-->
@TWS1405_2
AND I speak proper English, as all Americans should (to include those who emigrate here should as well)
Then why are you so butthurt that some girl doesn't think should speak slang?
Black people, you do not own this! - LANGUAGE
Posts
Total:
81
-->
@RationalMadman
If you had even the remotest genuine concern,
Yeah, well as soon as I figure out why you snowflakes are so traumatized about some girl's opinion, maybe I'll get some genuine concern.
you would research what hate speech laws are and what other developed nations than US have already succeeded to result in severe fines, not just social isolation and career loss.
LOL, my my, that's quite an imagination you have there drama queen, the girl is talking about slang, not hate speech, the girl has an opinion, it may feel like it to you, but it's not really the end of the world, it's not a vast conspiracy, it's just a girl with an opinion .
You didn't bother searching how enforcement against cultural appropriation occurs.
Yep, not a single example, but hey, I'm sure it's really horrible in your imagination, but I don't know how to do imagination research.
You are lazy and just here to gaslight and ridicule.
I'll stop with the ridicule when you guys stop being ridiculous.
-->
@Sidewalker
AND I speak proper English, as all Americans should (to include those who emigrate here should as well)Then why are you so butthurt that some girl doesn't think should speak slang?
Are you being an obtuse troll on purpose, or are you truly that fucking dense!?! Asking for others reading your drivel.
It is a topic of discussion with societal and cultural implications that can go wrong in various ways. It’s a good topic for this forum.
And for the last time, I am not butthurt over it. I could care less. It affects me not. But it is a subject that involves an area I do enjoy debating/discussing: black people and the woke (white guilt) left.
-->
@Sidewalker
Are you stupid, TWS and I are totally agreeing with her...
Wow, that was just straight up ignorance start to end.
-->
@TWS1405_2
You are missing a lot!!!! Namely, this is DART, a place to have debates and discussions. This topic, like every other topic, is proffered for discussion. No one is butthurt over anything.
Oh pulease, if you aren't butthurt then why all the whining and drama queen trauma, my God,
Well, maybe except you, obviously, because others like to have actual debates and discussions at DART,
Actual whiney baby drama queen debates and discussions, but hey, if you guys want to debate and discuss how traumatized you are because a black girl has an opinion, go for it, and when I comment on it, you can whine and be traumatized by that too, whatever floats your boat snowflake.
so you’re belittling them/us for doing so
Not me, you guys are belittling yourselves by having this drama queen circle jerk because a black girl has an opinion.
To you guys it's big drama, to me it's a comedy, and I'm just enjoying the show.
-->
@Public-Choice
Black people would be lynched for this. And it had nothing to do with the government. It was white supremacists in the south who hated the fact that black people are equal to them.
This has nothing to do with the conversation. We’re talking about whether the actions and/or aspirations of a political movement align with the constitution. Of course any group who does not acknowledge its basic principals will not align themselves with it.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Do I have to repeat myself. I said "trying" not "is"
Nonsense. If you read the entirety of my post you would have caught the end part which explains the self-contradictory nature of your free speech advocacy.
You claim to want to protect free speech, but it is only your personal freedom of speech you want to protect and of those who agree with you. When the rest of us speak out against your views, and that public outcry amounts to enough pressure that companies determine it is in their best interest to ban you, that is not an attack on free speech. That is two sides both expressing their views, and one side winning the battle decisively. If you are bothered by this then then the solution is to be more persuasive. If you can’t, then either you are wrong or the rest of society is wrong. Either way, your views within this society will be detrimental to you because it does not align with what the society you live within considers acceptable.
This has nothing to do with laws or rights, it’s basic human nature applied to large social groups.
The only thing that can defeat this phenomenon is an authority powerful enough to silence the majority of voices within the society it holds power over. We decided a long time ago that this outcome was not acceptable, which is why the government cannot interfere with what society considers acceptable speech.
Nothing “the left” is doing violates any of this, so your assertion that the left is trying to become that authority is pure fiction.
-->
@Sidewalker
Because this girl expressed her opinion in a video.
It never ceases to amaze me how blind right wingers are to the self defeating nature of their position here.
They claim to want to protect free speech, yet every example they point to of a free speech violation is actually just someone else exercising their right to free speech, which they are trying to stop.
It’s kind of like claiming you’re trying to save the legitimacy of our democracy - by working to install the loser of the election into office.
The only thing I wonder is who they are actually trying to fool, us or themselves?
-->
@Double_R
You and sidewalker are truly showing to the highest level of hilarity that you didn't watch her video.
It was an intelligent, eloquent black woman telling others to feel free to speak using AAVE. She challenged the cancellers.
-->
@Sidewalker
See above, forgot to tag you.
-->
@RationalMadman
Double_R never watches videos linked to, either as evidence for (support of) an argument or to even begin a discussion as I did here.
He’s just a lazy fucktard, pompous, and obnoxious pseudo know-it-all.
-->
@Double_R
This has nothing to do with the conversation.
AND neither does the below nonsensical red herring:
We’re talking about whether the actions and/or aspirations of a political movement align with the constitution. Of course any group who does not acknowledge its basic principals will not align themselves with it.
-->
@Sidewalker
You’re such an idiot. I support her you fucktard. Both the black women in the video. They are 100% spot on.
Way to further demonstrate your obscene lack of reading comprehension skills and flagrant ignorance of the subject matter as presented.
Amala is on the right. AS I AM. She was a lefty, but she left and turned right when she became educated and stopped buying the snake oil of the left.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Sometimes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And sometimes it is not:
Many people are either unable or refuse to distinguish the difference…
-->
@Double_R
You claim to want to protect free speech, but it is only your personal freedom of speech you want to protect and of those who agree with you. When the rest of us speak out against your views, and that public outcry amounts to enough pressure that companies determine it is in their best interest to ban you, that is not an attack on free speech. That is two sides both expressing their views, and one side winning the battle decisively. If you are bothered by this then then the solution is to be more persuasive. If you can’t, then either you are wrong or the rest of society is wrong. Either way, your views within this society will be detrimental to you because it does not align with what the society you live within considers acceptable.
Fair point, but then again you can have your own views, but when your (and a number of others) view is to ban certain people from saying certain things, then that ties into free speech.
The only thing that can defeat this phenomenon is an authority powerful enough to silence the majority of voices within the society it holds power over. We decided a long time ago that this outcome was not acceptable, which is why the government cannot interfere with what society considers acceptable speech.
Then how do you explain government censorship?
Nothing “the left” is doing violates any of this, so your assertion that the left is trying to become that authority is pure fiction.
Again, government censorship using the media is one way the left is doing this.
-->
@TWS1405_2
What is there to discuss? Poor diction is poor diction. Only a delusional fool would try to normalize it.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Fair point, but then again you can have your own views, but when your (and a number of others) view is to ban certain people from saying certain things, then that ties into free speech.
It doesn’t tie into free speech, because I just explained that the government is the only authority that can stop you from having the ability to express your views.
If you are banned from Twitter, go to Instagram. If you are banned from Instagram, go to Facebook. If you are banned from Facebook, go to Truth social, Reddit, 4 Chan, or whatever else you want.
No one owes you a platform and your views are not being silenced, the problem is that no one wants to hear what you have to say. And it is the right of the rest of society to decide they do not want to hear it.
Again, government censorship using the media is one way the left is doing this.
Can you please explain what in earth you are talking about?
-->
@TWS1405_2
Double_R never watches videos linked to, either as evidence for (support of) an argument or to even begin a discussion as I did here.
I click on links when they are presented in support of an argument one is making and it makes a difference what the links shows.
You don’t make arguments, so there’s no point in clicking your links. If I wanted to scour the internet for content explaining certain positions I can do that on my own. I come here to interact with people, to hear what they have to say and to see what they have to say to the points I make. That’s what a debate site is for.
-->
@sadolite
What is there to discuss? Poor diction is poor diction. Only a delusional fool would try to normalize it.
Did you even watch the video?
Doubt it. If you had to ask the question, and clearly failed to understand the point that the two women expressed.
-->
@Double_R
The fundamental tenant of this site is to debate, BUT there is a clear difference between the formal debate section and the forum for mere discussion (not debate, which is what the debate side is for).
Keep making excuses for your laziness and obvious deflection.
-->
@TWS1405_2
You are right, I should have watched the video. I will stand by my last comment of poor diction and add poor understanding of proper English.
-->
@Double_R
Using the term “Free speech” in any context that doesn’t involve the government is meaningless and ultimately disingenuous.
I disagree. I think there really needs to be a cultural acceptance of free speech to actually in practice have a free market of ideals.
Maybe the government won't ban your speech but if everyone disagrees with engaging in debating your ideals, it's as good as having no free speech.
-->
@Double_R
It doesn’t tie into free speech, because I just explained that the government is the only authority that can stop you from having the ability to express your views.
Yes.........and the government is run by voting........by the people. What are you not understanding about this?
No one owes you a platform and your views are not being silenced, the problem is that no one wants to hear what you have to say. And it is the right of the rest of society to decide they do not want to hear it.
LOL. You literally just contradicted yourself. People not hearing what you have to say, is silencing you.
Can you please explain what in earth you are talking about?
government censorship using the media is one way the government is trying to silence opposing views and is tied to the democratic party.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
government censorship using the media is one way the government is trying to silence opposing views and is tied to the democratic party.
We also have the mind control rays, you can't wear that tin foil hat forever.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Maybe the government won't ban your speech but if everyone disagrees with engaging in debating your ideals, it's as good as having no free speech.
Neither the constitution nor the basic principals it was founded on were ever meant to protect one’s right to shove their views down the throats of a society unwilling to hear them.
The entire point of free speech is that it’s up to society as a whole to decide what is acceptable. Government does not always represent the values of the society it governs, so government must be excluded as a means to decide what speech is acceptable.
Your implied solution to one holding views that no one wants to hear is the antithesis of free speech. What you are really advocating for is to remove the right of free speech from everyone who disagrees with a particular viewpoint. Which is not just wrong, it’s incoherent.
If I decided to go on every forum out there and start arguing for the right to rape and molest children, there is and should never be any authority out there to enforce that my views are amplified.
Like I’ve repeated many times over already, you’re talking about the right to a platform. No one owes you that. If there are enough people within a society that want to hear your views, you will be able to find a platform somewhere. The only entity with the potential power to stop that is the government.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes.........and the government is run by voting........by the people. What are you not understanding about this?
That’s why we have a constitution genius.
The point of this discussion is to debate its principals. Your entire case to this point is to argue that the left is violating free speech which leads to the conclusion that the left is willing to do away with the constitution. But what you are calling free speech is not constitutional, at all. So your conclusion isn’t just erroneous, it’s completely backwards. It’s the right that has demonstrated a disregard for the actual principals of the constitution, so if anything it’s the right that should be the concern.
You literally just contradicted yourself. People not hearing what you have to say, is silencing you.
It means no one individual or entity is silencing you. Facebook does not get to decide whether you have a platform on Twitter.
If no one out there wants to hear what you have to say, then that is a decision made by society itself. And guess what… society does get to choose. That’s what free speech means, because if everyone has the right to free speech then everyone gets a say in what speech they consider acceptable. Everyone gets a say in whether they want to be subjected to your views. And if everyone decides they do not want to hear what you have to say, then you still get to say it, but no one has to listen. No one has to read it. No one has to hear it. That’s a collective choice everyone has.
Once again; society does not owe you a platform. What is so difficult about this?
government censorship using the media is one way the government is trying to silence opposing views and is tied to the democratic party.
Provide one example of the government “using the media” to silence opposing views.
-->
@Double_R
The point of this discussion is to debate its principals. Your entire case to this point is to argue that the left is violating free speech which leads to the conclusion that the left is willing to do away with the constitution. But what you are calling free speech is not constitutional, at all. So your conclusion isn’t just erroneous, it’s completely backwards. It’s the right that has demonstrated a disregard for the actual principals of the constitution, so if anything it’s the right that should be the concern.
Not arguing this is an example of a violation of free speech. I said it could lead to it. Your confusing yourself.
It means no one individual or entity is silencing you. Facebook does not get to decide whether you have a platform on Twitter.If no one out there wants to hear what you have to say, then that is a decision made by society itself. And guess what… society does get to choose. That’s what free speech means, because if everyone has the right to free speech then everyone gets a say in what speech they consider acceptable. Everyone gets a say in whether they want to be subjected to your views. And if everyone decides they do not want to hear what you have to say, then you still get to say it, but no one has to listen. No one has to read it. No one has to hear it. That’s a collective choice everyone has.Once again; society does not owe you a platform. What is so difficult about this?
Perfect. So you admit that the people who are saying white people cant say this or that are wrong, because I'm allowed to say it, but they don't have to listen. I agree with that. But I still have the God given right to say it.
Provide one example of the government “using the media” to silence opposing views.
Twitter Files from Elon Musk.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Not arguing this is an example of a violation of free speech. I said it could lead to it.
Arguing that something could happen is completely useless. Anything could happen. If you get on your car right now you could die in a car accident, but I’m pretty sure that’s not going to stop you the next time you need to go somewhere.
What matters is what’s reasonable to expect, and I just explained why this does not lead in that direction. Again, nothing about the left’s demonstrated values is contradicted in any way by the constitution, in fact it’s the exact opposite. The right is the side right now that seems to want to do away with it.
Perfect. So you admit that the people who are saying white people cant say this or that are wrong, because I'm allowed to say it, but they don't have to listen. I agree with that. But I still have the God given right to say it.
Do you know what a colloquialism is?
No one is claiming you can’t say something as in it’s against the law (or should be) unless we’re talking about something like a threat to someone’s safety, which is a different topic.
Twitter Files from Elon Musk.
The Twitter files did not show anything you are claiming it did.
-->
@Double_R
Provide one example of the government “using the media” to silence opposing views.Twitter Files from Elon Musk.The Twitter files did not show anything you are claiming it did.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-publisher-government-in-censorship-business-huge-way.amp
And it’s not just Twitter. FascistBook did it too.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Thank you for further validating my point.
Late take a look at your first article claiming the Twitter files show the government violating free speech:
“And not just one agency. Really every conceivable wing of the enforcement agencies of the U.S. government were in some way or another sending moderation requests to Twitter, and in many cases those requests were being fulfilled."
If this is how the person who published these files is characterizing the argument, you’ve already lost it. Requesting that Twitter remove files and Twitter agreeing to remove those files is in no way a violation of free speech. Twitter is a private company free to decide for themselves whether they want to remove content or not. And that means if they decide to work with the government and remove content the government flags then that is their free speech right, and that is exactly what they did according to your own source:
“They had an internal guidance, which I think is very significant, where they said publicly, we will only remove content at our sole discretion. Privately, we will remove any content that's identified by the United States intelligence community as a foreign state actor conducting cyber operations, so if the intel community says we should take it down, we're going to take it down."
That’s their choice because that’s their free speech right to decide how to handle government requests.
But your sources only get better. This is from your second link:
“The big disappointment of the Twitter Files is that their authors seem uninterested in alternate points of view. Across thirteen installments so far, I could not find a single instance in which the reporters tracked down named Twitter officials and asked them for an explanation.”
Exactly, which is why the Twitter files are such a joke. That’s what tends to happen when you care more about making a political splash than you do about painting an accurate picture of reality.
But my favorite gem out of your trove came from your last source:
“The Biden administration and others casually dismiss this troubling arrangement as a rationale to somehow prevent election "misinformation." Yet misinformation is in the eye of the beholder.”
Wow, that’s right up there with “alternative facts” and “Truth isn’t truth”