ANDREW TATE GOT BANNED FROM INSTAGRAM AND FACEBOOK

Author: Vici

Posts

Total: 54
Topic's author
#1
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
ANDREW TATE GOT BANNED FROM INSTAGRAM AND FACEBOOK
ANDREW TATE GOT BANNED FROM INSTAGRAM AND FACEBOOK

WTF. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE CENSORSHIP ALL FOR YOU TOO SEE. THIS IS THE MANIFESTATION OF LIBERAL DEMOACRATS. THEY ARE BANNING THOSE WHO THEY DISAGREE WITH. 

TO ANYONE WHO ISN'T CONCERNED, THIS IS VERY ORWELLIAN. THE BANNING OF SPEECH IS THE RESTRICTION OF THOUGHT. 
#2
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Are you a hustler university affiliate?
#3
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Vici
On a scale from 0 to average Reddit user, how ironic are you?

I would place you at 150,000.
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Vici
Well, he was knowingly discriminating against women and placing stereotypes on both men and women. If you consider that "orwellian", then maybe I guess reprimanding a Klan member for spreading white supremacy is also violation of free speech, so is arresting a man continuously shouting "Go kill yourself" to a large group of people on the street. At the end of absolute free speech is when speech cannot be used for defense on behalf of you.

For a smaller platform like Dart, constantly doxxing people and spamming jamming threads is enough to get you banned because that limits people from actually doing stuff. What Andrew Tate doing is encouraging thinking less into life and... essentially being an incel. Unless I am being mistaken, that is what it is. Even if there has been no violations(he probably has violated "something", given what I know about it), which in this case he should not be banned, people like this should be removed Asap from platforms because the amount of net benefit they have caused would still be far less than even the most unnoticed furry artist.

Hustling would just be an illusion of money materialistically working for you when you are a slave to wealth. Andrew Tate is really suggesting MORE capitalism to be infused into this society. Don't you think this society has already enough capitalism? We see Elon Musk transform from an inventor and entrepreneur with actual good ideas into an unfunny class enemy with more moldy ideas, for example. Maybe Andrew Tate is good for attracting the sheeple from the actual critical thinkers, but the existence of 14-year olds would be a reason why he isn't here anymore.
#5
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
It really irks me that this sort of "cancel culture" is almost always directed to the right. How often is it that you see some far left, communist, gender/race abolitionist, anti money SJW getting banned for being too extreme? This isn't to say that I agree with Tate at, in fact, I pretty much disagree on everything with him. I dislike is monophonic focus on materialistic success, I dislike his analysis on the duty of women in a household, I disagree with his belief that men can cheat whilst women can't, I disagree his conflation of "anyone can do it" with "everyone can do it" and I disagree with the fact that he is essentially running a pyramid scheme which turns out little profit for his followers. But the fact is that, I will defend his right to opine his opinions, as they literally represent 50 percent of the population. If you disagree with him, let him talk, and let him get debunked. This was seen in the Hasanabi livestream and Destiny livestream, where he was verbally manhandled by two left wing pundits. This is a far better way of disproving him - deconstructing his ideas as opposed to putting red tape over his mouth.

Andrew Tate is a comedian. He is a joker. He makes jokes (which to the masses are clearly funny from the reception he gets) and get's laughs.  Also, why tf was he banned of Instagram? That's literally where he posts his Buggatti and kick-boxing content (he doesn't engage in any politics whatsoever there).  


Topic's author
#6
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
yes
Topic's author
#7
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well, he was knowingly discriminating against women and placing stereotypes on both men and women.
no he's not 

he loves women he literally does you dont know the difference between a joke and serious point
Topic's author
#8
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@Intelligence_06
how am i doxxing people do you even know what that means? 
Topic's author
#9
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@Bones
 I dislike is monophonic focus on materialistic success,
thats because you are poor and will never have money. if you are rich you would think otherwise. 

I dislike his analysis on the duty of women in a household,
they are biologically the baby carrier and their duty is to care for things at home whislt men conquer the world

I disagree with his belief that men can cheat whilst women can't,
when a women fucks they are tied in emotion. when a man does, he is just exercisign and having fun
#10
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Vici
how am i doxxing people do you even know what that means? 
You aren’t(I hope). This is all hypothetical.

#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,223
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Vici
Meta Platforms is essentially a private company, so therefore has the right to make selective decisions based upon company policy.

So go worship Andrew Tate elsewhere.

Or better still go set up your own social media networking service, whereby you can call all the ideological shots.
#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Bones
It really irks me that this sort of "cancel culture" is almost always directed to the right.
Is this true?  I have not gone on Truth Social but I see a lot of stories that posts and people get banned for Jan 6 content, pro-abortion content, etc.

Most media skipped DeSantis' rally in Ohio last night because journalists had to apply for the right to attend, any interview with any attendee had to be pre-approved by DeSantis' team, any footage had to be approved by DeSantis, and recording of the actual event was prohibited .

These practices certainly seem more broadly censorious than shutting down a social media influencer.

How often is it that you see some far left, communist, gender/race abolitionist, anti money SJW getting banned for being too extreme?
  • Facebook says the standard they are employing is "strong intent to engage in offline violence in the near future,"  which seems pretty antithetical to the people I think of as advocating social justice online.  I don't think there's really such a thing a sincere communist but the posers I meet online don't seem interested in promoting violence.  Same thing with anti-capitalists.  I don't know what a gender/race abolitionist is but are they calling for violence?

  • I also don't know if Andrew Tate promotes violence.  I know many tweeters, feminist groups, etc say he does but that ain't evidence, really.  I see he's under investigation for kidnapping two women in April but no charges have been filed.   I see he first became famous for a video of him beating a women with a belt that he claims was just funning.
  • He seems like a real asshole but if there's some actual statement of intent to engage in offline violence in the near future, I don't see any report detailing it.  But then, maybe the policy is to wipe the statement of intent and not re-publish it on principle.  I just can't tell.

#13
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@oromagi
It really irks me that this sort of "cancel culture" is almost always directed to the right.
Is this true?  I have not gone on Truth Social but I see a lot of stories that posts and people get banned for Jan 6 content, pro-abortion content, etc.
Truth social is not a cornerstone for online interaction - it is no where near the prominence of Facebook and Instagram. If it were, then I would be extending my critique onto it, but as of now, it is an echo chamber for the right, and not a platform which is for the masses. Facebook's influence is akin to a public square - it is for the people. 

How often is it that you see some far left, communist, gender/race abolitionist, anti money SJW getting banned for being too extreme?
  • Facebook says the standard they are employing is "strong intent to engage in offline violence in the near future,"  which seems pretty antithetical to the people I think of as advocating social justice online.  I don't think there's really such a thing a sincere communist but the posers I meet online don't seem interested in promoting violence.  Same thing with anti-capitalists.  I don't know what a gender/race abolitionist is but are they calling for violence?
"Violence" is a very subjective term. Twitter, for example highlights that "misgendering" is violent crime. Regardless of whether it is, the fact is that "misgendering" is itself a political topic. I am not opining on whether it is real or not, I am merely saying that it represents differences in the people and is not immediately nor commonly held as "violence".  

  • I also don't know if Andrew Tate promotes violence.  I know many tweeters, feminist groups, etc say he does but that ain't evidence, really.  I see he's under investigation for kidnapping two women in April but no charges have been filed.   I see he first became famous for a video of him beating a women with a belt that he claims was just funning.
I've seen the video, and it is disturbing. But past crimes (I think the video was 6 years ago?) should not dictate someones future. His prominence is a result of his catchy right wing views.

  • He seems like a real asshole but if there's some actual statement of intent to engage in offline violence in the near future, I don't see any report detailing it.  But then, maybe the policy is to wipe the statement of intent and not re-publish it on principle.  I just can't tell.
I agree, but being an asshole is not a criteria for getting banned of Instagram and Facebook. My primary point is not that I agree with him (I think my original post makes this clear). I am arguing that banning him is the worst possible way for disproving him. His reign will live on. The tik tok clips of him (all of which are posted by fan accounts and not actually him) will continue and his legacy will be "the person who had to be suppressed and silenced". If it were the case that he could continue on, he would be continually disproved and eventually, the logic will tumble him. 
#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Bones

Truth social is not a cornerstone for online interaction - it is no where near the prominence of Facebook and Instagram. If it were, then I would be extending my critique onto it, but as of now, it is an echo chamber for the right, and not a platform which is for the masses. Facebook's influence is akin to a public square - it is for the people. 
  • Your original argument was that the practice was always directed at the right.  Now you're giving the right a pass because they're less good at social media than the left.  Seems like special pleading to me.

"Violence" is a very subjective term.
Is it tho?  Physical force or the threat of physical force seems pretty objective to me.

Twitter, for example highlights that "misgendering" is violent crime.
  • I see Twitter call misgendering  hate and degradation but I can't find anything that backs your claim that Twitter calls misgendering a violent crime.  Can I get  a link to where you see that?

I agree, but being an asshole is not a criteria for getting banned of Instagram and Facebook.
  • I agree but the govt can't force a business to damage its brand name in the name of free speech, either.   "strong intent to engage in violence" seems like a rational standard for any business.  That can and should get you kicked out of a bar or restaurant, a concert or sports event.  I don't see why the same rational standard can't apply on Facebook.  I also understand that they might feel obligated not to share the specifics  with us but that makes the reasonableness of their decision hard to evaluate.
You haven't answered my question about Leftists.  I think the reason Leftists don't get banned as often is because they are less likely than the Right-wing to be expressing "strong intent to engage in violence."  Do you agree that this might be true and reasonably account for the difference?


#15
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@oromagi
Truth social is not a cornerstone for online interaction - it is no where near the prominence of Facebook and Instagram. If it were, then I would be extending my critique onto it, but as of now, it is an echo chamber for the right, and not a platform which is for the masses. Facebook's influence is akin to a public square - it is for the people. 
  • Your original argument was that the practice was always directed at the right.  Now you're giving the right a pass because they're less good at social media than the left.  Seems like special pleading to me.
I'm arguing that, in the platforms which matters, it is always directed at the right. I'm not "giving the right a pass", I am merely saying that Truth Socials impact is so small that they are not worth discussing. And even so, it isn't an issue for me to condemn Truth Socials - when they ban pro choicers and left wingers, I see it as as much of an issue as when the left does it. It is merely that the major platforms (Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch etc) always target the right, even though they claim to be a marketplace of ideas in which all can participate. 

"Violence" is a very subjective term.
Is it tho?  Physical force or the threat of physical force seems pretty objective to me.
It is, but violence refers too much more than merely physical force, as I stated in my last post. 

Twitter, for example highlights that "misgendering" is violent crime.
  • I see Twitter call misgendering  hate and degradation but I can't find anything that backs your claim that Twitter calls misgendering a violent crime.  Can I get  a link to where you see that?
They label it as hate speech, which in and of itself admits that Twitter is systemically anti-right in terms of this policy. Further, it's pretty common for people to claim that misgendering is "violence", and that certain other forms of speech also fall under this same category. 

I think the reason Leftists don't get banned as often is because they are less likely than the Right-wing to be expressing "strong intent to engage in violence."  Do you agree that this might be true and reasonably account for the difference?
Off pure instinct, I think I would agree, though my instinct could be clouded by some extreme and often outrageous Right Wing pundits (you here more about Richard Spencer, Milo and Alex Jones than you do violent left wingers). But still, there are many examples which show that, as a landscape, Right Wing beliefs are actively discouraged. Destiny (streamer), for example, was meant to be banned indefinitely for "claims that transwomen shouldn't compete with ciswomen in women's athletics". Regardless of your stance, it should be common ground that issues like this are not settled, and that they should be discussed. The stipulation here is a serious one - it isn't some quirky belief, it represents 50 percent of the population, and to ban such speech is essentially to nullify the rights of half the populations right to speech. 
#16
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@oromagi
Also, I think your mentioning of the "pro-choicers getting banned" illustrates an excellent point - that there is one side who deems certain positions as facts and subsequently bans those who do not conform with it. It is not a "fact" that abortion is wrong. Some may argue that it is the most reasonable position, but at the end of the day, it is an unresolved issue. I could easily make the argument that Truth Socials is right in banning pro-choicers, by arguing that pro choicers advocate for the murder of our populations most innocent. But obviously, this is an ideological belief, and a company has no rights to say whether these views should or shouldn't be uttered. How can we resolve this subjectivity? On one side, you have people who believe that killing the unborn is wrong, and on the otherhand, you have those you think it's justified. The easiest way of dealing with this is to let both positions speak, instead of banning either side. 
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vici
This is why it amused me that he flexed a couple times that because he is a self-sustaining rich man, he cannot therefore be cancelled as his boss cannot fire him.

The elites can censor anybody, noone is untouchable.

I appreciate Andrew and I do find this as unfair cancel culture but for him to assume he had freedom of speech on fb and insta is amusing to me. They hate men that stand up to women there, women can get away with far harsher banter and remarks than men can on social media.

I am silent on social media, I know that cancel culture cannot be escaped if I participate in a realm that dedicates to it.

The fact he isn't banned on YT and that Google isn't clamping down on reuploads of his stuff shows what I always believed; Google is an antivillain/antihero of the elites. They let freedom of speech sneak in and reconsider bans in ways that TikTok, Twitter and Fb/insta do not.
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
FB owns Instagram in case you are confused why they banned him on both. He has actually had more heat on insta than FB as far as I know.

#19
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vici
when a women fucks they are tied in emotion. when a man does, he is just exercisign and having fun
Wait until a female player breaks your heart. Then come back saying this. 
#20
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Bones
I'm arguing that, in the platforms which matters, it is always directed at the right. I'm not "giving the right a pass", I am merely saying that Truth Socials impact is so small that they are not worth discussing.

  • We agree that collectively, Right-wing social media does not amount to much.
Twitter, for example highlights that "misgendering" is violent crime.
  • I see Twitter call misgendering  hate and degradation but I can't find anything that backs your claim that Twitter calls misgendering a violent crime.  Can I get  a link to where you see that?
They label it as hate speech, which in and of itself admits that Twitter is systemically anti-right in terms of this policy. Further, it's pretty common for people to claim that misgendering is "violence", and that certain other forms of speech also fall under this same category.
  • Your claim was Twitter defines misgendering as violence.  Since you are now agreeing that Twitter only defines misgendering as hate and degradation but not violence and you've moved on to argue irrelevantly that  some people claim that misgendering is "violence" I'll assume you no longer stand by your original claim.
"Violence" is a very subjective term.
Is it tho?  Physical force or the threat of physical force seems pretty objective to me.
It is, but violence refers too much more than merely physical force, as I stated in my last post. 
  • Well, you predicated that claim on exactly one example "that Twitter defines misgendering as violence."  You don't seem to be standing by that claim so I don't see any reason to accept your claim that violence is a very subjective term. Let's define violence as physical force or the threat of same and agree that Facebook is reasonable obligated to react to posts expressing  "strong intent to engage in violence."   Facebook has claimed this is the reason for Tate's ban but I think we agree Facebook's claim has not been substantiated.

I think the reason Leftists don't get banned as often is because they are less likely than the Right-wing to be expressing "strong intent to engage in violence."  Do you agree that this might be true and reasonably account for the difference?
Off pure instinct, I think I would agree, though my instinct could be clouded by some extreme and often outrageous Right Wing pundits (you here more about Richard Spencer, Milo and Alex Jones than you do violent left wingers).
  • But if you agree that they are more violent in expression then perhaps the main reason we hear more about them (and therefore, the main reason they perform those expressions) is because if it bleeds it leads- violence sells better than non-violence.
But still, there are many examples which show that, as a landscape, Right Wing beliefs are actively discouraged. Destiny (streamer), for example, was meant to be banned indefinitely for "claims that transwomen shouldn't compete with ciswomen in women's athletics".
  • Again, not a culture that interests me at all, but I think all that gamer melodrama is just as likely to be phony promotional conflict a la professional wrestling, Real Housewives of, Khardashians, etc.
  • Wikipedia gives me:
    • In March 2022, Bonnell was indefinitely banned from Twitch for "Promoting, encouraging, or facilitating the discrimination or denigration of a group of people based on their protected characteristics."
    • Bonnell describes himselfas an "Omniliberal", a phrase he uses to describe a person who believes in the core principles of liberalism, freedom and equality, whilst believing in elements of other ideologies in a "pragmatic way". Bonnell has variously described himself as "a very big social democrat", a "hardcore capitalist"and "classical liberal", a "rule utilitarian", and an "agnostic atheist". He has argued against both far-right politics and far-left politics, ] He has cited his poverty during his teenage and college-aged years as an influence on his views, and says that he prefers to argue based on empirical data rather than moral suasion.
    • In 2020, Bonnell supported the general election campaign of Joe Biden.  Following Biden's victory, Bonnell led a canvassing campaign in support of Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock in the 2020–21 Georgia Senate runoffs.  With the help of approximately 140 volunteers mobilized from Bonnell's online audience, the campaign knocked on an estimated 17,500–20,000 doors in Columbus, Georgia, making it one of the larger campaigns of the election. 
  • So, in defense of your claim, "cancel culture" is almost always directed to the right" your only concrete example  of a right-winger actually identifies as a classical liberal.
  • I'm not saying you're wrong because I haven't researched expert opinion. 
    • I do know for a fact from long experience and US History that right-wingers going well past the Whiskey Rebellion and the  Lost Cause have this narrative of victimization and oppression while also doing the greater portion of the victimizing and oppressing.  Therefore, I am skeptical about claims like "cancel culture" is almost always directed to the right"
    • I'm just saying I remain quite skeptical.  I think its more a matter of lefties seeing "cancel culture" as somehow different from censorship and righties seeing censorship as somehow different from "cancel culture".  Since leftists are the champions of free speech generally, I do suppose they ought to be held to a higher standard.



#21
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,087
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Shouldn't it be, ‘Dangerous misogynist’ Andrew Tate removed from Instagram and Facebook?

#22
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@FLRW
He literally is not a misogynist, what he is is a chauvinist and they are not the same thing.

They can be the same thing, they can coincide but he is strictly the latter without the former and has been wrongly branded a misogynist.

I do not agree to all he preaches/teaches but I will not let the guy be defamed.
#23
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
I do not agree to all he preaches/teaches but I will not let the guy be defamed.
But you allow me to get defamed all the time and we are basically a couple at this point.
#24
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
Tate's' idea that it isn't always the same when a man and a woman cheat has some validity to me. Most men will have sex with a woman without being interested in dating her or having an emotional/romantic interest. For men, it can be a purely physical thing. For women, that seems to be much rarer. Most women won't have sex with a guy they wouldn't date. I believe there are truth nuggets in everything he says, but it's always a reduction of the whole. 
#25
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
'Allowed' is a passive act, what do you mean by I allowed you to be defamed.
#26
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ehyeh
    Most women won't have sex with a guy they wouldn't date. I believe there are truth nuggets in everything he says, but it's always a reduction of the whole. 
Trust me they will enjoy every second of getting wet and ditch you after no problem, different women are different but don't go around suggesting female casual-fuck-enthusiasts don't exist. They are what they are, when men do it we don't call them whores so I'm not sure to call women sluts/whores or not but they absolutely exist and even are not necessarily at nymphomaniac level, they sometimes just want the contact and then it's poof back to platonic relationship with you at most.

It's not at all true that men do it more than women, trust me on this, you just don't know the sluttier women out there clearly. Women are much more inclined to keep it private than men when they live this way, that is all.
#27
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Vici
TO ANYONE WHO ISN'T CONCERNED, THIS IS VERY ORWELLIAN. THE BANNING OF SPEECH IS THE RESTRICTION OF THOUGHT. 
Getting banned from social media restricts the ability to think, eh? That's a bit hyperbolic.

The Constitution doesn't grant the right for someone to use Facebook's megaphone. It grants the right to not be stifled by the government. Facebook=/=government. 


#28
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@oromagi
  • We agree that collectively, Right-wing social media does not amount to much.
Social media is, in and of itself, supposed to be politically neutral. 

Your claim was Twitter defines misgendering as violence.
If you which to be pedantic, the specific words "violence" is not used, but it is a very common position that misgendering is violence, and it is clearly implied in this situation.  Furthermore, it being categorised  alongside epithets, racist clearly implies a violent nature. 

Well, you predicated that claim on exactly one example "that Twitter defines misgendering as violence."  You don't seem to be standing by that claim so I don't see any reason to accept your claim that violence is a very subjective term. 
It is very well implied. Further, my argument remains cogent if we were substitute the term violence for "hateful and degradation" when mentioning misgendering. Fundamentally, misgendering is an ideologically driven term, thus Twitter ougntn't be considered a neutral marketplace of ideas. 

  • But if you agree that they are more violent in expression then perhaps the main reason we hear more about them (and therefore, the main reason they perform those expressions) is because if it bleeds it leads- violence sells better than non-violence.
A hand full of extreme pundits do not fairly represent the entirety of a political position. 

  • Again, not a culture that interests me at all, but I think all that gamer melodrama is just as likely to be phony promotional conflict a la professional wrestling, Real Housewives of, Khardashians, etc.
Though ostensibly childish, the political game on twitch is actually pretty good - their debates are very high level and intellectual. 

  • So, in defense of your claim, "cancel culture" is almost always directed to the right" your only concrete example  of a right-winger actually identifies as a classical liberal.
I intentionally chose Destiny (as oppose to Eric Striker or Sargon) because I am trying to remove extraneous variables. Here, we have a Liberal, who, when associating with a "right leaning" (thinking that trans people ought not play sports with their preferred gender isn't even that far right" is immediately "indefinitely banned".  It is clear then, which view is resulting in his ban. 

Innately, the ver fact that someone is banned because of publicly holding that "transwomen shouldn't compete with ciswomen in women's athletics," due of the likelihood that they'll dominate in their fields" should in and of itself convince you of there being a serious issue. 
#29
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Still, even if he was breaking the terms on Facebook, that shouldn't result in a ban on Instagram. I can break a road law, but that doesn't all my other rights are suspended because they are fundamentally tied to the government.  
#30
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Didn't I say generally, rationalmadman? I'm aware that swingers exist. All you have to do is look at "social experiments" on YouTube, where a guy goes up to 100 girls and asks them if they want to have sex. He will usually get about 2 out of every 100 of the women to say yes.
-
When we switch the roles, 50/100 men say yes to having sex with a random girl. It is not equal. It's just common sense that men are more likely to have sex without an emotional bond. Heres some proof. Women don't have sex with men they don't feel a connection to emotionally, unless their consent is being paid for.