Black people, you do not own this! - LANGUAGE

Author: TWS1405_2
black privilege
Ebonics
AAVE

Posts

Total: 81
Topic's author
#61
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
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
Doing it at the behest (bidding) of government agencies is government having an influence over free speech on the platforms. It doesn’t matter if they are a privately owned company. It’s the government telling them what to do and how to do it that’s the issue. 

#62
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
You are free to consider that an issue and argue against it as such, but it is objectively, not a violation of free speech. Twitter made a conscious and explicit decision to do “whatever” the intelligence agencies said. As misguided as you might believe that is, it is their right to hold an opposing worldview to your own and to follow it however they saw fit (within the law of course).

The problem here is that these companies like Twitter and Facebook have grown way too large and have way too much influence over the national dialog. That’s certainly an issue, but that is not a problem of speech, it’s a problem of concentrated power.
#63
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
The one essential ingredient for fascism is victimhood.

Sun gonna shine, whiney baby right wingers gonna whine.

That's just the way it is.
Topic's author
#64
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker
And the whiny baby left wingers done whine…at all? 
#65
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TWS1405_2
You know what I find interesting?

You and IwantRooseveltagain haven't clashed once to my knowledge but both have identical ways of making threads and trolling inside them.
Topic's author
#66
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
He and I have clashed since day one of him showing up here to troll his bs. I don’t troll on purpose. Let’s get that straight. He does. 
#67
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
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.
Ok? I'm not making it a huge deal. Just saying people think that free speech should be taken away. Not saying that it is going to be. 
Topic's author
#68
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
When the social media platforms work in concert with the government, that’s collusion. Translation: those private companies conspired with the government to violate Americans freedom of speech, right to redress the government with grievances and legitimate criticism via those social media platforms. In doing so it had an impact on the 2020 election results. That’s criminal anyway you slice it. 
#69
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
Translation: those private companies conspired with the government to violate Americans freedom of speech
To “conspire” is to work with someone else to break the law. A private company deciding to fulfill the government’s request is not breaking the law.

It’s also not a violation of speech by definition because the government wasn’t the entity who made that decision.

Getting kicked off of Twitter is not a violation of anyone’s free speech regardless. Once again, the first amendment does not grant anyone a right to a platform.

It also matters what the intent was here which was to combat foreign misinformation as part of an attempt to influence US elections. This isn’t just permittable, it’s common sense given what happened in the previous election.

It’s also noteworthy that all of this happened in the run up to the election. In other words it was Trump’s government that allegedly did this. So your argument appears to be that Trump’s own government conspired with Twitter for the purpose of silencing Trump supporters. That’s ridiculous.
Topic's author
#70
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
 A private company deciding to fulfill the government’s request is not breaking the law.
Yea it is. 

That’s like saying your BF asked you to drive him to the bank for a transaction, decided to fulfill their request and drive them to the bank. They ask you to wait with the car running while they run inside. They go inside and come running out with three large bags. Gets in your car and they yell “DRIVE!” Guess what, you just committing a felony. 

#71
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Proper English varies from area to area, culture to culture, country to country. Who gives a crap how people talk to one another in their own community. If talking like that hindered them from getting jobs and whatnot that's their own fault it's not any skin off your nose.
Topic's author
#72
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Ah but it is skin off our backs when they cry racism for how they talk and laws are made to protect their shitty speaking skills. 
#73
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
That’s like saying your BF asked you to drive him to the bank for a transaction, decided to fulfill their request and drive them to the bank. They ask you to wait with the car running while they run inside. They go inside and come running out with three large bags. Gets in your car and they yell “DRIVE!” Guess what, you just committing a felony. 
No, it’s not like that, at all.

In the case of the Twitter files, the government flagged posts for Twitter as possible foreign disinformation. Twitter decided to remove the posts.

So let’s simplify:

G = the government
T = Twitter
X = removal of posts flagged as possible foreign disinformation

Simplified:

G asked T to perform X, T decided to comply.

Now let’s break down your analogy
G = the “BF”
T = you
X = drive him to the bank for a transaction

Simplified:

G asked T to perform X, T decided to comply… and then G decided to rob a bank

Do you see the difference between these two analogies?
Topic's author
#74
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Wrong. 

The government cannot violate the first amendment, period. Even when they ask someone else to do it for them. It’s still under their direction. Your analogous is bunk. You clearly don’t understand how the law works. 
Topic's author
#75
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R













#76
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
The government cannot violate the first amendment, period. Even when they ask someone else to do it for them. It’s still under their direction. Your analogous is bunk. You clearly don’t understand how the law works.
The law says that Twitter has the ultimate authority to make the decision. And they did. That. By definition. Means it is not a first amendment violation.

Telling me I don’t understand it doesn’t change that fact.

No one is arguing that the government cannot violate the first amendment. You made that up. I’m pointing out that they didn’t violate the first amendment here. I’m still waiting for you to explain how they did.

If you want to argue that the government coerced Twitter into complying then that would be a legitimate point if it could be substantiated. Neither you nor anyone else I’ve argued this with, nor anyone I’ve even seen ranting about the Twitter files has ever attempted to make that point.
Topic's author
#77
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Once again, you clearly FAILED to look at the cited links given to you. 

And I have explained it. You just conveniently ignored (denied) it. 

Hint: col·lu·sion
noun
  1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
Another one: duress 

#78
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
Once again, you clearly FAILED to look at the cited links given to you. 
Because yet again, you have failed to present anything resembling a deep thought.

If you don’t have time to make your own arguments then I don’t have time to sort through all of your spam.

And I have explained it. You just conveniently ignored (denied) it. 

Hint: col·lu·sion
noun
  1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
I understand what you’re claiming. I’ve already explained in detail why there is nothing illegal or improper about it in any way. But apparently that was far beyond your bandwidth so all you have in response is a scary sounding word that I’m supposed to figure out how to fit into your point. No thanks, make your own point and I will be happy to respond to it.

Another one: duress
Still waiting for someone to make that claim and attempt to support it. Till then I have no obligation to take your posting of one word and pretending you made a point seriously.

Topic's author
#79
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Yet again, more outstanding displays of intellectual cowardice. Bravo!

#80
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
Says someone who can’t even be bothered to type words forming sentences to convey actual thoughts.
Topic's author
#81
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Says the denialist who refuses to see the articulate words connected together making sound arguments…in other words, your reading comprehension skills are found wanting. 

I will NEVER give you “cliff notes” to cited sources. That’s why they have introductory paragraphs and conclusion paragraphs. Quick and easy speed read to get the gist of the cited source. Again, you’re just a self-righteous lazy obnoxious intellectual coward.