Totalitarianism on the the left in America

AssHatZombie said:
no I dont. just regulations about censorship. don't strawman. workplace safety rules is also not nationalizing corporations.

you sound like a right wing corporate polesnacker.
Click to expand...

Regulations in the form of forcing people to give a platform to anyone on their own private property. Comparing that to workplace safety is just silly.
You might not want to call that nationalization, but I'm sure you know this would mean no more private property. It would also mean that the richest corporations would have even more control. If you have a small business, a larger business can force you to let them promote their business at your store. CNN could force Alex Jones to run commercials for them. Wouldn't you hate seeing that while getting your news?
 
StoneByStone said:
What you essentially want is nationalization of corporations. That can easily lead to real Totalitarianism, not the fake kind that you're talking about here.
What you're saying is that a person should be forced to give a platform to anyone who wants it in their own private property, thus eliminating private property. Much like Marxism seeks to eliminate private property.
Click to expand...

My apologies. You DO know what totalitarianism is. However, the word is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized.
 
StoneByStone said:
Regulations in the form of forcing people to give a platform to anyone on their own private property. Comparing that to workplace safety is just silly.
You might not want to call that nationalization, but I'm sure you know this would mean no more private property. It would also mean that the richest corporations would have even more control. If you have a small business, a larger business can force you to let them promote their business at your store. CNN could force Alex Jones to run commercials for them. Wouldn't you hate seeing that while getting your news?
Click to expand...

it doesn't mean that, fool. you're an idiot.
 
AssHatZombie said:
we're talking about social media censorship, twitter, youtube etc. their business is providing platforms for people.

stop being a willful dumbfuck.
Click to expand...

Apparently their business is not that at all. Apparently they feel their business is to provide platforms for only certain people.
This is why alternative sites providing these same services without the censorship are forming, and why more and more people are leaving youtube, twitter, facebook, and many of the other forums.
 
Into the Night said:
Apparently their business is not that at all. Apparently they feel their business is to provide platforms for only certain people.
This is why alternative sites providing these same services without the censorship are forming, and why more and more people are leaving youtube, twitter, facebook, and many of the other forums.
Click to expand...

I think they should be forced to allow free speech, like a baker has to make a gay cake.

sue me.
 
AssHatZombie said:
we're talking about social media censorship, twitter, youtube etc. their business is providing platforms for people.

stop being a willful dumbfuck.
Click to expand...

Yes, but those are private property companies. You're saying that private properties should be forced by the government to give a platform to all who want one.
So you're saying property that isn't used for business should be exempt, alright. But is anything else fair game? Should Breitbart be forced to publish articles that aren't right-wing Fake News?
 
StoneByStone said:
Yes, but those are private property companies. You're saying that private properties should be forced by the government to give a platform to all who want one.
So you're saying property that isn't used for business should be exempt, alright. But is anything else fair game? Should Breitbart be forced to publish articles that aren't right-wing Fake News?
Click to expand...


if they're business is providing platforms then yes. just like restaurants must serve blacks.

breitbart is not a platform provider, they're a publisher.

stop being a dumbass.
 
AssHatZombie said:
if they're business is providing platforms then yes. just like restaurants must serve blacks.

breitbart is not a platform provider, they're a publisher.

stop being a dumbass.
Click to expand...

A publisher website isn't a platform provider? But don't they provide a platform to writers?
 
AssHatZombie said:
no, just their writers. different business model.
Click to expand...

Yes, their writers. They, as a private company, get to decide who gets a platform. Same goes for YouTube and Twitter.
If I were to ask Breitbart to publish my article about how Cultural Marxism isn't real, they'd deny me access to their platform.
 
StoneByStone said:
Yes, their writers. They, as a private company, get to decide who gets a platform. Same goes for YouTube and Twitter.
If I were to ask Breitbart to publish my article about how Cultural Marxism isn't real, they'd deny me access to their platform.
Click to expand...

they're different, dumbass. regardless of your idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top