The Leftist Tyranny of Twitter

[eohrnberger]

I suppose the answer to that would be "why is anyone who doesn't genuflect at the altar of Israel and condone its every action, many of which are horrible, classified as anti-Jew?" It is possible to be pro-Palestinian AND pro-Israel at the same time, considering a two-state solution is already pretty much in place.

There is a significant difference between this so called 'genuflection' you accuse other of, acknowledging that the State of Israel has a right to exist and to protect it's citizens and calling for the nation is Israel to be wiped out and all the Jews pushed to the sea.
Acknowledging that the State of Israel has a right to exist and to protect it's citizens is not 'genuflecting' to anyone or anything BTW.

From the River to the Sea (Arabic: min al-nahr ila al-bahr ) is, and forms part of, a popular political slogan used by Palestinian nationalists. It contains the notion that the land which lies between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea be entirely placed under Arab rule at the cost of the State of Israel,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_nationalism#From_the_river_to_the_sea

It has been reported that this is a Hamas chant to stir up their crowds to action, yet this is the same thing that Hill stated in his speech to the UN, so Hill must be on part with the terrorist Hamas organization as well as a prominent and well known pundit and spokesperson representing the US political left (which he has done on a great many occasions on a great many national 'news' broadcasts).

It is well known that Iran, Hamas, Palestine, and a number of other nations in the Middle East, want the destruction of the Israeli state and death to all Jews, seen as a cancer on the world, or 'Termites' if you prefer. Why do such views and positions warrant the support of so many of the left?

My question to you is, why do you constantly ask "when did you stop beating your wife" questions, and then wonder why people don't acquiesce to your idiotic demands? You're a terrible poster.

I've had good teachers from the left, as these are the sorts of questions that are being constantly posed.

As the old saying goes, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.', might be something the left might want to consider.

 

[eohrnberger]

Most people haven't. Most people don't know the rhetorical tricks guys like you use to try to "win" debates. I do. You will never beat me in a debate, because I am on to your bull****.



"The Democrats." What, three people represent the entire party, and therefore the entire "left."

Here’s regular critic of President Trump, Maxine Waters, hugging Farrakhan warmly.

AL GREEN:

Seems like quite a few of the Democrat leaders like Farakan. Might it be they agree with his anti-semitism? I dunno, but could be.

I think Louis Farrakhan can go die already so I can stop hearing about him, since 99.99999% of the "left" thinks he's a ****bag. Also, news flash: most Democrats have never cast a vote for Keith Ellison. Because he represents one district in Minnesota that most of us don't live in.

Yet he was elected in far left Minnesota. <shrug> Who do you suppose voted for him?

Yet David Duke just loves him some Republicans, and he's as Anti-Jew as Farrakhan is, yet ... crickets from you. You've apparently never heard of him.

Not even close to the same thing.

There's a difference between warmly embracing a well known bigot and Anti-Semite (something a person can chose to do or not to do, or not attend that event) and having someone distasteful be a public supporter of a public figure (something a person cannot control).

I love how you've convinced yourself that all liberals just love Louis Farrakhan. Again, what planet do you live on, and what color is the sky there?

I guess you missed the pictures above. Or perhaps you are laying down a reasoned response why the Democrat electorate should abandon these particular Democrat leaders?

EDIT: Linda Sarsour may very well be an anti-Semite, but the source on that story is ... Courtney ****ing Love? And you expect that to be taken seriously? You are really stretching your credibility here.

<shrug>

Linda Sarsour is most certainly an Anti-Semite. She's also gain a lot of support from the left. Draw your own conclusions.

In the end, the left is going to do what it wants anyway, so have at it. Keep going as you are, by all means.

 

[Kobie]

I hung around through the photos, at least one of which was at a funeral. No context given, just a bunch of people in the same spot. Typical in your stock-and-trade dishonesty, but not unexpected.

I don't much care for or about Maxine Waters either, but again ... why should I care? Because Maxine Waters and Louis Farrakhan are friendly, does that make Maxine Waters by necessity an anti-semite?

Yet he was elected in far left Minnesota.

You lost me at this. FAR LEFT MINNESOTA? Are you ****ing kidding me? If Minnesota is FAR LEFT to you, then I'd hate to see where the center is.

You know who else was elected in Minnesota? Michele ****ing Bachmann, who is as wingnutty as the day is long.

You are utterly incapable of making an honest argument. What a pathetic display this is. Any iota of credibility you may have had is LONG gone.

The rest of your post is as much of a steaming pile as the first part. You are pathologically dishonest and incapable of reasonable debate.

 

[eohrnberger]

I hung around through the photos, at least one of which was at a funeral. No context given, just a bunch of people in the same spot. Typical in your stock-and-trade dishonesty, but not unexpected.

I don't much care for or about Maxine Waters either, but again ... why should I care? Because Maxine Waters and Louis Farrakhan are friendly, does that make Maxine Waters by necessity an anti-semite?



You lost me at this. FAR LEFT MINNESOTA? Are you ****ing kidding me? If Minnesota is FAR LEFT to you, then I'd hate to see where the center is.

You know who else was elected in Minnesota? Michele ****ing Bachmann, who is as wingnutty as the day is long.

You are utterly incapable of making an honest argument. What a pathetic display this is. Any iota of credibility you may have had is LONG gone.

The rest of your post is as much of a steaming pile as the first part. You are pathologically dishonest and incapable of reasonable debate.

Some opinions would differ.



Some would say that the political left, which includes Democrats apparently based on picture evidence provided, hobnobbing with a known Anti-Semite such as Farakan, and the left's support of Linda Sarsour, another well known Anti-Semite.

My position is that its rather disconcerting, and worth being aware of and on guard of.

I notice that you flail away calling me all sorts of names, but where I've substantiated in imagery as well as citation, you've not managed the same level of substantiation. :shrug:

 

[Kobie]

Some opinions would differ.

And then you turn to Ben Shapiro, who is a jackass.

"The left," by and large, doesn't know who Linda Sarsour IS.

You have "substantiated" via out-of-context imagery and wingnut citation, whilst demanding I prove a negative to reach your approved "level of substantiation." At one point, arguing with a person so repugnantly dishonest becomes a fool's errand. Fortunately, I learned that about dealing with you a long time ago; so I don't know what hoops you are demanding I jump through to gain your approval, and I know you'll just move the goalposts anyway, so I'm only going to say that your arguments are gutter trash and you're a fundamentally dishonest person.

 

[eohrnberger]

And then you turn to Ben Shapiro, who is a jackass.

"The left," by and large, doesn't know who Linda Sarsour IS.

I find that hard to believe given how many she draws to her protests. But please, try and prove that assertion your made of your own free will.

You have "substantiated" via out-of-context imagery and wingnut citation, whilst demanding I prove a negative to reach your approved "level of substantiation."

The imagery clearly shows Democrat leaders hobnobbing with Farakan (with apparent great affection - granted, subject to interpretation), who is a known extremist Anti-Semite of the most vile sort.

At one point, arguing with a person so repugnantly dishonest becomes a fool's errand. Fortunately, I learned that about dealing with you a long time ago; so I don't know what hoops you are demanding I jump through to gain your approval, and I know you'll just move the goalposts anyway, so I'm only going to say that your arguments are gutter trash and you're a fundamentally dishonest person.

I seek no approval from you. I demand that you jump through no hoops. That's you illusion / delusion.

All I might be prompting is for you to look in the mirror a bit, and I can see that you don't really like what you see, hence your abusive reaction to me. :shrug: I really don't care how you react. But that's up to you as to how you deal with what you see in the mirror. All I'm just holding up the mirror.

And while we are on the subject of 'dealing with people in debate', I'll just add this:

Experience has taught me that not being civil almost always derails any rational exchanges. It can easily result in polarizing both sides more, and can have real negative consequences for readers of your website accepting valid science. When communicating science language matters more than you think.
Anthony Watts: “When You Resort To Name Calling, You’ve Lost The Argument”

Another mirror. Who, exactly, as descended into incivility?

 

[Kobie]

I find that hard to believe given how many she draws to her protests. But please, try and prove that assertion your made of your own free will.

Woodstock had 400,000 people. I defy you, without googling, to tell me any of the people who organized that event.

The imagery clearly shows Democrat leaders hobnobbing with Farakan (with apparent great affection - granted, subject to interpretation), who is a known extremist Anti-Semite of the most vile sort.

I seek no approval from you. I demand that you jump through no hoops. That's you illusion / delusion.

No, you just disingenously demand that I somehow prove "the left" (a wide-encompassing label) is "not anti-Semitic" (who defines that?) when there is no way to do so other than to point out that the vast amount of American Jews vote Democratic; that the white supremacist, anti-Jew groups largely support Republicans (as statistically and culturally insignificant as they are and as meaningless as their support is); that the vast majority of anti-Jew slurs and outright Nazi imagery on social media come from the right wing; and you'll just respond with a picture of Obama within 10 feet of Louis Farrakhan -- who, for his innumerable flaws, was once considered a great black leader in the U.S. before he lost his mind -- and declare victory. Sorry, not taking that idiot bait.

All I might be prompting is for you to look in the mirror a bit, and I can see that you don't really like what you see, hence your abusive reaction to me. :shrug: I really don't care how you react. But that's up to you as to how you deal with what you see in the mirror. All I'm just holding up the mirror.

And what am I supposed to see when I look into this mirror? What kind of twisted psychoses are you trying to project onto me? Am I supposed to somehow feel guilty because I'm on "the left" and so is, apparently, Louis Farrakhan and therefore I'm responsible for him or have to answer for him somehow? This is what I'm talking about. This is why your debate style is utter garbage. This is why it's useless discussing this stuff with you. Because you think that the "left" is a hivemind, and what one believes, all believe and must answer for. **** you.

And while we are on the subject of 'dealing with people in debate', I'll just add this:

Another mirror. Who, exactly, as descended into incivility?

And the coup de grace -- you were "uncivil," therefore I win! I'm uncivil because you are not worth civility. You're a fundamentally dishonest person.

EDIT: LOL did you seriously use a quote from Anthony Watts, a science denying piece of subhuman excrement, that's NOT EVEN HIS QUOTE to somehow declare victory? At best, it's a paraphrase of Socrates, and that wasn't even correct either way.

"When you resort to name calling, you've lost the argument" has no validity whatsoever in actual debate. If I demolish every "point" you make and call you an asshole while doing it, that doesn't make you the winner. Jesus Christ, you're beyond ridiculous at this point.

 

[eohrnberger]

Kobie, you need to stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

Woodstock had 400,000 people. I defy you, without googling, to tell me any of the people who organized that event.







No, you just disingenously demand that I somehow prove "the left" (a wide-encompassing label) is "not anti-Semitic" (who defines that?) when there is no way to do so other than to point out that the vast amount of American Jews vote Democratic; that the white supremacist, anti-Jew groups largely support Republicans (as statistically and culturally insignificant as they are and as meaningless as their support is); that the vast majority of anti-Jew slurs and outright Nazi imagery on social media come from the right wing; and you'll just respond with a picture of Obama within 10 feet of Louis Farrakhan -- who, for his innumerable flaws, was once considered a great black leader in the U.S. before he lost his mind -- and declare victory. Sorry, not taking that idiot bait.



And what am I supposed to see when I look into this mirror? What kind of twisted psychoses are you trying to project onto me? Am I supposed to somehow feel guilty because I'm on "the left" and so is, apparently, Louis Farrakhan and therefore I'm responsible for him or have to answer for him somehow? This is what I'm talking about. This is why your debate style is utter garbage. This is why it's useless discussing this stuff with you. Because you think that the "left" is a hivemind, and what one believes, all believe and must answer for. **** you.



And the coup de grace -- you were "uncivil," therefore I win! I'm uncivil because you are not worth civility. You're a fundamentally dishonest person.

EDIT: LOL did you seriously use a quote from Anthony Watts, a science denying piece of subhuman excrement, that's NOT EVEN HIS QUOTE to somehow declare victory? At best, it's a paraphrase of Socrates, and that wasn't even correct either way.

"When you resort to name calling, you've lost the argument" has no validity whatsoever in actual debate. If I demolish every "point" you make and call you an asshole while doing it, that doesn't make you the winner. Jesus Christ, you're beyond ridiculous at this point.

 

[Kobie]

Kobie, you need to stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

I accept that you have no argument and never have. Keep on ****ing that chicken.

 

[eohrnberger]

I accept that you have no argument and never have. Keep on ****ing that chicken.

Pretty clear that we have two very different perspectives on this particular topic. Such is life I guess.

Regardless, Kobie, be well, and try to find some happiness in life, and shun emotionally driven hate. It's not logical nor healthy.

All my best.

 

[Kobie]

Pretty clear that we have two very different perspectives on this particular topic. Such is life I guess.

Regardless, Kobie, be well, and try to find some happiness in life, and shun emotionally driven hate. It's not logical nor healthy.

All my best.

Yeah, namaste or something.

Here is another one of your little tactics -- paint me as hate-driven and unhinged. You're the calm one, even though everything you post is a lava spout of horseshit and I have to mop it up.

My life is just fine. I don't come here and push your face into the mud because of some anger-drive grudge. I do it because I enjoy it.

That said, I have no problem telling you to go, seriously, piss up a rope.

 

[Thorgasm]

The OP's conclusion:

Every day that blue check marked hate-monger Sarah Jeong gets to tweet while Laura Loomer remains silenced reminds us of how powerful social media conglomerates have rigged the free speech playing field. It's no fantasy. It's a nightmare.

Michelle Malkin is a professional victim.

 

[Nickyjo]

Here's a pretty clear example. If you're Jewish and right-of-center Twitter will ban you. If you're on the left and prone to hateful pronouncements you get promoted and praised.

Why Is Sarah Jeong on Twitter and Not Laura Loomer?
Michelle Malkin, Townhall
This is a tale of two young, outspoken women in media.
One is a liberal tech writer. The other is an enterprising conservative new media reporter. One has achieved meteoric success and now works at a top American newspaper. The other has been de-platformed and marginalized. Their wildly different fates tell you everything you need to know about Silicon Valley's free speech double standards.
Some smug elites will downplay Twitter's disparate treatment of these users by arguing that private tech corporations can do whatever they want and that no First Amendment issues have been raised. But this battle is about much more than free speech rights. It's about whether the high-and-mighty progressives who monopolize global social media platforms truly believe in nurturing a free speech culture.
By punishing politically incorrect speech and making punitive examples of free thinkers, tech titans are enforcing their own authoritarian version of Silicon Valley sharia -- a set of both written and unwritten codes constricting expressions of acceptable thought in the name of "safety" and "civility.". . . .

To understand the ban and non-ban, I need to know what each of them tweeted. What did Sarah and Laura post that produced different reactions?

 

[Jack Hays]

To understand the ban and non-ban, I need to know what each of them tweeted. What did Sarah and Laura post that produced different reactions?

It's included in the article.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

It's included in the article.

Laura Loomer probably needs her wiki entry changed to include "enterprising new media reporter".

Loomer has described herself as a nationalist, and has described immigration as a threat to American heritage.[9] Fortune has described Loomer as a "far-right provocateur".[10]

Loomer has denounced the alt-right, and has publicly repudiated white supremacist Richard B. Spencer, who coined the term, and has refused to share a stage with him. Loomer has received anti-semitic threats and harassment from the alt-right following this dispute.[8] Despite this, Loomer has been described as being part of the alt-right movement, as well as alt-lite.[6][9][11]

Loomer has promoted a number of conspiracy theories, mostly related to mass shootings; falsely insinuating that school shootings in Santa Fe, Texas and Parkland, Florida were staged, and that the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooter was affiliated with ISIS.[12][13][14]

Career
Loomer is a former employee of James O'Keefe, a conservative activist known for producing selectively edited undercover video investigations.[15] Until her resignation in September 2017, Loomer was the New York correspondent for the conservative Canadian far-right news site The Rebel Media, which has been referred to as the "Canadian Breitbart."[6][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

Provocateur and hack is more like it, but Malkin will be Malkin.

 

[Jack Hays]

Laura Loomer probably needs her wiki entry changed to include "enterprising new media reporter".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

Provocateur and hack is more like it, but Malkin will be Malkin.

We do not value freedom because it enables people we all agree with, but because it enables people we don't.

 

[Nickyjo]

It's included in the article.

Checked it out. Not very substantial. The lefty apparently said some awful things but no context given. The righty supposedly said the truth about Islam, but no quotes given. What did she say that was found so offensive? Hard to evaluate. And Malkin might be correct here, but she’s not generally a person to see for a balanced viewpoint.

Also, this person, Jewish, complains about current migrants not assimilating and destroying our heritage. Does she have any knowledge of the history of such sentiments directed at Jews? What’s next, she attacks the Hasidim?

 

[Jack Hays]

Checked it out. Not very substantial. The lefty apparently said some awful things but no context given. The righty supposedly said the truth about Islam, but no quotes given. What did she say that was found so offensive? Hard to evaluate. And Malkin might be correct here, but she’s not generally a person to see for a balanced viewpoint.

Loomer has said some objectionable things about Islam and (notably) recently elected Rep. Ilhan Omar. The BDS movement really sets her off (as it does me, btw). Jeong's quotes don't really require context IMHO. Point is not that either is an angel; point is the disparate treatment. Ban both or ban neither.

 

[Nickyjo]

Loomer has said some objectionable things about Islam and (notably) recently elected Rep. Ilhan Omar. The BDS movement really sets her off (as it does me, btw). Jeong's quotes don't really require context IMHO. Point is not that either is an angel; point is the disparate treatment. Ban both or ban neither.

C’mon. Isnt it possible that Loomer’s “objectionable things” went over lines Jeong didn’t? Still hard to evaluate this as disparate treatment. Context is (almost) everything. What’s BDS?

 

[Jack Hays]

C’mon. Isnt it possible that Loomer’s “objectionable things” went over lines Jeong didn’t? Still hard to evaluate this as disparate treatment. Context is (almost) everything. What’s BDS?

BDS is the anti-Israel (I would say anti-Semitic) Boycott, Divest, Sanction movement.
I think Jeong's statements were as objectionable as anything Loomer said.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The OP's conclusion:

Every day that blue check marked hate-monger Sarah Jeong gets to tweet while Laura Loomer remains silenced reminds us of how powerful social media conglomerates have rigged the free speech playing field. It's no fantasy. It's a nightmare.

Is this your lil darlin right-wingnut?

Seems she handcuffed herself to Twitter HQ in New York and doesn't have a cuff key. Cops needed bolt-cutters. She belongs in a rubber room with Alex Jones.

 

[Jack Hays]

Is this your lil darlin right-wingnut?

Seems she handcuffed herself to Twitter HQ in New York and doesn't have a cuff key. Cops needed bolt-cutters. She belongs in a rubber room with Alex Jones.

We do not value freedom because it enables people we all agree with, but because it enables people we don't.

 

[Jack Hays]

Why I Deleted My Popular Twitter Account
Glenn Reynolds, USA Today

 

[OlNate]

We do not value freedom because it enables people we all agree with, but because it enables people we don't.

You guys still believe in freedom down there? hehe...how quaint. Do we need to have a chat about Santa too?

I've never understood the obsession with freedom by Americans. Imagine the surprise of a tourist, actually expecting to find freedom, only to be met with speed limits, prohibitions, the highest percentage of population in jail in the world, a two party government system that forces hopeless decisions like Clinton / Trump...

I'm sorry, but I always find myself having a little chuckle when the words "America" and "freedom" find themselves in the same sentence. Not that it's any better up here...I guess we just refuse to be obsessed with something we'll never have. I find it especially comical to see the issue of freedom brought up in the context of Twitter - talk about superfluous. Despite the fact that President Dumb Ass has made it his chosen method of communication, it's still a silly social media app you use to send nonsense to your friends, or make yourself feel important being nasty about politics.

Twitter will do what it wants, as corporate entities enjoy a fair bit more "freedom" than human entities do, and there will be some other outrage in a few months where the Left will be all grumpy about a Right leaning corporation doing something they don't like. None of it will disintegrate American "freedom", because you guys gave that away a long time ago, if it ever really existed.

 

[Jack Hays]

You guys still believe in freedom down there? hehe...how quaint. Do we need to have a chat about Santa too?

I've never understood the obsession with freedom by Americans. Imagine the surprise of a tourist, actually expecting to find freedom, only to be met with speed limits, prohibitions, the highest percentage of population in jail in the world, a two party government system that forces hopeless decisions like Clinton / Trump...

I'm sorry, but I always find myself having a little chuckle when the words "America" and "freedom" find themselves in the same sentence. Not that it's any better up here...I guess we just refuse to be obsessed with something we'll never have. I find it especially comical to see the issue of freedom brought up in the context of Twitter - talk about superfluous. Despite the fact that President Dumb Ass has made it his chosen method of communication, it's still a silly social media app you use to send nonsense to your friends, or make yourself feel important being nasty about politics.

Twitter will do what it wants, as corporate entities enjoy a fair bit more "freedom" than human entities do, and there will be some other outrage in a few months where the Left will be all grumpy about a Right leaning corporation doing something they don't like. None of it will disintegrate American "freedom", because you guys gave that away a long time ago, if it ever really existed.

We disagree.