Why is the Democratic Convention being held in a right wing racist state?

[Bill]

Pretty much. Unfortunately, our corporations and media turn a blind eye to China's abuses against Hong Kong and the Uyghurs, because China makes a lot of money for them.

I was watching an interview last night on a show which is pretty biased against the CCP (Zoming in w/ Simone Gao)& her guest Elmer Yuen made that exact point- THEY ARE COUNTING ON THOSE CORPORATIONS & WALLSTREET TO GO TO BAT FOR THEM...........

& right now they are calling in favors from them to stop Pompeo & trump from pulling most favored nation status from Hong Kong..........

The Video:

 

[Saudade]

I was watching an interview last night on a show which is pretty biased against the CCP (Zoming in w/ Simone Gao)& her guest Elmer Yuen made that exact point- THEY ARE COUNTING ON THOSE CORPORATIONS & WALLSTREET TO GO TO BAT FOR THEM...........

& right now they are calling in favors from them to stop Pompeo & trump from pulling most favored nation status from Hong Kong..........

The Video:

Let's hope the favors fail.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why not hold the convention in a more diverse state which represents the diverse party?

Why support racist white wing business's who will never vote for dems?

They don't even have any stay at home orders in place to protect the public?

Why do the dems keep supporting white wing racist?

Because Leftist, Progressive states are so unsafe the organizers feel too many of their members might get mugged, raped, robbed, or shot and become Republicans!

 

[Bill]

Let's hope the favors fail.

I do..... Clearly the pressure will be on trump to back off~lighten up, while be interesting

 

[StoneByStone]

It doesn't affect your constitutional freedom of speech, but at this point, there are practical aspects of speech that go well beyond strictly defined constitutional freedoms. Silicon Valley has more power over shaping societal norms than any previous media formats had. Because of the oligarchy in social media, they essentially determine the direction of political discussions via censorship.

Granted, the left is perfectly fine with this, since Silicon Valley favors their social views.

So we're basically back to where we were before the internet became widely available. Everyone has freedom of speech, but rich people control the big platforms.
This issue isn't really about free speech, because if that's the case, then we didn't have free speech until the internet. What's happening now is people think they're entitled to a platform.

I also wonder just how much of this is about liberal bias. Whenever a Conservative gets shut down on YouTube or Twitter, it's always because they violated the TOS. Then they bitch about how Conservatives are getting shut down when it really had nothing to do with politics.

But as soon as someone suggests that Pakistani immigration should be limited, the left shouts that down as racism or Islamophobia. So, I agree that it's not actually about Islam itself, but the left has made it impossible to separate the two by continually making the argument that it discriminates against Muslims.

Because the entire establishment is controlled by Globalists. But people like Murray are helping to make it impossible to separate race and religion when he refers to these South Asians as Muslims.

 

[Saudade]

So we're basically back to where we were before the internet became widely available. Everyone has freedom of speech, but rich people control the big platforms.
This issue isn't really about free speech, because if that's the case, then we didn't have free speech until the internet. What's happening now is people think they're entitled to a platform.

I also wonder just how much of this is about liberal bias. Whenever a Conservative gets shut down on YouTube or Twitter, it's always because they violated the TOS. Then they bitch about how Conservatives are getting shut down when it really had nothing to do with politics.

Because the entire establishment is controlled by Globalists. But people like Murray are helping to make it impossible to separate race and religion when he refers to these South Asians as Muslims.

If you really think every conservative that gets shut down is violating some terms of service, then you haven't been following all of the people who have been targeted for censorship by these platforms.

It's ok though. What's happening over time is that conservatives are forming their own circles that aren't mainstream, and while they won't cover the airwaves the same way as many liberal voices, their voices are very much heard in terms of votes.

 

[StoneByStone]

If you really think every conservative that gets shut down is violating some terms of service, then you haven't been following all of the people who have been targeted for censorship by these platforms.

It's ok though. What's happening over time is that conservatives are forming their own circles that aren't mainstream, and while they won't cover the airwaves the same way as many liberal voices, their voices are very much heard in terms of votes.

Which Conservatives do you think were unfairly shut down on YouTube or Twitter?

 

[Saudade]

Which Conservatives do you think were unfairly shut down on YouTube or Twitter?

There was a period of time when Steven Crowder was shut down since some flamboyant gay dude with Vox claimed he was being harassed by him. It was a total bullshit argument, but Youtube ran with it. Also, many of these platforms very selectively apply their TOS. Twitter has applied their supposed rules to many conservatives while not applying them to leftist groups.

 

[StoneByStone]

There was a period of time when Steven Crowder was shut down since some flamboyant gay dude with Vox claimed he was being harassed by him. It was a total bullshit argument, but Youtube ran with it. Also, many of these platforms very selectively apply their TOS. Twitter has applied their supposed rules to many conservatives while not applying them to leftist groups.

Steven Crowder kept calling a gay user a "lispy queer," which led to that guy getting homophobic death threats. Insulting other users on the basis of sexuality is considered hate speech, so Crowder definitely broke the TOS.

What's really going on here is that Conservatives are way more likely to break the TOS because the Right has a long history and culture of discrimination and hate speech. YouTube doesn't play favorites, but of course Conservatives are going to break these rules more, thus making it look like there is a bias.

 

[Saudade]

Steven Crowder kept calling a gay user a "lispy queer," which led to that guy getting homophobic death threats. Insulting other users on the basis of sexuality is considered hate speech, so Crowder definitely broke the TOS.

What's really going on here is that Conservatives are way more likely to break the TOS because the Right has a long history and culture of discrimination and hate speech. YouTube doesn't play favorites, but of course Conservatives are going to break these rules more, thus making it look like there is a bias.

Yeah, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. This is another topic where we clearly inhabit different realities.

 

[StoneByStone]

Yeah, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. This is another topic where we clearly inhabit different realities.

So Crowder insulting someone for being gay, you don't think that's breaking the TOS? Even though it says users are not allowed to insult other users based on sexuality?

 

[Saudade]

So Crowder insulting someone for being gay, you don't think that's breaking the TOS? Even though it says users are not allowed to insult other users based on sexuality?

I'm saying the terms aren't enforced equally. Plenty of people on the left have broken the terms but were not penalized. It happens all the time on Reddit as well.

 

[Nordberg]

I'm saying the terms aren't enforced equally. Plenty of people on the left have broken the terms but were not penalized. It happens all the time on Reddit as well.

Still no examples.

 

[Saudade]

Still no examples.

Twitter is the easiest to point out hypocrisy on. Various conservatives have been censored on Twitter for any number of reasons, yet ISIS's page was not taken down for a long time despite spreading plenty of hate.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mo...hreats-lobbed-maga-hat-wearing-catholic-kids/

Twitter's poor handling of various accounts making threats toward the Covington kids was another good example of a double standard.

 

[Nordberg]

Twitter is the easiest to point out hypocrisy on. Various conservatives have been censored on Twitter for any number of reasons, yet ISIS's page was not taken down for a long time despite spreading plenty of hate.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mo...hreats-lobbed-maga-hat-wearing-catholic-kids/

Twitter's poor handling of various accounts making threats toward the Covington kids was another good example of a double standard.

The point is you are suggesting a big problem with banning rightys. If that were a problem, you would have an easy and long list of examples. Trying to scrounge up an example proves your statement was wrong. And even if you do squeeze out one or 2, you are actually showing how super rare it would be. You did not have a premise that some righty was banned, but that it was a big problem for rightys.

 

[Cancel 2020.2]

It doesn't affect your constitutional freedom of speech, but at this point, there are practical aspects of speech that go well beyond strictly defined constitutional freedoms. Silicon Valley has more power over shaping societal norms than any previous media formats had. Because of the oligarchy in social media, they essentially determine the direction of political discussions via censorship.

Granted, the left is perfectly fine with this, since Silicon Valley favors their social views.



But as soon as someone suggests that Pakistani immigration should be limited, the left shouts that down as racism or Islamophobia. So, I agree that it's not actually about Islam itself, but the left has made it impossible to separate the two by continually making the argument that it discriminates against Muslims.

 

[Saudade]

The point is you are suggesting a big problem with banning rightys. If that were a problem, you would have an easy and long list of examples. Trying to scrounge up an example proves your statement was wrong. And even if you do squeeze out one or 2, you are actually showing how super rare it would be. You did not have a premise that some righty was banned, but that it was a big problem for rightys.

So, in other words, if I did provide you a list of the occurrences, you would downplay it, because your bias doesn't allow you to think logically. I understand that you're ideologically possessed, but that's something you'll have to resolve on your own terms.

 

[Nordberg]

So, in other words, if I did provide you a list of the occurrences, you would downplay it, because your bias doesn't allow you to think logically. I understand that you're ideologically possessed, but that's something you'll have to resolve on your own terms.

That is absurd. What passes as righty thinking. It is tough to downplay one.