yhwx said:
Rate these posts from today and yesterday:
yhwx said:
GOP Convention Made Up of a Cavalcade of Special Guests, All Praising Donald Trump Awkwardly
yhwx said:
flametitan said:
He says what we’re all thinking.
Straight from the horses’s mouth.
yhwx said:
Jeebus said:
yhwx said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I understand what the 1st Amendment says. And I don’t think that social media should be made to follow free speech laws, because that would get really weird. Can you imagine people going to court over getting banned on an anime forum or something? I just don’t like the idea of “Well technically Twitter isn’t the government so they don’t have to follow the 1st Amendment.” It’s true, they’re not legally bound to that law, but I think it’s a good standard to follow for ethical reasons.
It may be unethical, but it definitely isn’t illegal.
yhwx said:
ferris209 said:
yhwx said:
Stinky-Dinkins said:
yhwx said:
Can I just say that I really hate the term “attention whore?”
No you can’t sorry.
I just did.
Mic drop.
Oh, it’s a mic drop!
ferris209 said:
yhwx said:
Stinky-Dinkins said:
yhwx said:
Can I just say that I really hate the term “attention whore?”
No you can’t sorry.
I just did.
Mic drop.
Oh, it’s a mic drop!
What a coincidence.
yhwx said:
SilverWook said:
If I banned people on a whim, this place would be deader than Bucharest on a Monday night. 😉
For a second there I thought you said ‘deadlier’ instead of ‘deader.’ Made the joke a lost less funny.
yhwx said:
Jeebus said:
yhwx said:
If what you’re saying is true, I agree wholeheartedly. Twitter is not the government—it does not guarantee you the right to say anything and everything on their service. They have been criticized before for not handling harassment well, and if this was actual harassment, this is a step in the right direction.
Milo himself didn’t harass anyone, there was no reason to ban him. Perhaps the 1st Amendment needs an update regarding how it’s treated on social media, because it’s a bit of a grey area. Personally, I would say that social media should acknowledge freedom of speech, and restrict their bans to people who are directly calling for violence, are continuously harassing people, doxxing or doing anything illegal. In other words, I don’t think people should be banned for ‘hate speech’.
That said, Milo is still a piece of shit.
I think my point still stands. It’s Twitter’s service, they can do whatever they want with it.
yhwx said:
DominicCobb said:
That fuckwit Milo Yinananwhogivesafuck deserves to be banned from the internet forever. He encouraged some truly horrific and shameful racist attacks against Leslie Jones yesterday. Free speech my ass. He’s promoting hate speech, not to mention he was posting fabricated “tweets” from Leslie Jones that could be considered libel.
If what you’re saying is true, I agree wholeheartedly. Twitter is not the government—it does not guarantee you the right to say anything and everything on their service. They have been criticized before for not handling harassment well, and if this was actual harassment, this is a step in the right direction.
yhwx said:
Here We Go Again: Language In Trump Jr.'s RNC Speech Lifted From Article:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-jr-rnc-speech-lifted-language-too
yhwx said:
yhwx said:
Online life is becoming a part of real life now. It just is, and if you don’t like it, too bad. I think that nobody would accept a person stalking and harassing you in “real life,” and as I said before, online life is real life now. “Get over it” is not an acceptable answer.
yhwx said:
Stinky-Dinkins said:
99.99999999999999% of twitter is attention whoring.
I think that 99% of the Internet is attention whoring. Maybe even humanity.
yhwx said:
Jeebus said:
Stinky-Dinkins said:
Her retirement is understandable because she’s an attention whore. She didn’t uncover some sinister racist underbelly previously unanticipated - if you’re a celebrity and literally anyone with an internet connection can say anything they want to you at any time anonymously, you would have to be a deranged fool not to expect to receive insane shit.
I don’t blame her for reacting this way, honestly. This is her first big role, really, so this kind of shit is probably very new to her. If she was a “seasoned” celebrity like Angelina Jolie and she was throwing a fit like this, I’d agree with you.
I don’t find the ‘Well they are famous’ argument convincing. I mean, if something ‘gets to you,’ for lack of a better term, there’s no stoping that. Some people are good at getting that and some are not.
And don’t pull the obvious ‘Well then don’t do that’ argument on me. I already know what you’re going to say, so don’t even try.
yhwx said:
SilverWook said:
Stinky-Dinkins said:
Online life is not real life, unless you have no real life.
But stuff one says or does online can have real life consequences.
Maybe I was a bit too dramatic in my statements—perhaps I should have said that online life can be an extension of real life.
yhwx said:
Can I just say that I really hate the term “attention whore?”
yhwx said:
Stinky-Dinkins said:
yhwx said:
Can I just say that I really hate the term “attention whore?”
No you can’t sorry.
I just did.
Mic drop.
yhwx said:
DominicCobb said:
yhwx said:
Can I just say that I really hate the term “attention whore?”
Hits too close to home?
If I didn’t have an account here, I would still hate the term.
yhwx said:
yhwx said:
Jeebus said:
They’re not showing you the door, they’re forcing you out and locking it.
Such a technicality to complain about.
yhwx said:
Let’s say you get banned here. Has your freedom of speech been violated?
yhwx said:
Jeebus said:
yhwx said:
Let’s say you get banned here. Has your freedom of speech been violated?
Depends on why.
It doesn’t.
yhwx said:
The mods can ban you for whatever they want. I reiterate…
yhwx said:
yhwx said:
And that’s a totally valid thing to do.
yhwx said:
You can say it’s unfair, but it’s totally within their right.
yhwx said:
So has any progress been made today?
yhwx said:
Hey
You can also use two #'s
Or three
Four
Five
yhwx said:
yhwx said:
moviefreakedmind said:
I don’t understand why some people are against any and all vetting processes for immigrants.
Is anybody here advocating for a complete open border? If so, please tell me who.
And just before anybody points to me, I think there should be some immigration control, but not to the wild extent that the current Republican establishment are proposing. I think the current process is acceptable.
yhwx said:
ferris209 said:
TV’s Frink said:
ferris209 said:
Oh nos!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-clinton-trump-now-tied-gop-convention-kicks-n611936
One poll in July is meaningless.
Lol.
lol
It’s true, actually. See what happened in the U.K.—Brexit was predicted not to happen, but alas, it did. And the polls were about 50/50 there too. It’s a toss up right now.
yhwx said:
ferris209 said:
yhwx said:
ferris209 said:
TV’s Frink said:
ferris209 said:
Oh nos!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-clinton-trump-now-tied-gop-convention-kicks-n611936
One poll in July is meaningless.
Lol.
lol
It’s true, actually. See what happened in the U.K.—Brexit was predicted not to happen, but alas, it did. And the polls were about 50/50 there too. It’s a toss up right now.
I know, and I agree with you 100%. Polls are pretty useless on the whole.
Then why did you lol?
yhwx said:
ferris209 said:
yhwx said:
moviefreakedmind said:
I don’t understand why some people are against any and all vetting processes for immigrants.
Is anybody here advocating for a complete open border? If so, please tell me who.
And just before anybody points to me, I think there should be some immigration control, but not to the wild extent that the current Republican establishment are proposing. I think the current process is acceptable.
Okay, first off just what is the “Republican Establishment” to you, I have a certain definition but I’m curious about yours. Two, what is the “wild extent” that you indicate they are proposing?
I was mainly using the term “Republican Establishment” to reflect the current climate within the Republican Party, which most of which seem to be supporting Trump’s proposed border plans. The ‘wild extent’ comment was meant to reflect his positions, such as the border wall.
Third, the “current process” is absolutely acceptable, I agree. But, NOBODY seems to be abiding by it choosing rather to let the border remain wide open and free for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to come across unvetted and unchecked. Many believe they are future Democrat voters.
Do you have evidence for that assertion?
yhwx said:
moviefreakedmind said:
yhwx said:
moviefreakedmind said:
I don’t understand why some people are against any and all vetting processes for immigrants.
Is anybody here advocating for a complete open border? If so, please tell me who.
And just before anybody points to me, I think there should be some immigration control, but not to the wild extent that the current Republican establishment are proposing. I think the current process is acceptable.
Most of the leaders of Western Europe definitely are.
Don’t you realize that there’s a European Union? You know, they’re all part of one geopolitical region? (Voluntarily, I might add) Sort of like the United States?
yhwx said:
moviefreakedmind said:
yhwx said:
moviefreakedmind said:
yhwx said:
moviefreakedmind said:
I don’t understand why some people are against any and all vetting processes for immigrants.
Is anybody here advocating for a complete open border? If so, please tell me who.
And just before anybody points to me, I think there should be some immigration control, but not to the wild extent that the current Republican establishment are proposing. I think the current process is acceptable.
Most of the leaders of Western Europe definitely are.
Don’t you realize that there’s a European Union? You know, they’re all part of one geopolitical region? (Voluntarily, I might add) Sort of like the United States?
Yes I do. They are in favor of completely unvetted immigration.
I can move across any state of the U.S. freely. Would you call that ‘completely unveiled immigration?’
yhwx said:
ferris209 said:
yhwx said:
Third, the “current process” is absolutely acceptable, I agree. But, NOBODY seems to be abiding by it choosing rather to let the border remain wide open and free for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to come across unvetted and unchecked. Many believe they are future Democrat voters.
Do you have evidence for that assertion?
Which assertion?
Emphasis added.
yhwx said:
moviefreakedmind said:
yhwx said:
I can move across any state of the U.S. freely. Would you call that ‘completely unveiled immigration?’
Are you aware that Merkel let in two million unvetted immigrants? The open door policy harms all countries in Europe when one idiot does things like that.
You didn’t even answer my question.
What if something similar happened completely domestically? Would you then advocate for border control on a state by state basis?
yhwx said:
ferris209 said:
yhwx said:
ferris209 said:
yhwx said:
Third, the “current process” is absolutely acceptable, I agree. But, NOBODY seems to be abiding by it choosing rather to let the border remain wide open and free for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to come across unvetted and unchecked. Many believe they are future Democrat voters.
Do you have evidence for that assertion?
Which assertion?
Emphasis added.
Uh, because they are. It’s kind of common sense illegals are everywhere, at least in Texas.
I would like numbers.
yhwx said:
ferris209 said:
Frink.
https://youtu.be/9KtzdP7mR-4
Everything old is new again.
