Radical Group wants to control Speech on social Media.

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Dont forget about the censorship of Alex Jones, the respected newsman from Texas.
He was censored, banned from social media, paypal, twitter, YouTube, apple, android, etc.
Yeah he violated the basic rules of these social media organizations. one of the rule breaking posts was entitled "How to prevent liberalism" which involved luring a child of liberal parents away and then assaulting that child. The video included a nice demonstration.

I have to wonder about the people who respect this guy. Is being brave enough to punch a 5 year old really worthy of praise?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Rubricnigel

Active Member
Oct 17, 2018
300
168
123
Midwest
✟11,811.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yeah he violated the basic rules of these social media organizations. one of the rule breaking posts was entitled "How to prevent liberalism" which involved luring a child of liberal parents away and then assaulting that child. The video included a nice demonstration.

I have to wonder about the people who respect this guy. Is being brave enough to punch a 5 year old really worthy of praise?

Wheres the link?

I'd change my tune if you can prove that outrageous claim with video evidence.
Alex Jones punching a 5 year old on camera. Big claim, can you back it up?

Dont post snopes, dont post cnn, alex jones does everything on video, it shouldnt be to hard if you've seen it.
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Didnt you see the link in the beginning?

Also a simple search for, "Conservatives banned off facebook, twitter," will come up with alot of links to news about mass censorship.

Dont forget about the censorship of Alex Jones, the respected newsman from Texas.
He was censored, banned from social media, paypal, twitter, YouTube, apple, android, etc.

Recently facebook banned 800 pages, twitter was in the 1,000's.

Its a shame social media companies have benefited from American laws, but then deny the very thing to its customers.
Un-American
Alex Jones is not respected. Nor is he a newsman. Nor was he censored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Rubricnigel

Active Member
Oct 17, 2018
300
168
123
Midwest
✟11,811.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Alex Jones is not respected. Nor is he a newsman. Nor was he censored.

Thats subjective at best, at worst you're saying that only corporate news is respected and should have a voice.

By the definition of the word, censorship

Definition of CENSORSHIP

He was, and is being censored.

Just because YOU dont like him (he is silly sometimes) doesnt make him any less a newsman.

IMHO: Alex Jones drank the Trump Kool-aid, and isnt watchable any longer. His old shows with him exposing government corruption, secret societies (sneaking in and filming the Bohemian Grove was and still is amazing journalistic cinema, along with his bringing the Bilderberg Group to public knowledge)
were alot better and entertaining. I cant watch him praise Trump for hours.
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Thats subjective at best, at worst you're saying that only corporate news is respected and should have a voice.

By the definition of the word, censorship

Definition of CENSORSHIP

He was, and is being censored.

Just because YOU dont like him (he is silly sometimes) doesnt make him any less a newsman.

IMHO: Alex Jones drank the Trump Kool-aid, and isnt watchable any longer. His old shows with him exposing government corruption, secret societies (sneaking in and filming the Bohemian Grove was and still is amazing journalistic cinema, along with his bringing the Bilderberg Group to public knowledge)
were alot better and entertaining. I cant watch him praise Trump for hours.
Not subjective at all. He is not a newsman and he still has his voice. He is not being censored.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
the gay agenda, not to be confused with the gay address book or the gay daily planner, is at best a joke. Anti-gay groups often pull out a "copy" of the gay agenda they claim is the 1972 Gay Rights Platform enacted at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention. This document however didn't exist until 1991 when it was first published by the Family research council.
Nope.

Actually you are incorrect. It did indeed begin nationally in 1972, when Madeline Davis argued for the party to embrace gay rights, the first time it was brought up in a major party platform debate. From NPR: In 1972, Davis Blazed Party Trail On Gay Rights


"WALTER CRONKITE: The speaker who has just started is Madeline Davis, a 32-year-old communications worker from Buffalo, New York, who just identified herself as a lesbian. Let's listen.

DAVIS: It's our opportunity to speak to you. Twenty million Americans are grateful and proud of the Democratic Party. We are the minority of minorities. We belong to every race and creed, both sexes, every economic and social level, every nationality and religion. We live in large cities and in small towns, but we are the untouchables in American society. We have suffered the gamut of oppression, from being totally ignored or ridiculed, to having our heads smashed and our blood spilled in the street. Now we are coming out of our closets and onto the convention floor - to tell you the delegates and to tell all gay people throughout America that we are here to put an end to our fears - our fears that people will know us for who we are - that they will shun and revile us, fire us from our jobs, reject us from our families, evict us from our homes, beat us and jail us. And for what? Because we have chosen to love each other.

I am asking that you vote yes for the inclusion of this minority report into the Democratic platform for two major reasons. First, we must speak to the basic civil rights of all human beings

(Transcript included - see link)

It really got underway with After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It included such instructions as co-opting the legitimate Civil Rights movement to advocate a position of victim status and demonize any who held to "archaic" standards like... the Word of God. It includes such lovely comments as: Conservative churches, defined by the authors as "homohating" are portrayed as "antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology."

Talk about hate; there it is.

It worked. For now.

Everything about the rhetoric is erroneous, backward, upside down, and plain wrong. There is no "fear". Even the title of this work is demonizing.

Kirk died in 2005 at 48 years old.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Nope.

Actually you are incorrect. It did indeed begin nationally in 1972, when Madeline Davis argued for the party to embrace gay rights, the first time it was brought up in a major party platform debate. From NPR: In 1972, Davis Blazed Party Trail On Gay Rights


"WALTER CRONKITE: The speaker who has just started is Madeline Davis, a 32-year-old communications worker from Buffalo, New York, who just identified herself as a lesbian. Let's listen.

DAVIS: It's our opportunity to speak to you. Twenty million Americans are grateful and proud of the Democratic Party. We are the minority of minorities. We belong to every race and creed, both sexes, every economic and social level, every nationality and religion. We live in large cities and in small towns, but we are the untouchables in American society. We have suffered the gamut of oppression, from being totally ignored or ridiculed, to having our heads smashed and our blood spilled in the street. Now we are coming out of our closets and onto the convention floor - to tell you the delegates and to tell all gay people throughout America that we are here to put an end to our fears - our fears that people will know us for who we are - that they will shun and revile us, fire us from our jobs, reject us from our families, evict us from our homes, beat us and jail us. And for what? Because we have chosen to love each other.

I am asking that you vote yes for the inclusion of this minority report into the Democratic platform for two major reasons. First, we must speak to the basic civil rights of all human beings

(Transcript included - see link)
Explain how this would be considered an agenda. It's an address to the democratic national convention. if you want to call this and agenda then a similar address to the democratic national convention on the inclusion of African American's woudl be the black agenda.

Either way it in't the "gay agenda" recited on endless anti-gay websites, again that original agenda claimed to have been from the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention.



It really got underway with After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It included such instructions as co-opting the legitimate Civil Rights movement to advocate a position of victim status and demonize any who held to "archaic" standards like... the Word of God. It includes such lovely comments as: Conservative churches, defined by the authors as "homohating" are portrayed as "antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology."

Talk about hate; there it is.

It worked. For now.
saying civil rights is only for some people certainly is a fine example of hate.

Everything about the rhetoric is erroneous, backward, upside down, and plain wrong. There is no "fear". Even the title of this work is demonizing.

Kirk died in 2005 at 48 years old.
my wife died at 32 years old. What point are you trying to make?
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Explain how this would be considered an agenda. It's an address to the democratic national convention. if you want to call this and agenda then a similar address to the democratic national convention on the inclusion of African American's woudl be the black agenda.

Either way it in't the "gay agenda" recited on endless anti-gay websites, again that original agenda claimed to have been from the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention.



saying civil rights is only for some people certainly is a fine example of hate.

my wife died at 32 years old. What point are you trying to make?
As stated, it was indeed an agenda pushed nationally in 1972, contrary to what you said. I even cited the transcript.

No one is arguing nor has ever argued that Civil rights are only for some people. That's a straw man always trotted out by the expected demographic. Anyone of the age of and ability to consent could always marry at any time in history. This was never about Civil rights anyway. It was about redefining the concept of marriage to include any two people, which is outside its meaning.

I am truly sorry you lost your wife. I suspect the cause of her death wasn't a secret.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
As stated, it was indeed an agenda pushed nationally in 1972, contrary to what you said. I even cited the transcript.

No one is arguing nor has ever argued that Civil rights are only for some people.

"co-opting the legitimate Civil Rights movement"


That's a straw man always trotted out by the expected demographic. Anyone of the age of and ability to consent could always marry at any time in history.
Then tell us why Mildred and Richard Loving were arrested in their home in 1958

This was never about Civil rights anyway. It was about redefining the concept of marriage to include any two people, which is outside its meaning.
well shame on Mildred and Richard

I am truly sorry you lost your wife. I suspect the cause of her death wasn't a secret.
I asked what was the point of you bringing up Kirk's death
 
  • Winner
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"co-opting the legitimate Civil Rights movement"


Then tell us why Mildred and Richard Loving were arrested in their home in 1958

I said anyone could marry - and the Lovings WERE married in D.C. They were arrested because of
the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which forbade interracial marriage in their state. They fled the state with the help of a local judge who understood how wrong these laws were, and the case was taken before the Supreme Court a few years later where the laws were stricken down. They were acceptable parties to marriage - a man and a woman of appropriate age and ability to consent. It was merely a racist law and the Supreme Court dealt with it. Did you not know this story?

This has nothing to do with non-marriage being called marriage, which is what happens when others jump on the Civil Rights train, co-opting it. This was marriage between a man and a woman of lighter and slightly darker skin colors.
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,689
55
USA
✟676,936.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And that it grants unconditional rights to use other people's platforms to spread your message.

There used to be monopoly laws in this country to prevent one entity from having absolute, nearly totalitarian control of one slice of the market.

Now, the intent of those monopoly laws was economic in nature because no one envisioned a day like today, where things like free social media and search engines have so much power and control.

Certainly any website can run their site according to their values etc. It's a long held belief concerning internet freedom.

But our situation today begs the question of monopolies when the largest platform for speech that exists on the planet, is owned by one person or one small group of people and can silence anyone they disagree with.

Same issues with Google as well, when their search engines can refuse to list certain results or put them on page 1000 and no one would ever be the wiser as there is no oversight.

The power of Google alone is frightening.. they are now standard on every phone on the planet and track your every move via GPS. Not only that but if you absolutely rid Google from your phone you can't use aps for things such as for your local weather.. They have more power than anyone I think realizes.

So someday, issues of monopolies on the internet will arise - it's either that or totalitarianism will rise from small internet corporations, as it already seems to be...

Something Yakov Smirnoff said in comparing freedom of speech between the U.S. and the USSR was that in both places you can say whatever you like, but only in America did you have freedom afterward.

In the U.S. today, people are losing freedom after speech, and that is frightening. They are losing jobs, losing their social media accounts, having their websites shut down by the service provider etc.

We can sit and say we cannot stand these people and their message is more than offensive to us, but what happens when it's our freedom? And whose to say it won't soon be us?

Something is going wrong in America, and it's at a fundamental level.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
I said anyone could marry - and the Lovings WERE married in D.C. They were arrested because of
the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which forbade interracial marriage in their state. They fled the state with the help of a local judge who understood how wrong these laws were, and the case was taken before the Supreme Court a few years later where the laws were stricken down. They were acceptable parties to marriage - a man and a woman of appropriate age and ability to consent. It was merely a racist law and the Supreme Court dealt with it. Did you not know this story?
their marriage was illegal in the state where they lived. They were arrested for it and faces imprisonment. So no, they couldn't marry. It is an insult to Richard and Mildred and their family to lie and pretend that they could get legally married where they lived.
yes the laws against interracial marriage were based in racism even if their supporters claimed they were based on morals and tradition. Just like the laws against same gender marriage were based in homophobia even if their supporters claimed they were based on morals and tradition

This has nothing to do with non-marriage being called marriage, which is what happens when others jump on the Civil Rights train, co-opting it. This was marriage between a man and a woman of lighter and slightly darker skin colors.
In other words, civil rights are only for some people.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
17,258
5,042
Native Land
✟321,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
All I read is people should treat people decent. On line. When did Christians become fine with racism? As for hate speech for gay people. I see a lot of horrible hate speech about the Lgbt , By Christians .
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When did Christians become fine with racism? As for hate speech for gay people. I see a lot of horrible hate speech about the Lgbt , By Christians .

Know of none of this coming from the Christians we know?

The goats are asking -- where do they live? We don't see that or hear that around here?

M-Bob
 
Upvote 0