Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

hcf500

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? You call Trump supporters racist and sexist, when you clearly have some problem with white men! Do you support reparations for people of colour in the US by any chance, like almost every democratic presidential front runner? Where is the evidence that Trump supports are mainly white men?

The really funny part of your post is suggesting AOC as president! The same lady that doesn't know what a garbage disposal is! She didnt know the three branches of government! There could be a seperate thread set up just for all the dumb things she has said!

Ilhan Omar is a Jew hater! As for her common sense, just look at the video! She is driving while filming herself, no seatbelt and worst of all no belts on either of her children! Another complete dolt!

PS I dont like Laura Loomer. She is annoying!

I watched about 3 seconds of her "driving" before I turned it off. In the US they drive left hand drive cars! She is sitting in the right side seat (the passengers seat) so she is not driving! The car doesn't even look like it is moving! Remember this is a video being promoted by someone who was recently banned from Facebook!


AOC does know what a garbage disposal is for, just that she never saw one before. So what! And she does know the three branches of government are!

nullzero

hcf500 wrote: »

I watched about 3 seconds of her "driving" before I turned it off. In the US they drive left hand drive cars! She is sitting in the right side seat (the passengers seat) so she is not driving! The car doesn't even look like it is moving! Remember this is a video being promoted by someone who was recently banned from Facebook!


AOC does know what a garbage disposal is for, just that she never saw one before. So what! And she does know the three branches of government are!

The camera pans to her son, who isn't driving.
We have left hand drive cars here (not many of them but they exist).
Not having your children in the correct car seats is totally irresponsible.

I suppose this is a fine example of your attitude towards research.

hcf500

Ben Shapiro made himself look very silly on BBC! He may come across as a factual type debater but there are serious undertones of hatred in his talks. His time on social media is limited thankfully!

manual_man

hcf500 wrote: »

Ben Shapiro made himself look very silly on BBC! He may come across as a factual type debater but there are serious undertones of hatred in his talks. His time on social media is limited thankfully!

Oh shut up

nullzero

hcf500 wrote: »

Ben Shapiro made himself look very silly on BBC! He may come across as a factual type debater but there are serious undertones of hatred in his talks. His time on social media is limited thankfully!

What groups does he hate exactly?

As far as I know he's a orthodox Jew which in SJW top trumps put him well ahead of even entitled Irish progressives.

VicMackey1

I really like that Ben Shapiro can admit when he is wrong and when he has made a mistake

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1126894051456774144

suicide_circus

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

Andrew Marr, 2006.

MrFresh

VicMackey1 wrote: »

I really like that Ben Shapiro can admit when he is wrong and when he has made a mistake

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1126894051456774144

Not properly prepared for questions on his own book and Tweets he made in the past? Tweets he actually wrote an article about.

MrFresh

suicide_circus wrote: »

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

Andrew Marr, 2006.

Might have been so in 2006 but anyone can see they have a strong right wing bias now.

suicide_circus

MrFresh wrote: »

Might have been so in 2006 but anyone can see they have a strong right wing bias now.

are you on crack?

batgoat

suicide_circus wrote: »

are you on crack?

Your point was entirely irrelevant, Shapiro stormed out because he was incapable of discussing his own book...

suicide_circus

batgoat wrote: »

Your point was entirely irrelevant, Shapiro stormed out because he was incapable of discussing his own book...

relax. i didnt even see the clip. just pointing out that the BBC has a strong bias. I quite like Andrew Neil though.

VicMackey1

MrFresh wrote: »

Not properly prepared for questions on his own book and Tweets he made in the past? Tweets he actually wrote an article about.

Shapiro was pis$ed that tweets from so long ago were being brought again. I guess he just figured that the whole interview would be designed to make him look as bad as possible! I think Neil was looking to pi$$ off Shapiro using words like barbaric when referring to Shapiros views on abortion! Neil did make himself sound like he was not going to give Shapiro a fair interview. He should have stuck it out though!

MrFresh

suicide_circus wrote: »

are you on crack?

No. Do you recommend it?

MrFresh

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Shapiro was pis$ed that tweets from so long ago were being brought again. I guess he just figured that the whole interview would be designed to make him look as bad as possible! I think Neil was looking to pi$$ off Shapiro using words like barbaric when referring to Shapiros views on abortion! Neil did make himself sound like he was not going to give Shapiro a fair interview. He should have stuck it out though!

One of the Tweets was from 2016 wasn't it? And it's not like his views have changed. He refers to an article he wrote about the stupid things he's said in the past but if you read it he doesn't go back on them, he just explains why he was right.

Junkyard Tom

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

most of the time he is well informed

Really? A semi-educated person could make a fool out of his word salad bull****. There are plenty of YouTube vids of people who DESTROY him.

Odhinn

nullzero wrote: »

What groups does he hate exactly?

As far as I know he's a orthodox Jew which in SJW top trumps put him well ahead of even entitled Irish progressives.

Shocking as this may be to you, but orthodox Jews can be bigots too.

batgoat

Odhinn wrote: »

Shocking as this may be to you, but orthodox Jews can be bigots too.

Milo was a huge bigot and people would often refer to how he was Jewish and had a black boyfriend. Ergo incapable of expressing hateful views which he did regularly including racism...

Odhinn

batgoat wrote: »

Milo was a huge bigot and people would often refer to how he was Jewish and had a black boyfriend. Ergo incapable of expressing hateful views which he did regularly including racism...

I saw him interviewed years ago on CH4 and he self described as catholic. He came across as a very intelligent and literate but confused young man, deeply conflicted about his sexual preferences. When I saw the 'new' milo that appeared in the states I thought to meself "well hes discovered Coke now".

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

I saw him interviewed years ago on CH4 and he self described as catholic. He came across as a very intelligent and literate but confused young man, deeply conflicted about his sexual preferences. When I saw the 'new' milo that appeared in the states I thought to meself "well hes discovered Coke now".

to be fair to him it is a hell of a drug

nullzero

Odhinn wrote: »

Shocking as this may be to you, but orthodox Jews can be bigots too.

It's not like any of them go around bombing people.... Oh hang on.

My point was that being Jewish is typically something that is seen to absolve somebody from criticism, in the minds of some at least.

hcf500

I accept that there are more right wing personalties being removed from social media, but there is a good reason for that! Right wingers tend to be more backward in the stances. There are far more racists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, misogynists and bigots on the right! That is a fact! Just look at the viewpoints they hold! Racists, homophobes etc. will break social media rules far more often thus will be suspended far more often. They tend to be less educated also. Just look at Trump voters! There were more college educated voters that voted for Hillary in 2016! Why don't all these extremists find their own platform to shout from.

There should be government legislation to regulate and control hate speech on social media platforms. Its not enough to have it controlled by social media heads as they are afraid of the negative press for removing a right wing extremist!

Sweetemotion

hcf500 wrote: »

I accept that there are more right wing personalties being removed from social media, but there is a good reason for that! Right wingers tend to be more backward in the stances. There are far more racists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, misogynists and bigots on the right! That is a fact! Just look at the viewpoints they hold! Racists, homophobes etc. will break social media rules far more often thus will be suspended far more often. They tend to be less educated also. Just look at Trump voters! There were more college educated voters that voted for Hillary in 2016! Why don't all these extremists find their own platform to shout from.

There should be government legislation to regulate and control hate speech on social media platforms. Its not enough to have it controlled by social media heads as they are afraid of the negative press for removing a right wing extremist!

What if the government is right wing?

hcf500

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What if the government is right wing?

That's a good question, surprisingly! It should be a committee made up with a higher quota of democratic representatives. To some this may seem extreme but the Democratic party is far more progressive and would be in a better position to weed out extremist viewpoints!

Sweetemotion

hcf500 wrote: »

That's a good question, surprisingly! It should be a committee made up with a higher quota of democratic representatives. To some this may seem extreme but the Democratic party is far more progressive and would be in a better position to weed out extremist viewpoints!

To most that is Fascism.

hcf500

Sweetemotion wrote: »

To most that is Fascism.

Resorting to labelling because you don't like my viewpoints!

Sweetemotion

hcf500 wrote: »

Resorting to labelling because you don't like my viewpoints!

:rolleyes:

VicMackey1

hcf500 wrote: »

That's a good question, surprisingly! It should be a committee made up with a higher quota of democratic representatives. To some this may seem extreme but the Democratic party is far more progressive and would be in a better position to weed out extremist viewpoints!

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. No matter how batsh1t crazy it might be!

batgoat

Sweetemotion wrote: »

To most that is Fascism.

The most amusing thing is you haven't copped that he's a troll...

Sweetemotion

batgoat wrote: »

The most amusing thing is you haven't copped that he's a troll...

I would have never known until you told me. :rolleyes:

VicMackey1

batgoat wrote: »

The most amusing thing is you haven't copped that he's a troll...

I've been called a troll more than once on boards under an old account and I sure ain't a troll! I know two people IRL who hold very similar views to this poster. Views that I would consider way out there! Does anyone remember the ott reactions when Clinton conceded defeat to Trump!

Seanachai

hcf500 wrote: »

That's a good question, surprisingly! It should be a committee made up with a higher quota of democratic representatives. To some this may seem extreme but the Democratic party is far more progressive and would be in a better position to weed out extremist viewpoints!

The democratic party seems to have gone off the reservation, their language has become more and more authoritarian. If a genuine threat of extremism develops from the right in the US, it will be because the democrats helped to create it.

Most right-leaning people want less government and don't hold extremist views, what was once called liberalism has mutated into a bunch of cry-bullies who want everybody that's contrary to their worldview to be shut up or banned.

MrFresh

Seanachai wrote: »

The democratic party seems to have gone off the reservation, their language has become more and more authoritarian. If a genuine threat of extremism develops from the right in the US, it will be because the democrats helped to create it.

Ah yes, the Andre logic.

Seanachai wrote: »

Most right-leaning people want less government and don't hold extremist views,

If that is the case then ye should stop putting your support behind people like Trump and Jones.

KSU

MrFresh wrote: »

If that is the case then ye should stop putting your support behind people like Trump and Jones.

Why would't they support Trump in this regard when you see some of the policies the likes of Warren, Bernie and AOC etc calling for?

The new Green Deal, H-R 5, Free Education and Student loan forgiveness $15 dollar minimum wage. All of these are heavily government involvement (without any real idea of how to pay for them other than the aul chestnut of "tax the 1%)

MrFresh

KSU wrote: »

Why would't they support Trump in this regard when you see some of the policies the likes of Warren, Bernie and AOC etc calling for?

The new Green Deal, H-R 5, Free Education and Student loan forgiveness $15 dollar minimum wage. All of these are heavily government involvement (without any real idea of how to pay for them other than the aul chestnut of "tax the 1%)

Environmental policies, free education and equal rights? Sounds horrific. :rolleyes:

KSU

MrFresh wrote: »

Environmental policies, free education and equal rights? Sounds horrific. :rolleyes:

Environmental policy which hi-jacks nearly 70% of the American economy and saddles the country with +$50 trillion cost based on promises they can't deliver and give no indication of how it is gonna be paid for.

You don't have to look too far to see some of the issues around State tenders (National Childrens Hospital, Cervical Smear tests, National Broadband plan)

Free education has it's own issues if you look at public schooling in the US currently it removes choice.

As for equal rights what about say the rights what about the rights of those competing against Terry Miller/ Andraya Yearwood or who miss out on scholarship opportunities as a result of missing out on national competition. How about Jordan Peterson's rights to express his beliefs and not have his language policied?

MrFresh

KSU wrote: »

Environmental policy which hi-jacks nearly 70% of the American economy and saddles the country with +$50 trillion cost based on promises they can't deliver and give no indication of how it is gonna be paid for.

It doesn't hijack anything. It's some aspirational goals, like the Paris Climate Accord.

KSU wrote: »

You don't have to look too far to see some of the issues around State tenders (National Childrens Hospital, Cervical Smear tests, National Broadband plan)

You don't. But neither do you have to look too far to find issues with the private equivalents.

KSU wrote: »

Free education has it's own issues if you look at public schooling in the US currently it removes choice.

Two different issues. Access and quality of service.

KSU wrote: »

As for equal rights what about say the rights what about the rights of those competing against Terry Miller/ Andraya Yearwood or who miss out on scholarship opportunities as a result of missing out on national competition. How about Jordan Peterson's rights to express his beliefs and not have his language policied?

What about the rights of the people they target?

splashuum

Facebook just shuts down 23 major populist Italian political pages just 2 weeks before the election. Very frightening the amount of people celebrating this here, and being blind to the blatant election meddling once again.

batgoat

splashuum wrote: »

Facebook just shuts down 23 major populist Italian political pages just 2 weeks before the election. Very frightening the amount of people celebrating this here, and being blind to the blatant election meddling once again.

That's not exactly true though. They were pages generating fake news, spreading news stories that weren't true in an effort to influence elections. Interesting that you chose not to link to any story on it.

https://www.thelocal.it/20190513/facebook-shuts-down-more-than-20-fake-news-pages-in-italy

They included a pro-Five Star page that attributed false statements to the writer Roberto Saviano, a prominent critic of the coalition government, as well a pro-League one that shared a video purporting to show violence by migrants that was in reality a clip from a film.

Sweetemotion

batgoat wrote: »

That's not exactly true though. They were pages generating fake news, spreading news stories that weren't true in an effort to influence elections. Interesting that you chose not to link to any story on it.

https://www.thelocal.it/20190513/facebook-shuts-down-more-than-20-fake-news-pages-in-italy

When they start doing the same to same to CNN and MSNBC. You might have a point.

splashuum

If what Batgoat says is true, shouldn’t RTE,BBC,CNN etc etc all be banned too for spreading the fake Russia gate propaganda?

kowloon

MrFresh wrote: »

No. Do you recommend it?

It's pretty moreish.

MrFresh

splashuum wrote: »

If what Batgoat says is true, shouldn’t RTE,BBC,CNN etc etc all be banned too for spreading the fake Russia gate propaganda?

No. They aren't even remotely similar. Fake news is not something that you don't like or hasn't been proven in a court of law. There is plenty of evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, not least of which is the admissions by both his lawyer and son that they did.

Zorya

It's too late. The virus has mutated :pac: Alex Jones is so yesterday, dudes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdaUDeAGIck

splashuum

MrFresh wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

If what Batgoat says is true, shouldn’t RTE,BBC,CNN etc etc all be banned too for spreading the fake Russia gate propaganda?

No. They aren't even remotely similar. Fake news is not something that you don't like or hasn't been proven in a court of law. There is plenty of evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, not least of which is the admissions by both his
lawyer and son that they did.

Yet they they spent millions on the investigation and found absolutely nothing.
Let it go, he’s squeaky clean.
As you already know the real collusion here is Facebook,YouTube,Twitter colluding with certain governments to take down opposition parties. If you can’t see that then your quite frankly blind, or just naive for that matter. Keep gobbling up the fake news as gospel pal.

MrFresh

splashuum wrote: »

Yet they they spent millions on the investigation and found absolutely nothing.
Let it go, he’s squeaky clean.

They found loads. Why do you insist on saying things that are verifiably false? Have you even read the report?

splashuum wrote: »

As you already know the real collusion here is Facebook,YouTube,Twitter colluding with certain governments to take down opposition parties. If you can’t see that then your quite frankly blind, or just naive for that matter. Keep gobbling up the fake news as gospel pal.

Facebook, Youtube and Twitter were some of the greatest contributors to Trump's win and the Russians attempts to help him. They allowed Trump and his supporters to spread massive amounts of fake news to a massive userbase. It's like you're blaming the taxman for not letting you cheat on your taxes any more.

Zorya

MrFresh wrote: »

Facebook, Youtube and Twitter were some of the greatest contributors to Trump's win and the Russians attempts to help him. They allowed Trump and his supporters to spread massive amounts of fake news to a massive userbase. .

I don't know what kind of argument this is called in authoritarianism but it should have its own name. It used to be that liberal thinking people knew that they had to make actual arguments and win minds and hearts. But now they want censorship, deplatforming, job removal etc instead of actual thinking and arguing.
Harvard has caved to what are basically religious mobs and have removed a dean who is representing Harvey Weinstein legally. HW is a prick but he is entitled to a defense. Mobs who bay for blood like that are infantile and regressve.

There are reasons why the Chans and alt right youtube etc became so popular. One of the main reasons is they are transgressive and funny. They are the edgy ones nowadays. The dry balls on the other side can only seem to manage pious sanctimonies and stuttering narcissistic rage, which just does not get the laughs or good attention.

Be better. Be funnier... or at least funny. Be cleverer. Be sexier .....or even a tiny bit sexy, for the love of the god. Draw the crowds.

MrFresh

Zorya wrote: »

I don't know what kind of argument this is called in authoritarianism but it should have its own name. It used to be that liberal thinking people knew that they had to make actual arguments and win minds and hearts. But now they want censorship, deplatforming, job removal etc instead of actual thinking and arguing.
Harvard has caved to what are basically religious mobs and have removed a dean who is representing Harvey Weinstein legally. HW is a prick but he is entitled to a defense. Mobs who bay for blood like that are infantile and regressve.

There are reasons why the Chans and alt right youtube etc became so popular. One of the main reasons is they are transgressive and funny. They are the edgy ones nowadays. The dry balls on the other side can only seem to manage pious sanctimonies and stuttering narcissistic rage, which just does not get the laughs or good attention.

Be better. Be funnier... or at least funny. Be cleverer. Be sexier .....or even a tiny bit sexy, for the love of the god. Draw the crowds.

So you don't actually disagree with what I posted in the post you quoted?

Zorya

MrFresh wrote: »

So you don't actually disagree with what I posted in the post you quoted?

MrFresh

Zorya wrote: »

I made a factual statement. You responded with a rant against the authoritarianism of the left. You didn't actually address or challenge the content of my post though.