• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Democrat threat to freedom of speech?

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,196
709
39
Stockbridge
✟94,364.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
At this point in the great purge its hard to assess the "who", of who has been removed. As of yesterday Twitter had banned over 70,000 accounts since Trumps account had been banned... more left by free will.. God only knows how many have been removed from Facebook at this point, but Facebook is probably banning as many or more accounts, as they have more users than Twitter in the first place.. I know some who have been banned, but I'm sure like Twitter it's far more.

According to the news media those accounts on Twitter were banned for sharing Q-Anon content, but on Facebook that's definitely not the case because they banned the walk away organisations official page, and all it had was a bunch of videos of former democrats giving their reasons for walking away from the party... it was far tamer than the owner and founder of the movements personal page who believed a lot of the states new voting legislation opened the door to potential fraud, and his personal page wasn't banned. However they did go after and ban his employees, videographers and volunteers personal pages... that's nothing to do with Q-Anon... moderate democrats, former or not arent sitting around sharing Q-Anon..

So I find it quite doubtful Twitter is simply deleting accounts for sharing Q content, instead of taking down the content and setting up new site rules (aka no sharing Q content allowed) which isn't, to my knowlege, against site rules.

They are simply banning conservatives, as far as I can tell...

You can still find the Walk Away pages here:

Log In or Sign Up to View

WalkAway#

I'm not sure why people claim they have been deleted.
 
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,196
709
39
Stockbridge
✟94,364.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Last I read anything about this, the total was in the tens of thousands and expanding rapidly. One TV commentator reported that something like 60,000 people who had done nothing more than sign on to his posts as "followers" such as we can do here on CF were wiped out in only several days.



That's a guess, I take it.

Not a guess. Twitter said it tracked and suspended profiles that shared "associated content."
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
11,813
11,219
USA
✟1,047,535.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You can still find the Walk Away pages here:

Log In or Sign Up to View

WalkAway#

I'm not sure why people claim they have been deleted.

Because it WAS deleted... he was fighting to get it back up, Facebook must have allowed it back up...

Brandon_Straka_s878x829.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,196
709
39
Stockbridge
✟94,364.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
you mean this?


Maxine Waters:

"Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."

Mo Brooks:

"Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking a**."

See the difference? Only one is encouraging violence. Maxine Waters did not encourage the violent overthrow of our government.
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
11,813
11,219
USA
✟1,047,535.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
That illustrates the difference between Walk Away and the other pages.

Why ban it in the first place? That's the issue...

When you can shock the Germans with censorship you know its bad!
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Maxine Waters:

"Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."
Mo Brooks:

"Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking a**."

See the difference? Only one is encouraging violence. Maxine Waters did not encourage the violent overthrow of our government.

Neither did Mo Brooks, and we did notice that you chose not to quote Maxine Waters when she DID urge violence. You chose a safer quote from here.

Antifa of course is ready to respond every time she does her inciting, so we're not talking about something that's merely theoretical like the Left is doing at present when denouncing people for being political moderates.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,196
709
39
Stockbridge
✟94,364.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Why ban it in the first place? That's the issue...

When you can shock the Germans with censorship you know its bad!

They're a private company. They can delete whatever they choose on their platform. That is freedom of speech...
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Lg2000
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,196
709
39
Stockbridge
✟94,364.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Neither did Mo Brooks, and we did notice that you chose not to quote Maxine Waters when she DID urge violence. You chose a safer quote from here.

Antifa of course is ready to respond every time she does her inciting, so we're not talking about something that's merely theoretical like the Left is doing at present when denouncing people for being political moderates.

He told the protestors to take names and kick a**. How is that not inciting violence?

That is the confrontation quote regarding Maxine Waters. To what other quote are you referring?
 
Upvote 0

Redwingfan9

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
2,629
1,532
Midwest
✟70,636.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Plus, just to add a thought, but not all Q content is trash either. I've run across things in the past, and often it's just screenshots of other people's posts. And if you fact check it it's an actual screenshot of what someone has said, usually with a 1 sentence comment about the post.

It's like anything else, some truth some lies. And if Q wasn't a member on Twitter, no one could share their content in the first place...

Do I appreciate the trash that is Q? No... because they've been in the middle of some serious insanity and I hold something against crazy people as a whole (they do scare me).. but Twitter outright banning people for potentially sharing what may in the end be a harmless post they happened to agree with - that's the definition of insanity.

And your right, they don't do that to anyone on the left - no matter how crazy those people get!
It's the inconsistency that troubles me, particularly on a website that was created to make free speech easier. If I was a stockholder I would be outraged because this is going to cause their stock value to decrease.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
He told the protestors to take names and kick a**. How is that not inciting violence?
It's a well-known and recognized slogan that is not meant to be taken literally, that's why.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,196
709
39
Stockbridge
✟94,364.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
It's a well-known and recognized slogan that is not meant to be taken literally, that's why.

That is denial. He told protesters to act violently. There's no way around it. Denying his words are just encouraging him to do it again.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,671
6,639
Nashville TN
✟772,645.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I'm curious. The complaint of censorship is coming from conservatives.

Yet Donald Trump was pushing hard for the elimination of Rule 230 in the Federal Communications Act.
Rule 230
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

What does this mean in practice?

It offers a broad shield to tech companies, protecting them from lawsuits over content generated by users on their sites. It gives Twitter and Facebook the right to moderate content but does not give them the responsibility to do so.

If Trump/conservatives were/are successful in eliminating Rule 230, it would REQUIRE tech companies to moderate the risks of violent speech from users on the platform.

Double-standard much?


Further, I would presume, if Trump had been successful eliminating Rule 230, his account would have been the first one banned as a result.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jamsie
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
11,813
11,219
USA
✟1,047,535.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
They're a private company. They can delete whatever they choose on their platform. That is freedom of speech...

Yet when these large corporations can in essence at their whim create a one party state, with only one parties voice heard, how is that good for a multi-party representative republic?

Do you understand the clear danger posed here?

They are creating a totalitarian state, ran by corporations, with the false pretext of freedom.

If I can't get work because I'm republican, am I really free? Only if I dont mind either living off welfare or watching my kids starve.

If I can't speak in any modern platform where people discuss issues because corporations have declared my point of view unacceptable to their agenda, do I really have freedom of political speech?

My answer is no, and democrats seem perfectly happy to live in a state run not by law and according to rights all citizens have under that law, but by corporations and their idea of what law should be. Which I find sad to be perfectly honest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Semper-Fi
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,196
709
39
Stockbridge
✟94,364.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Yet when these large corporations can in essence at their whim create a one party state, with only one parties voice heard, how is that good for a multi-party representative republic?

Do you understand the clear danger posed here?

They are creating a totalitarian state, ran by corporations, with the false pretext of freedom.

If I can't get work because I'm republican, am I really free? Only if I dont mind either living off welfare or watching my kids starve.

If I can't speak in any modern platform where people discuss issues because corporations have declared my point of view unacceptable to their agenda, do I really have freedom of political speech?

My answer is no, and democrats seem perfectly happy to live in a state run not by law and according to rights all citizens have under that law, but by corporations and their idea of what law should be. Which I find sad to be perfectly honest.

Conservatives can still speak on Twitter and Facebook. You are confusing conservative talking points with Qanon conspiracies and lies. Platforms do not have to allow lies on their platforms. Christianforums.com does the same thing. Requiring private companies to host anything the user wants really is restricting free speech. That is how liberty dies.

Who is stopping you from getting work because you are a Republican?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Elliewaves
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
11,813
11,219
USA
✟1,047,535.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Conservatives can still speak on Twitter and Facebook. You are confusing conservative talking points with Qanon conspiracies and lies. Platforms do not have to allow lies on their platforms. Christianforums.com does the same thing. Requiring private companies to host anything the user wants really is restricting free speech. That is how liberty dies.

Who is stopping you from getting work because you are a Republican?

Who gets to declare something conspiracy or a lie?

Some corporate owner in a suit?

I think his bottom line means more to him than any truth...

The question always is, who's watching the watchers. No one person, or one group, is the sole arbiter of truth. Everyone has their agenda, their own biases, and their own definition of truth.

This is why getting opinions and facts from multiple sources was a good thing in times past. Doing this, you could determine what is likely the most factually correct viewpoint, and develop your own opinions about the matter from that...

As a republican prior to Trump I used to watch hosts from news networks like MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc. as well as read varying source materials like Forbes, the Economist, Foreign Affairs etc. As well as talk to people and their insights before developing my own opinions about x, y, or z...

You can't do that anymore, because instead of a few bias colored facts, your getting so much spin on the truth it may as well be lies it bears so little resemblance to truth, and there is little to no point listening to anyone in such an environment.

This is what mainstream media has become, and in such an environment it's little wonder groups like Q take advantage of peoples confusion in how the truth might best be discerned...

But one thing that won't be helpful at all in this regard, is to hand over your mind to a handful of corporate shills, as they are just as likely to deceive people as Q is...
 
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,196
709
39
Stockbridge
✟94,364.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Who gets to declare something conspiracy or a lie?

Some corporate owner in a suit?

I think his bottom line means more to him than any truth...

The question always is, who's watching the watchers. No one person, or one group, is the sole arbiter of truth. Everyone has their agenda, their own biases, and their own definition of truth.

This is why getting opinions and facts from multiple sources was a good thing in times past. Doing this, you could determine what is likely the most factually correct viewpoint, and develop your own opinions about the matter from that...

As a republican prior to Trump I used to watch hosts from news networks like MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc. as well as read varying source materials like Forbes, the Economist, Foreign Affairs etc. As well as talk to people and their insights before developing my own opinions about x, y, or z...

You can't do that anymore, because instead of a few bias colored facts, your getting so much spin on the truth it may as well be lies it bears so little resemblance to truth, and there is little to no point listening to anyone in such an environment.

This is what mainstream media has become, and in such an environment it's little wonder groups like Q take advantage of peoples confusion in how the truth might best be discerned...

But one thing that won't be helpful at all in this regard, is to hand over your mind to a handful of corporate shills, as they are just as likely to deceive people as Q is...

Truth is absolute. It's reality. It does not change because you don't like it or wish there was more to it. However, people will try to get you to believe otherwise to push an agenda or cause chaos. For example, the people who believe Hillary and Obama run a child porn ring are victims to people peddling lies. They have been blinded to the truth, and that altered perception of reality can lead them to do things they would otherwise would not do. Qanon conspirators would rather have terror than order. They must be stopped. Truth must be preserved. It is all that stands between a functioning society and anarchy. Why would you oppose that?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Elliewaves
Upvote 0