First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply How The Leftists Are Conspiring To Silence Conservatives
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/25/17

octorockandroll wrote:


ran76 wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


ran76 wrote:

Infowars is not a reliable source for anything. Hell, they think Logan is a anti-Trump movie because one of the villains is named Donald. Nevermind the fact the character has been around for nearly 40 years. It's like the BS Romney/Bane thing Rush tried to start a few years ago.


Lol what? Not even they can be that stupid... Right?


See for yourself.
https://www.infowars.com/logan-the-anti-trump-movie/



What the actual fuck? Someone please get a psychologist to psychoanalyse this guy, because I think he may need to be committed.


It's almost like the guy didn't actually watch the movie. It's like he ignored the part where these kids would have been murdered if they stayed in Mexico.

I just remembered another, semi-recent, conservative bitch-fit over comics. Tucker Carlson had complained about an early issue of Captain America - Sam Wilson where Sam took on a group called The Sons of the Serpent that were acting like the real world "Minute Man Project" in the southwest. The problem is Tucker and co didn't do any research since the Sons are basically Marvel's version of the KKK and has been around since the 60s. He also conveniently left out the part where the Sons were kidnapping and selling people for illegal experiments.
22272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 3/25/17

lorreen wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:

Edit::
Holy crap, you guys have some extensive quote pyramids going on - to the point that some of you are forgetting where to add the quote BB code to make sure it breaks down into pyramids. Can we try to keep quotes down to around two sub-quotes per comment? It starts getting really messy and convoluted after that. More so, for those who aren't closing tags properly - it makes it slightly more difficult to read your "additional" comment post-quote.


I think I've fixed them all. I don't understand how people past the first error keep quoting without noticing or caring that the attributions are all messed up. As you say, it would be less likely to happen if folks kept things simple--by just cutting out everything except the most recent post they are responding to. At least that way even if there was an unnoticed error at some point, it wouldn't keep getting repeated.


So that is the cause of the glitch?!

I thought we had to wait and refresh the page!
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17

ran76 wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

What the actual fuck? Someone please get a psychologist to psychoanalyse this guy, because I think he may need to be committed.


It's almost like the guy didn't actually watch the movie. It's like he ignored the part where these kids would have been murdered if they stayed in Mexico.

I just remembered another, semi-recent, conservative bitch-fit over comics. Tucker Carlson had complained about an early issue of Captain America - Sam Wilson where Sam took on a group called The Sons of the Serpent that were acting like the real world "Minute Man Project" in the southwest. The problem is Tucker and co didn't do any research since the Sons are basically Marvel's version of the KKK and has been around since the 60s. He also conveniently left out the part where the Sons were kidnapping and selling people for illegal experiments.


I don't know what's funnier. The level of acting like they know comics without even doing so much as a wikipedia read that's on par with even Amyas "Boxer" Leigh or the fact that OP uses these people's word as supporting evidence for why others are trying to silence them through falsehood and slander.
21712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 3/25/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:
I probably used the wrong name of the feature or filter, but this hasn't gone live, yet. This is something that's coming down the line in a few days or a few weeks. It hasn't gone live, yet.


I have not heard of this, nor can I find anything about any upcoming censorship, even on Wikipedia. If anything, this does appear to be about restricted mode, and it is live, as it always has been for years.



I was just scrolling thru this thread and had to comment to you lol
taking out whether or not this particular program will be censoring, do you REALLY think sites are just gonna up and say "they will censor us" no it will simply happen

Ejanss 
16457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

The tool for debating those that leftists disagree with, is the silencing of conservatives. Silencing, whether it be by banning people from forums, for the tiniest infractions just to shut them up, or by slander, or by character assassination, or by twisting the words of those who argue their conservative ideals out of context, or even by derailing their posts, by making off topic posts, in the end are all the tactics of silencing.


Let's get back to the first post, and be honest, here:
The thread may be about knee-jerk reactions to the YT restrictions on all questionable content (which mistake has already been cleared up at length), but darn, if that first paragraph sure doesn't sound like it's "really" about US picking on YOU, doesn't it?

("There's an Internet-wide conspiracy, started by the Obama supporters, to make Conservatives look lonely, desperate, persecution-complexed, and attention-seeking, and hoping to change the national agenda by telling everyone they're idiots!...I've witnessed this firsthand!")
39155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/26/17
So far, only a few people actually addressed the topic at hand. The rest of you proved my point by attacking me, and presenting those attacks as all the argument that you need, and as such dismissed what I presented.

That's no argument. That's just what I said it was. You ignore the topic, and just go to insults and dismissals, and character assassination.
28489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 3/25/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

So far, only a few people actually addressed the topic at hand. The rest of you proved my point by attacking me, and presenting those attacks as all the argument that you need, and as such dismissed what I presented.

That's no argument. That's just what I said it was. You ignore the topic, and just go to insults and dismissals, and character assassination.


To be fair when you make up fake conspiracies it's only natural people will attack you.
Not saying they should be but this is how you ask for it
271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Ypsilanti, Michigan
Offline
Posted 3/25/17
Your right DeadlyOats, there is a lot of that going on. But note: if someone's argument is character assassination, their opinion isn't probably worth much. Generalization, but mostly true.

But I disagree, this is not an example of censorship. There has been examples in the past, but this one is not. I have seen no evidence of the system targeting one particular kind of video.
Posted 3/26/17
After reading thru the comments of this thread i was left with a wtf?

-Oats is correct about the instant attacks in a matter of starting i was asking myself should i even post..
and on the topic i don't see any change coming anytime soon ok peeps have a wonderful day.
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:

So far, only a few people actually addressed the topic at hand. The rest of you proved my point by attacking me, and presenting those attacks as all the argument that you need, and as such dismissed what I presented.

That's no argument. That's just what I said it was. You ignore the topic, and just go to insults and dismissals, and character assassination.


To be fair when you make up fake conspiracies it's only natural people will attack you.
Not saying they should be but this is how you ask for it :P


And that's before you get into the fact that most of us have at one point or another disproven shit DeadlyOats says through evidence and logic only for him to go even farther off the deep end and post whatever crazy nut's youtube video will support his worthless lies no matter how embarrassingly non credible it is. Dude claims anything as fact as long as it fits his little fantasy narrative, just look at his above posts where he implies anyone who disagrees with him is "the left". If he wants people to present actual arguments then he shouldn't discourage everyone from doing so by saying demonstrably false things and denying facts when people call him out for lying. That's not an "attack" that's not "character assasination" it's just the truth.

6580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/26/17
i don't think its specifically a issue of conservatives being targeted but more a issue of authoritarianism in general
Ejanss 
16457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17

kata89 wrote:

Your right DeadlyOats, there is a lot of that going on. But note: if someone's argument is character assassination, their opinion isn't probably worth much. Generalization, but mostly true.


Well, as we saw, those that did over-generously try to indulge Oats' "conspiracy" said, "It's not happening, because you got it wrong--HERE'S the evidence why you got it wrong, and here's some personal theories from our long experience with you about why you were so eager to get it wrong. Thanks for playing, please accept these lovely parting gifts, and in the name of sanity, please part with them."

As you can see, there's not really much elsewhere to go for an encore after the first half of the response, and Oats seems to be more interested in pursuing the second half.
Which, in keeping with the current Trump administration and its reaction to factual errata, is not being "silenced" or "censored", it's being Publicly Butthurt.

For all the current administration's misinformed complaints about their "First Amendment" rights, our Constitution does allow the owners of media to control their content, in whatever form they find it unacceptable.
Outside of media ownership, it also allows private citizens to publicly call other private citizens gibbering idiots. Particularly if evidence can demonstrate that they ARE.
271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Ypsilanti, Michigan
Offline
Posted 3/26/17

dragonlord1234 wrote:

i don't think its specifically a issue of conservatives being targeted but more a issue of authoritarianism in general


Do I got a fellow libertarian here?


Ejanss wrote:


kata89 wrote:

Your right DeadlyOats, there is a lot of that going on. But note: if someone's argument is character assassination, their opinion isn't probably worth much. Generalization, but mostly true.


Well, as we saw, those that did over-generously try to indulge Oats' "conspiracy" said, "It's not happening, because you got it wrong--HERE'S the evidence why you got it wrong, and here's some personal theories from our long experience with you about why you were so eager to get it wrong. Thanks for playing, please accept these lovely parting gifts, and in the name of sanity, please part with them."

As you can see, there's not really much elsewhere to go for an encore after the first half of the response, and Oats seems to be more interested in pursuing the second half.
Which, in keeping with the current Trump administration and its reaction to factual errata, is not being "silenced" or "censored", it's being Publicly Butthurt.

For all the current administration's misinformed complaints about their "First Amendment" rights, our Constitution does allow private citizens to call other private citizens gibbering idiots. Particularly if evidence can demonstrate that they ARE.

(To clarify I agree that this is not censorship, shoulda said that in my post)
You are definitely right. My point was simply through the kind of argument which is all to commpn. The argument of name calling, generalizing and the throwing around buzzwords. These arguments are not arguments, more as punches to avoid discussion. And I'm not saying most replies have been that, but I have seen a few here. Heck, one of the reasons I have concluded it is not censorship was from reading the various responses.

My only point is to avoid identity politics.

Ejanss 
16457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17

kata89 wrote:
My only point is to avoid identity politics.


When Oats says "You're JUST NOT continuing the debate, and just making jokes instead", he's mistaking the frustration of his own personal debatus interruptus, in that his Big Conspiracy turned out to be just grabbing the wrong end of the stick--from one goofy YT'er grabbing part of a headline--and beating the forum with it, for "silencing and censoring" in Obama and/or Hillary's scheming pocket, and/or everyone else being a meanie and beating up on him in general.
Like Trump defending his "inside sources" to the end, Oats will say no bad word that besmirches the honor or integrity of a favorite YouTube clip--In both cases, preferably if it said something they wanted to hear.

He's fallen back on the Conservatives' persecution-complex paranoia that The World Is Biased Against Them, but there's only so far you can pursue that line with scare topics until somebody brings up whether or not the source facts were wrong. And if so, it just comes down to being butthurt, and a tantrum is a tantrum, is a tantrum.

"This biased education site refused to admit that 2 + 2 = 5!"
"It's four."
"Liberalization is creeping into an increasingly state-run education!"
"It's four."
"The media hasn't reported on this! They want to keep that state-run control on the views our children are taught!"
"It's FOUR."
"Why does everyone refuse to admit this is a deliberate attempt in fear of China, and the Asian countries' superior test scores and educational system?"
"IT'S FREAKIN' FOUR!!!"

271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Ypsilanti, Michigan
Offline
Posted 3/26/17

Ejanss wrote:


kata89 wrote:
My only point is to avoid identity politics.


When Oats says "You're JUST NOT continuing the debate, and just making jokes instead", he's mistaking the frustration of his own personal debatus interruptus, in that his Big Conspiracy turned out to be just grabbing the wrong end of the stick--from one goofy YT'er grabbing part of a headline--and beating the forum with it, for "silencing and censoring" in Obama and/or Hillary's scheming pocket, and/or everyone else being a meanie and beating up on him in general.

He's fallen back on the Conservatives' persecution-complex paranoia that The World Is Biased Against Them, but there's only so far you can pursue that line with scare topics until somebody brings up whether or not the facts were wrong. And if so, it just comes down to being butthurt, and a tantrum is a tantrum, is a tantrum.

"This biased education site refused to admit that 2 + 2 = 5!"
"It's four."
"Liberalization is creeping into an increasingly state-run education!"
"It's four."
"The media hasn't reported on this! They want to keep that state-run control on the views our children are taught!"
"It's FOUR."
"Is this a deliberate attempt in fear of China, and the Asian countries' superior test scores and educational system?"
"IT'S FREAKIN' FOUR!!!"





Well, moving away from oats cos I agree with you on that...
When you said "conservatives persecution paranoia" is kinda unfair. Not all conservatives do that, much like not all liberals are the crazy "snowflake" types...

No one fits perfectly into one category. I personally allign to libertarian and classical liberal philosophy. I also have some anarchist and modern liberal thought I agree with as well -all of which make up my own, personal, opinion.

To then label me as falling on one side, and then using generalized arguments with the intention of denouncing the legitimacy of character isn't adding to discussion; it only makes the discussion turn to an argument.

Tremendous respect for ya though, I don't want you to think I'm critisizing you or disagreeing, I'm just expressing a point I wish for more people to follow when discussing heavy topics online.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.