real people.

If he's a real man why doesn't he use his real name?

sirmanga

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Support for Tommy Robinson all over the internet is amazing. Delighted. Real man standing up for real people.

I wouldn't call him a real man at all. He actively goes looking for trouble in his YouTube videos. If you've ever seen them, whenever he gets set upon by pissed off Muslims (usually in Luton) he throws these wild, girly punches and then afterwards talks to the camera about how he's a fighter. Some kinda hard nut. Oh please.

AllForIt

Would anyone have quotes from his alleged 'calls for violence targeted at Muslims' ?

Moghead wrote: »

If he's a real man why doesn't he use his real name?

This is just silly. Everyone knows who he is so what difference does his name make?

Snake Plisken

Sargon gives his view on the situation and why it's a disgrace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVngunV-wi0

donkeykong5

Moghead wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Support for Tommy Robinson all over the internet is amazing. Delighted. Real man standing up for real people.

If he's a real man why doesn't he use his real name?

He does when hes in prison for sweet fA.!

RWCNT

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Sargon gives his view on the situation and why it's a disgrace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVngunV-wi0

Why are we supposed to care what Carl of Swindon thinks?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RWCNT wrote: »

Why are we supposed to care what Carl of Swindon thinks?

Well, they're already caring what Tommy from Luton thinks, so...

OMM 0000

Cienciano wrote: »

You seriously think it's strange that the groups that practice all the hate speech are the ones who are banned?

Think through your argument.

Twitter is absolutely full of tweets which say white people should be killed, men are scum, heterosexuals are scum, etc.

There were loads of people asking for the Covington High School kids to be doxxed or killed.

These are leftist opinions (intersectionality).

These accounts don't get banned.