Big Tech Authoritarianism

BowdonUK said:
I think a lot of it is brainwashing to believe anything what the mainstream media says, and anyone who even just questions the mainstream narrative is somehow a wacky conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

Hello there, I took my time to view jsmokes previous video evidence on election fraud, every one he posted.

All of them were like this as I predicted before viewing this one and I wasn't a big fan of the pointing at a TV screen and making unprovable claims back then either.

Since then a massive amount of investigation was done and despite the president throwing legal teams and money at it the election fraud claims were dismissed as garbage.

If you expect credibility then bring evidence that isn't someones imagination and a blurry screen.
 
Roar87 said:
We're basically now living in China, except the CCP aren't moderating what views we're allowed to see online, big American tech companies are. Today Donald Trump is banned because a tweet saying “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” is considered to be inciting violence (???), tomorrow who knows what will be banned, maybe you'll also agree with that ban, maybe you won't, but your views don't matter. You can't simply go to a different website because Google controls the internet, Apple and Google will ban the app, they have a monopoly on the internet, and the left are too dumb to care because their "side" is currently happy with the outcome.
I think the ultimate outcome of this is a civil uprising because people in the West do not tolerate tyranny.
Click to expand...


You do like to be over dramatic. Does China allow sites like Parler to move to another host and be back up as quickly as they can make that happen? Is the Chinese Gov allowed to take action to block speech? Is the US Gov? Are big tech stopping Parler from moving to new hosts?

Yeah he was banned for “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” wasn't he :rolleyes: You know that is a lie. He was banned for an accumulation of tweets, he caused an insurrection, he showed no remorse for his actions, he told them how much he loved them and what patriots they are after the event. They chanted "hang Pence" and he told them how much he loved them and what patriots they are. He couldn't be trusted to not inflame the situation further. He has the WH podium where every news channel will carry his speech. Let him use it if he has something to say.
 
The Running Man said:
You think no breaking snd entering happened in the riots? No arson? No assaults?
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that it didn't.

Do you think that what happened at the US Capitol was justified in a civilised society? Do you earnestly believe that the 2020 US Presidential election was rigged and that Trump's defeat was engineered? Do you think the protesters had a valid reason to do what they did?

If the answer to any of those is 'no' then what does asinine whataboutism actually prove?

Quoting a known left-leaning media outlet and crying that they aren't completely unbiased is pointless, I could do the same for any number of online glorified blogs like Breitbart. What does it prove? :confused:
 
Theophany said:
Nobody is saying that it didn't.

Do you think that what happened at the US Capitol was justified in a civilised society? Do you earnestly believe that the 2020 US Presidential election was rigged and that Trump's defeat was engineered? Do you think the protesters had a valid reason to do what they did?

If the answer to any of those is 'no' then what does asinine whataboutism actually prove?

Quoting a known left-leaning media outlet and crying that they aren't completely unbiased is pointless, I could do the same for any number of online glorified blogs like Breitbart. What does it prove? :confused:
Click to expand...

Do you think the riots and looting were justified in a civilised society?

Who did D&G hurt?

https://i.~ibb.co~/fqHTRJs/Screenshot-20210111-150952-Chrome.jpg
 
The Running Man said:
Do you think the riots and looting were justified in a civilised society?

Who did D&G hurt?

https://i.~ibb.co~/fqHTRJs/Screenshot-20210111-150952-Chrome.jpg
Click to expand...

You've totally avoided what I posted. What does this whataboutism prove? We've done BLM protests to death in other threads at the time and you're right, the behaviour was atrocious. But this is about what happened on 6th January and you can't seem to muster the courage to engage in good faith.
 
Theophany said:
You've totally avoided what I posted. What does this whataboutism prove? We've done BLM protests to death in other threads at the time and you're right, the behaviour was atrocious. But this is about what happened on 6th January and you can't seem to muster the courage to engage in good faith.
Click to expand...

My point was the difference in reporting.

One says 'lock em all up

One justifies rioting, looting , violence...

Does that not strike you as double standards depending upon the subject?
 
The Running Man said:
My point was the difference in reporting.

One says 'lock em all up

One justifies rioting, looting , violence...

Does that not strike you as double standards depending upon the subject?
Click to expand...
The fact that VOX is a left-leaning publication aside, you are cherry picking two articles for comparison. I imagine, and I will invest precisely 0 time into it, that VOX have an article describing a similar thing during the BLM protests. Just like the BBC has an article saying travel = good, and then another saying, be green: travel = bad.
 
The Running Man said:
My point was the difference in reporting.

One says 'lock em all up

One justifies rioting, looting , violence...

Does that not strike you as double standards depending upon the subject?
Click to expand...

It smacks of posting a cheap image with a manipulated angle in mind and claiming it's good faith.

Are you seriously coming to the table with a snapshot of one story from 2016 and one story from 2021 and wanting approval.

I see these regularly on trivial social sites and if its a humorous enough manipulated angle its worth a laugh but to take it seriously?

Anyway as I said the first time, they are not opposing stories unless superficially (as you seem to want it) considered as:

1) Positive angle of violence

2) Negative angle of violence

Which is pretty shallow and like I said, requires us to trust this is EVERY story they EVER did on EITHER matter and you're not presenting yourself as unbiased soo....
 
You know you've stumbled in to a train wreck of a thread when jsmoke who is absolutely bat **** crazy actually looks less mental than some of the others. :p
 
The Running Man said:
My point was the difference in reporting.

One says 'lock em all up

One justifies rioting, looting , violence...

Does that not strike you as double standards depending upon the subject?
Click to expand...

Like I pointed out, it's a left-leaning barely-more-than-a-blog outlet. It's like moaning that the meat in McDonalds isn't kobe beef. I can do the same with Breitbart if we want to moan about garbage 'news' outlets having the editorial integrity of a wet sheet of toilet paper. :confused:

You're systematically avoiding the discussion because you know that it is indefensible, just as the violent acts committed before it were.
 
IIRC the Democrats denounced any violence at the BLM protests.

It's also worth remembering how many of them only turned violent [/i]after[/i] things like the police teargassing and firing baton rounds at what had been peaceful protesters for days/weeks (not to mention random people who were just driving home with their kids, and press), or the Trump supporters turning up with bear spray and weapons and attacking anyone that looked like they might be at the protests, and how IIRC the police officer and security guard killed during the BLM protests were both killed by members of the "boogaloo" boys/far right who used the protests as a cover.
 
Tom1138 said:
If what happened is Washington is considered terrorism then also what BLM and Antifa have done is considered terrorism.
Click to expand...

Part of the BLM movement committed crimes, they should be tried as criminals. Largely it was peaceful and those that demonstrated peacefully should not be and should not have been punished. Unfortunately that's often not the case (see misuse of 'less lethal' rounds etc.).

Part of the Trump lot committed sedition, treason and terrorism. They should be treated as such. Those that were peaceful should not be punished and aren't being punished. None of their peaceful protestors were shot in the eye with a rubber bullet, none were hit with beanbag rounds etc.
 
Theophany said:
Like I pointed out, it's a left-leaning barely-more-than-a-blog outlet. It's like moaning that the meat in McDonalds isn't kobe beef. I can do the same with Breitbart if we want to moan about garbage 'news' outlets having the editorial integrity of a wet sheet of toilet paper. :confused:

You're systematically avoiding the discussion because you know that it is indefensible, just as the violent acts committed before it were.
Click to expand...
Sorry are you implying that the internet is more than Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Vox? ehmahgawd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom