US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[unknown lions fan]

Left-statism deserves everything I've said about it. Of course I recognize you as an individual, and (I don't know why I have to say this) I understand that within the ranks of left-statism, there are individuals with many different takes on many different topics. So if we find ourselves agreeing on something, great!

You, dpatnod, have said some horrible left-statist things on here. I addressed them directly. When talking to YOU, I did not attribute anything to YOU that YOU DID NOT SAY.

[unknown lions fan]

No.

???

Did you imagine a post? That might explain some things.

OK, now I see. It was a result of moving from my phone to my PC, and losing track of the flow. It was post 756 that I didn't see when I moved over here. Apologies.

[dpatnod]

I don't support twitter being prosecuted for what a fat orange mentally defective loser posts on their platformmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!




But I fully support them kicking his stupid fucking ass off!

[unknown lions fan]

OK. Understand, however, that the precedent (as I understand it) is to brand social media providers as "publishers" and to hold them liable for their content. This is supported by both left-statists and right-statists on the whole, at least when infringes on speech they don't approve of.

When this topic first came up, my query was "in what system of justice could a Twitter be held responsible for the actions of people who read or write there?"

And your support of Twitter kicking him off is horrible, but you're in the majority so you must be right.

[unknown lions fan]

Oh, and just please don't declare your support for the ban to based on "property rights." It would be hypocritical.

Because I flat-out guarantee you, that in a query of your support for property rights, I would prove that you don't actually support property rights within a few inquiries. I'm sorry to generalize you like that, but I know statists. If you want to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to see it.

[JGSpartan]

On a side note with The Office. I never quite understood that shows appeal. Thought parks and rec was infinitely better with a similar approach.

[dpatnod]

You, dpatnod, have said some horrible left-statist things on here.

I promise to flip off a few extra cops tomorrow.

[dpatnod]

Oh, and just please don't declare your support for the ban to based on "property rights." It would be hypocritical.

Because I flat-out guarantee you, that in a query of your support for property rights, I would prove that you don't actually support property rights within a few inquiries. I'm sorry to generalize you like that, but I know statists. If you want to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to see it.

The only mention of property rights is that it is Twitter's property to operate as they wish. I never based my support on the ban on that - only that they are free to do it.

My support for the ban is because he is a stupid fucktard who has nothing to offer but turning every thing he touches into a steaming pile of horse shit. He is a detriment to the country and the world and shouldn't be allowed to get off the short bus without a helmet. That is why he should not be influencing other fools in society.

[dpatnod]

And please don't try to tell me how much you love cows, because by God I will school you about cows you anarchist!

[froot loops]

Trump is still free to go on to Fox News or start a newsletter or go in the town square. For a guy who is anti-statists and is willing to throw perjoratives at anyone else who doesn't believe like he does he is sure willing to go to the mat for his MAGA boy Donald Trump.

He clearly misses Eric Ralph and must think everyone else in the forum are unelightened dullards, again he has more contempt for everyone here than even dwt1.

[dpatnod]

OK. Understand, however, that the precedent (as I understand it) is to brand social media providers as "publishers" and to hold them liable for their content. This is supported by both left-statists and right-statists on the whole, at least when infringes on speech they don't approve of.

When this topic first came up, my query was "in what system of justice could a Twitter be held responsible for the actions of people who read or write there?"

And your support of Twitter kicking him off is horrible, but you're in the majority so you must be right.

Sigh....... No. They are NOT 'publishers' BECAUSE OF 230!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is not a precedent - in fact currently the opposite is true. They are in no way liable. They are treated completely differently. Do you fukkin get it yet?

Dumbass Trump wants to remove 230, which would make them liable for content. Which I oppose. He wants to do so because they dared to fact check his bullshit. Removing 230 WOULD make them the same as publishers. They are specifically treated differently BECAUSE 230 is a thing.

God why am I arguing about these opinions you keep making up that I have not taken?

[dpatnod]

On a side note with The Office. I never quite understood that shows appeal. Thought parks and rec was infinitely better with a similar approach.

Parks & Rec was good too. The two have similarities. But Office was fantastic. Both character based. Just depends which characters you catch more funny I guess.

[unknown lions fan]

As I've stated before, I proudly stand for freedom of speech even when (nay, especially when) it's speech I disagree with.

If my disdain for Donald Trump hasn't gotten thru to you, you're reading with some serious filters. The fact that he has other outlets doesn't make me happy with the censorship going on.

I was happy to see you bring up Eric Ralph. I did like that guy, and I forgot the name. He was, actually, a refreshing perspective for me back when I was a statist. It's a Nocks Remnant kind of thing.

[dpatnod]

FFS. Its not a freedom of speech issue. It is not censorship. He is free to spout whatever foolishness he wants. Nobody is obligated to give him a bullhorn.

If he had anything to offer in the marketplace of ideas I am sure he would not have any problems finding an outlet.

You are free to drive a Ferrari. I am not obligated to provide it. I might let you borrow my Jimmy, but if you drink and drive, I might decide against it ever again afterwards.

[unknown lions fan]

Sigh....... No. They are NOT 'publishers' BECAUSE OF 230!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is not a precedent - in fact currently the opposite is true. They are in no way liable. They are treated completely differently. Do you fukkin get it yet?

Dumbass Trump wants to remove 230, which would make them liable for content. Which I oppose. He wants to do so because they dared to fact check his bullshit. Removing 230 WOULD make them the same as publishers. They are specifically treated differently BECAUSE 230 is a thing.

God why am I arguing about these opinions you keep making up that I have not taken?

Ok, I know nothing about 230. And I don't know where (exactly) the "legal" system is regarding liability for social media providers.

I did say it wouldn't surprise me in the least if DT was trying to do something horrible to free speech or property rights.