Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

Harvey Weinstein

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont. but you seem to think it is ok for gemma to do so and seek to justify by pointing to FB rules despite most of gemmas stuff being on twitter and YT.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never stated that it was acceptable for Gemma or anyone else to incite violence.

marieholmfan

Blueshoe wrote: »

I am going to take it to be true then. You haven't said otherwise.

I want a 6 bed courtesy of the taxpayer

I am sure you don't plan to work for it.

ohnonotgmail

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth, I never stated that it was acceptable for Gemma or anyone else to incite violence.

so what are you saying? be clear.

Harvey Weinstein

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so what are you saying? be clear.

I asked you the question, whether you thought it was acceptable to incite violence on social media against anyone.
you said you didn't.
We will see going forward if you are true to your word.

ohnonotgmail

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

I asked you the question, whether you thought it was acceptable to incite violence on social media against anyone.
you said you didn't.
We will see going forward if you are true to your word.

so you are happy to condemn the harrassment of fiona o'leary by gemma and her associates?

Harvey Weinstein

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are happy to condemn the harrassment of fiona o'leary by gemma and her associates?

As I said we will will see if you are true to your word

ohnonotgmail

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

As I said we will will see if you are true to your word

It is a pretty simple question that you somehow refuse to answer. Anybody who would condemn harrassment would answer it immediately. But not you.

Blueshoe

marieholmfan wrote: »

I am sure you don't plan to work for it.

Of course not. Isn't that the point of saying the taxpayer will cover it.

Late night?

FartyBlartFast

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is fiona o'leary a dangerous individual?

Do you think its acceptable to incite violence on social media against any individual?

Simple question

I can't speak for the other poster, but I don't.

Which is why it is good that Gemma got banned off social media for doing just that. The fact that I don't agree with the policy in the image above does not change that one bit.

Now, do you think its acceptable to incite violence on social media against any individual?

Eric Cartman

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Well it seems that on Facebook at least...you are allowed to incite violence

As long as the target is "an organization or individual covered in Facebooks Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy"

Facebook updated their community standards policy.

Id love to see that list. I bet the bad list youre allowed to hate and the good list youre not allowed to hate would fall directly in line of either aisle of the US political system.

Stop moaning ffs

Are milkshakes halal though?

That’s the important question.

Kimsang

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Do you think its acceptable to incite violence on social media against any individual?
Simple question

Thankfully, Facebook have quietly retracted their new rules allowing violence against certain individuals. Shockingly no left wing media reported about it, or objected to it. It was down to the likes of Breitbart to the fly the flag of sanity and reason; we are living in a scary time.

Timberrrrrrrr

SYL given 9 months in the slammer, pity it wasn't 9 years.

Seanachai

batgoat wrote: »

She pushes nonsense in relation to science though. Chemtrails, vaccines etc all stem from conspiratorial stuff. There's no reasonable basis.

I have yet to see conclusive proof either way in relation to vaccine damage, chemtrails etc. I hate outright dismissal of theories, there are dissident voices in science that aren't quacks, up until they question the consensus they're cream of the crop, then all of a sudden they're kicked to the gutter.

The cry-bullies taking over social commentary, universities etc is one thing, but when they interfere with science then we're in serious trouble. All these things should be explored and not filed away in the 'settled-science' cabinet until they are actually proven demonstrably false.

When I see some smug pratt folding their arms and saying, 'Um, that's actually been settled you know', I feel like drop-kicking them off the nearest cliff.

Blueshoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

SYL given 9 months in the slammer, pity it wasn't 9 years.

You left out that he will only be in prison for 10 weeks

ohnonotgmail

Seanachai wrote: »

I have yet to see conclusive proof either way in relation to vaccine damage, chemtrails etc. I hate outright dismissal of theories, there are dissident voices in science that aren't quacks, up until they question the consensus they're cream of the crop, then all of a sudden they're kicked to the gutter.

The cry-bullies taking over social commentary, universities etc is one thing, but when they interfere with science then we're in serious trouble. All these things should be explored and not filed away in the 'settled-science' cabinet until they are actually proven demonstrably false.

When I see some smug pratt folding their arms and saying, 'Um, that's actually been settled you know', I feel like drop-kicking them off the nearest cliff.

what evidence has gemma presented for any of her claims?

ollkiller

Seanachai wrote: »

I have yet to see conclusive proof either way in relation to vaccine damage, chemtrails etc. I hate outright dismissal of theories, there are dissident voices in science that aren't quacks, up until they question the consensus they're cream of the crop, then all of a sudden they're kicked to the gutter.

The cry-bullies taking over social commentary, universities etc is one thing, but when they interfere with science then we're in serious trouble. All these things should be explored and not filed away in the 'settled-science' cabinet until they are actually proven demonstrably false.

When I see some smug pratt folding their arms and saying, 'Um, that's actually been settled you know', I feel like drop-kicking them off the nearest cliff.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

There's your proof for vaccine's anyway. I'm not even going to try to get proof for chemtrail's because if you believe in chemtrail's there's no hope for you.

Timberrrrrrrr

Blueshoe wrote: »

You left out that he will only be in prison for 10 weeks

A lot can happen in 10 weeks.

FartyBlartFast

Seanachai wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

She pushes nonsense in relation to science though. Chemtrails, vaccines etc all stem from conspiratorial stuff. There's no reasonable basis.

I have yet to see conclusive proof either way in relation to vaccine damage, chemtrails etc. I hate outright dismissal of theories, there are dissident voices in science that aren't quacks, up until they question the consensus they're cream of the crop, then all of a sudden they're kicked to the gutter.

The cry-bullies taking over social commentary, universities etc is one thing, but when they interfere with science then we're in serious trouble. All these things should be explored and not filed away in the 'settled-science' cabinet until they are actually proven demonstrably false.

When I see some smug pratt folding their arms and saying, 'Um, that's actually been settled you know', I feel like drop-kicking them off the nearest cliff.

The issue is, the science has been looked at and these issues (e.g. vaccines and autism) have been shown to be false. Yet their propogators (read: grifters) continue to push them and outright lie repeatedly to do so (look into Andrew Wakefields actual studies, they are beyond a farce and are literally made up).

As a result, the science community shuns them, which is only right.

I work in a prosecutions department. If I started to pretend the law doesn't say what it does (let's say I decide to pretend that murder is legal under the law), that it is what I want it to be, and doctor documents on legislature and case law materials to make it appear to be the case, I wouldn't only be shunned. I would be fired, and likely have charges pressed against me also. I don't see why doing the same in a different field should be acceptable either.

Blueshoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A lot can happen in 10 weeks.

What is that supposed to mean?

Timberrrrrrrr

Blueshoe wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean?

It means 10 weeks is a long time. Will probably feel like 50 if he is in solitary/segregation.

Blueshoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It means 10 weeks is a long time. Will probably feel like 50 if he is in solitary/segregation.

Ah it's not too bad. He will be out in no time and better than ever so watch out groomers

Odhinn

Blueshoe wrote: »

Ah it's not too bad. He will be out in no time and better than ever so watch out groomers

Yes, groomers, the coked up fraudster and member of the luton crew is coming for you, after a few appeals on gofundme for dosh.

TheRepentent

Blueshoe wrote: »

He will be out in no time and better than ever

With the Koran tattooed on his ass:P:pac::pac::pac:

Blueshoe

TheRepentent wrote: »

With the Koran tattooed on his ass:P:pac::pac::pac:

What do you mean?

Blueshoe

Odhinn wrote: »

Yes, groomers, the coked up fraudster and member of the luton crew is coming for you, after a few appeals on gofundme for dosh.

Of course. The campaign against grooming must be funded. The government should fund it in some part too. It's for the public good

TheRepentent

Blueshoe wrote: »

What do you mean?

He will be out in no time and better than ever with the Koran tattooed on his ass.

:P:P

Blueshoe

This thread is dying. Nothing left to argue about and most of the right wing minded folks have been banned. I'm one infraction away from a 1 month ban

Odhinn

Blueshoe wrote: »

This thread is dying. Nothing left to argue about and most of the right wing minded folks have been banned. I'm one infraction away from a 1 month ban

C'est la guerre.

TheRepentent

Blueshoe wrote: »

This thread is dying. Nothing left to argue about and most of the right wing minded folks have been banned. I'm one infraction away from a 1 month ban

They/you get banned for a reason...you're responsible for what you post.


If you don't get site banned , after a while you can only post in non-political forums/threads so you won't be able to sprout off your ignorant , scaremongering rubbish.