# Elon Musk announces Twitter suppressed Hunter Biden Laptop Story



## x65943 (Dec 2, 2022)

Elon Musk announced Twitter would be live tweeting regarding an apparent coverup of a story concerning President Joe Biden's son's laptop

The tweetstorm was initially supposed to commence at 5pm EST, but has been postponed to 6pm in order to perform additional fact checking

What are your predictions? Why do you think Twitter would suppress such materials?



Edit 1: the "Twitter files"



Edit 2: direct requests from the DNC and Biden election team to take down Twitter posts



[/MEDIA]

Edit 3:

All said and done, Musk is saying Twitter infringed on 1st amendment rights. I don't think he understands the constitution very well because it clearly does not.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 2, 2022)

I predict that nothing will come from this just as nothing has came from the Epstein Case, Ray Epps, or anything else of importance, though I hope I am wrong.


----------



## lokomelo (Dec 2, 2022)

For whatever reason, the first response on my screen is: "Elon is obese"


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 2, 2022)

nobody told me why hunter biden's laptop is a world threat yet


----------



## x65943 (Dec 3, 2022)

He finally posted it


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 3, 2022)

yea i couldve told you that


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2022)

Yet another desperate plea for attention from the world's most fragile billionaire.  Twitter is just $8Chan now.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Yet another desperate plea for attention from the world's most fragile billionaire.  Twitter is just $8Chan now.


Have you been on 8chan...the two are in no way related

The most popular section on 8chan was literally "Nazis" the board

More like truth social maybe if anything


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

Part 2 tomorrow followed by the promised Q&A.

As for NAZI's, do any of you know what NAZI actually stands for? It's like the whole world is suddenly talking about a history they actually know nothing or next to nothing about, and that's both from the proverbial Right and the proverbial Left.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 3, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> Part 2 tomorrow followed by the promised Q&A.
> 
> As for NAZI's, do any of you know what NAZI actually stands for? It's like the whole world is suddenly talking about a history they actually know nothing or next to nothing about, and that's both from the proverbial Right and the proverbial Left.


Super curious if you are replying to the wrong thread?

My only mention of nazis was on 8chan where they have a literal board called "NatSoc" aka National socialism - you know what nazi literally stands for


----------



## lokomelo (Dec 3, 2022)

My dumbness reached high levels now. I'm not understanding this thing at all.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

x65943 said:


> Super curious if you are replying to the wrong thread?
> 
> My only mention of nazis was on 8chan where they have a literal board called "NatSoc" aka National socialism - you know what nazi literally stands for


What is 8Chan? And I've never heard of this group that calls them selves "NatSoc", which if looking at the name alone seems to imply that they are Nationalists (which only the Globalists claim is an evil and hateful term), and that they are attached to some sort of Socialist idea, which I presume has something to do with Hitler's conception of Socialism, which he wanted to make clear was a different entity all together than the Socialism of the Communists, Marxists, and self proclaimed Bolsheviks (majority). If NatSoc is racist and about white supremacy, I suppose I would have to read their actual posts to find that out, but the name itself doesn't imply this.

As for Hitler, he was fighting to preserve Germany and Europe's national sovereignty against the looming threat of the Communists in who had in his youth used a blood bath to turn Russia into Soviet Russia through the massacre of the last Czar, his family, and many there after. The idea was to spread Communism Internationally and do away with the Nation States, using Russia as the Capital. This was funded by many Jewish Bankers, Writers, Philosophers, and the like, many of which had strong ties with the Industrialists/Capitalists of the time, or were them themselves.

This is not to say Hitler was some sort of saint, though the threat he saw rising was very real and evidence of it's happening was very apparent and well documented on that note. As for the violence that Hitler did order, I will say that  in war time people tend to do war like things, and on that note, EVERYONE was shedding blood in those days, from what we have been conditioned to call World War I, on into World War II.
 In fact if you look at the numbers, Hitler was said to have slain 6 Million Jews, though now at the Auschwitz tour the official number has been reduced to 2 Million and ever shrinking. None the less, let's stick with the 6 Million figure and compare that with the 100 Million that were slain by Stalin, both European and Russian, and the 70 Million slain under Mao Zedong's red reign. Now for fun we can compare that with the 73 Million Abortions conducted world wide in this very day, and that makes one wonder, why was what Hitler did or allegedly did called THE HOLOCAUST?

If you are curious about where the famous 6 Million figure came from, I HIGHLY suggest looking into S.A.R. Lynch's book of compiled media articles from WAAAYYYY before 1945, dealing with the famous number. The book is called Six Million Open Gates, and can be found HERE, and HERE, with more information on it HERE.

Anyhow, the word NAZI itself is a slang term that if I recall correctly was created by a Jewish Journalist back in the day long before any claims of oven burning and the like. It was supposed to be an abbreviation in the author's language for what the Germans of the time called them selves, which was "National Socialist German Workers' Party". NAZI sounded a lot like another word in this man's language which meant "idiot" or something like that and the term just caught on, but the Germans never referred to them selves as NAZI's. As for them believing that the Blond Hair Blue Eyed race was superior to all other races and little ol Germany was set to try to take over THE WHOLE FREAKIN' WORLD with the aid of Japan...
...well, like the soap made from Jew Fat, like the Jew Skin Lamp Shades, the Shrunken Heads, and so forth, that was all part of anti-German propaganda, and the notion was for each country to be made of it's own people and that each people be proud of their own ethnicity; the idea being to preserve national and ethnic diversity. Olympian Jesse Owens was warned that if he went to Germany that he'd be treated like dirt because he was black. In his own words he came back and said the Germans treated him like royalty and that he received better treatment there than in America which was currently under the Democrat party's policy of segregation.

The Germans were trying to get the majority (key word majority, not all) of Jews out of Germany, which again historically was nothing most other countries had not already done, and return control, influence, and culture into the hands of the German people. The intention was to ship the Jews (again not all) to Madagascar, though early on a deal called the Haavara Agreement was struck between Germany and Britain, which allowed the wealthier of the Jews to buy their way out and be deported to what was then called Mandatory Palestine (now the militarized zone called Israel) which the British had just claimed  from the recently defeated Ottoman Empire.  Germany quickly turned around for the first time in years once all the bankers, pornographers, and the like were thrown out of the country, though they could not ship the rest of the Jews to Madagascar as planned as Britain occupied territory between it and Germany and once Winston Churchill stepped into the picture, he would not co-operate with Germany in any way shape or form, so the Jews remained in labor camps along side of many other people from Europe who had pledged allegiance to the rising Communist Ideology, which like it's sister Marxism, is about a LOT more than mere economics, the death of Christianity being one of them, as well Control of all Capital put into the hands of the few rather than the individual and family, the replacement of family with community, the introduction of graduated income tax, the end of inheritance, the end of private property, centralization of credit, etc. etc. etc.

Think "You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy"





I could go on at great length on this subject, and also point out how the rise of Globalism took place starting at the end of World War II, but I would end up writing a book and it would be much easier just to refer you to some on-line references should anyone get curious or want to challenge these claims. I will say though that it has been stated many times that the reasons the prisoners (not all Jewish) in the labor camps at the end of the war looked so rough, was because of America and Britain's Fire Bombing of Germany all through out the end of the war, which prevented the Germans to continue to ship food, medical supplies, and the like to the camps. And please keep in mind that these fire bombings took place LONG after Germany's military strong points had been wiped out; thus the fire bombings were an attempt to eradicate the German people.

 I am just responding because ever since Kayne west has been doing his usual rounds looking like a fool and the media reporting on every bit of it as if it were actual news, everyone has been posting NAZI this and NAZI that, as if they are on the good side because they didn't attempt to terminate 6 Million Jews, and all those people out there like Trump are on the wrong side because they support killing 6 Million Jews. It's childish as hell.

As for Truth Social, I'm not Republican, but I  have spent some time observing it and I've not only failed to find any overwhelming Jewish hate sentiment, but in fact have not seen any at all. I guess there might be someone on there posting such things, but I've not seen them. On that note, what ever Skin Heads and White Supremecists do happen to exist out there have apparently never bothered to read anything but the old propaganda edit of Hitler's, My Struggle, which by the way has been re-translated into English and Hebrew for anyone interested in seeing what Hitler's actual words were. Also there are MANY speeches of his on-line with English subtitles. Again, I am not saying he was a saint, I am saying he was a man who lived during war time, and the body count he caused was waaaayyy below that of America's allies who, like America by this time, were financially backed by Jewish interests in high places.

Sorry if any of this is written sloppy, it's late and I'm going from off the top of my head right now. Before I go though I would like to share this investigation video shared by a curious young Jewish kid:


----------



## x65943 (Dec 3, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> What is 8Chan? And I've never heard of this group that calls them selves "NatSoc", which if looking at the name alone seems to imply that they are Nationalists (which only the Globalists claim is an evil and hateful term), and that they are attached to some sort of Socialist idea, which I presume has something to do with Hitler's conception of Socialism, which he wanted to make clear was a different entity all together than the Socialism of the Communists, Marxists, and self proclaimed Bolsheviks (majority). If NatSoc is racist and about white supremacy, I suppose I would have to read their actual posts to find that out, but the name itself doesn't imply this.
> 
> As for Hitler, he was fighting to preserve Germany and Europe's national sovereignty against the looming threat of the Communists in who had in his youth used a blood bath to turn Russia into Soviet Russia through the massacre of the last Czar, his family, and many there after. The idea was to spread Communism Internationally and do away with the Nation States, using Russia as the Capital. This was funded by many Jewish Bankers, Writers, Philosophers, and the like, many of which had strong ties with the Industrialists/Capitalists of the time, or were them themselves.
> 
> ...



tl;dr they are nazis who use the term national socialist as that's what the nazis themselves used (NSDAP - national socialist german workers' party)

if you never heard of 8chan then you shouldn't say people are talking about things they don't know about, when you are in fact commenting on things you do not know about

8chan was basically a more extreme version of 4chan that spawned qanon - eventually it was let loose by its webhosts and rebranded as 8kun where it has all but died - but yes they are literal nazis and to this day this greets you on some pages


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

x65943 said:


> tl;dr they are nazis who use the term national socialist as that's what the nazis themselves used (NSDAP - nation socialist german worker's party)
> 
> if you never heard of 8chan then you shouldn't say people are talking about things they don't know about, when you are in fact commenting on things you do not know about
> 
> ...


I've only heard of 4Chan also, but when I say people speak of things they don't understand I'm talking about Twitter, Facebook, this site, and so on, where it is FREQUENT! That said, I am quite aware that there are places on there internet where mislead and self proclaimed white supremacists do exist, it's just that I don't visit those channels. The ignorance of many of the users of Bitchute was enough for me.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 3, 2022)

Can someone tell Elon he didn't bought a reliable news conglomerate but a gossip channel. The gop had more than enough channels to bang on about it, so more Twitter would be at most akin to adding an extra droplet in the ocean.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

Too many clips to laugh at, too many fools don't understand how information and perception have really been working in the modern age. HINT: You were obviously being lied to and you believed because you wanted to. Think about it. You are a trained monkey, or at least you think you came from monkeys because they trained you to believe that too! 

Hunter lying and acting like it was the Russians



Laptop Montage:



The former Director of the CIA LIED


----------



## Valwinz (Dec 3, 2022)

twitter interfered in the election. last night bombshell shows to the lens Biden went to hide the story of his disgusting criminal son so he could win.

every single thing people say was a conspiracy turns out to be true Democrats pretty much controlled twitter and this is why they are so mad that Elon purchase it. they won't be able to use it for the 2024 election.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)




----------



## tabzer (Dec 3, 2022)

Not only did they try to "hide" it, but they blamed Russia for it.  Lol.  Also, the contents of the laptop does a lot to implicate "Biden's" pay-to-politic racket.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

I like how all sorts of video was leaked from the Laptop with Biden with his whores doing drugs, putting their feet in each other's mouths, etc. and Biden's like,"I don't know if it's my laptop, it might be a Russian Hoax." People will believe anything, it's so amusing and scary at the same time.


----------



## Veho (Dec 3, 2022)

Hunter Biden turned me into a newt, but Twitter suppressed it.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 3, 2022)

What about Hilary's Emails?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 3, 2022)

SG854 said:


> What about Hilary's Emails?



The FBI let her choose what she would give back, what she could delete.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)




----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> The FBI let her choose what she would give back, what she could delete.


Pretty sure he was being facetious and mocking anybody who still pretends to care.  What's next, Jill Biden's grocery list?  Gotta be something nefarious there.  

Meanwhile, Republicans could be attacking Biden on something substantive given he's forcing rail workers to accept a shitty deal, but of course that's something they agree with him on.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Pretty sure he was being facetious and mocking anybody who still pretends to care.  What's next, Jill Biden's grocery list?  Gotta be something nefarious there.





Xzi said:


> Pretty sure he was being facetious and mocking anybody who still pretends to care.  What's next, Jill Biden's grocery list?  Gotta be something nefarious there.
> 
> Meanwhile, Republicans could be attacking Biden on something substantive given he's forcing rail workers to accept a shitty deal, but of course that's something they agree with him on.


Who is "they", in case you've not noticed, the Republican party isn't strictly establishment members anymore, hence the reason the FBI and such are going to strongly against them, and the media and various members of the current administration accuse them of being "White Supremacists".

In case you didn't notice, the establishment is catering to the lowest common denominator, so if their marketing tactics are working on you, then what does that say about you?
As has been stated, the department of justice belongs to the establishment, it always has, and the Republican party (not necessarily the voters) have always been establishment. I.E. While Lincoln was concerned about forming the Union (with or without slavery), Republicans took up arms and were laying down their lives to free slaves who they had never met in their life. And THAT is the difference between Establishment and voter base. The DOJ could care less for the voter base.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Pretty sure he was being facetious and mocking anybody who still pretends to care.  What's next, Jill Biden's grocery list?  Gotta be something nefarious there.


What kind of tool are you, exactly?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> Who is "they", in case you've not noticed, the Republican party isn't strictly establishment members anymore, hence the reason the FBI and such are going to strongly against them, and the media and various members of the current administration accuse them of being "White Supremacists".


It never stopped being an establishment, it only changed owners.  It's the party of Trump/DeSantis/Kanye now, and it has only continued to go further off the deep end, which is why it never focuses on policy or governance any more.



EldritchPenumbra said:


> As has been stated, the department of justice belongs to the establishment, it always has, and the Republican party (not necessarily the voters) have always been establishment. I.E. While Lincoln was concerned about forming the Union (with or without slavery), Republicans took up arms and were laying down their lives to free slaves who they had never met in their life. And THAT is the difference between Establishment and voter base. The DOJ could care less for the voter base.


Huh?  DOJ leadership is appointed by the party currently in power.  Of course Garland isn't gonna go chase a nothingburger like the laptop story, not even Bill Barr was willing to touch that one with a ten foot pole.



tabzer said:


> What kind of tool are you, exactly?


Sorry to dispel your illusions, but this shit is just ragebait to keep donations flowing to the GOP.  By all means though, keep focusing on inconsequential bullshit for the next ten years, that'll surely win your party elections.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Sorry to dispel your illusions, but this shit is just ragebait to keep donations flowing to the GOP. By all means though, keep focusing on inconsequential bullshit for the next ten years, that'll surely win your party elections.


So you are a tool for the DNC.  I thought so.  The anti-capitalist, leftist schtick is a ploy.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> So you are a tool for the DNC.  I thought so.  The anti-capitalist, leftist schtick is a ploy.


We've had this discussion I don't know how many times.  There are two major political parties in the US, just because it's obvious that one of them is a lost cause doesn't mean I support the other wholeheartedly.  On a case by case basis, Democrats have done some positive things, but they're also largely spineless and complicit in allowing oligarchs to slowly take over the country.  They're capitalists first, everything else second.

Literally all I'm saying is find a real fucking controversy if you want to play hardball.  Like Saudi Arabia's $2 billion dollar giveaway to Jared Kushner.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It's the party of Trump/DeSantis/Kanye now...


You totally lost me there. If you think that any of those three men have that much power in this world enterprise then you've got to have a screw loose.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> You totally lost me there. If you think that any of those three men have that much power in this world enterprise then you've got to have a screw loose.


The GOP is a national enterprise, it's their corporate donors that often play both sides and have a greater influence globally.  And you must not have been paying much attention over the last four elections if you believe Trump had no influence over the chosen candidates and the outcomes.  It's only after the latest mid-term elections that support for him has begun to waver, but the only real contender for future GOP kingmaker is DeSantis, who is more or less a bargain bin version of the same person.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> We've had this discussion I don't know how many times.  There are two major political parties in the US, just because it's obvious that one of them is a lost cause doesn't mean I support the other wholeheartedly.  On a case by case basis, Democrats have done some positive things, but they're also largely spineless and complicit in allowing oligarchs to slowly take over the country.  They're capitalists first, everything else second.


Your rationalization for being a tool for the DNC is because you dislike GOP even more.

You can be against both, you know.  I think you would be if you were anti-capitalism.



Xzi said:


> The GOP is a national enterprise, it's their corporate donors that often play both sides and have a greater influence globally.



If their corporate donors play both sides, wouldn't that make them DNC's corporate donors too?

Just saying, you speak a lot of platitudes, but your function is clear.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Dec 3, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> Part 2 tomorrow followed by the promised Q&A.
> 
> As for NAZI's, do any of you know what NAZI actually stands for? It's like the whole world is suddenly talking about a history they actually know nothing or next to nothing about, and that's both from the proverbial Right and the proverbial Left.


One of the most famous poems in the world literally starts "First they came for the socialists" and somehow, in 2022, we still have people on the internet who think they are smart for this "dO aNy Of YoU kNoW wHaT nAzI aCtUaLlY sTaNdS fOr" nonsense. By your logic, the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is also a democracy. Also Truth Social is literally socialism. The Nazis were socialists in name only.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The GOP is a national enterprise, it's their corporate donors that often play both sides and have a greater influence globally.  And you must not have been paying much attention over the last four elections if you believe Trump had no influence over the chosen candidates and the outcomes.  It's only after the latest mid-term elections that support for him has begun to waver, but the only real contender for future GOP kingmaker is DeSantis, who is more or less a bargain bin version of the same person.


So it's Trump, DeSantis and their Corporate Donors who rule the world, and no one is above them. Also, where does Kayne fit into all of this again?

	Post automatically merged: Dec 3, 2022



n00bsaib0t said:


> One of the most famous poems in the world literally starts "First they came for the socialists" and somehow, in 2022, we still have people on the internet who think they are smart for this "dO aNy Of YoU kNoW wHaT nAzI aCtUaLlY sTaNdS fOr" nonsense. By your logic, the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is also a democracy. Also Truth Social is literally socialism. The Nazis were socialists in name only.


So... I don't know what I'm talking about, in spite of my many days, months, and years trying to make sense of history because I am unaware of a poem that is apparently one of the most famous poems in the world, but some person, which has in it a vague statement about somebody that says,"First they came for the socialists"?

Also, when did I mention Democracies? A Democracy without regulation is merely MOB RULE. I don't desire to live in a mere Democracy, and I find it unhealthy that so many media outlets and the people are crying for Democracy world wide, especially in the age of mass media where most don't understand the difference between north and south, nor do they seem to have the ability to define what a woman is for that matter, and many could care to be bothered to learn enough to know if their presumptions about a thing are correct or not. Such people do not deserve a vote, an opinion, or a say, and yet we allow them to bark and whimper none the less.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Your rationalization for being a tool for the DNC is because you dislike GOP even more.
> 
> You can be against both, you know.  I think you would be if you were anti-capitalism.


I could, but "government = always bad" is the rationale of an intellectually lazy person who doesn't want to read too much into any news or current events.  The world, and by extension, human progress, is far more nuanced than that.


tabzer said:


> If their corporate donors play both sides, wouldn't that make them DNC's corporate donors too?


Yes, that's...implied.  It takes way more money than should be necessary to win elections, and both parties are generally fine with that.  As I keep saying: capitalists first, everything else second.  The working class has to settle for a lot of Pyrrhic victories in such a system.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 3, 2022



EldritchPenumbra said:


> So it's Trump, DeSantis and their Corporate Donors who rule the world, and no one is above them.


Not sure if you're just playing dumb, or if your reading comprehension is really that bad.  Trump and DeSantis rule the GOP, nothing more.  International corporations exist several notches above that, as they have worldwide influence over any number of political parties and candidates.



EldritchPenumbra said:


> Also, where does Kayne fit into all of this again?


He's the ultimate representation of the GOP's modern insanity.  His opinions align with Trump and DeSantis, so the base loves him for that, they just hate that he's saying all the quiet parts out loud.  If anything his influence is probably waning recently, but they're going to have a tough time getting him to go away altogether.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I could, but "government = always bad" is the rationale of an intellectually lazy person who doesn't want to read too much into any news or current events.  The world, and by extension, human progress, is far more nuanced than that.
> 
> Yes, that's...implied.  It takes way more money than should be necessary to win elections, and both parties are generally fine with that.  As I keep saying: capitalists first, everything else second.  The working class has to settle for a lot of Pyrrhic victories in such a system.
> 
> ...


Capital = always bad is an equally stupid conclusion. Just because it is currently corrupt in America and abroad doesn't mean it will always be everywhere all the time. In fact I imagine there are currently places we never hear of where it is not and where people are humble and real.

"Money is like blood,it gives life if it flows.
Money is like Christ, it blesses you if you share it.
Money is like Buddha, if you don't work, you don't get it.
Money enlightens those who use to open the flower of the world, and damns those who glorify it,
confounding riches with the soul.
There is no difference between money and conscience.
There is no difference between conscience and death.
There is no difference between death and wealth." - *Alejandro Jodorowsky

*

	Post automatically merged: Dec 3, 2022



Xzi said:


> He's the ultimate representation of the GOP's modern insanity.  His opinions align with Trump and DeSantis, so the base loves him for that, they just hate that he's saying all the quiet parts out loud.  If anything his influence is probably waning recently, but they're going to have a tough time getting him to go away altogether.


Dude, that's fucking hilarious!


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> Capital = always bad is an equally stupid conclusion. Just because it is currently corrupt in America and abroad doesn't mean it will always be everywhere all the time.


Maybe, but we'll both be dead _long_ before we break free of the problems caused by global capitalism and its exploitative nature.



EldritchPenumbra said:


> Dude, that's fucking hilarious!


It is pretty funny, given the party was already dealing with one albatross around their neck before Kanye decided to pile on.  It was also the inevitable outcome of cutting funding for education and pushing the Southern Strategy for over half a century.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I could, but "government = always bad" is the rationale of an intellectually lazy person who doesn't want to read too much into any news or current events. The world, and by extension, human progress, is far more nuanced than that.



That's not "the alternative".  How you consume media is your choice, but it doesn't make you an intellectual when your actions end up reinforcing a lifestyle that you vocally disapprove of.  Voting for a third party too nuanced for you?



Xzi said:


> Yes, that's...implied. It takes way more money than should be necessary to win elections, and both parties are generally fine with that. As I keep saying: capitalists first, everything else second. The working class has to settle for a lot of Pyrrhic victories in such a system.



It is implied.  But you proposed it as a GOP problem.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Maybe, but we'll both be dead _long_ before we break free of the problems caused by global capitalism and its exploitative nature.
> 
> 
> It is pretty funny, given the party was already dealing with one albatross around their neck before Kanye decided to pile on.  It was also the inevitable outcome of cutting funding for education and pushing the Southern Strategy for over half a century.


1. You said the other day that there were evils that proceeded global capitalism, which if you have not noticed is in the hands of the few with Communist tendencies, some call it monopoly. So even if we ended this mythical Global Capitalist Dragon that you keep speaking of, those other evils will still exist, so really we should be seeking relations with our Creator as man will always be corrupt, but a few of us can at least empty our selves of our self and try to live as the best example to others that we can. No man is going to save the world.

2. You hate the elite, yet you swallow and regurgitate their narratives without hesitating or flinching. Now that's something.
What Southern Strategy are you talking about anyhow? After the war, many Southerners both white and black moved up north for work, while many in the north who had established them selves moved to the South and bought up the land while it was cheap. Ever wonder why racisms are more prominent up north and hard to find the more south and west that you go? Or have you ever traveled at all, because it really sounds like you don't get out much and most of your ideas of the world come through media re-presentation.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That's not "the alternative". How you consume media is your choice, but it doesn't make you an intellectual when your actions end up reinforcing a lifestyle that you vocally disapprove of. Voting for a third party too nuanced for you?


I have voted third party at times, I'm sure I will again.  Pragmatically however, I know those candidates cannot win, and therefore my vote isn't really gonna change anything other than perhaps my mood temporarily.



tabzer said:


> It is implied. But you proposed it as a GOP problem.


I was simply listing a pecking order, wherein the GOP is underneath any given international corporate donor.  It's a capitalism problem.



EldritchPenumbra said:


> so really we should be seeking relations with our Creator as man will always be corrupt, but a few of us can at least empty our selves of our self and try to live as the best example to others that we can. No man is going to save the world.


Whoever or whatever our creator may be, they gave us a brain and some sense of conscience in order to work things out for ourselves.  We do have the capability to improve both our surroundings and ourselves as a species, rather than just sit around waiting for a magical voice on the wind to tell us what to do.



EldritchPenumbra said:


> What Southern Strategy are you talking about anyhow?


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


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 3, 2022)

Well, at least Approval and RCV is catching on. At least more hope for the less corporate Dem, if not third party.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I have voted third party at times, I'm sure I will again. Pragmatically however, I know those candidates cannot win, and therefore my vote isn't really gonna change anything other than perhaps my mood temporarily.


Voting for 3rd parties may not cause wins *directly, but doing so signals backing, which encourages culminating support in more areas than just your own immediate gratification.



Xzi said:


> I was simply listing a pecking order, wherein the GOP is underneath any given international corporate donor. It's a capitalism problem.



You were not "simply listing a pecking order".  You drew focus to the GOP while ignoring the DNC, and then again, you pass "it's a capitalism problem" as another platitude.  You literally vote (and encourage others to vote) for capitalism, so I don't take you seriously when you say you are against it.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I have voted third party at times, I'm sure I will again.  Pragmatically however, I know those candidates cannot win, and therefore my vote isn't really gonna change anything other than perhaps my mood temporarily.
> 
> 
> I was simply listing a pecking order, wherein the GOP is underneath any given international corporate donor.  It's a capitalism problem.
> ...


Yep, like I said, you say you hate the elite, and yet you quote their simple minded narratives for simple minded people.
There is no Southern Strategy except for the one created by the Democrats to control those they refer to as the minorities.

There is no Social Justice Movement, there is no Civil Rights Movement, these were just the self proclaimed Progressives and Liberators that hijacked the work and sincerity began by Christians and those they influenced. Social Justice and Civil Rights are just means to expand Government power. Even Malcolm X spoke a few words on this in the 60's not long before he was murdered. For someone who speaks so much about RACE, you'd think you would know a bit about yesterday and what came before that led up to today.

Racism is not dead, but it is on life support -- kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as 'racists' - Thomas Sowell


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Dec 3, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> So... I don't know what I'm talking about, in spite of my many days, months, and years trying to make sense of history because I am unaware of a poem that is apparently one of the most famous poems in the world, but some person, which has in it a vague statement about somebody that says,"First they came for the socialists"?
> 
> Also, when did I mention Democracies? A Democracy without regulation is merely MOB RULE. I don't desire to live in a mere Democracy, and I find it unhealthy that so many media outlets and the people are crying for Democracy world wide, especially in the age of mass media where most don't understand the difference between north and south, nor do they seem to have the ability to define what a woman is for that matter, and many could care to be bothered to learn enough to know if their presumptions about a thing are correct or not. Such people do not deserve a vote, an opinion, or a say, and yet we allow them to bark and whimper none the less.


Yeah, you very clearly have no idea what you, or anyone else in this thread for that matter, are talking about. You didn't spend any time trying to make sense of history. It's blatantly obvious. Nothing I said was vague, you're just not intelligent enough to google the opening sentence of that poem you would know about if you had even spent five minutes trying to learn about that period of history. But here, I can provide you a link.

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

Straight up, if anyone thinks the Nazis were socialists because of their name, they know nothing about history.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 4, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Yeah, you very clearly have no idea what you, or anyone else in this thread for that matter, are talking about. You didn't spend any time trying to make sense of history. It's blatantly obvious. Nothing I said was vague, you're just not intelligent enough to google the opening sentence of that poem you would know about if you had even spent five minutes trying to learn about that period of history. But here, I can provide you a link.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
> 
> Straight up, if anyone thinks the Nazis were socialists because of their name, they know nothing about history.


 There are two things I presume about you now. 1 is that you believe in Socialism, though whether you are thinking in terms of Family, Tribe, and small Community Socialism which stems from a charitable and selfless heart, or if you are talking about Big Government, State Socialism where in the proverbial people decide, which means an elite minority that puts them selves in charge, thus turning into Communism/Marxism, which are DIRECTLY anti-Christian and Anti-Christ in their doctrines and tenets as they are about way more than mere economics.

Hitler distanced himself from those movements because for one, he had no wish to abolish Christianity as he himself was Catholic, and half Jew on that note.  

As for the poem, I am sure that many priests in all aggressive and militant nations wrote lamentations as such, though I wonder how much this particular priest saw himself, and how much of it was part of the guilt trip propaganda that the soviets forced upon the German people before putting many of them into camps them selves.

Again, remember that the Soviets started that fire, not Hitler, the soviets were the evil that they described the Germans as being when they wrote the history books on World War II, and the Soviets killed FAR more than Hitler could have ever dreamed, had a blood bath actually been his dream. 
Am I suggesting that Hitler or any of the other Germans shed no blood? Not at all, what I am saying was that it was war time, so during war time you can't call people out for their acts of violence, blood shed, force and this and that, but why they were doing it, how many they did it too, and how much compassion they tried to apply in the mean time, or how many murders they tried to avoid. Again Hitler was trying to remove the Jews, Gypsies, Communists, and such from Germany, he was going to ship them outside of the Country. Many many countries had done this to the Jews before and for various reasons, but suddenly Mr. Churchill among others backed by the money and interests of certain Jewish groups that were directly tied to the overthrow of Russia over the past couple of decades, declared it wrong, and insisted upon non-stop war, rather than allow for the Germans to handle things in their own way while avoiding war, and used their media to begin an extreme anti-German campaign, declaring that ALL Germans should die.

All nations had concentration camps, all nations used forced labor, all nations killed, but the Soviets did it the most and most brutally.

I will tell you who won. Not Hitler, most certainly not the Christians, but the Global Communists. Where do you think we got the United Nations, FDIC, World Health Organization, World Economic Forum, and so forth? Why are they anti-Nationalism and pro-Communism, why do they reject Christ, and who do you think backs them? Think about brother.

Again, I am not going to praise Hitler, not to say he didn't do a LOT of good as JKF suggest in his diary, but I will say he was far from the great demon our controlled historical narrative and Jewish Hollywood fictions paint him to be.


----------



## Nothereed (Dec 4, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> Capital = always bad is an equally stupid conclusion


Capital ≠ Moral or Ethical


----------



## Jayro (Dec 4, 2022)

I'm gonna say this once, for the morons that don't understand it yet, but:
*TWITTER IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.*

Private companies do _NOT _need to suck the constitution's proverbial dick to satisfy the MAGAts.





EldritchPenumbra said:


>



MTG is the most batshit insane person ever let loose on the platform. She's literally psycho. Most of her party don't even want anything to do with her because of how unhinged she is.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

now wait just a minute i thought this was russian propaganda!


----------



## Jayro (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> now wait just a minute i thought this was russian propaganda!


Elon is Russian propaganda. Probably a Russian asset too.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

ok so once again nobody answered why the laptop is important


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Elon is Russian propaganda. Probably a Russian asset too.


You can own people again?


----------



## Jayro (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> ok so once again nobody answered why the laptop is important


They just want him in jail because he does crack cocaine. Which, as a private citizen, is nothing of a charge tbh. The DOJ has bigger problems to deal with than a cokehead.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 4, 2022



sombrerosonic said:


> You can own people again?


With enough money, yes.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> They just want him in jail because he does crack cocaine. Which, as a private citizen, is nothing of a charge tbh. The DOJ has bigger problems to deal with than a cokehead.


see that's what i thought but i didn't want to assume anything.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> With enough money, yes.


Time to become a billionaire to buy me a peter griffin


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Elon is Russian propaganda. Probably a Russian asset too.




very possible we all know south african russian americans are the number one sources of propganda, ayn rand would proud


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Dec 4, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> snip


You are absolutely unhinged and spewing nothing but unfounded conspiracy theories and antisemitism.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> ok so once again nobody answered why the laptop is important



Makes a "good" distraction from Trump's wrong doings.


----------



## granville (Dec 4, 2022)

x65943 said:


> "NatSoc" aka National socialism - you know what nazi literally stands for


China refers to itself as "The People's Republic of China". And North Korea calls themselves "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Labels don't always match the box. The "nationalism" label certainly fits the Nazi ideology, socialism not quite as much. You'll find that most people who identify as nazis are staunchly conservative and pro-capitalism. They hate government programs such as universal healthcare, food stamps, publicly funded education etc that are associated with socialism.

Hitler hated socialism/communism. He associated them with Jews and believed those ideologies were created by the Jews to topple Germany. He did however infiltrate German politics by posing as one of them. It's how he rose to power. But Hitler did not adhere to any socialist ideals. The very first groups he arrested and sent to concentration camps once obtaining power were the socialist/communist parties. And there was a fairly immediate realization from the leaders of these parties that they had made an enormous mistake allowing him in.

Under nazi rule, Germany's economy was a form of state-sponsored capitalism under the control of a single political party. Numerous American corporations were allowed to do business there. The list is extremely long, but a couple of prominent names include IBM, DuPont, Associated Press and Ford Motor. There were also several US banks that were involved in laundering nazi funds and aiding the theft of Jewish possessions seized during the holocaust.

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

Henry Ford in particularly was great friends with Hitler due to their shared hatred of Jews. And he was a staunch capitalist. Ford sent Hitler extravagant gifts throughout his life (and used a newspaper he owned to spread hatred about Jews). Hitler expressed strong fondness for Ford in Mein Kampf and kept a large portrait of him in one of his offices. Hitler and the Nazis were in fact pro-Capitalism and accepted corporate partnerships as long as they weren't run by or supportive of Jews.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> ok so once again nobody answered why the laptop is important



im going to be totally honest, this is one of the most disturbing things ive ever read, by his sons own admission, joe was actively involved and knew all about it, i get it, you see him talk about his hairy legs and right away you fall in love, but come ON, get help, please, ill pay for it im serious. His son admitted to it, you said it was misinformation, the laptop became real, then it was a question of if the info is real, then a picture leaked of him mouth kissing his granddaughter and we are back to why is the laptop important. Give it up, your god is a sham, im sorry you fell for it, oh and i know youll lie, because you can't admit you are wrong about anything, but if this were jr's laptop and he talked about donny, you'd definitely wanna know, so please... please get help.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> im going to be totally honest, this is one of the most disturbing things ive ever read, by his sons own admission, joe was actively involved and knew all about it, i get it, you see him talk about his hairy legs and right away you fall in love, but come ON, get help, please, ill pay for it im serious. His son admitted to it, you said it was misinformation, the laptop became real, then it was a question of if the info is real, then a picture leaked of him mouth kissing his granddaughter and we are back to why is the laptop important. Give it up, your god is a sham, im sorry you fell for it, oh and i know youll lie, because you can't admit you are wrong about anything, but if this were jr's laptop and he talked about donny, you'd definitely wanna know, so please... please get help.



do you not know what a period is used for in a sentence?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> do you not know what a period is used for in a sentence?



ill use a period once you get help.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> ill use a period once you get help.


i'm not gonna lie i didn't read a thing of what you said since it was just rambling rather than cohesive thoughts.


----------



## Osakasan (Dec 4, 2022)

Alt-right nazi sympatiser billionarie nut fans the flames on an alt-right conspiracy theory.

Color me surprised.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> i'm not gonna lie i didn't read a thing of what you said since it was just rambling rather than cohesive thoughts.



Oh, that's cool.  You look for periods in a prose before deciding to read it.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Oh, that's cool.  You look for periods in a prose before deciding to read it.


see?  this is how you construct a sentence!


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> Alt-right nazi sympatiser billionarie nut fans the flames on an alt-right conspiracy theory.
> 
> Color me surprised.



It's not a theory anymore.  The question is if it was a conspiracy considering legality.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> ok so once again nobody answered why the laptop is important



Apparently... Republicans who scream "NO HOMO!" all the time, really -really- want to see Hutner's dick pics.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Or maybe they want to see the incriminating evidence of Biden Sr. engaging in pay to play politics come to the forefront.  Fat chance, though.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 4, 2022)

And you don't think incriminating evidence wouldn't have been the FIRST thing they showed?
Also, while I agree, if there is anything incriminating on it, there should be an investigation. That's what investigations are for after all, but the chain of evidence of the laptop is so fucked up, that anything on it would have a trouble holding up in court.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Tigran said:


> And you don't think incriminating evidence wouldn't have been the FIRST thing they showed?



Who are they?  

If you are referring to mainstream news outlets, then that's a hard no.

The laptop has been verified and images of it wouldn't have trouble holding up in court.

The question is if they think it is "worthwhile".

If it potentially hurts them, then that's another no.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 4, 2022)

No. Since there is no chain of evidence, anything on the laptop would be dismissable, as anyone from the time it was at the repair shop, to now could have put -anything- on it. I suggest you look up "chain of evidence." 

Also, the whole "It' has tons of incriminating evidence on it! Really! It really does! HERE ARE DICK PICS!" seems... well very much like Lindells "I HAVE MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE! MOUNTAINS! I'LL SHOW YOU!!!!!!! I'LL SHOW YOU!!!!! JUST WAIT FOR ME TO SHOW YOU!!!!"


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> i'm not gonna lie i didn't read a thing of what you said since it was just rambling rather than cohesive thoughts.



then how would you know if i did or didn't use a period? i get it, you can't handle your reality being shattered, that's ok with me. You god is falling and it scares you, i understand.


----------



## Osakasan (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's not a theory anymore.  The question is if it was a conspiracy considering legality.


Do you think anyone remotely intelligent and with a sliver of critical thinking is going to believe whatever comes from Elon's musky mouth?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Tigran said:


> No. Since there is no chain of evidence, anything on the laptop would be dismissable, as anyone from the time it was at the repair shop, to now could have put -anything- on it. I suggest you look up "chain of evidence."
> 
> Also, the whole "It' has tons of incriminating evidence on it! Really! It really does! HERE ARE DICK PICS!" seems... well very much like Lindells "I HAVE MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE! MOUNTAINS! I'LL SHOW YOU!!!!!!! I'LL SHOW YOU!!!!! JUST WAIT FOR ME TO SHOW YOU!!!!"



well if that were true, how would we have the emails or your god kissing is granddaughter on the mouth, or the cocaine video? also source on no chain of evidence


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

There is a chain of evidence and it has been verified.  Even google, now, will bless you with the results.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> Do you think anyone remotely intelligent and with a sliver of critical thinking is going to believe whatever comes from Elon's musky mouth?



they should, he built massive fortune and is wildly successful, he is someone would should believe rather than a blue hair on tiktok.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> Do you think anyone remotely intelligent and with a sliver of critical thinking is going to believe whatever comes from Elon's musky mouth?



Lol, are you denying that Twitter followed instruction from the Biden campaign?  If you disbelieve it, that's one thing.  If you are claiming it is false, then you should provide evidence that is stronger than what's been released.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well if that were true, how would we have the emails or your god kissing is granddaughter on the mouth, or the cocaine video? also source on no chain of evidence


okay now i'm beginning to understand: you think biden is god to anyone who disagrees with the far right ideological spectrum.

man you're competing with that eclipse guy right now ain't ya?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> okay now i'm beginning to understand: you think biden is god to anyone who disagrees with the far right ideological spectrum.
> 
> man you're competing with that eclipse guy right now ain't ya?



who?


----------



## Tigran (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lol, are you denying that Twitter followed instruction from the Biden campaign?  If you disbelieve it, that's one thing.  If you are claiming it is false, then you should provide evidence that is stronger than what's been released.



Nope. Not at all denying that Twitter followed request to take down the information from the laptop. Right now though, those requests were for.. Dick pics. Things against Twitter rules to begin with. What you seem to ignore is they also took down stuff requested by the Trump White house.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Tigran said:


> Nope. Not at all denying that Twitter followed request to take down the information from the laptop. Right now though, those requests were for.. Dick pics. Things against Twitter rules to begin with. What you seem to ignore is they also took down stuff requested by the Trump White house.



actually i dont think thats true.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Tigran said:


> Nope. Not at all denying that Twitter followed request to take down the information from the laptop. Right now though, those requests were for.. Dick pics. Things against Twitter rules to begin with. What you seem to ignore is they also took down stuff requested by the Trump White house.


1.  That wasn't to you, but anyway...
2.  That's false, because they squashed news media reports on the subject.
3.  If you have evidence of Trump squashing informative news via Twitter, please provide references so we can confront the establishment as a whole.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 4, 2022)

From the "Twitter Dump" itself.


----------



## ZeroT21 (Dec 4, 2022)

Funny that I never knew twitter and it's bots does fact checking as if they're some legit news channel


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Tigran said:


> From the "Twitter Dump" itself.
> 
> View attachment 341360


Can't you link the tweet instead of posting an image.  You are doing everyone a disservice.



ZeroT21 said:


> Funny that I never knew twitter and it's bots does fact checking as if they're some legit news channel


They pretend, and for that reason they are frauds.



Nevermind.  You're welcome.  Still waiting on evidence where Trump campaign advocated Twitter squashing legit news (and twitter obliging).


----------



## Tigran (Dec 4, 2022)

Not doing anyone a disservice by posting a pic, but here you go.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Whatever.  You are too late and what you provide contradicts you.  Both political parties were allowed to complain, as in they had special prioritized hotlines...  But what actually happened is well beyond that..

Your pic was a disservice because it doesn't let people to see the rest of the conversation. 

That's ignoring the fact that it is completely misleading, as I found out by searching for it myself.  Seems as if you are trying to con people.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Tigran said:


> Not doing anyone a disservice by posting a pic, but here you go.



it is nice that no one is mentioning that trump used it to remove people who were lying, and biden used it to avoid losing/going to jail


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

People who say "what about Trump?" as their deflection probably hope he is  worse than we know so they can excuse themselves of so much more.

"Trump sucked dick for coke, why can't I?"


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> People who say "what about Trump?" as their deflection probably hope he is  worse than we know so they can excuse themselves of so much more.
> 
> "Trump sucked dick for coke, why can't I?"



probably?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> probably?


Okay, definitely.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Okay, definitely.



thank  you


----------



## Osakasan (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> they should, he built massive fortune and is wildly successful, he is someone would should believe rather than a blue hair on tiktok.


Only thing Elon has going for his musky balls are his daddy's apartheid money and a group of Elon experts on each company he buys so he doesn't any% speedrun said company's bankrupcy. Twitter is the perfect example of what happends when you let him roam free: Companies retiring their advertisement money, Apple threatening to retire Twitter from the app store, and EU ready to ban the service because he let his nazi friends free from the ban jail.

Let's not forget his pathetic attemps of sucking the orange turd's little mushroom so he comes back to twitter.

My grandpa used to say that one of the most dangerous things in the world is a dumbfuck with money, wich describes Elon to perfection.

If i have to choose between a blue hair on tiktok and an idiot with a fortune that not only is stained with hundreds of slaves' blood but also wasn't earned by him in any way, i'll choose the blue hair. First, because i'm sure the blue hair will be an actual normal person like you and me, and second because the idiot with a fortune in his hands is a fucking idiot.

You can undye a blue hair, you you can't unidiot an idiot.

As an addendum, i find rather interesting how quick you are to judge people who dye their hair, to the point of using blue hair itself as an adjective (Is this a new alt-right/Nazi thing? I know you people tend to use completely normal things as insults, like _progressive_, but this is a new level of idiocy) but have nothing to say about the racism, sexism, antisemitism enabler who has no respect for worker's rights and is proving to be a bumbling idiot at every step he takes.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> My grandpa used to say that one of the most dangerous things in the world is a dumbfuck with money, wich describes Elon to perfection.



Good thing you don't have money.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> Only thing Elon has going for his musky balls are his daddy's apartheid money and a group of Elon experts on each company he buys so he doesn't any% speedrun said company's bankrupcy. Twitter is the perfect example of what happends when you let him roam free: Companies retiring their advertisement money, Apple threatening to retire Twitter from the app store, and EU ready to ban the service because he let his nazi friends free from the ban jail.
> 
> Let's not forget his pathetic attemps of sucking the orange turd's little mushroom so he comes back to twitter.
> 
> ...



how could it be an alt right neo nazi thing when thats the left's gimmick? and racist much? Also yea how dare someone let an AFRICAN MAN roam free, man jeff davis would sure love you.


----------



## Osakasan (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Good thing you don't have money.


Says the one taking the side of a billionare.

Wake up. At best, he'll quote you on twitter if you post some christofascist idiocy and then continue with his vapid life. You're nothin, neither to him nor to his billionaire friends and allies, he doesn't care about you, he cares about using you and his followers for his twitter stunt and to wring from you the money he's hemorrhaging right now because of his idiocy.



lolcatzuru said:


> how could it be an alt right neo nazi thing when thats the left's gimmick? and racist much? Also yea how dare someone let an AFRICAN MAN roam free, man jeff davis would sure love you.


Either you're really good at sarcasm or this is the stupidest take i've read in the whole week.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> Says the one taking the side of a billionare.
> 
> Wake up. At best, he'll quote you on twitter if you post some christofascist idiocy and then continue with his vapid life. You're nothin, neither to him nor to his billionaire friends and allies, he doesn't care about you, he cares about using you and his followers for his twitter stunt and to wring from you the money he's hemorrhaging right now because of his idiocy.
> 
> ...



how could it be the stupidest take you've read, you didn't write it.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> Says the one taking the side of a billionare.
> 
> Wake up. At best, he'll quote you on twitter if you post some christofascist idiocy and then continue with his vapid life. You're nothin, neither to him nor to his billionaire friends and allies, he doesn't care about you, he cares about using you and his followers for his twitter stunt and to wring from you the money he's hemorrhaging right now because of his idiocy.



I'm not taking sides.  I'm assessing information as it becomes available with the occasional input of a personal opinion.

I'm not concerned with Elon's money.  Why are you?  It seems you are unable of keeping yours.

Considering "sides" it seems as if you are leveraging yourself against Elon.  What do you have to offer?


----------



## Jayro (Dec 4, 2022)

Tigran said:


> the chain of evidence of the laptop is so fucked up, that anything on it would have a trouble holding up in court.


Yeah, the FBI really screwed the pooch on that one. Even known pedophile Matt Gaetz somehow made a copy of the harddrive, so who knows who else has tampered with this so-called "laptop from hell". Nothing on that laptop will hold up in court as evidence now, even if it showed him poisoning the queen of england.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Yeah, the FBI really screwed the pooch on that one. Even known pedophile Matt Gaetz somehow made a copy of the harddrive, so who knows who else has tampered with this so-called "laptop from hell". Nothing on that laptop will hold up in court as evidence now, even if it showed him poisoning the queen of england.



almost seems like it was intentional


----------



## Jayro (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> almost seems like it was intentional


Yeah, could be. We'll never know though, and Repubs won't drop it until the Bidens leave office. So honestly, who cares?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Yeah, could be. We'll never know though, and Repubs won't drop it until the Bidens leave office. So honestly, who cares?



well,i do, and you should too.  putting aside the politics a leader of the free world abused his position and colluded with a foreign country to make money, you should care about that


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro, stop being so fucking useless.  If you are mad about the laptop existing, just say so.  Don't do this crap like "well, we can't be sure".  Wtf is wrong with you?  It's real.  We know it.  Everyone knows it now.


----------



## Viri (Dec 4, 2022)

x65943 said:


> Have you been on 8chan...the two are in no way related


I know it's off topic, but my personal favorite Chan was 420chan. I'm not even a drug addict, but the site was so relaxed. Then the admin went off the deep end, and his exgf ruined the site. 8chan made me remember that.

Ontopic: As for Twitter suppressing Hunter's laptop, yea, no shit? Next you'll be telling me that big tech kisses China's ass. Big tech needs to be broken up.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well,i do, and you should too.  putting aside the politics a leader of the free world abused his position and colluded with a foreign country to make money, you should care about that


Prove it.



tabzer said:


> Jayro, stop being so fucking useless.  If you are mad about the laptop existing, just say so.  Don't do this crap like "well, we can't be sure".  Wtf is wrong with you?  It's real.  We know it.  Everyone knows it now.


Prove it.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Prove it.
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> ...



What the hell man, even Wikipedia verifies it.  How can you be this much of an asshole to protect pedophiles.  Is it only to own Trump?  Fuck that guy.  Be real and stop being an asshole.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> What the hell man, even Wikipedia verifies it.  How can you be this much of an asshole to protect pedophiles.  Is it only to own Trump?  Fuck that guy.  Be real and stop being an asshole.


I'm not being an asshole. I just think

A.) There's no way in hell the evidence will hold up in court due to severe tampering,
and 
B.) I don't give two fucking shits about a goddamn cokehead's private life.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

A.) Cloning=/= tampering. You are at odds with Wikipedia, aka alone in your approximation..
B.) It implicates your president.

Jayro doesn't care about pedophiles because he wants to ignore them and pledge allegiance to the pedophile maker.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> A.) Cloning=/= tampering. You are at odds with Wikipedia, aka alone in your approximation..
> B.) It implicates your president.


You clearly don't understand tampering.
Sure it does. Do you believe the last 2 elections were stolen too, buttercup?  




tabzer said:


> Jayro doesn't care about pedophiles because he wants to ignore them and pledge allegiance to the pedophile maker.


Now you're trying to assume shit and attempting defamation against me. People get sued over that shit, you know. Alex Jones is a fine example of that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

The fact that there’s a system which allows the government to directly request take-downs of content is in and out of itself a violation of the 1st to me. Social media companies are private entities and they have a right to moderate their sites however they please, but it’s not supposed to function under duress. There’s an imbalance of power here, an implication of consequences if a story “reported” by the government isn’t “handled” accordingly. There’s no reason for such a system to exist other than to bury stories - it benefits the government and does nothing for the site - CDA 230 shields them from liability for user-generated content, so even if a post contains information that could be construed as illegal, the party that bears liability is the user.

Imagine for a moment that we’re not taking about social media - imagine we’re talking about the press. Imagine that such a system existed just a few decades ago - a system to suppress any information the government deems inconvenient. We’d never see the Pentagon Papers, we’d never hear about Watergate, we wouldn’t even imagine that PRISM was a thing. As it stands, social media are the modern public square - it’s where information is being shared and discussed. If the government can tinker with that square through thinly-veiled “threats”, it’s not free or public anymore.

I don’t like it. I didn’t like it before the Twitter Papers and I don’t like it now. I didn’t like when Biden’s admin was using this system and I didn’t like when Trump’s did the same, albeit with significantly less success (their bias is showing pretty badly here). These “portals” need to be dismantled, more people should be outraged by their existence, but for whatever reason most are interested in the specific content being suppressed rather than the core issue, the fact that a suppression mechanism exists at all.


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well,i do, and you should too.  putting aside the politics a leader of the free world abused his position and colluded with a foreign country to make money, you should care about that


If there was actual evidence of that, then sure.

The way the republicans have acted over hunter biden's laptop makes me think there is nothing to see.



Foxi4 said:


> The fact that there’s a system which allows the government to directly request take-downs of content is in and out of itself a violation of the 1st to me.


It's not. The speech was allowed, they weren't prosecuted for it. The first amendment doesn't say anything about deleting social media content.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

smf said:


> It's not. The speech was allowed, they weren't prosecuted for it. The first amendment doesn't say anything about deleting social media content.


I don’t know if you’re pretending to be ignorant or you’re just being facetious. The entire debacle here is about a news story, published by a legitimate news source, being suppressed on a social media platform specifically at the behest of the government. The New York Post was blackballed on the platform, their story was blocked from being shared in spite of being true. You might not think that this is an infringement of freedom of the press principles - I do. The government couldn’t stop the New York Post from publishing the story (see below, NYT v. U.S.), but it certainly interfered in its proliferation on the Internet. There’s no precedent for this, and there should be. If you remove the medium from the equation, it’s as if a paper was allowed to put something to print, but the government directly approached news stands and requested that the paper be removed from sale - the only thing that’s different is that it happened on the Internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

Edit: My sentiment expressed in the form of a Tweet. Elon’s on-point about this - the government shouldn’t have this kind of power.



As I said in my initial post, I don’t care about Hunter or his laptop - all we found out from that is that he’s a crackhead with shady dealings and a penchant for weird sexual activities. What bothers me, specifically, is that the report portals exist at all. They should be dismantled - the government should not have the power to influence moderation decisions of the staff with their “suggestions” without judicial review - only content officially found illegal should be subject to removal.


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know if you’re pretending to be ignorant or you’re just being facetious


I could say the same about you.

If Twitter decides on it's own it's not a 1st amendment issue.
If Twitter says to the government, "just tell us if there is anything you want removed and we'll do it", is also not a 1st amendment issue.

Unless the government threatens Twitter with legal action, it's not a 1st amendment issue.

The first amendment does not guarantee access to social media.

FWIW Democrats and Republicans both asked for tweets to be removed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

smf said:


> I could say the same about you.
> 
> If Twitter decides on it's own it's not a 1st amendment issue.
> If Twitter says to the government, "just tell us if there is anything you want removed and we'll do it", is also not a 1st amendment issue.
> ...


We can agree to disagree, your counter-argument is nothing more than an extra degree of separation. The request is a thinly-veiled threat - the government makes those reports with the expectation of the content being removed. The question of “or else what?” hangs over the entire process. What you’re effectively saying is that the government isn’t at fault because rather than restricting access to the information directly, it “sub-contracts” a moderation team to remove it on its behalf, and that makes it a-okay. That’s a ridiculous notion. It is none of the government’s business what is or is not published on social media *unless* the content has been deemed illegal and there’s a warrant justifying the removal - it should not be able to colour the decision-making process with “suggestions”.


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> We can agree to disagree, your counter-argument is nothing more than an extra degree of separation. The request is a thinly-veiled threat - the government makes those reports with the expectation of the content being removed. The question of “or else what?” hangs over the entire process. What you’re effectively saying is that the government isn’t at fault because rather than restricting access to the information directly, it “sub-contracts” a moderation team to remove it on its behalf, and that makes it a-okay. That’s a ridiculous notion.


The reporting system was used by democrats and republicans.
AFAICT it was voluntarily set up by Twitter.

Whether you think it's ok or not is irrelevant to whether it's a 1st amendment issue.

When the hunter biden tweet was removed in 2020, the democrats weren't in government. What "or else" are you imagining?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

smf said:


> The reporting system was used by democrats and republicans.
> AFAICT it was voluntarily set up by Twitter.


Yes, it was, and it’s egregious in both cases. It shouldn’t exist at all, and the Twitter management is equally at fault for collaborating with the state in this fashion.


----------



## N7Kopper (Dec 4, 2022)

smf said:


> I could say the same about you.
> 
> If Twitter decides on it's own it's not a 1st amendment issue.
> If Twitter says to the government, "just tell us if there is anything you want removed and we'll do it", is also not a 1st amendment issue.
> ...


You're both wrong, but smf is at least on the right track. The speech clause of the United States' 1A states that "Congress shall make no law...": but it has since morphed into a general free speech clause via the power of the judicial branch. While the men who wrote it wanted to hoard the power of censorship for themselves (when you note how many patriotic Americans revolted against Congress for King and Country - and that men like General Washington were quite rare amongst the US political elite - this makes a lot more sense) it's better for the Subject *Citizen* that nobody has that power, government or not.

The moment someone starts screeching about "LITERAL NAZIS" is the moment that he admits either that
A: He is so weak-willed that he would become a LITERAL NAZI just by hearing them speak.
B: He's lying and wants to shut people up.


smf said:


> The reporting system was used by democrats and republicans.
> AFAICT it was voluntarily set up by Twitter.





Foxi4 said:


> We can agree to disagree, your counter-argument is nothing more than an extra degree of separation. The government notification is nothing more than a thinly-veiled threat - the government makes those reports with the expectation of the content being removed. The question of “or else what?” hangs over the entire process. What you’re effectively saying is that the government isn’t at fault because rather than restricting access to the information directly, it “sub-contracts” a moderation team to remove it on its behalf, and that makes it a-okay. That’s a ridiculous notion.


Fascists gonna fascist. The fact that it was voluntary actually makes it _worse_, because at least if it was government censorship, democracy could theoretically defeat it like with John Adams' Sedition Act. Remember that Twitter elites didn't comply with requests from the Trump administration (probably because they flagged things like child porn rather than anti-regime opinions)


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> Fascists gonna fascist. The fact that it was voluntary actually makes it _worse_, because at least if it was government censorship, democracy could theoretically defeat it like with John Adams' Sedition Act.


Twitter shouldn’t have made the tool in the first place, and the government shouldn’t have abused it to remove inconvenient material from public discourse. It *should’ve* been used to remove content that is inherently illegal, not to restrict freedom of the press. As it stands, if this is how the tool is to be used, we’d all be better off if it didn’t exist at all.


----------



## N7Kopper (Dec 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Twitter shouldn’t have made the tool in the first place, and the government shouldn’t have abused it to remove inconvenient material from public discourse. It *should’ve* been used to remove content that is inherently illegal, not to restrict freedom of the press. As it stands, if this is how the tool is to be used, we’d all be better off if it didn’t exist at all.


Indeed. But, as I said: fascists are gonna fascist. What's better for fascists to gain power with a constitution like the United States? Government control of corporations, or corporate control of government? It's the second option. Twitter's elite had discretion on what they did - which is why they complied only with requests from their little fascist buddies. If any non-fascists tried to even the score, they'd beat them down with the US Constitution.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

it's a stupid gossip site for morons who want to partake in a stupid culture war.  who cares about any of this anyways?  just let twitter die and laugh when it does cause it'll be funny as fuck


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> You're both wrong, but smf is at least on the right track. The speech clause of the United States' 1A states that "Congress shall make no law...": but it has since morphed into a general free speech clause via the power of the judicial branch.


Right and there was no suggestion the government was using the judicial branch to force twitter to do anything, it appears Twitter did this voluntarily & for added measure the democrats weren't in government at the time of the Hunter Biden tweet removal.



Foxi4 said:


> Twitter shouldn’t have made the tool in the first place, and the government shouldn’t have abused it to remove inconvenient material from public discourse.


The particular example you were using was reported during the Trump administration, so the government didn't abuse it. What tweets did Trumps administration ask to be removed? That would seem more pertinent to your argument.

I'm not sure why you think a report tool shouldn't exist though, my understanding is that it was used to fast track tweets to be moderated as Twitter don't have enough employees to monitor them all.



N7Kopper said:


> Indeed. But, as I said: fascists are gonna fascist. What's better for fascists to gain power with a constitution like the United States? Government control of corporations, or corporate control of government? It's the second option. Twitter's elite had discretion on what they did - which is why they complied only with requests from their little fascist buddies. If any non-fascists tried to even the score, they'd beat them down with the US Constitution.


The report tool was used by both republicans and democrats (while they were either in or out of government) to highlight tweets that violated Twitters terms. It doesn't sound particularly fascist to want twitter to enforce it's terms, but if it is then both parties are facists. As is Twitter and Elon Musk for preventing Kanye posting swastikas.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> Indeed. But, as I said: fascists are gonna fascist. What's better for fascists to gain power with a constitution like the United States? Government control of corporations, or corporate control of government? It's the second option. Twitter's elite had discretion on what they did - which is why they complied only with requests from their little fascist buddies. If any non-fascists tried to even the score, they'd beat them down with the US Constitution.


The intersection of government and private business should be under non-stop scrutiny by the public at large. The state *shouldn’t be allowed* to suggest what content should be removed if there is no court ruling or warrant that makes the information unfit for dissemination. At present, there are precious few rules that restrict the government from influencing the flow of information online. In the past, when the government tried to influence what’s being printed (by private news corporations, I might add), the judiciary branch sided with the people. It is high time that social media reach the same point of reckoning. Nobody will convince me that such notifications weren’t considered to be threatening in nature if Twitter’s legal team was involved in the process - the possibility of being subject to legal repercussions must’ve been very real and on the table. From where I’m sitting, all I can see is a URL that the state wants to “go away” and a corporation going along with it. The tool very well may have been created in good faith, to allow the platform to better comply with the law, but I can’t help but feel that the danger and the potential for misuse is too great to ignore.


smf said:


> I'm not sure why you think a report tool shouldn't exist though, my understanding is that it was used to fast track tweets to be moderated as Twitter don't have enough employees to monitor them all.


That *is* the reason, the government has no business highlighting or fast-tracking anything in that space.


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That *is* the reason, the government has no business highlighting or fast-tracking anything in that space.


Again, democrats weren't in government when the hunter biden tweets were reported.

It's dumb as fuck to say that as soon as you get into government you aren't allowed to report tweets that violate twitters terms of service.

This is just "[email protected]@K Hunter Biden" crap.



Foxi4 said:


> Nobody will convince me that such notifications weren’t considered to be threatening in nature if Twitter’s legal team was involved in the process - the possibility of being subject to legal repercussions must’ve been very real and on the table. From where I’m sitting, all I can see is a URL that the state wants to “go away” and a corporation going along with it.


I've never noticed anyone convince you of anything ever.

Why do you imagine there must have been legal threats?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

smf said:


> Again, democrats weren't in government when the tweets were reported.
> 
> It's dumb as fuck to say that as soon as you get into government you aren't allowed to report tweets that violate twitters terms of service.


I don’t care which political party used the tool, I care that it exists and the state uses it. This isn’t about Trump or Biden, it’s about the state influencing moderation decisions with a dedicated tool explicitly created to highlight information the government wants to disappear from public discourse. Moderation decisions should be unbiased - a report made by a random user and a report made by the *government* do not carry the same weight.


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t care which political party used the tool, I care that it exists and the state uses it. This isn’t about Trump or Biden, it’s about the state influencing moderation decisions with a dedicated tool explicitly created to highlight information the government wants to disappear from public discourse. Moderation decisions should be unbiased - a report made by a random user and a report made by the *government* do not carry the same weight.


Decisions were unbiased, the reports could be made by democrats and republicans. Random users are idiots, it is ridiculous to suggest that everyone should have the same access. You might feel shitty because they have more power than you, well that's just life. That certainly isn't a 1st amendment issue.

You seem to be ignoring facts here.

WHEN THESE TWEETS WERE REPORTED, THE "STATE" WAS BUSY EATING CHICKEN WINGS AND GRABBING PUSSIES.

You'll be arguing Joe Biden can't call the cops to report a crime soon, because it's state interference. The police would feel threatened etc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

smf said:


> Decisions were unbiased, the reports could be made by democrats and republicans.
> 
> WHEN THESE TWEETS WERE REPORTED, THE "STATE" WAS BUSY EATING CHICKEN WINGS AND GRABBING PUSSIES.


You can think that - my opinion on this is unshaken and will not change. The government shouldn’t be telling social media platforms which posts it thinks should be removed, for the same reason why it shouldn’t tell news agents which newspapers they should be selling or TV stations which programs they should be airing - that’s an interference in public discourse.

I’ve made my position abundantly clear and I have nothing to add on the subject. What I can say is that if I, as a moderator on this website, received a report from a verified government account regarding a specific post and requesting its removal, not because it’s illegal (by way of court injunction) or otherwise prohibited (various warrants, for instance based on an on-going trial) but because they don’t want it to be talked about, based on no law whatsoever, two things would happen. I would feel threatened, both personally, and as a member of staff, and I would consider it as an attempt to coerce me to remove information from the web. I certainly wouldn’t want to go along with it just because I’m told to, but I would feel pressure applied to my hand. That’s not acceptable. Thankfully, so far the most “legal” notifications we deal with are DMCA-based, and they’re usually clean cut. I hope I’ll never be put in a position of making this call - I would not wish to collaborate if I received such a request.


smf said:


> You'll be arguing Joe Biden can't call the cops to report a crime soon, because it's state interference. The police would feel threatened etc.


Crimes can and should be reported. On the flip side, if Joe Biden “called the police” and ordered them to “pacify” someone talking about something he didn’t like with no legal justification, yeah, I’d have a big problem with that.


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You can think that - my opinion on this is unshaken and will not change. The government shouldn’t be telling social media platforms which posts it thinks should be removed,


You're commenting on a thread about a situation when the *government* didn't tell social media platforms which they think should be removed. A point you repeatedly have refused to accept.

But you're entitled to your opinion, it doesn't mean it violates the 1st amendment.

All the made up stuff about legal threats doesn't help your argument either.

A DMCA takedown request and a "report tweet that violates twitter terms portal" are two entirely different things.

Your argument seems to be based around either misinterpreting or purposefully misrepresenting the facts & it's unclear why you would bother.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

smf said:


> You're commenting on a thread about a situation when the *government* didn't tell social media platforms which they think should be removed. A point you repeatedly have refused to accept.
> 
> But you're entitled to your opinion, it doesn't mean it violates the 1st amendment.
> 
> ...


The report portal has an explicit function. I oppose that function. The details are almost immaterial - to me, it’s the existence of that pipeline that’s the big story. We’ve known about it for a while, and we know Facebook has a similar system - this story only offers a glimpse into how it is (mis)used. That’s all there is to it. It is a loaded gun, one that can be pointed at anyone for any reason, and the government should not be allowed to wield it. The government is not a “typical user” - deciding what does and does not violate rules set out by a private company is not its job and it cannot do so without the appearance of impropriety. If actual users find something worthy of reporting, they can do so - the government should not without an accompanying legal justification.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fac...-to-request-content-be-suppressed-2022-11?amp


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The report portal has an explicit function. I oppose that function. The details are almost immaterial - to me, it’s the existence of that pipeline that’s the big story. We’ve known about it for a while, and we know Facebook has a similar system - this story only offers a glimpse into how it is (mis)used. That’s all there is to it. It is a loaded gun, one that can be pointed at anyone for any reason, and the government should not be allowed to wield it. The government is not a “typical user” - deciding what does and does not violate rules set out by a private company is not its job and it cannot do so without the appearance of impropriety. If actual users find something worthy of reporting, they can do so - the government should not without an accompanying legal justification.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/fac...-to-request-content-be-suppressed-2022-11?amp


So you've known about it for a while, but you only think it's worth mentioning when hunter biden is attached to it.

The government isn't deciding whether it's does or does not violate the rules. The portal merely points the twitter employees at the tweets, the portal isn't limited to the government.

"actual users"? You mean you want any republican imbecile to be able to sit there reporting any tweet they don't like just to tie the twitter employees up in knots.

The issue with 1st amendment is it assumes the government are the bad guys and the normal people can't do any particular harm by talking. It's woefully outdated & if they were writing the constitution and amendments now they would write them differently for sure.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

ok but once again: why do any of you give a shit about a piece of shit that is as shitty as fucking shit as the shit that is shitter?


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 4, 2022)

Tigran said:


> Apparently... Republicans who scream "NO HOMO!" all the time, really -really- want to see Hutner's dick pics.


Only if he's in a sexy bikini

	Post automatically merged: Dec 4, 2022



Jayro said:


> Prove it.


Aw fuck yea Oreo's. I like the Vannila ones better, the chocklate cookies are shit in my opinion

The only question i had is this, Why are people calling you all calling right winged people, "Nazi"?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2022)

smf said:


> So you've known about it for a while, but you only think it's worth mentioning when hunter biden is attached to it.


And I’ve had a problem with it for a while also. I don’t care about the specific story being memory holed, I care that the government has a pipeline it can use to influence moderators.


> The government isn't deciding whether it's does or does not violate the rules. The portal merely points the twitter employees at the tweets, the portal isn't limited to the government.


The government shouldn’t be doing that, and should not be using the portal. That is not its job.


> "actual users"? You mean you want any republican imbecile to be able to sit there reporting any tweet they don't like just to tie the twitter employees up in knots.


Actual users with actual accounts on the platform, not the government. I’ll ignore the rest of the statement since it’s make-believe.


> The issue with 1st amendment is it assumes the government are the bad guys and the normal people can't do any particular harm by talking.


That’s not an “issue”, that’s a well-justified check on the power of the government. It shouldn’t, and was never intended to, control speech. Any attempts, no matter how minuscule, of exerting pressure on public discourse when no laws were violated should be squashed immediately.


> It's woefully outdated & if they were writing the constitution and amendments now they would write them differently for sure.


There’s a built-in system for updating the Constitution, should it need updating. In the case of the 1st, it does not - the sentiment is pretty clear, and it’s “hands off”.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Prove it.
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> ...




i dont need to, his son already did

	Post automatically merged: Dec 4, 2022



smf said:


> If there was actual evidence of that, then sure.
> 
> The way the republicans have acted over hunter biden's laptop makes me think there is nothing to see.
> 
> ...



again, there is, his son already said there was. Can i ask you something? why is it your team always becomes very disingenuous when their guy is heating up? you didnt need proof of a pee tape, or russian collusion for donnie, just said that makes sense, you have leaked emails from the son of the ( fake) president and suddenly thats not how it works anymore, can you explain that?

	Post automatically merged: Dec 4, 2022



smf said:


> The reporting system was used by democrats and republicans.
> AFAICT it was voluntarily set up by Twitter.
> 
> Whether you think it's ok or not is irrelevant to whether it's a 1st amendment issue.
> ...



actually thats a lie, there were plenty of them in office.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> You clearly don't understand tampering.



What part of the legitimate news of the laptop being verified screams "tampering" to you, lol.  You may just be in denial.



Jayro said:


> Now you're trying to assume shit and attempting defamation against me. People get sued over that shit, you know. Alex Jones is a fine example of that.



You said that you don't care about Biden's private life and you use phrasing that suggests that being a "cokehead" is the concern, and not the pedophilia.  How else can that be interpreted?  Let me know when people come knocking down your door saying, "tabzer sent me".


----------



## Xzi (Dec 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> a report made by a random user and a report made by the *government* do not carry the same weight.


Ultimately it makes no difference though, it's up to the business in question whether they follow through on any given report.  Even Musk can't afford to have conservatives plastering Hunter's dick pics all over Twitter.  There's always going to be a need for a line drawn in the sand, and new Twitter is slowly working itself back to the exact same place old Twitter was in that regard.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

That's right Xzi, there is no reason why anyone should just trust government or institutional agents over anyone else.  The responsibility falls solely on the person who commits the action.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Ultimately it makes no difference though, it's up to the business in question whether they follow through on any given report.  Even Musk can't afford to have conservatives plastering Hunter's dick pics all over Twitter.  There's always going to be a need for a line drawn in the sand, and new Twitter is slowly working itself back to the exact same place old Twitter was in that regard.



mind if i screen shot this in 6  months when you are reeing that he once again made your god look bad?


----------



## Jayro (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You said that you don't care about Biden's private life and you use phrasing that suggests that being a "cokehead" is the concern, and not the pedophilia.


I've seen the photos of him with the crack cocaine.Nobody's come forward with the pedo evidence. That's why.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> I've seen the photos of him with the crack cocaine.Nobody's come forward with the pedo evidence. That's why.



actually thats not true. There are leaked texts of him sexting his niece and the data dump has her nudes in it.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Jayro said:


> I've seen the photos of him with the crack cocaine.Nobody's come forward with the pedo evidence. That's why.



Wrong.  Those get deleted by the mods because of their graphic nature.  When the news broke and the laptop image was dumped, not even this place was safe. 

"Tamer" photos still exist with the little girls dressed in lingerie.  

Have you even paid attention to what people say when they complain about the laptop?  It's pretty regrettable that you can dismiss the laptop so carelessly without understanding anything about it.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> mind if i screen shot this in 6  months when you are reeing that he once again made your god look bad?


Why would this make Gabe Newell look bad?



tabzer said:


> That's right Xzi, there is no reason why anyone should just trust government or institutional agents over anyone else.  The responsibility falls solely on the person who commits the action.


This has nothing to do with "trust," Foxi takes offense to the way a report to Twitter from the government would take priority over any average Joe's.  The thing is, that's true for any entity or individual that's rich or powerful enough, a report from Exxon Mobil or Taylor Swift is gonna take the same kind of priority.  That's just capitalism, and it's the least shocking thing you could accuse any corporation of, tech-based or otherwise.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Gabe Newell







I just had to after this post


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Why would this make Gabe Newell look bad?
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with "trust," Foxi takes offense to the way a report to Twitter from the government would take priority over any average Joe's.  The thing is, that's true for any entity or individual that's rich or powerful enough, a report from Exxon Mobil or Taylor Swift is gonna take the same kind of priority.  That's just capitalism, and it's the least shocking thing you could accuse any corporation of, tech-based or otherwise.



You aren't paying attention xzi.  What foxi outlined wasn't about "priority", but about pressure.  I mean, I get that it's "normal" for rich and powerful people to manipulate the  news media propaganda, to you.  However, when government actors are involved, you are dealing with the mob.  You want to pretend that Hollywood is the government, go ahead.  Makes more sense of your character.

But I do agree with you, that the onus is on the individual commiting the action.  The "trust" was about the perceived "legitimacy" of the complaint that squashed an authentic story.

Xzi exists.  Let's blame capitalism for that too.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I mean, I get that it's "normal" for rich and powerful people to manipulate the  news media propaganda, to you.


Ah see, there's the confusion: Twitter isn't a news outlet, and Musk is deluding himself if he believes he can turn it into one.  At best you'll occasionally see links to more reputable sources.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Ultimately it makes no difference though, it's up to the business in question whether they follow through on any given report.  Even Musk can't afford to have conservatives plastering Hunter's dick pics all over Twitter.  There's always going to be a need for a line drawn in the sand, and new Twitter is slowly working itself back to the exact same place old Twitter was in that regard.


I can’t believe I have to explain this to someone like you, so let me translate this into a language you specifically can understand.

When an annoying neighbour knocks on your door to whinge that your house party is “too loud” and you should “turn the music down”, you can tell them to take a hike because it’s not  11PM yet. When a police officer does the same thing, you’re going to use very different phrasing, because the cop has a secret superpower of “smelling weed on the premises” which, inexplicably, manifests whenever he wants to enter said premises without a warrant, thus generating probable cause.

Can you see the tiny, itsy bitsy issue here, or are we going to insist that a report from a normal user and a report from *the government* are exactly the same? If the strategy du jour is pretending to be stupid then I’ll take no part in that kind of discussion. There are serious repercussions that the state can leverage against entities that don’t go along with its agenda - it inherently has more power than any private institution, and the law should protect from such abuses, for *our* benefit, not just theirs.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Ah see, there's the confusion: Twitter isn't a news outlet, and Musk is deluding himself if he believes he can turn it into one.  At best you'll occasionally see links to more reputable sources.



That's not "the confusion".  That's your out.  This isn't a conversation about how companies brand themselves or how they pose.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 5, 2022)

Got to like the projection of comparing a politician to a god.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That's not "the confusion".  That's your out.  This isn't a conversation about how companies brand themselves or how they pose.


Where I come from, there’s a saying, and it goes a little bit like this - “there’s a paragraph on everyone”. If the government wants to get its nose in your business, it’ll find a wedge it can use to open your door wide open. We should not encourage this kind of behaviour, it is *not* the government’s responsibility to tell companies what is and isn’t permitted on their platforms. Such suggestions are inappropriate and ripe for abuse, the government should not be in the business of controlling speech, nothing good can come of it.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Well, in 5 years, people will be arguing that the US Government is a private company...  20 years after the conspiracy theorists did.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Well, in 5 years, people will be arguing that the US Government is a private company...  20 years after the conspiracy theorists did.


In 5 years?

Somebody’s never heard of Sovereign Citizens. The idea that the government is a corporation isn’t new.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Let me clarify.  "Normal" users will make the argument to defend the government's actions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Let me clarify.  "Normal" users will make that argument to defend the governments actions.


I gathered as much, but still find it funny.  It’s pretty bizarre that the “step on me, pretty please” attitude is now more prevalent than caution. The default assumption is that the government does things with good intentions in mind, and I can’t fathom why.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Stockholm Syndrome with a penchant for S&M.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Can you see the tiny, itsy bitsy issue here, or are we going to insist that a report from a normal user and a report from *the government* are exactly the same?


I never argued they were the same, I argued that the decision is ultimately up to Twitter and that of course any entity with enough money or power is going to exert more influence.  I don't believe you'd argue that the government, or someone who works for the government, should be unable to submit reports altogether.  So what are we actually talking about here?  Was the law broken?  No.  Musk wanted to pretend he had a real bombshell to distract from his recent failings, but instead we're here talking about anything and everything else because it was a nothingburger.  The mainstream couldn't possibly care less about a rich private citizen doing drugs and fucking hookers, it's assumed they all do.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I don't believe you'd argue that the government, or someone who works for the government, should be unable to submit reports altogether.


Actually, I would argue that. It is impossible for them to do so without the appearance of impropriety, specifically due to their position of power. They’re public servants. They should not have access to a special portal that gives them special privileges over common users, and even when normal reporting mechanisms are at play, they should abstain altogether so as to not create the impression that they’re abusing their position to control public discourse.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

The government has its own methods of filing reports and noticing companies/individuals of trespass.  To kowtow to Twitter's processes is enabling Twitter as their government.

Also, sorry Foxi, even if someone is completely ignorant of the contents of the laptop.  When *they _*actively *_dismiss it, say as a "nothingburger", they are enabling pedophilic activity.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Another one miscategorizing the contents of the Biden laptop just to dismiss it as a "nothingburger".


There's literally more evidence that Donald Trump is a pedophile.  You're reaching when there's zero reason to, Joe Biden has plenty of faults to attack him on directly.  The public will always see attempts to attack him through his son as weak and desperate, but far be it for me stop you from continuing to lean on ineffective tactics.



Foxi4 said:


> Actually, I would argue that.


In which case you might as well be arguing that government employees cannot engage in any public discourse, an obvious overreach.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Also, sorry Foxi, even if someone is completely ignorant of the contents of the laptop.  When the _*actively *_dismiss it, say as a "nothingburger", they are enabling pedophilic activity.


You can’t make inflammatory accusations based on a difference of opinion and nothing else. You can have a disagreement and just leave it at that.




Xzi said:


> In which case you might as well be arguing that government employees cannot engage in any public discourse, an obvious overreach.


The opposite is true - they can and should engage in public discourse, but by the virtue of their position in society they must not attempt to control it. Based on those same principles, the privacy of celebrities is not protected to the same extent as the privacy of other citizens. They’ve made a conscious choice to enter a career which puts their lives in the public spotlight, so they have a lessened expectation of privacy. This is a very simple concept to grasp - government employees simply have to “take their lumps” because they’re held to a different standard.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> There's literally more evidence that Donald Trump is a pedophile. You're reaching when there's zero reason to, Joe Biden has plenty of faults to attack him on directly. The public will always see attempts to attack him through his son as weak and desperate, but far be it for me stop you from continuing to lean on ineffective tactics.



If you believe so, go for Don.  Don't use it as an excuse to prevent the discourse.  2 (3?) pedophiles doesn't make it right.  Biden putting a stop on the information is the issue, not whether or not it will stop him from being the president.



Foxi4 said:


> You can’t make inflammatory accusations based on a difference of opinion and nothing else. You can have a disagreement and just leave it at that.


Yeah, the difference of opinion is that I think the pedophilia is a big deal and Xzi does not.  It's inflammatory because you don't think it's a good look.  (And I agree.)


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you believe so, go for Don. Don't use it as an excuse to prevent the discourse. 2 pedophiles doesn't make it right.


Sure, I'd say investigate them both, but Trump is already at the center of too many investigations, and if MAGAts could've found anybody to investigate Hunter, they would've already.  There's just not enough credible evidence to go on, despite all the random CP being distributed in conservative circles around the internet.


----------



## omgcat (Dec 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Based on those same principles, the privacy of celebrities is not protected to the same extent as the privacy of other citizens.


this doesn't apply to information gained illegally and explicit photos. so Hunter Biden is still protected by the same laws we are regarding "revenge porn" as well as hacked data.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The opposite is true - they can and should engage in public discourse, but by the virtue of their position in society they must not attempt to control it.


Sure, I'd agree with that.  I'm just not seeing where the "attempt to control it" came in to play here.  They made a request and it was honored.  The government didn't threaten, harass, or blackmail anybody, otherwise it absolutely would've become a first amendment issue.

*Snip!*


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

omgcat said:


> this doesn't apply to information gained illegally and explicit photos. so Hunter Biden is still protected by the same laws we are regarding "revenge porn" as well as hacked data.


This does not hold true in regards to the press, as affirmed in NYT Co. v. U.S. - the SCOTUS held that the New York Times and The Washington Post were permitted to publish and disseminate the Pentagon Papers in spite of the fact that they were classified and likely obtained illegally. The government’s prior restraint is subordinate to the freedom of the press as guaranteed by the 1st unless the government can demonstrate “grave and irreparable” danger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

The information published by The Post should not have been blocked or prevented from being shared and discussed. That’s all there is to it.

The same principle allowed us to read Edward Snowden’s leaks regarding the N.S.A. - while Snowden himself faces legal repercussions of his actions, The Washington Post which disseminated the information provided by Snowden does not.

EDIT: Let me be *very* specific. Hunter Biden, the private citizen, can request removal of any material concerning himself. The state should not come in on his behalf via their special portal, or leverage its authority in any way, or “make suggestions”, to protect the “big guy’s” son. Twitter should not treat the case differently than any other based on the fact that he’s Biden’s son and the story could negatively impact a political campaign, whether they’re compelled to do so or not. Very simple stuff, in my opinion.

My objection goes well beyond the specific laptop story, as I’ve stated a number of times now. It has to do with the government-social media pipeline, that’s my issue.


Xzi said:


> Sure, I'd agree with that.  I'm just not seeing where the "attempt to control it" came in to play here.  They made a request and it was honored.  The government didn't threaten, harass, or blackmail anybody, otherwise it absolutely would've become a first amendment issue.


The act of knocking on the door is, in and out of itself, threatening and has a chilling effect. Who knows how much weed they can smell on Twitter?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2022)

The people who are skeptical about the laptop's contents are the smart ones, as the right-wing conspiracy crowd has a terrible track record when it comes to this type of stuff.  If any of the CP you've seen could be definitively linked to Hunter Biden via metadata/geodata, he would've already been arrested.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The people who are skeptical about the laptop's contents are the smart ones, as the right-wing conspiracy crowd has a terrible track record when it comes to this type of stuff.  If any of the CP you've seen could be definitively linked to Hunter Biden via metadata/geodata, he would've already been arrested.



I think that's optimistic and untrue.  They were nude is all I can say.


----------



## Valwinz (Dec 5, 2022)

in Twitter, related news not only did  apple say they won't be removing the app but that advertisers that stop advertising are back advertising


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The people who are skeptical about the laptop's contents are the smart ones, as the right-wing conspiracy crowd has a terrible track record when it comes to this type of stuff.  If any of the CP you've seen could be definitively linked to Hunter Biden via metadata/geodata, he would've already been arrested.


I don’t think allegations of pedophilia are the relevant news blurb here, suppression of information is, as per the thread’s title.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t think allegations of pedophilia are the relevant news blurb here, suppression of information is, as per the thread’s title.


People who say it's no big deal do not know what's on it.  You are right about the suppression of it being the main point.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t think allegations of pedophilia are the relevant news blurb here, suppression of information is, as per the thread’s title.


I'd contend it's not really news that Twitter didn't want to play host to what amounts to mostly sexually explicit materials.  Right-wing social media has also been circlejerking over this same stuff for two years now, so the information remained available that entire time, just not on Twitter specifically.  As I said page one, this was more a plea for attention from Elon than anything else.  Gotta pretend like it justifies pissing away $44 billion.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'd contend it's not really news that Twitter didn't want to play host to what amounts to mostly sexually explicit materials.  Right-wing social media has also been circlejerking over this same stuff for two years now, so the information remained available that entire time, just not on Twitter specifically.  As I said page one, this was more a plea for attention from Elon than anything else.  Gotta pretend like it justifies pissing away $44 billion.


The takeaway here is that twitter suppressed a legitimate news article at the behest of a political party; not that the content of the laptop wasn't appalling to you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'd contend it's not really news that Twitter didn't want to play host to what amounts to mostly sexually explicit materials.  Right-wing social media has also been circlejerking over this same stuff for two years now, so the information remained available that entire time, just not on Twitter specifically.  As I said page one, this was more a plea for attention from Elon than anything else.  Gotta pretend like it justifies pissing away $44 billion.


I will say that hosting the pictures would raise an eyebrow if uncensored - that’s no different than just hosting CP on purpose. The problem here is that the “Biden Team” or the “Trump Team”, or any other “Team” pursuing public office, or worse yet, actively in office, should not suppress information, with the subtext being that there may be consequences if that pursuit is successful. It seems to me like an offer one “can’t refuse”, it’s not how a politician should act, it’s how the mob acts. Paying lip service to candidates is no different than paying lip service to the government itself, Twitter should remain impartial and respect freedom of the press. What’s fit for print should be fit to share online.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> so the information remained available that entire time, just not on Twitter specifically



*twitter censoring for the government*

My mistake.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The takeaway here is that twitter suppressed a legitimate news article at the behest of a political party; not that the content of the laptop wasn't appalling to you.


The takeaway here is that anybody can request removal of certain content, and it's in Twitter's best interest to comply much of the time.  Is your request going to carry as much weight as a celebrity's or the government's?  No, but that's life.



Foxi4 said:


> Paying lip service to candidates is no different than paying lip service to the government itself, Twitter should remain impartial and respect freedom of the press.


Don't worry, I have no desire to see Eric Trump's dick pics, so I'd certainly hope and expect that content moderation would be handled the same way for the opposing party as well.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Don't worry, I have no desire to see Eric Trump's dick pics, so I'd certainly hope and expect that content moderation would be handled the same way for the opposing party as well.


This reminds me of a satirical take about The National Nudes Database, a place where everyone uploads their nudes ahead of time so that, should they leak online, they’re not a big deal. Pretty funny stuff.


----------



## omgcat (Dec 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> This does not hold true in regards to the press, as affirmed in NYT Co. v. U.S. - the SCOTUS held that the New York Times and The Washington Post were permitted to publish and disseminate the Pentagon Papers in spite of the fact that they were classified and likely obtained illegally. The government’s prior restraint is subordinate to the freedom of the press as guaranteed by the 1st unless the government can demonstrate “grave and irreparable” danger.


sure, news papers can do it, but twitter isn't a news paper, it's social media. social media is not the press, individuals are not the press.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

omgcat said:


> sure, news papers can do it, but twitter isn't a news paper, it's social media. social media is not the press, individuals are not the press.


The idea that Twitter should suppress a news story and suspend the account associated with the newspaper in question because a political candidate from a major party files a complaint on behalf of their relative who’s completely unrelated to the campaign does not sit well with me. The “Biden Team” threw their weight around to suppress the press, and Twitter went along with it. Whether it was under duress or they clapped along is immaterial to me, it should’ve never happened, and The Post is owed a formal apology for being treated unfairly. You are right, there isn’t a legal precedent about this as of yet - my point is that there should be, and hopefully there will be.

I drew the comparison of allowing a paper to print a story, but approaching news agents to stop it from being sold to the public earlier in this thread. This is the exact same thing, just on the Internet. It’s an extra degree of separation that I do not find to be exonerating.

I would have the same objection if any other candidate or party did this, the same criticism applies. Social media should not block news articles from being disseminated, not unless there’s a court injunction or warrant that justifies such action.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The takeaway here is that anybody can request removal of certain content, and it's in Twitter's best interest to comply much of the time. Is your request going to carry as much weight as a celebrity's or the government's? No, but that's life.



You think I'm envious?  I don't know if you are arguing why it's okay for the government to interfere with the dissemination of legitimate news or if you are arguing the case for apathy.


----------



## Osakasan (Dec 5, 2022)

Coming back to this thread i have two main takeaways:

1) Alt-righters don't understand the concept of content moderation and why it's important. Content supression my ass, this is why Musky Balls feels so empowered with his new toy

2) For the right wingers it's always CP, wich given their tendency to projection raises some legitimate concerns. Good thing is, they can never prove what they accuse others of, but they're always caught doing it. Oh, to be a fly on the walls of the filthy basement they live in!


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 5, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> Coming back to this thread i have two main takeaways:
> 
> 1) Alt-righters don't understand the concept of content moderation and why it's important. Content supression my ass, this is why Musky Balls feels so empowered with his new toy
> 
> 2) For the right wingers it's always CP, wich given their tendency to projection raises some legitimate concerns. Good thing is, they can never prove what they accuse others of, but they're always caught doing it. Oh, to be a fly on the walls of the filthy basement they live in!


this always happens.  treating them with less than respect is pretty great.  the mods sent me a dm being like "ooh you shouldn't do that" but why should i when they want everyone who isn't as white as they are dead?


----------



## pustal (Dec 5, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> Coming back to this thread i have two main takeaways:
> 
> 1) Alt-righters don't understand the concept of content moderation and why it's important. Content supression my ass, this is why Musky Balls feels so empowered with his new toy
> 
> 2) For the right wingers it's always CP, wich given their tendency to projection raises some legitimate concerns. Good thing is, they can never prove what they accuse others of, but they're always caught doing it. Oh, to be a fly on the walls of the filthy basement they live in!


I mean for #2 I don't get the wild conspiracy theories around child sex abuse and at the same time tolerating people like Matt Gaetz.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Why would this make Gabe Newell look bad?
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with "trust," Foxi takes offense to the way a report to Twitter from the government would take priority over any average Joe's.  The thing is, that's true for any entity or individual that's rich or powerful enough, a report from Exxon Mobil or Taylor Swift is gonna take the same kind of priority.  That's just capitalism, and it's the least shocking thing you could accuse any corporation of, tech-based or otherwise.



he'll annouce a steam deck 2 for twice as much.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 5, 2022)

pustal said:


> I mean for #2 I don't get the wild conspiracy theories around child sex abuse and at the same time tolerating people like Matt Gaetz.


3 guesses as to why and the first 2 don't count.


----------



## Osakasan (Dec 5, 2022)

pustal said:


> I mean for #2 I don't get the wild conspiracy theories around child sex abuse and at the same time tolerating people like Matt Gaetz.


First thing i don't get is why they boast of being christian, good people and all that shit and tolerate republicans themselves, with Trump - and now DeSantis - being the best possible example


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 5, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> First thing i don't get is why they boast of being christian, good people and all that shit and tolerate republicans themselves, with Trump - and now DeSantis - being the best possible example


christianity is like santa claus and the easter bunny: another fairy tale.  however, idiots don't grow out of it.  they just use it as a story to justify their cruelty, in all of its many inconsistencies.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 5, 2022)

They're always a mouthful of scripture, with a heart full of hate, and doing the exact opposite of what Jesus would have actually done as a loving, living person. It's no different than political promises being unkept after you've been elected.


----------



## Osakasan (Dec 5, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> christianity is like santa claus and the easter bunny: another fairy tale.  however, idiots don't grow out of it.  *they just use it as a story to justify their cruelty*, in all of its many inconsistencies.


But that's the thing: They don't follow christianity, they follow what they're told christianity is, wich more often than not is just a lump of hate agaisnt the non white, non straight and generally non right leaning people.

Honestly, Jesus would beat the shit out of every preacher nowadays.


----------



## pustal (Dec 5, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> First thing i don't get is why they boast of being christian, good people and all that shit and tolerate republicans themselves, with Trump - and now DeSantis - being the best possible example


https://imgur.io/gallery/bCqRp


----------



## Jayro (Dec 5, 2022)

pustal said:


> https://imgur.io/gallery/bCqRp


That comic was long, but very funny and relevant.


----------



## Osakasan (Dec 5, 2022)

pustal said:


> https://imgur.io/gallery/bCqRp


That strip is fucking GENIUS


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> Coming back to this thread i have two main takeaways:
> 
> 1) Alt-righters don't understand the concept of content moderation and why it's important. Content supression my ass, this is why Musky Balls feels so empowered with his new toy
> 
> 2) For the right wingers it's always CP, wich given their tendency to projection raises some legitimate concerns. Good thing is, they can never prove what they accuse others of, but they're always caught doing it. Oh, to be a fly on the walls of the filthy basement they live in!



You seem to respect Twitter's action in scrubbing the laptop story, but you haven't made the argument to why it was "good moderation".

Why would you want to be the fly on a wall peeping in on someone you just suggested entertains CP?

The degeneracy is strong in this one.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You seem to respect Twitter's action in scrubbing the laptop story, but you haven't made the argument to why it was "good moderation".
> 
> Why would you want to be the fly on a wall peeping in on someone you just suggested entertains CP?
> 
> The degeneracy is strong in this one.



you were so close to hitting the nail on the head here, they respect scrubbing as it relates to CP its almost as if they respect...


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Folks who say "the other side does it, too" aren't exactly self-aware enough to realize what they are confessing.  It's not a partisan issue.


----------



## Osakasan (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You seem to respect Twitter's action in scrubbing the laptop story, but you haven't made the argument to why it was "good moderation".
> 
> Why would you want to be the fly on a wall peeping in on someone you just suggested entertains CP?
> 
> The degeneracy is strong in this one.





lolcatzuru said:


> you were so close to hitting the nail on the head here, they respect scrubbing as it relates to CP its almost as if they respect...


The projection is strong with you two. Reading comprehension though...


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 5, 2022)

republicans in regards to hunter biden suspected CP: GRAAAH HOW EVIL KILL HIM KILL HIM KILL HIM
republicans in regards to matt gaetz statutory rape: uh let's just let him go he's our guy who cares


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

Osakasan said:


> The projection is strong with you two. Reading comprehension though...


Please point out where you made an argument about good "content moderation" in scrubbing the news from the platform.

Bonus points on why you would want to be a fly on the wall in some pervert's fap-den.



Osakasan said:


> Oh, to be a fly on the walls of the filthy basement they live in!



Republicans existing and doing the same thing doesn't make an issue a non-issue.  Crimes are committed by people, not colors.  Both Democrats and Republicans have shown signs of willingness to employ gestapo, controlling speech, and employing and protecting abusers from receiving justice.

If you think that Twitter did the right thing and protected you from becoming aware of the Biden laptop, entertain your reasoning.  Was it necessary for government to officially step in, and why do you think so?  

If your response is simply to defend *blue* with the argument that *red* does it too, you may just be blind to the fact that you are promoting the degeneracy in both--and using crimes against people as a political currency.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 5, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> you were so close to hitting the nail on the head here, they respect scrubbing as it relates to CP its almost as if they respect...


You realize that Twitter had a CP problem with the old staff.... right? Like the Megalinks shit? Now thats Elon Musk owns said platform they been taking care of it UNLIKE the old staff, Like REMOVING IT????


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 5, 2022)

Elon Musk says a lot of shit. Doesn't mean it's true. The Laptop shit has always been a smoke screen hoax for schizos to avoid talking about the very real danger of far right terrorism in the country.

*modsnip*


----------



## smf (Dec 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s a built-in system for updating the Constitution, should it need updating. In the case of the 1st, it does not - the sentiment is pretty clear, and it’s “hands off”.


And of course, you *AGAIN *fail to recognize this story isn't about the government reporting a post.
Your made up fantasy that this is government interference is just ideologically deranged garbage.

I could accept a "republicans or democrats shouldn't have more rights than me to report a post" but even that is just a ridiculous statement. People in high places have more power than you, Trump/Nigel Farage/Boris or whatever other leader who has convinced you that they are one of the people are just fucking with you.

But it's a change to see you asking for communism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

smf said:


> And of course, you *AGAIN *fail to recognize this story isn't about the government reporting a post.
> Your made up fantasy that this is government interference is just ideologically deranged garbage.
> 
> I could accept a "republicans or democrats shouldn't have more rights than me to report a post" but even that is just a ridiculous statement. People in high places have more power than you, Trump/Nigel Farage/Boris or whatever other leader who has convinced you that they are one of the people are just fucking with you.
> ...


Talking to you is a waste of time. I’ve specified a dozen of times that I don’t care about the specific story, I care that there’s a government-private corporation pipeline that exists specifically to report posts the government wants removed from the platform. That’s fascism - the intersection of big business and the state, with one hand washing the other. If you don’t understand that, there’s nothing for us to talk about. Twitter did exactly what was asked of them by the DNC, that’s the highlight of the particular story, but not the crux of the issue. The issue is that the pipeline exists at all.


----------



## smf (Dec 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Talking to you is a waste of time. I’ve specified a dozen of times that I don’t care about the specific story, I care that there’s a government-private corporation *pipeline* *that exists specifically to report posts the government wants removed* from the platform. That’s fascism - the intersection of big business and the state, with one hand washing the other. If you don’t understand that, there’s nothing for us to talk about. Twitter did exactly what was asked of them by the DNC, that’s the highlight of the particular story, but not the crux of the issue. The issue is that the pipeline exists at all.


It's a waste of time talking to you, there is not a *pipeline* *that exists specifically to report posts the government wants removed*

While saying you don't care about the specific story, you go on again to say *Twitter did exactly what was asked of them by the DNC *even though the republicans were the government at the time.

From the story the only pipeline that exists is that people from the republican and democrat party had email addresses of twitter executives. Are you saying email shouldn't exist?

There were no threats, twitter execs who supported DNC were willing to get things removed the DNC wanted removed. How is that against the 1st amendment?

Trump having a hotline to Fox news doesn't seem to have upset you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 5, 2022)

smf said:


> It's a waste of time talking to you, there is not a *pipeline* *that exists specifically to report posts the government wants removed*


We already know that’s not true, especially in regards to Facebook, thanks to The Intercept’s reporting. Meta went out of their way to facilitate this kind of interaction, and Twitter was well on its way to do the same.

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

The DHS has a direct pipeline to Facebook and Instagram, and it exists not to flag illegal content, but what the government deems to be “disinformation”. If the leaked documents are to be believed, representatives from Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft and LinkedIn have been meeting with the F.B.I. on a monthly basis, and those meetings took place explicitly to discuss content moderation. To deny it at this stage is to be wilfully ignorant. Based on the files shown in the Twitter release, it’s very clear that government officials and major political parties do have direct contacts in the company. You and I don’t, we have to report posts using built-in tools, their requests are fast-tracked - they have an “in”, executives on the inside doing their bidding. Your absurd question of whether “e-mail should exist” doesn’t negate the fact that government officials shouldn’t be e-mailing company executives directly in regards to how the platform operates and what URL’s should or should not be removed. If you don’t consider this to be a direct pipeline then suit yourself, there’s really no point in discussing this if you choose to deny what’s right in front of you.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 5, 2022)

sombrerosonic said:


> You realize that Twitter had a CP problem with the old staff.... right? Like the Megalinks shit? Now thats Elon Musk owns said platform they been taking care of it UNLIKE the old staff, Like REMOVING IT????



oh im sure it did, it was liberal controlled, though idk if they would agree it was a problem


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 6, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> oh im sure it did, it was liberal controlled, though idk if they would agree it was a problem


projecting harder than a powerpoint presentation over here with the guy who would vote for matt gaetz if given the opportunity.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 6, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> projecting harder than a powerpoint presentation over here with the guy who would vote for matt gaetz if given the opportunity.


https://libertysons.org/gaetz-vindicated-man-blackmailing-him-for-millions-arrested/

	Post automatically merged: Dec 6, 2022



smf said:


> It's a waste of time talking to you, there is not a *pipeline* *that exists specifically to report posts the government wants removed*
> 
> While saying you don't care about the specific story, you go on again to say *Twitter did exactly what was asked of them by the DNC *even though the republicans were the government at the time.
> 
> ...


I hope all these in kind campaign contributions to the DNC and Biden campaign were reported to the FEC.

You also forget that the FBI/DOJ were telling Twitter what accounts to ban. They labeled the laptop as Russian disinformation, which is a lie.

And the kicker is now the Dems are saying the Bill of Rights are not absolute because they have been exposed. LOL!!!!!!


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 6, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> https://libertysons.org/gaetz-vindicated-man-blackmailing-him-for-millions-arrested/
> 
> And the kicker is now the Dems are saying the Bill of Rights are not absolute because they have been exposed. LOL!!!!!!


source: libertysons lmfao


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 6, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> source: libertysons lmfao


The article is from a dubious source indeed, but it does report a small nugget of truth weaved into the bullshit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/23/matt-gaetz-father-extortion-investigation/

Stephen Alford was extorting Don Gaetz, Matt’s father. He claimed to have connections in the Biden administration and was offering a possible pardon in the sex trafficking investigation in return for $25 million, purportedly for the purposes of freeing Robert A. Levinson. Levinson was a hostage held in Iran who’s been declared dead in absentia. It was pure fraud, it had nothing to do with the actual allegations, Alford had no special connections and the probe is on-going.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 6, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> projecting harder than a powerpoint presentation over here with the guy who would vote for matt gaetz if given the opportunity.



how would i vote for that person if i dont know who they are? also, project more person who voted for the guy who made out with his own granddaughter


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 6, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> source: libertysons lmfao


sOuRcE: DOJ

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndfl/p...-federal-indictment-25-million-scheme-defraud

*Mod snip*


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 7, 2022)

*Mod Snip*

So Twitter's general counsel, who just so happened to have been the general counsel during Russiagate and the Alfa Bank hoax, just got fired for trying to cover up the DOJ/FBI's involvement in suppressing Americans right to free speech. What are the odds of that happening?

No wonder the leftists around here are going for personal attacks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 7, 2022)

Thread has been cleaned up, @CommanderCool has been suspended for a week. Quick reminder that flaming other users, trolling or posting otherwise inflammatory content is strictly prohibited. On another note, when you see a troll, don’t feed it. Anyone who cannot politely participate in the discussion will be removed from it.

That is all.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 16, 2022)

I just think it's funny that anyone believed the Biden laptop shit for a second lmfao
A story that changes every single time the person is asked about it is not a story worth caring about. Kinda weird how this shit dropped just before an election though, not that right wingers have the mental fortitude to question the strangeness and convenience of that.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 16, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Thread has been cleaned up, @CommanderCool has been suspended for a week. Quick reminder that flaming other users, trolling or posting otherwise inflammatory content is strictly prohibited. On another note, when you see a troll, don’t feed it. Anyone who cannot politely participate in the discussion will be removed from it.
> 
> That is all.



now we are talking! i mean, just for the record he also incited personal attacks on me, and i reported it and im pretty sure gave him an award.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 16, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I just think it's funny that anyone believed the Biden laptop shit for a second lmfao
> A story that changes every single time the person is asked about it is not a story worth caring about. Kinda weird how this shit dropped just before an election though, not that right wingers have the mental fortitude to question the strangeness and convenience of that.


If you don’t like the laptop story, you won’t like this one time Hunter’s iCloud got hacked and dumped (allegedly, of course). Not that it matters, Hunter Biden is a crackhead, not a civil servant. The only interesting elements of the story are the parts concerning his father.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 17, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If you don’t like the laptop story, you won’t like this one time Hunter’s iCloud got hacked and dumped (allegedly, of course). Not that it matters, Hunter Biden is a crackhead, not a civil servant. The only interesting elements of the story are the parts concerning his father.


What the commenter who I have on ignore fails to recognize is that the story changed because the corporate media had to keep changing their lies about the story. Has she also never heard of October surprises? Both sides have been doing this for decades in every election.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> We already know that’s not true, especially in regards to Facebook, thanks to The Intercept’s reporting. Meta went out of their way to facilitate this kind of interaction, and Twitter was well on its way to do the same.
> 
> https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/
> 
> The DHS has a direct pipeline to Facebook and Instagram, and it exists not to flag illegal content, but what the government deems to be “disinformation”. If the leaked documents are to be believed, representatives from Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft and LinkedIn have been meeting with the F.B.I. on a monthly basis, and those meetings took place explicitly to discuss content moderation. To deny it at this stage is to be wilfully ignorant. Based on the files shown in the Twitter release, it’s very clear that government officials and major political parties do have direct contacts in the company. *You and I don’t*, we have to report posts using built-in tools, their requests are fast-tracked - they have an “in”, executives on the inside doing their bidding. Your absurd question of whether “e-mail should exist” doesn’t negate the fact that government officials shouldn’t be e-mailing company executives directly in regards to how the platform operates and what URL’s should or should not be removed. If you don’t consider this to be a direct pipeline then suit yourself, there’s really no point in discussing this if you choose to deny what’s right in front of you.


That seems to be your big problem, you are upset they don't think you're important enough & they are right to think that.

It's not a first amendment issue for major political parties to have access to upper management, no matter how much you want it to be.

If twitter exec want the opinion of major political parties and the government, then it's up to them. You want to revoke their free speech. What is it with right wing people who always want to stop people saying things they disagree with eh?


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I just think it's funny that anyone believed the Biden laptop shit for a second lmfao
> A story that changes every single time the person is asked about it is not a story worth caring about. Kinda weird how this shit dropped just before an election though, not that right wingers have the mental fortitude to question the strangeness and convenience of that.


Nor dose your political view Laina, There was a fuck ton of evedence showing off the photo's and shit that was on it. dig around and you'll see some insane shit.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 17, 2022)

Opposition digging up dirt on their opponents?  Surely this is vile stuff only the opposition republicans are capable of.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 17, 2022)

smf said:


> That seems to be your big problem, you are upset they don't think you're important enough & they are right to think that.
> 
> It's not a first amendment issue for major political parties to have access to upper management, no matter how much you want it to be.
> 
> If twitter exec want the opinion of major political parties and the government, then it's up to them. You want to revoke their free speech. What is it with right wing people who always want to stop people saying things they disagree with eh?


The FBI/DOJ is not a political party. The fact that the left is perfectly fine with the government telling corporations who to censor just shows their lust for power at all costs. The ends justify the means, amirite? Too bad the FBI didn't spend more time going after child porn, but as we all know, the left hates children.

Help me out. If the government is actively censoring people, would that be fascism or communism. Both have long histories of doing it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2022)

smf said:


> That seems to be your big problem, you are upset they don't think you're important enough & they are right to think that.
> 
> It's not a first amendment issue for major political parties to have access to upper management, no matter how much you want it to be.
> 
> If twitter exec want the opinion of major political parties and the government, then it's up to them. You want to revoke their free speech. What is it with right wing people who always want to stop people saying things they disagree with eh?


Collusion between the state and big business aimed against the well-being of society is one of the hallmarks of fascism.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 17, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Collusion between the state and big business aimed against the well-being of society is one of the hallmarks of fascism.


It's not fascism when the left does it.

-Every leftist on GBATemp


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 17, 2022)

sombrerosonic said:


> Nor dose your political view Laina, There was a fuck ton of evedence showing off the photo's and shit that was on it. dig around and you'll see some insane shit.



And it's all since been verified (quietly) by the NYT.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's not fascism when the left does it.
> 
> -Every leftist on GBATemp


The latest Twitter release details how the F.B.I. specifically pluck out accounts and posts “to be moderated”, and issued specific instructions that they expected to be followed. Those accounts weren’t engaged in any form of illegal activity, by the looks of things - they posted jokes and what the state designated as “misinformation”. I can’t imagine interpreting that as anything other than government interference. Some people are more comfortable with that than others - I’m not comfortable with it at all. Government agencies should not interfere in public discourse unless specific laws are broken. The idea that the company had free reign to moderate as it pleased when they were receiving reports from the F.B.I. and DOJ is silly - when the state knocks on your door, you comply due to the inherent implication of repercussions should you refuse. That’s really all there is to it, I don’t understand why anyone would feel compelled to die on this hill - comes across as bootlicking to me. None of this is a shocker, either - it just confirms what we already suspected.


----------



## Lumstar (Dec 18, 2022)

That sort of meddling is worrisome, but alas not unconstitutional.
The 1st amendment, interpreted as it was written, only applies to Congress. It doesn't prevent any other government agency from restricting speech.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 18, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> That sort of meddling is worrisome, but alas not unconstitutional.
> The 1st amendment, interpreted as it was written, only applies to Congress. It doesn't prevent any other government agency from restricting speech.


It’s been long established by SCOTUS that the Constitution also applies to the states and law enforcement. I’m a textualist myself too, but a government agency is a government agency - the Constitution is a stopgap against the government as a whole. Claiming otherwise would mean that law enforcement was free to violate *any* constitutional protection, which they’re obviously not allowed to do. It’s certainly worrisome to say the least, but in order to be conclusively adjudicated, it would have to land before the SCOTUS, and for that you need an aggrieved party. At the very least we’re dealing with the agency operating outside of its designated purview - that’s simply not their job.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 18, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> That sort of meddling is worrisome, but alas not unconstitutional.
> The 1st amendment, interpreted as it was written, only applies to Congress. It doesn't prevent any other government agency from restricting speech.


I remember a time when Twitter said there is no such thing as shadowbanning. Then when that was proven false, the argument changed to Twitter is a private company and can ban whoever they want. Now that it has been proven that Twitter was banning people based on what the government was dictating, the goalposts change again. And after each change, the argument gets weaker and weaker. It's almost like people don't realize that the next batch of Twitter Files is going to be more damning than the previous batch. People need to just accept what's coming and stop looking foolish making lame excuses because the bad orange man is not in office anymore.

And while the FBI was sitting there spying on grandma's memes, they were allowing child p0rn to flourish on Twitter. One would think they would be going after actual illegal activity, but you'd be wrong.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 19, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If you don’t like the laptop story, you won’t like this one time Hunter’s iCloud got hacked and dumped (allegedly, of course). Not that it matters, Hunter Biden is a crackhead, not a civil servant. The only interesting elements of the story are the parts concerning his father.


To be honest the story just becomes more and more of a nothingburger as time goes on. With how psychotic Trump's appointed judges were, if there was anything of value to this, he'd actually have been prosecuted, but he hasn't. There's nothing Hunter's guilty of that Trump himself isn't guilty of to much, much worse degrees, let alone his family also being guilty of that shit. Strangely, the people pretending they care about Hunter Biden's laptop as part of a larpy right wing virtue signal don't seem to care that much when there's a blonde toupee attached to the corrupt guy...

	Post automatically merged: Dec 19, 2022



sombrerosonic said:


> Nor dose your political view Laina, There was a fuck ton of evedence showing off the photo's and shit that was on it. dig around and you'll see some insane shit.


This reply would be funnier from someone old enough to vote LOL


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 19, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> This reply would be funnier from someone old enough to vote LOL


You know your in your 20's right?






Vista came out in 2007 if im right..... so if im right your 28 or younger.....

Scratch that the romhack was in 2012....... so you could be 23.....

Quit your bullshit Laina, at LEAST i can amit my age lamo

https://gbatemp.net/threads/what-was-your-first-formative-emulator-experience.620486/

and just in case you edit it https://web.archive.org/web/2022121...r-first-formative-emulator-experience.620486/


----------



## SommaCruz (Dec 19, 2022)

Man, this guy bought Twitter to end it.
During the world cup final, He announce that Twitter no long will authorize publications with some others social media, today he decided to go back and it is permitted again.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 20, 2022)

sombrerosonic said:


> You know your in your 20's right?
> 
> View attachment 343498
> 
> ...






Also what the fuck are you talking about you schizo, Dragonstone came out in 2008????


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 20, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> View attachment 343534
> 
> Also what the fuck are you talking about you schizo, Dragonstone came out in 2008????


You really dont have a way to fight back huh?

Guess i won......


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 21, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> To be honest the story just becomes more and more of a nothingburger as time goes on. With how psychotic Trump's appointed judges were, if there was anything of value to this, he'd actually have been prosecuted, but he hasn't. There's nothing Hunter's guilty of that Trump himself isn't guilty of to much, much worse degrees, let alone his family also being guilty of that shit. Strangely, the people pretending they care about Hunter Biden's laptop as part of a larpy right wing virtue signal don't seem to care that much when there's a blonde toupee attached to the corrupt guy...


Well, if your counterpoint is “Yes, but Trump…” then we’ve truly covered all bases.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, if your counterpoint is “Yes, but Trump…” then we’ve truly covered all bases.


Do you have an actual rebuttal to anything I said? Seems like no.........


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 21, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Do you have an actual rebuttal to anything I said? Seems like no.........


There’s nothing to talk about, is there? You claim to have it all figured out, so what’s the point? My only point of contention is that the laptop has nothing to do with Trump, but you felt compelled to bring him up, which is odd. We call that “whataboutism”, actually. It’s particularly rich considering the implication of your post was that he faced no consequences for his alleged actions, when in reality he’s been through two impeachments, not to mention the myriad of other investigations, including ones concerning imaginary crimes. We haven’t seen that kind of reaction towards the Bidens.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The latest Twitter release details how the F.B.I. specifically pluck out accounts and posts “to be moderated”, and issued specific instructions that they expected to be followed. Those accounts weren’t engaged in any form of illegal activity, by the looks of things - they posted jokes and what the state designated as “misinformation”. I can’t imagine interpreting that as anything other than government interference. Some people are more comfortable with that than others - I’m not comfortable with it at all. Government agencies should not interfere in public discourse unless specific laws are broken. The idea that the company had free reign to moderate as it pleased when they were receiving reports from the F.B.I. and DOJ is silly - when the state knocks on your door, you comply due to the inherent implication of repercussions should you refuse. That’s really all there is to it, I don’t understand why anyone would feel compelled to die on this hill - comes across as bootlicking to me. None of this is a shocker, either - it just confirms what we already suspected.


Now we find out the FBI was paying Twitter millions of dollars to infringe on American's 1st Amendment rights to interfere in our elections. This is why fascism is always blamed on the right but always seems to fall on the left. Weird how that happens.

And somehow, this isn't a threat to our democracy?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s nothing to talk about, is there? You claim to have it all figured out, so what’s the point? My only point of contention is that the laptop has nothing to do with Trump, but you felt compelled to bring him up, which is odd.


I took the liberty of cutting out the performative parts of your post. Figured only the parts worth reading are worth responding to.
For starters, could you claim where I said I had it all figured out? More than you and anyone else partisan enough to buy this "story"? Absolutely, but everything? Nah. Fact of the matter is, none of the energy from your side that's performatively condemning Biden condemned the guy who was worse. I'm saying that you are a partisan. Recoil in horror at the word, it's still true.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 22, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I took the liberty of cutting out the performative parts of your post. Figured only the parts worth reading are worth responding to.
> For starters, could you claim where I said I had it all figured out? More than you and anyone else partisan enough to buy this "story"? Absolutely, but everything? Nah. Fact of the matter is, none of the energy from your side that's performatively condemning Biden condemned the guy who was worse. I'm saying that you are a partisan. Recoil in horror at the word, it's still true.


…and all I said was that that’s whataboutism, which it is. What Trump did or didn’t do has no bearing on what should or shouldn’t be done regarding Hunter. With that being said, he’s not a public servant, so the level of priority is low.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What Trump did or didn’t do has no bearing on what should or shouldn’t be done regarding Hunter.


Uh, good, because I didn't say this either. Maybe the high of your performative psuedo intellectualism is blinding you or something but my point was that this is a nothing burger being propped up as something way more serious than it actually is by partisans.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 22, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Uh, good, because I didn't say this either. Maybe the high of your performative psuedo intellectualism is blinding you or something but my point was that this is a nothing burger being propped up as something way more serious than it actually is by partisans.


I suppose that it depends on what you consider serious. As for what you did or didn’t say, I’ll let the scroll wheel decide, I don’t like splitting hairs over trivialities.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I suppose that it depends on what you consider serious. As for what you did or didn’t say, I’ll let the scroll wheel decide, I don’t like splitting hairs over trivialities.


He says, in a thread entirely focused on splitting hairs over trivialities.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 22, 2022)

performative psuedo intellectualism

Don't be bitter, grandma.  You can't see your own irony.

Now, what about Trump?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 23, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> He says, in a thread entirely focused on splitting hairs over trivialities.


The thread’s title is self-explanatory, it’s about Musk stating that the laptop story was artificially suppressed on the platform. That’s not “splitting hairs”, that’s a statement of fact.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The thread’s title is self-explanatory, it’s about Musk stating that the laptop story was artificially suppressed on the platform. That’s not “splitting hairs”, that’s a statement of fact.


Yeah, every party tries to suppress misinformation. Trump tried to have it done when journalists fell for /pol/'s pee tape psyop shit. If the story is misinformation (and the Biden laptop story is absolutely misinformation) then yeah, it's GOOD for parties to be able to curtail that. In case this is difficult for you to understand, this should make it clear: That means it is ALSO GOOD for Trump to be allowed to have misinformation about him or information obtained by hacking removed. If we just let people make up whatever dumb shit they want or hack whatever private info they want then there's no real privacy for anyone.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 23, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Yeah, every party tries to suppress misinformation. Trump tried to have it done when journalists fell for /pol/'s pee tape psyop shit. If the story is misinformation (and the Biden laptop story is absolutely misinformation) then yeah, it's GOOD for parties to be able to curtail that. In case this is difficult for you to understand, this should make it clear: That means it is ALSO GOOD for Trump to be allowed to have misinformation about him or information obtained by hacking removed. If we just let people make up whatever dumb shit they want or hack whatever private info they want then there's no real privacy for anyone.


You did it again. Just thought I’d point it out.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 23, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> the Biden laptop story is absolutely misinformation



How is it misinformation?  It's a strong claim and sounds like a desperate hope.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 23, 2022)

tabzer said:


> How is it misinformation?  It's a strong claim and sounds like a desperate hope.


the real question is: what could it possibly contain that would threaten national security?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> the real question is: what could it possibly contain that would threaten national security?



Who is claiming that?


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Who is claiming that?


okay i'll just flat-out admit i don't know why conservatives are boogeymanning over the hunter biden laptop and i would really like to know but at the same time every time i think i'm curious enough to google it i just can't be bothered to give a damn.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> okay i'll just flat-out admit i don't know why conservatives are boogeymanning over the hunter biden laptop and i would really like to know but at the same time every time i think i'm curious enough to google it i just can't be bothered to give a damn.


There's your problem. You're not willing to do your own research. It's people like you who rely on the tax exempt billion dollar corporate media to tell you what they want you to know.

One would think you'd be curious as to why the FBI was so desperate to bury the laptop story, even lying to Americans about it being Russian disinformation and paying Twitter to infringe on American's 1st Amendment rights, but then again, fascists don't ask questions, that's how atrocities occur in the world.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> There's your problem. You're not willing to do your own research. It's people like you who rely on the tax exempt billion dollar corporate media to tell you what they want you to know.
> 
> One would think you'd be curious as to why the FBI was so desperate to bury the laptop story, even lying to Americans about it being Russian disinformation and paying Twitter to infringe on American's 1st Amendment rights, but then again, fascists don't ask questions, that's how atrocities occur in the world.


thank you for the life advice far-right activist and propagandist traderpattx i will be sure to do every last bit of research from far right sources from now on.  i know i should start at breitbart and oan but you gotta recommend some real trusted sources around here who have absolutely no bias whatsoever.  steve bannon is my hero too.


----------



## Sir Tortoise (Dec 24, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> There's your problem. You're not willing to do your own research. It's people like you who rely on the tax exempt billion dollar corporate media to tell you what they want you to know.
> 
> One would think you'd be curious as to why the FBI was so desperate to bury the laptop story, even lying to Americans about it being Russian disinformation and paying Twitter to infringe on American's 1st Amendment rights, but then again, fascists don't ask questions, that's how atrocities occur in the world.


But I did my own research and found that was rubbish. Can you give some tips on how I can better perform research such that I can arrive at the conclusion I want?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> okay i'll just flat-out admit i don't know why conservatives are boogeymanning over the hunter biden laptop and i would really like to know but at the same time every time i think i'm curious enough to google it i just can't be bothered to give a damn.



While some people want a "smoking gun" before they begin to suspect Father Biden of foul play, many people who vote do not.  Some would look at what has been seen of it and wonder why Hunter is where he is instead of prison, and vote against Biden.

Suppression of the story, by the FBI, and the several government actors saying it was fake/Russian disinfo, should really demonstrate how much America is not a democracy, but authoritarian through coercion.  FBI meddled in the election, blamed Russia, and helped install a president who would continue the war racket (and "fund" them of course).

And if you are on this thread, you'd might as well pay attention to the conversation, instead of "performative psuedo intellectualism" like @LainaGabranth, such as blaming Trump for America's problems--as if he was elected for no reason, and then America turned to shit.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> While some people want a "smoking gun" before they begin to suspect Father Biden of foul play, many people who vote do not.  Some would look at what has been seen of it and wonder why Hunter is where he is instead of prison, and vote against Biden.
> 
> Suppression of the story, by the FBI, and the several government actors saying it was fake/Russian disinfo, should really demonstrate how much America is not a democracy, but authoritarian through coercion.  FBI meddled in the election, blamed Russia, and helped install a president who would continue the war racket (and "fund" them of course).
> 
> And if you are on this thread, you'd might as well pay attention to the conversation, instead of "performative psuedo intellectualism" like @LainaGabranth, such as blaming Trump for America's problems--as if he was elected for no reason, and then America turned to shit.


all of this is good and all but what's supposedly on the laptop?


----------



## Cylent1 (Dec 24, 2022)

I really wish people would come to GBATemp for Video Game info and leave the political bullshit for the political arena somewhere else.  It ruins my day when I come here and see all the political bullshit.  Most of the world have been brainwashed by the industrial media complex that they dont even know what 2+2= anymore, and then they wanna call you a racist and that math is racist if you try to go along with the facts.  Sad!
TURN OFF THE NEWS OR YOU WILL GET MORE DUMB AND BRAINWASHED!!!

	Post automatically merged: Dec 24, 2022



tabzer said:


> While some people want a "smoking gun" before they begin to suspect Father Biden of foul play, many people who vote do not.  Some would look at what has been seen of it and wonder why Hunter is where he is instead of prison, and vote against Biden.
> 
> Suppression of the story, by the FBI, and the several government actors saying it was fake/Russian disinfo, should really demonstrate how much America is not a democracy, but authoritarian through coercion.  FBI meddled in the election, blamed Russia, and helped install a president who would continue the war racket (and "fund" them of course).
> 
> And if you are on this thread, you'd might as well pay attention to the conversation, instead of "performative psuedo intellectualism" like @LainaGabranth, such as blaming Trump for America's problems--as if he was elected for no reason, and then America turned to shit.


Spot on 100% correct!!!

	Post automatically merged: Dec 24, 2022



Sir Tortoise said:


> But I did my own research and found that was rubbish. Can you give some tips on how I can better perform research such that I can arrive at the conclusion I want?


Lay off the main stream media news outlets.  All they do is cover up for the left and lie!!!


----------



## tabzer (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> all of this is good and all but what's supposedly on the laptop?


Pedo-stuff, e-mails and docs that imply the pay-for-play, quid-pro-quo with Ukraine.  Things that would hurt public support for politicians' roles in Ukrainian government (racket), especially Biden's election.  Courts might call it inconclusive or whatever, but it's enough to convince a real person.  Don't go to work in politics!


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> all of this is good and all but what's supposedly on the laptop?


The laptop has anything and everything you could possibly want to be on it, on it.  It's a conservative Pandora's box of wonders.  In other words, about as real as Santa Claus in most cases.  There's no guarantee the laptop is real, that all the data belongs to the same computer, and even if it is/does, that it actually belongs to Hunter Biden.  He'd be in cuffs already for child pornography if he could realistically be connected to what they accuse him of, president's son or not.  Instead _they're_ the ones constantly milling through kiddie porn, as rage bait or for...other reasons.  _/shudder_


----------



## Cylent1 (Dec 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Pedo-stuff, e-mails and docs that imply the pay-for-play, quid-pro-quo with Ukraine.  Things that would hurt public support for politicians' roles in Ukrainian government (racket), especially Biden's election.  Courts might call it inconclusive or whatever, but it's enough to convince a real person.


You forgot about smoking and weighing crack with hookers in the bath tub!


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Pedo-stuff, e-mails and docs that imply the pay-for-play, quid-pro-quo with Ukraine.  Things that would hurt public support for politicians' roles in Ukrainian government (racket), especially Biden's election.  Courts might call it inconclusive or whatever, but it's enough to convince a real person.  Don't go to work in politics!


cool.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2022)

Cylent1 said:


> You forgot about smoking and weighing crack with hookers in the bath tub!


Well that just sounds expected of a rich kid, though usually it's cocaine like with Trump/Trump Jr.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

i want don jr and hunter biden to get super high and then try to recite the pledge of allegiance and see who makes it through the most of it in a competition to see who will become the next secretary of state or something.  i don't know.  i just think it'd be funny.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 24, 2022)

Ah yes, more what about Trump.  Are you saying the FBI saved us from a Trump election?

@Xzi

Defending the FBI's role in "the war on 'misinformation'"?

The laptop is more real than you are.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Ah yes, more what about Trump.  Are you saying the FBI saved us from a Trump election?
> 
> @Xzi
> 
> ...


If the evidence is conclusive, let Hunter be charged, I honestly couldn't care less.  You yourself already admitted it wasn't, to some extent.  Hunter isn't under criminal investigation at all, for that matter, while Trump is under what, three or four criminal investigations at the moment?  Conservatives are just desperate to distract, at least the ones who haven't already jumped on the DeSantis bandwagon instead.  Elon is desperate to distract from his vast overspend on Twitter as well, but this whole thing is already way past yesterday's news.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

is it a criteria to love biden if the right deems you a leftist?  cause i really don't care for biden at all yet i get called a leftist for so much as saying trump is a poopy doo doo butt


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> thank you for the life advice far-right activist and propagandist traderpattx i will be sure to do every last bit of research from far right sources from now on.  i know i should start at breitbart and oan but you gotta recommend some real trusted sources around here who have absolutely no bias whatsoever.  steve bannon is my hero too.


Maybe when you grow up a little, you'll be able to handle researching from sources you disagree with. Until then, keep playing team sports while the uniparty just spent $1.7 trillion of our tax money. They hate you just as much as they hate me, but you are not mature enough to see it yet.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 24, 2022



Sir Tortoise said:


> But I did my own research and found that was rubbish. Can you give some tips on how I can better perform research such that I can arrive at the conclusion I want?


You want just the tip?


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Maybe when you grow up a little, you'll be able to handle researching from sources you disagree with. Until then, keep playing team sports while the uniparty just spent $1.7 trillion of our tax money. They hate you just as much as they hate me, but you are not mature enough to see it yet.


bro i'm just asking you for your sources no need for the backhanded hostility bro just give me the sources bro you are all about research c'mon bro you tell me to grow up but here you are wanting to play show and tell so who is the most trustworthy person in journalism right now?  which source is the #1 A+ source off the planet?  who of your diversified series of journalists gives you the biggest truth boner you've ever had in your life?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> bro i'm just asking you for your sources no need for the backhanded hostility bro just give me the sources bro you are all about research c'mon bro you tell me to grow up but here you are wanting to play show and tell so who is the most trustworthy person in journalism right now?  which source is the #1 A+ source off the planet?  who of your diversified series of journalists gives you the biggest truth boner you've ever had in your life?


Find your own sources like an adult. I'm not here to hold your hand, bruh.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Find your own sources like an adult. I'm not here to hold your hand, bruh.


so you don't want to cite who your most trusted sources are and where you get your news from?  who the big counterculture is?  c'mon we're here to guide one another towards salvation against the leftist armies who wish to take our babies and rip them out of women's stomachs for profiting in space-laser funding through stem cell research.  i just want to know where your endless fountain of myriad wisdom comes from so we can defeat those leftist swine and get rid of their ideologies of...

...

fuck what do the left believe in?  hey @Xzi you wanna let us in on what those dirty fascist communist hobo-loving leftists want?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> fuck what do the left believe in? hey @Xzi you wanna let us in on what those dirty fascist communist hobo-loving leftists want?


Nothing major, just to seize the means of production and eat the rich.  No war but class war.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Nothing major, just to seize the means of production and eat the rich.  No war but class war.


that actually sounds pretty damn appealing man why do the right demonize you guys?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> so you don't want to cite who your most trusted sources are and where you get your news from?  who the big counterculture is?  c'mon we're here to guide one another towards salvation against the leftist armies who wish to take our babies and rip them out of women's stomachs for profiting in space-laser funding through stem cell research.  i just want to know where your endless fountain of myriad wisdom comes from so we can defeat those leftist swine and get rid of their ideologies of...
> 
> ...
> 
> fuck what do the left believe in?  hey @Xzi you wanna let us in on what those dirty fascist communist hobo-loving leftists want?


Other people were happy that you were put in the corner and punished like a child, however, I enjoy letting you make an ass of yourself for all to see. You are the perfect embodiment of the left today. Childish comments and you can't hold a conversation without throwing a fit and calling for older leftists to come help you. 

By all means, please keep talking.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Other people were happy that you were put in the corner and punished like a child, however, I enjoy letting you make an ass of yourself for all to see. You are the perfect embodiment of the left today. Childish comments and you can't hold a conversation without throwing a fit and calling for older leftists to come help you.
> 
> By all means, please keep talking.


oh no!  other people said that?  i'll never recover!  as the elder in society, you surely must set the example for a hard-working, red-blooded american like myself who believes in the grace of the bible and my 2nd amendment rights!

where do you get this idea i'm a hardcore commie leftist from?  we gotta get to the root of the issue here.


----------



## Cylent1 (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> bro i'm just asking you for your sources no need for the backhanded hostility bro just give me the sources bro you are all about research c'mon bro you tell me to grow up but here you are wanting to play show and tell so who is the most trustworthy person in journalism right now?  which source is the #1 A+ source off the planet?  who of your diversified series of journalists gives you the biggest truth boner you've ever had in your life?


Bro! enough with all the Bro already!!!   It is not hard to look at the Left media, and then look at the Right media, and if you are intelligent enough, then maybe you will understand.  Until then if you don't wanna be open minded and choose to stay bias after the factual evidence, well then maybe there is no hope for you.  If that is the case than maybe you should sign up for SSI for TDS and receive a monthly dummy check!


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If you don’t like the laptop story, you won’t like this one time Hunter’s iCloud got hacked and dumped (allegedly, of course). Not that it matters, Hunter Biden is a crackhead, not a civil servant. The only interesting elements of the story are the parts concerning his father.



(looks in search history, sees hunters penis) yep  looks alleged to me


----------



## Cylent1 (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> is it a criteria to love biden if the right deems you a leftist?  cause i really don't care for biden at all yet i get called a leftist for so much as saying trump is a poopy doo doo butt


Pretty sure you voted for him though!


----------



## tabzer (Dec 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> If the evidence is conclusive, let Hunter be charged, I honestly couldn't care less.  You yourself already admitted it wasn't, to some extent.  Hunter isn't under criminal investigation at all, for that matter, while Trump is under what, three or four criminal investigations at the moment?  Conservatives are just desperate to distract, at least the ones who haven't already jumped on the DeSantis bandwagon instead.  Elon is desperate to distract from his vast overspend on Twitter as well, but this whole thing is already way past yesterday's news.


You are completely evading the point.  Read back a couple posts.  Regardless of whether or not the evidence is conclusive enough to prosecute someone is besides the point I made.  I didn't admit that it wasn't enough.  You believe that the FBI is fighting for justice?


----------



## Nothereed (Dec 24, 2022)

Cylent1 said:


> Pretty sure you voted for him though!


Maybe when people are presented with two terrible choices, they end up picking the lesser of the two bad choices? and that clearly people thought that Biden was a better choice than Trump? It doesn't mean people voted him because it was a good pick. More so, because it wasn't Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Maybe when people are presented with two terrible choices, they end up picking the lesser of the two bad choices? and that clearly people thought that Biden was a better choice than Trump? It doesn't mean people voted him because it was a good pick. More so, *because it wasn't Trump.*


There’s no such thing as a “lesser bad choice”.



> ”Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred.” - Andrzej Sapkowski, The Last Wish


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s no such thing as a “lesser bad choice”.


yes there is.  fuck man, do you choose in between shitting the bed or having diarrhea all over the place where you bleed from your anus all over the floor?

that's the decision americans made that day.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> yes there is.  fuck man, do you choose in between shitting the bed or having diarrhea all over the place where you bleed from your anus all over the floor?
> 
> that's the decision americans made that day.


You shouldn’t be voting for politicians you do not support. I’ve had this conversation with other people here before and you won’t convince me otherwise. By voting for a politician you accept partial responsibility, not legally but in spirit, for any negative consequences of that choice. If you voted for Biden and you don’t like how Biden’s handling things, it is encumbent on you to knock on your chest and say that you voted for this, because you did. There’s compromises and then there’s deliberately voting for someone whom you don’t agree with solely for the purpose of nullifying somebody else’s vote.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You shouldn’t be voting for politicians you do not support. I’ve had this conversation with other people here before and you won’t convince me otherwise. By voting for a politician you accept partial responsibility, not legally but in spirit, for any negative consequences of that choice. If you voted for Biden and you don’t like how Biden’s handling things, it is encumbent on you to knock on your chest and say that you voted for this, because you did. There’s compromises and then there’s deliberately voting for someone whom you don’t agree with solely for the purpose of nullifying somebody else’s vote.



you can vote for someone to get someone out.  every single motive for voting doesn't have to go towards "i like this person".  in a system as well which only promotes two parties having a given power, you're either choosing in between one or the other.  those third party candidates aren't going to receive any power because they don't have the outreach or the ability to gain as much traction; a wasted vote.  so, if you want to get the guy you absolutely despise out of office, what's your best option? 

as for voting for someone who you don't fully agree with solely for nullifying  another person's vote?  good.  that person whose vote i nullified wanted me and my loved ones dead anyways.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> you can vote for someone to get someone out.  every single motive for voting doesn't have to go towards "i like this person".  in a system as well which only promotes two parties having a given power, you're either choosing in between one or the other.  those third party candidates aren't going to receive any power because they don't have the outreach or the ability to gain as much traction; a wasted vote.  so, if you want to get the guy you absolutely despise out of office, what's your best option?
> 
> as for voting for someone who you don't fully agree with solely for nullifying  another person's vote?  good.  that person whose vote i nullified wanted me and my loved ones dead anyways.


I didn’t say that you can’t. I said that you shouldn’t.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I didn’t say that you can’t. I said that you shouldn’t.


your judgment is already pretty warped, so i don't really care about what you think i should or should not do.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> your judgment is already pretty warped, so i don't really care about what you think i should or should not do.


You don’t have to care, so long as you remember and accept that you voted for this.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You don’t have to care, so long as you remember and accept that you voted for this.


i love how many times i pointed out to you and the short bus geezer that i didn't and neither of you cared to listen.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> i love how many times i pointed out to you and the short bus geezer that i didn't and neither of you cared to listen.


I wasn’t talking specifically about Biden (which is what I assume you’re implying) - I used him as an example. We’re discussing a hypothetical scenario of voting for a politician whom you don’t actually support - stay on track. If you successfully vote in a politician and he proceeds to enact policies you didn’t support in the first place, you voted for this, you get what you deserve and it’s your fault. Maxima culpa.

As for your phrasing, I don’t know whom you speak of, but you should probably revise your word choice.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I wasn’t talking specifically about Biden (which is what I assume you’re implying). We’re discussing a hypothetical scenario of voting for a politician whom you don’t actually support - stay on track. If you successfully vote in a politician and he proceeds to enact policies you didn’t support in the first place, you voted for this, you get what you deserve and it’s your fault. Maxima culpa.
> 
> As for your phrasing, I don’t know whom you speak of, but you should probably revise your word choice.


you act as if everyone has the choice of politician that they want and can just vote in a direction in which will allow them to get the maximum benefits from their given politician, institutions which overpower us all be damned.  even not voting is the act of being culpable and it being everyone's fault, according to you, who has shown nothing to me but a holier-than-thou attitude towards everything.  as a moderator, you also make some sort of grand claim to ethics when it's clear that there are many members here who outrank you in the category due to your unwarranted arrogance.  earned through what again?

also, do your best not to threaten me.  i know it's hard when you're being challenged to not think of using your almighty "power" bestowed upon you to silence whoever manages to hit a nerve with you, as you've done before.  but make the consideration to tone it back a bit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> you act as if everyone has the choice of politician that they want and can just vote in a direction in which will allow them to get the maximum benefits from their given politician, institutions which overpower us all be damned.  even not voting is the act of being culpable and it being everyone's fault, according to you, who has shown nothing to me but a holier-than-thou attitude towards everything.  as a moderator, you also make some sort of grand claim to ethics when it's clear that there are many members here who outrank you in the category due to your unwarranted arrogance.  earned through what again?
> 
> also, do your best not to threaten me.  i know it's hard when you're being challenged to not think of using your almighty "power" bestowed upon you to silence whoever manages to hit a nerve with you, as you've done before.  but make the consideration to tone it back a bit.


Not everyone has a choice of a politician that represents their values, or at least matches them closely enough to warrant some concessions. Those voters can choose to abstain if they don’t want to feel regret once their decisions, and their negative consequences, catch up with them, which they always do. They can also vote for a third party candidate, who admittedly will have a lower chance of success, but at the very least the vote will be honest.

I issued no threat - my function on this site is to enforce our terms of service and community standards to the best of my ability. You’ve been recently reintroduced to them, and presumably learned that we do not permit flaming other users of the forum. As such, it is perfectly reasonable for me to take issue with what you call other users of the board. Once again, you weren’t very specific, but that’s a thin, weak defense - if you intend to use the forums, you will abide by the rules. I am by no means almighty, and I don’t *like* penalising users. I only do so when my hand is forced, so you make the consideration to revise your netiquette in order to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Nobody is being silenced here. You’re welcome to have an opinion, and to express it however you please, so long as you do so politely and in accordance to community standards. Had that not been the case, you wouldn’t be here, talking with me.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Not everyone has a choice of a politician that represents their values, or at least matches them closely enough to warrant some concessions. Those voters can choose to abstain if they don’t want to feel regret once their decisions, and their negative consequences, catch up with them, which they always do. They can also vote for a third party candidate, who admittedly will have a lower chance of success, but at the very least the vote will be honest.
> 
> I issued no threat - my function on this site is to enforce our terms of service and community standards to the best of my ability. You’ve been recently reintroduced to them, and presumably learned that we do not permit flaming other users of the forum. As such, it is perfectly reasonable for me to take issue with what you call other users of the board. Once again, you weren’t very specific, but that’s a thin, weak defense - if you intend to use the forums, you will abide by the rules. I am by no means almighty, and I don’t *like* penalising users. I only do so when my hand is forced, so you make the consideration to revise your netiquette in order to ensure that doesn’t happen.
> 
> Nobody is being silenced here. You’re welcome to have an opinion, and to express it however you please, so long as you do so politely and in accordance to community standards. Had that not been the case, you wouldn’t be here, talking with me.


you have a habit of only making those enforcements upon some members as opposed to others.  there's been some super racist shit spouted off in other threads you've gladly turned a blind eye to.  i think you are protecting people who don't need it nor asked for it.  you claim to not like using that power; your actions disagree with your words.

also, you're saying all should abstain from participating in the democratic process if they do not fit your narrow modus operandi for voting; the democratic process is based on people expressing their voice with what little they're given.  thus, their responsibility lies within their intentions of their vote.  if i voted to get someone out of office, that is all i will take responsibility for.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> you have a habit of only making those enforcements upon some members as opposed to others.  there's been some super racist shit spouted off in other threads you've gladly turned a blind eye to.  i think you are protecting people who don't need it nor asked for it.  you claim to not like using that power; your actions disagree with your words.
> 
> also, you're saying all should abstain from participating in the democratic process if they do not fit your narrow modus operandi for voting; the democratic process is based on people expressing their voice with what little they're given.  thus, their responsibility lies within their intentions of their vote.  if i voted to get someone out of office, that is all i will take responsibility for.


I’m saying that people shouldn’t vote for things they don’t support because they’re effectively voting against their own interest, purely out of spite. If everybody voted according to what they believe as opposed to voting based on team colours, we’d have a better democracy, not a worse one - one that represents the will of the people, as opposed to their allegiances. Voting for an unpalatable candidate based solely on party affiliation can only be a crushing defeat or a Pyrrhic victory, never a success. That’s what I believe - you don’t have to do as I say, but consider it. Thinking does us well - we should always ingest viewpoints that are contrary to our own.

I don’t know what posts you’re referring to specifically, but as I mentioned before, I am not almighty. You’re mistaking a janitor for a God - I just clean the hallways here. If you find something objectionable, report it so that it’s highlighted for the team - we don’t read every single post.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m saying that people shouldn’t vote for things they don’t support because they’re effectively voting against their own interest, purely out of spite. If everybody voted according to what they believe as opposed to voting based on team colours, we’d have a better democracy, not a worse one - one that represents the will of the people, as opposed to their allegiances. Voting for an unpalatable candidate based solely on party affiliation can only be a crushing defeat or a Pyrrhic victory, never a success. That’s what I believe - you don’t have to do as I say, but consider it. Thinking does us well - we should always ingest viewpoints that are contrary to our own.
> 
> I don’t know what posts you’re referring to specifically, but as I mentioned before, I am not almighty. You’re mistaking a janitor for a God - I just clean the hallways here. If you find something objectionable, report it so that it’s highlighted for the team - we don’t read every single post.


okay where you're coming from makes way more sense based on how you've presented it.  voting within our best interests is definitely the ideal.  wish it was that simple within the systems itself to make it work for us.

and fair enough.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 24, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> okay where you're coming from makes way more sense based on how you've presented it.  voting within our best interests is definitely the ideal.  wish it was that simple within the systems itself to make it work for us.
> 
> and fair enough.


Glad that we have an understanding. We reached it by having a pleasant discussion. Wink wink.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 25, 2022)

Someone called America a democracy.  Were they lying?


----------



## Nothereed (Dec 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s no such thing as a “lesser bad choice”.


Yes there is such a thing.
The United States due to a lack of rank choice voting makes people prioritize likely winnable candidates based not on policy but on funding, aka Republicans and Democrats are in effect, the only choice. Voting for what you actually wanted in our government could result in a situation where the worst case scenario happening, because you couldn't put a preference of who you like in order, just one selection.



	Post automatically merged: Dec 25, 2022

Aka, if I vote third party (first choice), who I know is likely going to loose. Then it puts at risk my second choice (democrats), since I am unable to vote for them. And enables the Republican party (last and most dislike option) to win because there's no ranked choice voting.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Yes there is such a thing.
> The United States due to a lack of rank choice voting makes people prioritize likely winnable candidates based not on policy but on funding, aka Republicans and Democrats are in effect, the only choice. Voting for what you actually wanted in our government could result in a situation where the worst case scenario happening, because you couldn't put a preference of who you like in order, just one selection.
> 
> 
> ...


We’ve explored that earlier, I already covered that scenario and provided my reasoning. The notion that you should settle for a mouldy sandwich because you might not get the chance to get proper lunch later is not the W you think it is - you’re eating a mouldy sandwich unprompted, with a smile on your face, and then act surprised when you get a stomach ache. In fact, you’re asking for that sandwich specifically, knowing ahead of time that it’s spoiled - who’s to blame for your resulting troubles if that’s what you picked for lunch? A choice between getting shot in the forehead or the back of the head is no choice at all. You might believe that you’ll be more presentable in the casket with a bullet hole in the back - I’m of the opinion that at that point you won’t care much, on account of being dead. If I’m going to get shot either way, I’d rather abstain altogether than accept responsibility for requesting to be shot - I don’t have to accept a false choice, I can choose to reject it altogether.

Your response exemplifies what I described earlier - voting based on team colours rather than based on whether or not you support the policies. This isn’t sports, it’s politics. If you elect representatives who espouse policies you disapprove of purely because they’re from a specific party, you’re actively supporting those policies against your own interest, and thus waive any right to complain when the consequences of your choice catch up to you - you voted for this, so you get what you deserve. You’re actively weakening democracy by giving your vote to politicians who don’t deserve it and lay the groundwork for laws that shouldn’t be enacted. You’re making things worse, not better - not only are you committing to a false choice, you’re propagating bad policies, creating the impression that they have widespread support when they don’t.

You can’t think one-dimensionally - it is better to lose a battle and win the war than to win every battle and get wiped out in the process. There is no point in victory when the prize is a barren wasteland - if what you’ve “won” is a hellscape then you’ve fought for nothing. Let’s assume your nightmare scenario, let’s say that your party loses time and time again because their candidates were awful - what then? Presumably, they’re going to push *different candidates*, hopefully ones that are progressively closer to who *you* would want to see nominated. The party will necessarily select nominees who are more electable and more closely match the will of their electorate, or it will perish. If they can win even when the candidates they push forward do not represent the sentiments of the people then there is no impetus for progress. They simply don’t have to change, policy ceases to matter because regardless of how awful it is, “sports fans” will vote based solely on the party alignment anyway. That’s a terrible way to run a country, and a complete failure of basic civics.

This is, in part, the hilarity of the American political dilemma. Everybody is tripping over themselves complaining that there are only two major parties and no viable third party candidates. Yeah, no kidding - none of you are willing to vote for them. You want to win *right now*, so your plight is self-inflicted and deserved. You settle for the “lesser evil”, so that’s what you get. You make your own bed - lay in it.


----------



## titan_tim (Dec 25, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Yeah, the FBI really screwed the pooch on that one. Even known pedophile Matt Gaetz somehow made a copy of the harddrive, so who knows who else has tampered with this so-called "laptop from hell". Nothing on that laptop will hold up in court as evidence now, even if it showed him poisoning the queen of england.


As long as the MD5 of the original image was verified with the original image, and the copies made matched that MD5, then the evidence should be fine.

But inside those images, if any of the metadata shows dates modified AFTER the laptop was last in the possession of Hunter, then the evidence would be considered unusable in court. It's super easy for forensic practitioners to check to see if any strange things have been done to a HDD.

That being said, if they've had this HDD image for this many years, and the worst things they can find is some lude pics, and a couple emails using vague language, it's basically admitting that they have nothing.


----------



## Nothereed (Dec 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Your response exemplifies what I described earlier - voting based on team colours rather than based on whether or not you support the policies. This isn’t sports, it’s politics. If you elect representatives who espouse policies you disapprove of purely because they’re from a specific party, you’re actively supporting those policies against your own interest, and thus waive any right to complain when the consequences of your choice catch up to you - you voted for this, so you get what you deserve. You’re actively weakening democracy by giving your vote to politicians who don’t deserve it and lay the groundwork for laws that shouldn’t be enacted. You’re making things worse, not better.


Alright foxi4. Let me draw up a scenario.

One party, let's call them party "X", says that killing a certain group of people is fine, that they deserve it.
Party "Y" provides lipservice to that group of people, and doesn't actively attempt to harm them nearly as much, but doesn't help their situation much.
And Party "Z", is actively against harming that group of people, and wants to aid them.

Party "X", and Party "Y" have the most funding, the most power in this system because of their finances, from large companies.
Party "Z" has little to no funding, and as a result, very little power. They are rarely seen in ads if at all. Unable to have a social media presence because of said lack of ads.

Objectively, Party Z is the correct choice. Harming that group of people for the sake of hate, is agreed that it's not good or right. And Objectively, Party X is wrong.

HOWEVER, because party X and party Y, have so much funding, that's the two choices people will end up deciding between.
Party X does a political campaign to fear monger about that certain group of people. And party Y does a bit of lipservice, and maybe some policy.

And people voting for Z, while objectively correct, is a throw away vote, unless you somehow manage to break those (visibility) odds, which is statistically unlikely. Not enough people will know that party Z exists. Or if they do know, aware that it's unlikely to win based on visibility.

People voting for Z, likely agree to a lesser extent with party Y. And absolutely do not like X.

It's in their interest not to hurt that certain group of people. But by putting that vote in, in a contested race, it hurts party Y, the people they secondly would agree with, and helps Party X, the party they absolutely don't like for their policy.


I'm talking politics and strategy. What actually happens in the real world specific to the United States. You can guess who is party x, party y, and what party z represents.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Alright foxi4. Let me draw up a scenario.
> 
> One party, let's call them party "X", says that killing a certain group of people is fine, that they deserve it.
> Party "Y" provides lipservice to that group of people, and doesn't actively attempt to harm them nearly as much, but doesn't help their situation much.
> ...


I addressed this above. Change takes time. If you want to start seeing viable choices, worthwhile third party candidates and the overall stabilisation of the political process, you must necessarily start voting accordingly, and propagate that view among your fellows. If you choose to vote for the “lesser evil” time and time again because it grants you short-term victory, you will only ever get to vote for evil, and you’ll only ever get bad outcomes. You can’t change the world single-handedly, but you can choose not to partake in evil - that is my personal preference. You can prefer to win every battle no matter the cost, but you must accept the consequences, however infinitesimally small your contribution was. You can’t repeatedly complain about only having “bad choices” when all you’re voting for is “bad choices” - you’re getting what you voted for.


----------



## phil3254 (Dec 25, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> I predict that nothing will come from this just as nothing has came from the Epstein Case, Ray Epps, or anything else of importance, though I hope I am wrong.



^ nough said exactly this ^ 100%


----------



## Nothereed (Dec 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> addressed this above.


You did not at all, you made the claim that it was for "teams"
Don't go trying to make yourself look good here as if you actually addressed what I said.
Most people would agree with party Z, but they don't even know it's an option because of money in politics. What your saying now is extremely superfluous, an absolute nothing burger. 


Foxi4 said:


> This is, in part, the hilarity of the American political dilemma. Everybody is tripping over themselves complaining that there are only two major parties and no viable third party candidates. Yeah, no kidding - none of you are willing to vote for them. You want to win *right now*, so your plight is self-inflicted and deserved. You settle for the “lesser evil”, so that’s what you get. You make your own bed - lay in it.


You laugh at it, but you don't seem to grasp the issue of not being able to vote based on ranked choice. Nor how fundamentally broken the system is over here, or the scale.

It's not that the third parties are not viable. It's that they have no visibility. You cannot vote on what you cannot see.


----------



## lokomelo (Dec 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Someone called America a democracy.  Were they lying?


Democracy yes, not the most democratic, not the "lighthouse of democracy", but USA still is way above the average.

Now, there is a fracture opening in the American society. This can break democracy badly if not managed in time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You did not at all, you made the claim that it was for "teams"
> Don't go trying to make yourself look good here as if you actually addressed what I said.
> Most people would agree with party Z, but they don't even know it's an option because of money in politics. What your saying now is extremely superfluous, an absolute nothing burger.


Patience is a very effective strategy. If you support Party A, but Party B has a better candidate with a lower chance of success, and you absolutely must vote, you have two choices - vote for A’s candidate and their bad policies or vote for B’s and support theirs in spite of worse odds. If Party A, your preferred one, loses based on that premise, they would be foolish not to look at the result and realise that Party B’s candidate offered something that was more compelling to the electorate, and they must necessarily adjust accordingly. You think about winning an election, like a sports fan - you should be thinking about the good of the country, and its long-term success. That’s what I addressed, and that’s what I maintain. If you abstain altogether, you also send a message - that message is that the party failed to provide a compelling option and must necessarily change course. That’s how democracy is *supposed* to work.

I don’t see what’s so confusing here. Let’s take a policy-based example instead. You have two parties, the Party of Starving Elderly and the Party of Starving Children. You can choose between one or the other based on your sensibilities, but ultimately you are accepting the premise that one of these groups is going to starve. What you should be doing is rejecting the premise. Yes, you might face some short-term hardship, but you would be making steps towards the realisation of the Non-starvation Party by making both “bad choices” less electable. By doing so you are signifying that starvation is not a serious proposition and we should probably look elsewhere for solutions. By choosing between the two evils you are tacitly supporting one or the other, when the correct choice is to reject them outright. You don’t get to save the children *and* complain about grandma when you voted for grandma to starve - you made your decision at the ballot box.


Nothereed said:


> You laugh at it, but you don't seem to grasp the issue of not being able to vote based on ranked choice. Nor how fundamentally broken the system is over here, or the scale.
> 
> It's not that the third parties are not viable. It's that they have no visibility. You cannot vote on what you cannot see.


Ranked voting will improve the odds of third party candidates, but it will not improve the candidates themselves as quickly or effectively as voting based on policy alone. The system is broken because people like you broke it by voting for evils, debating which ones are greater or lesser. You won’t get good outcomes if you keep voting for bad choices. Ranked-based voting without a fundamental change of voting patterns merely allows you to select multiple bad choices ranked from bad to worst. The ranking, by its very nature, will provide *some* insight as far as the electorate’s sensibilities are concerned, but if people continue to vote based on odds of success and team colours, relegating principles to secondary choices, those choices will remain secondary forever. Any vote that isn’t firmly based in principle is a dishonest one, and one not worth casting. Don’t get me wrong - ranked-based voting would be *better*, but it doesn’t address the fundamental problem of treating politics as a team sport - that’s a societal issue, not a process issue.

Let me demonstrate - you’re in a rank-based system and your party has three candidates, A, B and C, with C having the highest odds of success and A having your actual support. You naturally put A at the top of your list, you put B in the middle since you don’t care and leave C last, because worst-case scenario your vote will trickle down to an option you didn’t want, but one that you still consider to be better than the opposition’s D, E or F. Unsurprisingly, C wins, and you contributed to that victory. If you want to vote earnestly, C shouldn’t be on your list at all - you don’t support C. If anything, B is your fallback because it represents stagnation, but even then you’re choosing nothing since stagnation in a poor state of affairs is no different than slow death. Do you get my point? Vote for what you believe in, that’s how it’s meant to work.


----------



## Nothereed (Dec 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> word vomit


Nothing of what you said relates to what I said.


Nothereed said:


> Most people would agree with party Z,* but they don't even know it's an option because of money in politics.* What your saying now is extremely superfluous, an absolute nothing burger.





Nothereed said:


> And people voting for Z, while objectively correct, is a throw away vote*, unless you somehow manage to break those (visibility) odds, which is statistically unlikely.* Not enough people will know that party Z exists. Or if they do know, aware that it's unlikely to win based on visibility.





Nothereed said:


> It's not that the third parties are not viable. It's that they have no visibility. You cannot vote on what you cannot see.




I explicitly state visibility for a reason. I didn't say viability.


There's a deeper core issue that your just blatantly prancing around, and I am not having it. I'm going to enjoy the rest of my night with my roomate playing divinity.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Nothing of what you said relates to what I said.
> 
> I explicitly state visibility for a reason. I didn't say viability.


See edit above, particularly the final paragraph. Rank-based voting is a band-aid solution that would moderately improve the situation, but would not address the core issue with how people vote. Visibility is important, but money in politics (since at the end of the day, money is what buys you visibility) is a separate problem, one that deserves more in-depth discussion. Your visibility problem boils down to settling for the devil you know as opposed to taking a risk and choosing the alternative, which isn’t much better. Arguably, it’s worse than abstaining due to the aforementioned tacit endorsement of bad policy as a “lesser of two evils”. You yourself stated that if people (knowingly or unknowingly) vote for a candidate that is less likely to win, they’re “wasting a vote”, no?


“Nothereed said:


> (…) people voting for Z, while *objectively correct*, is a *throw away vote*, unless you somehow manage to break those (visibility) odds, which is statistically unlikely. Not enough people will know that party Z exists. Or if they do know, aware that *it's unlikely to win based on visibility.*


Once that reasoning enters your calculus, the decision becomes viability-based. You’re even arguing with yourself about it:


Nothereed said:


> It's not that the third parties are not viable.


Either you consider them “unlikely to win”, and thus less viable, or you don’t, so which is it? I accept the odds, but I’m not voting on odds because I’m not at a bookie picking a horse, I’m at the ballot box and I’m voting for politicians. Is it politics or is it sports to you? You have to make that decision for yourself.

We both know the answer as far as you’re concerned because you’ve already stated it. You called those votes “throw away”, not me - that’s a viability judgement, even if it is based on perceived visibility. Improving visibility of third party candidates is important, yes, but they won’t become more viable *or* more visible if you don’t vote for them and support them. That’s what grants both in subsequent elections, purely based on (gradually) improving results, which in turn leads to more funding. A third party candidate with a wellspring of grassroots support would be the talk of the town, how is that not improving the image of their party and their policies, even if they do ultimately lose?

Not only that, you frame the entire process in the context of winning and losing, like a sport, as opposed to considering the long-term consequences. You want a victory now, not prosperity tomorrow - that’s short-sighted. Unless the circumstances are truly grim, the justification for desperate measures is weak - there will be another day, another election and another set of candidates. I’d rather have better ones next time instead of more of the same, or worse yet, significantly degraded choices. You consider such votes to be “wasted” because they’re for a candidate that didn’t win - I don’t. In the long term, it’s those votes that show support for a different approach, and that has long-term effects on the political climate - that’s what changes the zeitgeist, not voting for the old stand-bys. I will happily be, in your words, “objectively correct” and lose than be a victorious fool who’s cutting off their nose to spite their face.


Nothereed said:


> There's a deeper core issue that your just blatantly prancing around, and I am not having it.


I did my best to explain my point. I fully understand the issue, I simply refuse to settle for bad choices - it’s a principled stance, one that I will always stubbornly stick to. Voting for a bad choice can only have bad outcomes, I’d rather retain integrity than choose against my own interest. I consider the problem to be, for the most part, self-inflicted.


Nothereed said:


> I'm going to enjoy the rest of my night with my roomate playing divinity.


Divinity is dope, which one? Original Sin 2 is the bomb, buckets of fun. Enjoy!


----------



## tabzer (Dec 25, 2022)

If you keep voting for the uni-party war machine, the uni-party war machine is what you get.  You literally campaign for it and actively work against "3rd parties", which means you are doing more damage than by doing nothing at all.

You are whining about how your democracy is forcing you to vote for garbage and trying to convince others to be pathetic like you.

This applies mainly to @Nothereed  and also @Xzi as well.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The laptop has anything and everything you could possibly want to be on it, on it.  It's a conservative Pandora's box of wonders.  In other words, about as real as Santa Claus in most cases.  There's no guarantee the laptop is real, that all the data belongs to the same computer, and even if it is/does, that it actually belongs to Hunter Biden.  He'd be in cuffs already for child pornography if he could realistically be connected to what they accuse him of, president's son or not.  Instead _they're_ the ones constantly milling through kiddie porn, as rage bait or for...other reasons.  _/shudder_


This. Like, you've gotta be a lobotomite if you think that Hunter's gonna just drop a laptop with shit like that casually for some conveniently Trump loving cultist to find, start snooping on, and so on. At some point the story has to be too contrived for you to buy. The only reason anyone is believing this nonsense is explicitly because they have political motivations to believe it, not because they actually care if it's real or not. It's all theater.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 25, 2022



CommanderCool said:


> is it a criteria to love biden if the right deems you a leftist?  cause i really don't care for biden at all yet i get called a leftist for so much as saying trump is a poopy doo doo butt


Yeah that's what I'm saying. I hated the guy for being a cop, he's just better than Trump. I'll take an inept dipshit over an inept fascist dipshit any day of the week lmfao


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 25, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> This. Like, you've gotta be a lobotomite if you think that Hunter's gonna just drop a laptop with shit like that casually for some conveniently Trump loving cultist to find, start snooping on, and so on. At some point the story has to be too contrived for you to buy. The only reason anyone is believing this nonsense is explicitly because they have political motivations to believe it, not because they actually care if it's real or not. It's all theater.


You’re trying to give reasonable doubt to a crackhead. The public has no reason to trust the government or alphabet agencies, both have long histories of concealing information that is of public interest, not to mention the propensity for shielding their own. I’m of the position that we won’t know if anything important was on that drive until it’s irrelevant.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re trying to give reasonable doubt to a crackhead. The public has no reason to trust the government or alphabet agencies, both have long histories of concealing information that is of public interest, not to mention the propensity for shielding their own. I’m of the position that we won’t know if anything important was on that drive until it’s irrelevant.


Partisans need not reply to my post, sorry champ.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 25, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Partisans need not reply to my post, sorry champ.


You voted for Biden and you spend every day here rationalizing it, claiming that the person who lacks faith is the partisan.  How much of a moron are you?   Opposite day was over 15 years ago.  Grow up.


----------



## RetroGen (Dec 26, 2022)

This thread should be required study for political scientists and sociologists as a prime example of right-wing rationalization/fallacious false equivalence/apologetics.  The motivated reasoning on display is remarkable.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 26, 2022)

RetroGen said:


> This thread should be required study for political scientists and sociologists as a prime example of right-wing rationalization/fallacious false equivalence/apologetics.  The motivated reasoning on display is remarkable.


It's why taking the piss is the best and funniest option.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Partisans need not reply to my post, sorry champ.


What’s partisan about it? It’s historical fact. The government lies to its citizens regardless of political persuasion, particularly if it’s expedient at any given time. It lied to patients in Tuskegee, it lied to you about Vietnam and Iraq, it lied about mass surveillance of the NSA, why would anyone trust it unconditionally and without proof? As for Hunter being a crackhead, well, that’s just a statement of fact - he was a crackhead at the time and crackheads do crackhead things. If you disagree, I suggest trying to reason with one. Should you wish to attempt this, I also suggest wearing a knife-proof vest and keeping a safe distance… on account of dealing with a crackhead. They’re rather unpredictable.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What’s partisan about it? It’s historical fact. The government lies to its citizens regardless of political persuasion, particularly if it’s expedient at any given time. It lied to patients in Tuskegee, it lied to you about Vietnam and Iraq, it lied about mass surveillance of the NSA, why would anyone trust it unconditionally and without proof? As for Hunter being a crackhead, well, that’s just a statement of fact - he was a crackhead at the time and crackheads do crackhead things. If you disagree, I suggest trying to reason with one. Should you wish to attempt this, I also suggest wearing a knife-proof vest and keeping a safe distance… on account of dealing with a crackhead. They’re rather unpredictable.


You will notice in your fanfiction about what I said that you are under the assumption that I said I trusted Biden's word. I just said that the other guy's story is nonsense and that anyone who believes it only does so out of politically motivated reasons, not because there's a shred of truth to it. If looking intelligent (rather than being intelligent lol) is so important to you, you should question stories like this a bit more first.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> You will notice in your fanfiction about what I said that you are under the assumption that I said I trusted Biden's word. I just said that the other guy's story is nonsense and that anyone who believes it only does so out of politically motivated reasons, not because there's a shred of truth to it. If looking intelligent (rather than being intelligent lol) is so important to you, you should question stories like this a bit more first.


You will note that I said “we won’t know what’s on the drive until it’s irrelevant” - that implies we don’t have the whole story. I don’t “trust” anyone who can’t provide proof. Since private pictures of Hunter have been demonstrated and the e-mail exchanges were verified by the Washington Post as well as the New York Times, I have no reason to believe that the laptop “doesn’t exist” - they didn’t just materialise out of the aether, and by all accounts they appear authentic. Moreover, I believe the drive was handed in to law enforcement, and the FBI isn’t in the business of confiscating fictional devices. I don’t know what else is on it because I don’t have it - I can’t verify anything that I can’t see, so I distrust those elements of the story. I hope that’s a satisfactory clarification.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 26, 2022)

*Mod snip - reply to a deleted post*

The guy has been demonstrably pandering to one side exclusively lmfao. There's not a single word coming from his mouth on any topic that's worth a shit. Every party in the world has been allowed to use twitter to have information obtained either by hacking, or things like revenge porn taken down. This is not 1984 shit like lolbertarians think it is.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 26, 2022)

cool.  consensus reached.


----------



## Mythrandir (Dec 27, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> The guy has been demonstrably pandering to one side exclusively lmfao.


Are you sure?

*Mod snip - conspiracy theory website*

Edit:
The censored image and webpage I grabbed it from contained the following:


Spoiler




*Carbon Tax*​
*Universal Basic Income*​
*Coronavirus Vaccine*​
*Transhumanism*​
*One World Government*​



It seems to me that Elon Musk is playing both "sides" much like Donald Trump (Operation Warp Speed and CARES Act). This is why some people claim that the Republican Party and prominent conservative puppets pundits, like Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, and the late Rush Limbaugh, merely play(ed) the role of controlled opposition in a Hegelian dialectic model. This is especially evident when looking at narratives through a biblical lens rather than a partisan lens. Rather than the dialectic be right vs left, it is then Christ vs antichrist. This seems to be much more useful because the right vs left dialectic is subjective. While I would be considered a right wing conservative in the US, I would be a left wing liberal in Iran, China, and North Korea. This is not the case when using the Christ vs antichrist dialectic. I remain a biblical Christian regardless of time and geographical location (temporal qualifications). The lack of objectivity and dependence upon temporal prerequisites renders the right vs left dialectic useless. It is also relatively young compared to the Christ vs antichrist dialectic of the 1st century because its origin is in the French Revolution of the late 18th century.

*Mod Snip - conspiracy theory videos*

Edit: Alright, uncondensed primary source information it is.

You will find the following primary sources informative:

The above censored videos discuss content from the following texts:
_Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes_ by Jacques Ellul
_Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man_ by Marshall McLuhan
_Revolution: an Introduction to the Art and Science of Worldview Warfare_ by Donald Oliver Davis

One of the videos also discussed a video panel discussion concerning the psychological operations division in the US Army, which I am unable to locate at this time. Below is general information on this Psy-Op division.
https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/specialty-careers/special-ops/psychological-operations.html

Below is a podcast that features the same Col. Jeremy Mushtare appearing in the video panel shown in the above censored video.
https://information-professionals.org/episode/cognitive-crucible-episode-28/


----------



## TraderPatTX (Dec 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Maybe when people are presented with two terrible choices, they end up picking the lesser of the two bad choices? and that clearly people thought that Biden was a better choice than Trump? It doesn't mean people voted him because it was a good pick. More so, because it wasn't Trump.


Thanks for the open border and 15% inflation. At least we don't have any mean tweets though, amirite?


----------

