Conservatives can still speak on Twitter and Facebook.
Truth is absolute. It's reality.
Am I able to speak my mind freely, or only speak things that fit the Democratic narrative?
Last I looked I could NOT voice my opinion that the election was stolen.
Some truth is absolute, but everyone must get there in there own way.
I was raised in a home that quite literally dictated what my beliefs had to be, and how I must behave. That travelled beyond that with my first husband who likewise dictated my beliefs and actions.
What I never wanted, was to do that to my own kids. So I told them what my beliefs were, and why I believed them, and let them figure out their own answers from there.
I was divorced with no kids at home any longer, before I ever had a chance to look introspectively and decide for myself what I believed, why I believed it or even who I was and wanted to be as a person because til that time everything was dictated to me, whether by others or by circumstance.
That was mainly in matters of faith of course... but I still see most everything from whether we should support a war in another country, to having national borders and legal immigration, to whether or not Q is a nut job much the same way because it's largely opinion based... you may operate on a similar fact base for some of it, like whether to go to war with x country, but still arrive at different conclusions with other people.
People don't need dictated to, even if what your saying is true people have a right to figure it out on their own. People who are adults aren't children to be led, nor imbeciles to be dictated to.
If Q is a nut job that truth will bear itself out (without the necessity of a fact checker telling you Q has been - or not been - certified as clinically insane)
The last thing any free society needs is someone dictating to you what you are or are not allowed to see, or dictating to you their opinion of the facts. That's not freedom at all... even if they let you vote...
Fusion in late 2014 determined 80% of all women coming into this country illegally via our southern border to have been raped along the way... whether by fellows that immigrated with them, or by coyotes, or by other nefarious individuals they met along the way.. but the facts were, according to them, that 80% of the women crossing the border were raped by the time they got into this country, or perhaps some shortly thereafter if by coyotes.
80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.
Now, you don't have to agree with this report, but it was plastered all over because this was a shocking figure, especially when it was 20% above an amnesty international figure of 60% not terribly long (a year or two) before fusions..
Here's the issue. Those are two disparate sets of facts, from two different sources, from two different data sets... so you would determine which to believe back then at the time of reporting, stick with amnesty report because they seem more reputable and a little less left than fusion, or go with trusting fusions report...
either way you go either is a pretty dim picture so it hardly matters which set of facts you have more faith in.. more than half is bad enough to warrant attention and attempt to change the situation for these unfortunate women.
However, what no one did was question either the accuracy of either sets of data, whether fusion or amnesty (we all mainly accepted both could have degrees of error, but none large enough to warrant not seeing this as a potential serious problem for women coming into this country illegally), until Trump quoted the fusion reports in an interview (or media statement I forget which)..
At the time I pulled up both the fusion report and the amnesty international report from their original sources, when people started calling him a racist. Why? As a women I remembered how big of a deal those statistics were less than a year previously. They were important to me, so I actually remembered discussions about them both they each came out.
So then the media started saying he's spouting conspiracy theories (which okay, fusion was pretty far left, I myself opted to stick with amnesty's data for that reason when fusion came out with theirs) but even 60% was enough to warrant looking far more closely at how our actions as a nation actually encouraged illegal immigration, and ended up putting more women in harm's way than should... keeping people safe should be an important thing.
Now of course the 60% amnesty report is "page not found" on their website, and mainstream media now pretends it was all some big lie by Trump...
What they couldn't change, was people like me actually remembering this stuff... like both the fusion and the amnesty reports, and being able to source from amnesty's website before they decided it was more important to convince people Trump was crazy than to keep relevant data available for the public to see...
So... when it comes to facts... even they have varying levels of truth in them...
If I say "in America you had a 99.9% chance of living through the coronavirus pandemic in 2020", and your say "In America the coronavirus has a 3% mortality rate in 2020" guess what?
We are both relaying very real and established facts concerning this pandemic... and neither are lying, neither statement is untrue.
It's all a matter of what spin we put on it, and how we frame the exact same statistics. That's why getting to the truth yourself is extremely important, and "truth" can vary, depending on who your talking to.
When it's you coming to the truth, then you can examine various statistics etc in light of various considerations, and consider them accordingly, and come up with your own opinions.
It's much better than having truth dictated to you... and is a bedrock of a free society.
yet in your OP you equated Twitter's permanent suspension of Trumps account as the end of freedom of speech and the beginning of a new totalitarianism of woke thought police.
So which is it?
First, it is necessary to understand what the claim actually is. I don't seem to be able to get you to that level.
You're ignoring a simple fact: no one is stopping you from believing what you believe and saying what you want to say.
you seem to be presenting a double standard.
Twitter has certain basic values just as CF does ensuring that it isn't a "free for all" Twitter and CF are operating in the same ways both use their rules to limit the voice of some posters the only difference seems to be your approval of CF's rules
I guess Twitter and Facebook banning people in the 10's of thousands for speaking their mind in a "public forum" (so declared by our nations courts), AWS pulling the plug on hosting for Parler, people being deplatformed etc has escaped your attention then?
Look, if Trump blocking certain people from making comments on his private Twitter account is declared suppression of a person's 1A rights in a "public forum" by the American justice system, then what exactly is it when conservatives are banned from those same public forums if not an attack on American freedom of speech by corporate America...
I guess Twitter and Facebook banning people in the 10's of thousands for speaking their mind in a "public forum" (so declared by our nations courts), AWS pulling the plug on hosting for Parler, people being deplatformed etc has escaped your attention then?
Look, if Trump blocking certain people from making comments on his private Twitter account is declared suppression of a person's 1A rights in a "public forum" by the American justice system, then what exactly is it when conservatives are banned from those same public forums if not an attack on American freedom of speech by corporate America...
Go to Facebook and Twitter and type in "stop the steal." You will see that plenty of people are still voicing their opinion that the election was stolen. Some people calling for violence are being banned. But again, that is a private platform. You are welcome to state your opinion in whatever public forum you choose.
It's very likely the only reason they paused in "the great purge" as it's now being called, is because this has disturbed so many, left and right, as to just how much power, and just how oppressive, these social media giants have and are, and just what a danger these people can be, when they use the full extent of that power.
When it's described as being totalitarian, by a state actor who jails people for speaking in opposition to state positions, it's pretty bad...
You just did.
I sure can’t on Twitter or Facebook
Facebook and Twitter are not state actors. Again, you can still speak your beliefs in whatever public forum you wish.
What is fascism? It's a public/private partnership, where private actors can do what the state actors cannot get away with and vice versa, it's the embodiment of what Mussolini dubbed “corporatism;” that is, the “merger of state and corporate power.” Under corporatism, the ruling class is able to expand unbeknownst to the average person. The Average Joe still has his wallet forcefully stripped of its contents but now the state’s cronies get to partake in the plunder. Meanwhile the same big businessmen who benefit from government privilege still maintain their praise for free markets while working with politicians to forcefully subdue their competition, and the competition for whatever politicians feed them the most.
Some people are on the wrong side of what will become history here.. and arguing for the wrong cause all because of a personal bias against conservatives. These types of things have a tendency to come back on your own head, when you back real fascists.
There's just no talking to some people.
Last I looked I could NOT voice my opinion that the election was stolen.
You just did.
It's ironic that you make that argument while insisting that private companies should not be able to run their platforms as they see fit, a distinctly fascist practice.
Well I hope you truly appreciate tthe state your creating here by arguing in favor of a fascist state where corporate America partners with the democratic party to take down any dissenters to this brave new nation where you will end up a slave to the party - or starve.
I know it sounds fun now... but you won't always agree.
It's ironic that you make that argument while insisting that private companies should not be able to run their platforms as they see fit, a distinctly fascist practice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?