Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Youre conflating COVID denialism and election conspiracies with state censorship of an unfavored opinion. Denying COVID and telling people to inject bleach and eat deworming paste causes real physical harm. Pointing out that republicans are using Kirk's death to gain political outcomes is not the same.

Good lord, do all y'all get the same dog shit newsletter and marching orders? It's remarkable how consistent the profa messaging is 

Yes, is pretty obvious there are common places they get their bullshit, because when they get riled up, it's always a few hours after the fact, and all of the talking points are identical.

Edited by 'stache
  • Like 1
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Pointing out that republicans are using Kirk's death to gain political outcomes is not the same

Again, you're intentionally lying about what upset people. Not sure why you feel need to do that. It is quite something.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them“ 

 

This was great example of projection by Jimmy. He was wrong. Could've retracted it later. Didn't. 

 

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Youre conflating COVID denialism and election conspiracies with state censorship of an unfavored opinion

There were plenty of examples of Covid “disinformation” that was censored by the government that ended up being true, and you know it. But you cite extreme examples to try to make your point. You're a fundamentally dishonest person protected here by a friendly environment where people get booted eventually when they correct you.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 8
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Descendant said:

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them“ 

We did go through three or four classifications from the FBI prior to us getting the charging document, so I'm not sure what you're taking offense with? Use your brain, not your amygdala

  

6 minutes ago, Descendant said:

There were plenty of examples of Covid “disinformation” that was censored by the government that ended up being true, and you know it. But you cite extreme examples to try to make your point. You're a fundamentally dishonest person protected here by a friendly environment where people get booted eventually when they correct you.  

and lulz, tell me you got moderated on SM for spreading COVID disinformation without telling me. You sure do seem to have a well-formed opinion of me, what's your old sock handle(s)? GRUhorn is that you?

Edited by Captainant
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We did go through three or four classifications from the FBI prior to us getting the charging document, so I'm not sure what you're taking offense with? Use your brain, not your amygdala

The funny thing is, I never once said I was offended by it. I said it was a mistake. 

“It was a dumb move in that late-night Tv is largely irrelevant outside of hard leftie population. Their only left tilt has caused viewership to collapse. Not he’ll be trumpeted as some pseudo celeb martyr when he really was implying it was a Maga shooter despite evidence to the contrary. He then had a chance yesterday to retract or walk back after details of indictment came out. He chose not to. FAFO honestly. 

Can't wait for the Go Fund Me for Jimmy Kimmel. Or maybe he'll run for Senate”

Jimmy’s implication to his audience was clear that the shooter was OBVIOUSLY a right winger. I think it was false and in poor taste but I don't care anything beyond that. 

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
Just now, aggie08 said:

Do you think that would have saved him?

Absolutely. 

“I said maga was trying everything to prove that the shooter wasn't one of them. Well more info has come out and it looks like crazy comes in all shapes and sizes. Maybe joking about an assassination wasn't the best idea. Anyway, coming up next we have Sydney Sweeney and a musical performance from Tate McRae everybody.”

I'm sure it never occurred to him or his writers. 

  • Fuck You 6
Posted
Just now, Descendant said:

Absolutely. 

“I said maga was trying everything to prove that the shooter wasn't one of them. Well more info has come out and it looks like crazy comes in all shapes and sizes. Maybe joking about an assassination wasn't the best idea. Anyway, coming up next we have Sydney Sweeney and a musical performance from Tate McRae everybody.”

I'm sure it never occurred to him or his writers. 

yeah, just appease the fascists. That ALWAYS ends well lmfao

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Yes, is pretty obvious there are common places they get their bullshit, because when they get riled up, it's always a few hours after the fact, and all of the talking points are identical.

fox news GIF

Posted
1 hour ago, Descendant said:

Again, you're intentionally lying about what upset people. Not sure why you feel need to do that. It is quite something.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them“ 

 

This was great example of projection by Jimmy. He was wrong. Could've retracted it later. Didn't. 

Nothing Kimmel said was incorrect.  He never said he thinks the shooter is MAGA.  He said that MAGA was tripping over their dicks 5 seconds after the shooting, with no evidence, to point the finger at any other possibility than MAGA.  He was 100% correct.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
47 minutes ago, Descendant said:


“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them“ 

Jimmy’s implication to his audience was clear that the shooter was OBVIOUSLY a right winger. I think it was false and in poor taste but I don't care anything beyond that. 

 

Yes, that is definitely one way you can read that quote. If you’re looking for reason to take offense, you can read it as Jimmy blaming MAGA. The other way to read it is that MAGA was blaming others over the weekend, which is true. Every time there’s a tragedy, we all sit around and hope that the crazy person wasn’t like us. Some of us do it loudly, latching on to any rumor that confirms it. Then when we finally know who the crazy person is, we lay blame at the feet of anyone like them. It’s incredibly shallow thinking 

Posted

The real takeaway from the Kimmel debacle is that corporations will sell out their values for a President they don't like just to close a business deal. You don't hate the big wigs in suits enough. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

The real takeaway from the Kimmel debacle is that corporations will sell out their values for a President they don't like just to close a business deal. You don't hate the big wigs in suits enough. 

Yep, that's what I've drawn as a conclusion as well.

Posted
2 hours ago, immamac said:

I'm just saying there's 2 different conversations they aren't the same. There is an active one about this happening. There is also people who are following this one outside the media stuff for shoot updates and discussion 

This thread is Exhibit A that the Cloak Roomers (on both sides) are completely incapable of distinguishing between the 2 forums.  I'll never understand why they want to have the same political debates on the same topic in 2 different forums but pretty clear at this point posters that want updates on actual "news" go somewhere else which is a shame.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Who was President when Roseanne was fired? 

Where did anyone in Biden's administration pressure Disney to fire Carano not sign her to a new contract?

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to ‘censor’ some COVID-19 content during the pandemic | PBS News

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says senior Biden administration officials pressured Facebook to “censor” some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

 

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.”

The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.

“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote in the letter dated Aug. 26 and posted on the committee’s Facebook page and to its account on X.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes, I'm aware the Biden administration flagged covid misinformation for Facebook.  That's not responsive to my questions.

I am unaware of any public threats--or private, for that matter--coming from the Biden administration to shut down Facebook.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to ‘censor’ some COVID-19 content during the pandemic | PBS News

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says senior Biden administration officials pressured Facebook to “censor” some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

 

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.”

The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.

“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote in the letter dated Aug. 26 and posted on the committee’s Facebook page and to its account on X.

You are answering the wrong question.  Did the Biden admin threaten to use the full force and power of the US government to shut down FB altogether if it did not yield to the admin's desires?  There's a rather huge difference between that, and simply making the ask, even in the form of impassioned and repeated entreaties.  

That's it. That's the question.  AND, by the way, if the facts reveal that's what the Biden admin actually did, it would be wrong and I would oppose it completely.  Because my support of this nation and the Constitution is not contingent on who I voted for or which viewpoint I support.  I will not be an adherent of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy, which is apparently a bedrock principle in MAGAland: attribute some misconduct to the Biden admin, and use it to justify, excuse, and allow any and all misconduct by the Trump admin.  Wrong is wrong.  That's the difference between y'all and the rest of us.

Edited by Brisketexan
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

You are answering the wrong question.  Did the Biden admin threaten to use the full force and power of the US government to shut down FB altogether if it did not yield to the admin's desires?  There's a rather huge difference between that, and simply making the ask, even in the form of impassioned and repeated entreaties.  

That's it. That's the question.  AND, by the way, if the facts reveal that's what the Biden admin actually did, it would be wrong and I would oppose it completely.  Because my support of this nation and the Constitution is not contingent on who I voted for or which viewpoint I support.

Two things here. 

First unless I'm wrong there isn't a legal framework and a license that can simply be revoked to shut down Facebook.

Second, they were dealing with a friendly entitiy in Facebook that largely wanted what they wanted. No need to threaten anything. 

 

Also, I think it was dumb to get Kimmel canceled, but how was it unconstitutional? There's an existing legal framework to do that  

Posted
20 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to ‘censor’ some COVID-19 content during the pandemic | PBS News

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says senior Biden administration officials pressured Facebook to “censor” some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

 

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.”

The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.

“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote in the letter dated Aug. 26 and posted on the committee’s Facebook page and to its account on X.

No fucking shit. There was total horseshit ignorance on facebook getting people killed. There still is.

Posted
22 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.

Well that's EXACTLY THE SAME!!!! 

Posted
28 minutes ago, Skipper said:

This thread is Exhibit A that the Cloak Roomers (on both sides) are completely incapable of distinguishing between the 2 forums.  I'll never understand why they want to have the same political debates on the same topic in 2 different forums but pretty clear at this point posters that want updates on actual "news" go somewhere else which is a shame.

What actual news is there right now? I always see this thrown out here. The only news about this right now is about everything around the aftermath of the assassination. If there was news, it would be posted. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Descendant said:

Also, I think it was dumb to get Kimmel canceled, but how was it unconstitutional? There's an existing legal framework to do that  

Here is how.  The Cornell Law School has a great commentary site on the Constitution, including the First Amendment, which does a good job of summarizing the point:

Quote

the government can attempt to persuade private parties to adopt its viewpoints, but it cannot coerce others into suppressing what the government believes to be objectionable views by threatening legal sanctions or using other coercive methods.4 In other words, the government may communicate with third parties as part of its “attempts to persuade” the public, but it cannot cross the threshold into impermissible “attempts to coerce. 5

To state a claim for unconstitutional coercion of a third party in violation of the First Amendment, a litigant must allege “conduct that, when viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff ’s speech.” 6 In National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, the Supreme Court held that this standard would be met by a New York state official’s alleged threats of enforcement actions against private entities that refused to disassociate from the National Rifle Association (NRA).7

Open threats were made by the chair of the FCC.  I expect that we'll also find that similar, stronger statements were sent to ABC privately.

Conveying a threat of adverse government action to punish speech is 100% unconstitutional.  Yet, you support and defend it still.

Posted
1 hour ago, Descendant said:

Absolutely. 

“I said maga was trying everything to prove that the shooter wasn't one of them. Well more info has come out and it looks like crazy comes in all shapes and sizes. Maybe joking about an assassination wasn't the best idea. Anyway, coming up next we have Sydney Sweeney and a musical performance from Tate McRae everybody.”

I'm sure it never occurred to him or his writers. 

Kimmel was set to open the next show discussing his statement, make amends for offensive discussion. He never got that chance to retract because his removal had nothing to do with his statement and everything to do with a butthurt President using the weight of his administration to silence critics.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here is how.  The Cornell Law School has a great commentary site on the Constitution, including the First Amendment, which does a good job of summarizing the point:

Open threats were made by the chair of the FCC.  I expect that we'll also find that similar, stronger statements were sent to ABC privately.

Conveying a threat of adverse government action to punish speech is 100% unconstitutional.  Yet, you support and defend it still.

I don't actually. And I've said that. I just can't believe y'all are surprised by it. It’s been trending this way a while.  Like, years. 

Posted
Just now, Descendant said:

I don't actually. And I've said that. I just can't believe y'all are surprised by it. It’s been trending this way a while.  Like, years. 

Ahh yes, back to the the one-two punch of the false equivalency logical fallacy (the Biden admin working to persuade FB = the Trump admin threat to punish ABC) AND the tu quoque logical fallacy built on the bedrock of false equivalency.  Your execution is flawless.  Well-done.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...