who decides what is hate and what is free speech
Printable View
sure...i think polite society is entitled to draw some lines...but i think you and i would disagree quite a bit about where those lines should be drawn...for example, twitter's lifetime ban on very poorly chosen one seems eminently reasonable to me in light of the gross abuses he has committed on their platform...his abuses strike me as much worse than young pharoah's
i don't have an opinion...i think it's up to twitter (as it is up to CPAC to decide on who to give a platform to)...but i do think it is beyond a reasonable doubt that very poorly chosen one's abuse of twitter's rules far exceeds Farrkhan's or the ayatollah's...which means that twitter could reasonably draw its lines in a way that would ban very poorly chosen one without banning the other two...
there are useful analogies in sports and life in general...there are fouls...yellow card fouls...red card fouls...not all fouls are the same...and there are rules against persistent fouling...so if you are persistent enough you eventually get a yellow and then a red
what do you think
Can we acknowledge that speaking time at CPAC is far more limited than at one of the largest social media sites in the world? That any one speaker uses a significant percentage of the CPAC platform, where as any one poster uses an infinitesimally small portion of Twitter's?
Further, can we agree that CPAC solely exists to advocate for a political ideology, and that Twitter, supposedly, does not?
Yes. CPAC and twitter are quite different platforms. Agree on all points. You make me feel a little guilty. My use of the CPAC analogy does border on "bad faith posting." But it was too juicy to pass up. I mean they cancelled poor young pharoah. It's not like they didn't have a slot for him. They gave him one. Then pulled the rug out from under him. Where is the outrage? My daughter is presenting at a conference today. I'd be outraged if she was cancelled. So I am speaking as a father here. Thinking of young pharoah and his rights.
Amazon banned another best selling book the other day bc it offended trans people.
Ho hum. Go build your own Amazon
This is so obvious that it still baffles me that the "liberals" can't see what happening.
Of course they are supportive as commies always must shut down dissent
Texans exercising their First Amendment rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO4JGGEulSc
hopefully this year's CPAC is as exciting as last year's...but i fear that without young pharaoh it might not be
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eu8txB9X...jpg&name=large
LMAO
Oligopoly.
Dude is describing the conservative dream.
Granted the logic he states is ****. But it's funny.
Also again, 1st Amendment rights don't protect private citizens from repercussions from private businesses. If these companies were being manipulated as this tweet claims, then they'd have an easy Supreme Court win.