Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why censorship is practiced on social media.


Hawken

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

Either argue honestly or go away.

Sometimes I think he does it on purpose, sometimes I think he legitimately doesn't realise he's misrepresenting people (he does it to me too, sometimes I read his post and think "how the hell did you get THAT from my post")! Either way it's not likely to change any time soon. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Sometimes I think he does it on purpose, sometimes I think he legitimately doesn't realise he's misrepresenting people (he does it to me too, sometimes I read his post and think "how the hell did you get THAT from my post")! Either way it's not likely to change any time soon. 

But what's Paul Barry think? :lol:

If you want to talk about me start a thread on me. I'm not the topic. Sucking up to another right wing libertarian isn't on topic either. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

A gun is an unfair advantage. An unfair advantage is for cowards. 

23 hours ago, OverSword said:

Some lout forcing a fight on an unwilling victim deserve to have whatever bad thing happens to them

 

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

By allowing hate groups to permeate public spaces to preach hate and in some cases incite violence. 

If you feel Nazis have a place in the public space go stand with them. The majority of us are more than happy to let you all know what we think of your preference to bleed hate and potential threats into public spaces. 

I don't know what you think your bring to society but it's not what you think it is. Understand that your efforts and views are largely unappreciated by the majority. Allowing hate groups to soil public places because dat ebil gubbermint is just paranoia. The end result is a worse situation regardless of your personal fears. 

I don't know how you are so utterly dense.  I'm against the government censoring legal free speech or banning legal organizations.  If they want to make certain additional speech or organizations or philosophies illegal we can at that time argue the merits of their reasoning. Until that time I support legal speech to be spoken, legal philosophy to be thought and legal organizations to exist as a matter of principal in support of my constitution.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

Some lout forcing a fight on an unwilling victim deserve to have whatever bad thing happens to them

Only a coward needs a gun at a fist fight. 

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

I don't know how you are so utterly dense.  I'm against the government censoring legal free speech or banning legal organizations.  If they want to make certain additional speech or organizations or philosophies illegal we can at that time argue the merits of their reasoning. Until that time I support legal speech to be spoken, legal philosophy to be thought and legal organizations to exist as a matter of principal in support of my constitution.

I'm not dense. You think you are some romantic hero that you are not. Hearing that probably hurts your feelings. 

Understand that I don't stand alone. You're inane twisted ideology serves bad people and your ego. As long as your fighting for people like Nazis and Lauren Southern, you're a menace and your efforts and unwanted. We do much better without you. Being libertarian today just means you drop most morals and ethics for ideology. You might as well start a religion based on it. You're fanatical enough.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Only a coward needs a gun at a fist fight. 

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

Only complete tool starts a fistfight and only a coward starts one with someone that would need a gun.

30 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'm not dense. You think you are some romantic hero that you are not. Hearing that probably hurts your feelings. 

 

🤣

30 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Understand that I don't stand alone. You're inane twisted ideology serves bad people and your ego. As long as your fighting for people like Nazis and Lauren Southern, you're a menace and your efforts and unwanted. We do much better without you. Being libertarian today just means you drop most morals and ethics for ideology. You might as well start a religion based on it. You're fanatical enough.

You are dense.  I'm not fighting for anything.  I support the US constitution and the rights enshrined therein. It's got nothing to do with being a libertarian as we are not alone in this, democrats, republicans and Independents also support the constitution. I don't participate in organized religion and would certainly not start one based on political beliefs and I am not a fanatic about anything.  If one of us is a fanatic you are fanatical about mischaracterizing what others say in order to argue arguments that are over and you have already lost. 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Only complete tool starts a fistfight and only a coward starts one with someone that would need a gun.

Yeah, that's why I'm looking at you. 

21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

🤣

You are dense.  I'm not fighting for anything.  I support the US constitution and the rights enshrined therein. It's got nothing to do with being a libertarian as we are not alone in this, democrats, republicans and Independents also support the constitution. I don't participate in organized religion and would certainly not start one based on political beliefs and I am not a fanatic about anything.  If one of us is a fanatic you are fanatical about mischaracterizing what others say in order to argue which like a drug you are addicted to.  Seek help.

Not fighting hey, defending isn't it in your eyes. 

You posted a pointless picture of botany bay. Can you point me st that part of your constitution? 

Why would I give a rodents rectum about your out of date constitution that allows you to remove basic rights from the people and elevates privilege to a right. It doesn't apply here thankfully. It's an outdated document that is an anchor and America's progress. Your just a link in the chain holding the anchor in place. You're a rusty relic holding the nation back. 

Yes your a fundamentalist. Recognising a problem is the first step to correcting it. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you lost your mind? Personal problems overwhelm and a need to lash out?  😅

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Have you lost your mind? Personal problems overwhelm and a need to lash out?  😅

Truth hurts? 

So what was the point of the botany bay picture? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Truth hurts? 

So what was the point of the botany bay picture? 

Not sure what truth you’re talking about your post didn’t make sense. I fail to see how the US constitution “remove basic rights from the people and elevates privilege to a right”

The Botany Bay picture was explained in that post.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Not sure what truth you’re talking about your post didn’t make sense.

It's really simple for most people.

Your ideology isn't what you think it is. 

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I fail to see how the US constitution “remove basic rights from the people and elevates privilege to a right”

It allowed the country to remove the right to abortion and puts guns in people's hands so you can kill each other while people make money from that. And thin out school kids numbers while you're at it. 

Nothing to be proud of there. 

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

The Botany Bay picture was explained in that post.

I don't know how much libertarian people or ideology feature there. Colonists and soldiers mass murdered natives. That picture isn't worth a thousand words. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It's really simple for most people.

Your ideology isn't what you think it is. 

What is it?  It's so simple then explain it.  I'm sure more people than just me would be fascinated to hear your insights.

  

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It allowed the country to remove the right to abortion and puts guns in people's hands so you can kill each other while people make money from that. And thin out school kids numbers while you're at it. 

 

All voted for every couple of years.  It's called democratic process.  I think you also have a similar system. Abortion was never a right.  Section 5 of the 14th amendment states 

Quote

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

Congress did not finish the process and cement abortion rights in place with proper legislation.  The Supreme Court does not write laws. All it took was a state to write a law that was not constrained within the 14th for RvW to be overturned.  Had congress written a law guaranteeing abortion rights as they should have done, then no state laws could challenge it.

You're right.  It is simple. :D

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

Congress did not finish the process and cement abortion rights in place with proper legislation.  The Supreme Court does not write laws. All it took was a state to write a law that was not constrained within the 14th for RvW to be overturned.  Had congress written a law guaranteeing abortion rights as they should have done, then no state laws could challenge it.

You're right.  It is simple. :D

What's often overlooked is that the USA has had chances to do exactly what you suggest here. Most recently in 2008, Barrack Obama and the Democrats ran on a platform that they would codify RvW into law. In 2009 the Democrats had a super majority in the House and Senate, meaning that even if every single Republican voted against the bill, the Democrats could have made it happen. Barrack Obama walked back his words, and it has been officially listed as a broken campaign promise. 

The Democrats wanted RvW on the books as a messed up poker chip in politics. And now the American people are paying the price. It won't be long before each State has its own abortion laws on the books and they scramble to catch up with the 21st Century. In the meantime people simply have to go between States if they live somewhere that is currently illegal. 

~ Link (formerly PA)

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
11 hours ago, OverSword said:

What is it?  It's so simple then explain it.  I'm sure more people than just me would be fascinated to hear your insights.

How dense are you? 

I've explained it already. Your romantic notion of being some kind of saviour is a self serving fantasy. Whilst the likes of Lauren Southern appreciate your efforts, the majority of people, and in fact anyone with intact morals and ethics, would not. 

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

All voted for every couple of years.  It's called democratic process.  I think you also have a similar system. Abortion was never a right.  Section 5 of the 14th amendment states 

Congress did not finish the process and cement abortion rights in place with proper legislation.  The Supreme Court does not write laws. All it took was a state to write a law that was not constrained within the 14th for RvW to be overturned.  Had congress written a law guaranteeing abortion rights as they should have done, then no state laws could challenge it.

No, we don't have a similar system, much more freedoms here and a better balance of laws and rights 

I don't care what you voted for or your hundreds of years old constitution says, fact is abortion is a basic human right regardless of what some of America thinks. Your country removed a basic human right and called it constitutional. Hypocritical is a more apt adjective here though. 

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

You're right.  It is simple. :D

I do my best to accommodate you. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I do my best to accommodate you. 

I'm sure you do not.  You do your best to get the last word in.  3....2.....1.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

What's often overlooked is that the USA has had chances to do exactly what you suggest here. Most recently in 2008, Barrack Obama and the Democrats ran on a platform that they would codify RvW into law. In 2009 the Democrats had a super majority in the House and Senate, meaning that even if every single Republican voted against the bill, the Democrats could have made it happen. Barrack Obama walked back his words, and it has been officially listed as a broken campaign promise. 

Again, the classic blaming of the adults for not circumventing the children. 

If you can remember all the way back to 2009, the Democrat super majority - comprised of both Democrats and Independents - was relatively fragile thanks to old as sin senators dying, and Obummer was trying to get the ACA through. Which he succeeded in doing. This, in a backdrop of a Supreme Court which was supportive of Roe v. Wade. In addition, there was at least 1 Democrat in that supermajority who was actively anti-abortion. Hence, they weren't going to pass that bill if every single Republican voted against it, because a Democrat would have also voted against it.

So, sure, Obama broke his promise, but your post is inaccurate as regards what the Democrat majority at that time allowed for.

17 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

The Democrats wanted RvW on the books as a messed up poker chip in politics.

Not really. There were other legislative priorities. Is it a sad utilitarian calculus? Yes, obviously.

If anything, the people who benefitted the most from RvW as a poker chip were the Republicans. Now they're the dog that has caught the car, and they've figured out that their owners didn't want them to catch the car.

17 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

And now the American people are paying the price.

For the Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, striking down a longstanding decision. Yes.

17 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

It won't be long before each State has its own abortion laws on the books and they scramble to catch up with the 21st Century. In the meantime people simply have to go between States if they live somewhere that is currently illegal.

Correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Not really. There were other legislative priorities. Is it a sad utilitarian calculus? Yes, obviously.

 

Demonstrably wrong now. :lol:  

But I disagree with you here

8 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

If you can remember all the way back to 2009, the Democrat super majority - comprised of both Democrats and Independents - was relatively fragile thanks to old as sin senators dying, and Obummer was trying to get the ACA through. Which he succeeded in doing. This, in a backdrop of a Supreme Court which was supportive of Roe v. Wade. In addition, there was at least 1 Democrat in that supermajority who was actively anti-abortion. Hence, they weren't going to pass that bill if every single Republican voted against it, because a Democrat would have also voted against it.

They didn't even try and I guarantee at least a couple of republicans would not have shown up to vote.  They just didn't want to alienate anyone by trying which is a problem you get when you have a professional political class.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Demonstrably wrong now. :lol:  

It's not demonstrably wrong that there other legislative priorities in 2009. Was it short-sighted? Really depends on how one views the ACA.

It's also not demonstrably wrong that the situation on the Supreme Court was completely different then, which matters as well.

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

But I disagree with you here

They didn't even try and I guarantee at least a couple of republicans would not have shown up to vote.  They just didn't want to alienate anyone by trying which is a problem you get when you have a professional political class.

Well, the amazing nature of hypotheticals is such that you could be right. I guarantee that every single Republican would have voted against it. Just as much support.

In fact, I'd say that your hypothetical is more unlikely, given the strong anti-Barry sentiment in the Republican Congress. ACA had only one not show up. I struggle to see how this would be different.

However, the fact that the Democrat super majority was not a lockstep voting bloc on this issue is undeniable. Honestly, I think that a congress where every single senator in a particular party doesn't agree on everything is fine. 

Is that a legislative handicap for achieving the results which the majority of one's caucus supports? Sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

It's not demonstrably wrong that there other legislative priorities in 2009.

Demonstrably wrong that it was not a priority in hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Demonstrably wrong that it was not a priority in hindsight.

They do say that hindsight is 20/20. Barry really messed up by not using his time machine properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

They do say that hindsight is 20/20. Barry really messed up by not using his time machine properly.

It's not him it congress.  When RvW passed they could have done it as well.  in 1973 Democrats held the majority in congress and senate and certainly there were republicans in 73 that would have been on board.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Again, the classic blaming of the adults for not circumventing the children. 

I'm blaming politicians for using hot button issues as poker chips in election campagins.

 

9 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

If you can remember all the way back to 2009, the Democrat super majority - comprised of both Democrats and Independents - was relatively fragile thanks to old as sin senators dying, and Obummer was trying to get the ACA through. Which he succeeded in doing. This, in a backdrop of a Supreme Court which was supportive of Roe v. Wade. In addition, there was at least 1 Democrat in that supermajority who was actively anti-abortion. Hence, they weren't going to pass that bill if every single Republican voted against it, because a Democrat would have also voted against it.

So, sure, Obama broke his promise, but your post is inaccurate as regards what the Democrat majority at that time allowed for.

I don't remember that far back. I wasn't into politics back then. I got into politics relatively recently. I don't remember where I read/heard about the Super Majority in 2009 first. Whether any Democrats might vote against their own party is a separate matter and says more about the Democrats. By your same argument it would only take one Republican who supports abortion to flip on the issue (are you telling me there wasn't a single one that could be flipped)? 

 

9 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Not really. There were other legislative priorities. Is it a sad utilitarian calculus? Yes, obviously.

If anything, the people who benefitted the most from RvW as a poker chip were the Republicans. Now they're the dog that has caught the car, and they've figured out that their owners didn't want them to catch the car.

For the Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, striking down a longstanding decision. Yes.

Correct.

The long and short of it is that Obama ran on a campaign promise which he broke, and while it is possible the situation is more nuanced than I presented it, the fact that Obama didn't even try after he got into power demonstrates that the Democrats don't really care about abortion unless it's being used as a political weapon against Republicans. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

The long and short of it is that Obama ran on a campaign promise which he broke, and while it is possible the situation is more nuanced than I presented it, the fact that Obama didn't even try after he got into power demonstrates that the Democrats don't really care about abortion unless it's being used as a political weapon against Republicans. 

I don’t completely disagree with you and he should have asked, but it’s not the president’s place to introduce legislation it’s Congress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I'm blaming politicians for using hot button issues as poker chips in election campagins.

Okay.

16 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I don't remember that far back. I wasn't into politics back then. I got into politics relatively recently.

If you don't remember that far back, and don't know the context of your own example, why use it?

16 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I don't remember where I read/heard about the Super Majority in 2009 first. Whether any Democrats might vote against their own party is a separate matter and says more about the Democrats. By your same argument it would only take one Republican who supports abortion to flip on the issue (are you telling me there wasn't a single one that could be flipped)?

How about you take the effort to learn about your chosen example, big guy?

If Barry HUSSEIN Obama, noted Muslim terrorist, born in Kenya, threw his full weight and support behind an effort to codify abortion protections at the national level, no, I don't think a Republican would have flipped on that issue.

Your lack of American cultural knowledge really shines through at some points, and this is one of those times.

16 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

The long and short of it is that Obama ran on a campaign promise which he broke, and while it is possible the situation is more nuanced than I presented it, the fact that Obama didn't even try after he got into power demonstrates that the Democrats don't really care about abortion unless it's being used as a political weapon against Republicans

It is not only possible that the situation is more nuanced than you presented it, in fact it was more nuanced than you presented it, and in fact your presentation of the issue was nonfactual since you didn't realize the actual composition of the Democratic majority caucus.

From that time, for instance, the passage of the ACA included significant debate about funding for abortion and what exactly the bill covered and didn't cover about it, which also renders nonfactual your contention in bolded statement. And that's simply one example. I'm sure you'll eventually realize the folly of making blanket statements, considering your significant gaps in knowledge, but apparently not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Okay.

If you don't remember that far back, and don't know the context of your own example, why use it?

How about you take the effort to learn about your chosen example, big guy?

If Barry HUSSEIN Obama, noted Muslim terrorist, born in Kenya, threw his full weight and support behind an effort to codify abortion protections at the national level, no, I don't think a Republican would have flipped on that issue.

Your lack of American cultural knowledge really shines through at some points, and this is one of those times.

It is not only possible that the situation is more nuanced than you presented it, in fact it was more nuanced than you presented it, and in fact your presentation of the issue was nonfactual since you didn't realize the actual composition of the Democratic majority caucus.

From that time, for instance, the passage of the ACA included significant debate about funding for abortion and what exactly the bill covered and didn't cover about it, which also renders nonfactual your contention in bolded statement. And that's simply one example. I'm sure you'll eventually realize the folly of making blanket statements, considering your significant gaps in knowledge, but apparently not yet.

When I fact checked the claim that the Democrats had a super majority in 2009, turns out they did.  When I fact checked the claim that Obama ran on a campaign promise of this nature,  turns out he did.

Seems that what I said is factually true, and you're trying to twist that into something nefarious, but it isn't working!

Edited by Link of Hyrule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
48 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

When I fact checked the claim that the Democrats had a super majority in 2009, turns out they did.  When I fact checked the claim that Obama ran on a campaign promise of this nature,  turns out he did.

Seems that what I said is factually true, and you're trying to twist that into something nefarious, but it isn't working!

Doesn't seem particularly nefarious, just not very well informed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.