Utopia Talk / Politics / Rugian's boyfriend banned

hood Member	Mon Aug 06 14:53:33 Alex Jones banned from social media. http://ars...wing-facebook-and-apples-lead/ Conspiracy theorist and online troll Alex Jones got more bad news on Monday as YouTube banned Jones' channel on the platform. "This account has been terminated for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines," a notice on Jones's YouTube channel states. The decision comes hours after Apple and Facebook made similar moves. Early on Monday, Apple removed five of the six podcasts from Infowars, Alex Jones's site, from its popular podcast directory. Facebook followed suit, taking down four of Jones's most popular pages and effectively banning him from the site. "All users agree to comply with our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines when they sign up to use YouTube," a YouTube spokesperson told Ars on Monday. "When users violate these policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts." While Jones has been widely criticized for spreading fake news—like "Pizzagate," the completely baseless claim that senior Democrats were running a pedophile ring in the basement of a DC pizzeria—disseminating untrue information isn't considered grounds for removing content from either YouTube or Facebook. Instead, both platforms have rules against hate speech, pornography, invasions of privacy, and other categories of questionable content. When Facebook banned Jones earlier today, it cited rules against hate speech and violent content. An earlier, more limited YouTube crackdown focused on videos that YouTube said violated rules against hate speech and child endangerment. Spotify, which blocked a number of episodes of Alex Jones's show last week, broadened the ban on Monday to include all episodes of his show. In the wake of these bans, Jones quickly took to a live video stream, available at Infowars.com as well as on Twitter, to denounce the technology giants banning him from these platforms. "Fight them. Politically. Never stop. Tell folks, 'it's the most censored program for a reason,'" Jones said on Monday. "It is an honor to be persecuted by the globalists." --------------------------------- Guy admitted in court that he's just a performance actor. Why people still listen to him is mind boggling.
Delude Member	Mon Aug 06 15:00:14 Stupidity.
Delude Member	Mon Aug 06 15:01:11 Oh, and wait for it. Tirade of free speech....
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 06 15:16:32 WHAT THE FUCK
Wrath of Orion Member	Mon Aug 06 15:36:56 hahahahahaha
Sam Adams Member	Mon Aug 06 15:44:29 Remember when alex jones used to be a left wing nutter? Infowars used to be a beacon of leftism and now the right wing extremists eat it up. Weird. And dumb.
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 06 16:24:48 "When Facebook banned Jones earlier today, it cited rules against hate speech and violent content." Doubtful they'll find it. But "content providers" don't have to provide much justification for censorship.
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 06 17:06:16 Kind of blows the "but content provider censorship could never approach the level that ISPs can reach" theory out of the water when all of the massive corporations collude to uniformly ban users.
hood Member	Mon Aug 06 17:41:20 As far as I know, none of these services have been able to touch Infowars.com. Comcast could instantly prevent 1/3 of the country from visiting said website and there would be no feasible workaround. Facebook does not have that pull. Stop being retarded.
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 06 17:48:27 I think you're massively underestimating the effect of suddenly eliminating social media presence, possibly coupled with search engine delisting.
Pillz Member	Mon Aug 06 18:26:17 Hood can't help but make incorrect statements based on his tunnel vision world view
hood Member	Mon Aug 06 21:27:27 "possibly coupled with search engine delisting." Completely fabricated fearmongering. "Hood can't help but make incorrect statements" Feel free to actually disprove anything I said.
Dukhat Member	Mon Aug 06 21:41:00 Was Alex Jones site showing any growth? Most of the far right sites seem to be stable since Trump became president. Fox News has gotten a little bigger but I think that's because Trumpkin snowflakes can't take getting triggered by all the facts from mainstream sources of information.
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 06 21:41:38 "fearmongering." Lol. You have at least four major companies, one of them presiding over the largest search engine, move in lockstep to muzzle some retarded fake news site. That these massive, bureaucratic entities moved in such quick succession means that it was planned. Such unison should be chilling, because their actions aren't limited to retarded fake news sites. But sure, they would never delist that same target with their phony justifications. Just fearmongering.
hood Member	Mon Aug 06 21:46:50 When was the last time anything of note was delisted? Right to forget? Stormfront wasn't even fucking delisted, it just ran out of people willing to host it. So, yes, bringing up being delisted is about as close to outright fearmongering as it gets. Point of note: the guy who axed stormfront admitted within a week how bad he felt about doing it and stated he wouldn't do such a thing again. But yeah, OHNOESINFOWARSMIGHTGETDELISTED!
smart dude Member	Tue Aug 07 01:58:40 "Content provider censorship" Lol what a ridiculous phrase. They can provide whatever content they want. McDonald's isn't "censoring" pizza just because they don't sell it there.
Aeros Member	Tue Aug 07 08:27:19 It's a bit disturbing that the social media companies would do a coordinated take down of someone. Even if it is Alex Jones. That they would do so because he violated standards of "Hate Speech" is also alarming, because the phrase "Hate speech" is a dog whistle of far left ideologues for speech they disagree with on political grounds.
Aeros Member	Tue Aug 07 08:45:33 Also, social media companies are not content providers, nor are they producers. The McDonald's analogy does not apply. A better analogy would be to say they are a privately owned park open to the public. If 18 year olds are drinking in the park, the owners are not responsible, and are not liable for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. They provide an open space, but the public does what they want with it. The content is created and provided by the users and is their liability.
hood Member	Tue Aug 07 09:18:47 "It's a bit disturbing that the social media companies would do a coordinated take down of someone. Even if it is Alex Jones." Certainly. While I am amused by the situation because Jones clearly deserves this, I still disagree with the choice made by social media. However, suggesting that this is some sort of harbinger is fairly ridiculous.
Pillz Member	Tue Aug 07 09:45:31 You're patently retarded if that's what you think
hood Member	Tue Aug 07 09:53:26 You're (un)shockingly devoid of anything close to an argument. I believe the saying is "shit or get off the pot," no? Make a point, tard. Try to include a tad of evidence.
Pillz Member	Tue Aug 07 10:05:10 Arguments been made, I'm just reiterating that you're retarded.
Pillzlovesthecock Member	Tue Aug 07 11:00:22 I'm just reiterating.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 07 13:48:06 This effort by the big social media companies has been going on since Trump was elected, allegedly by Russian hackers manipulating stories in social media. So it isn't as much a harbinger as the most significant event to date. It was most likely coordinated and that is by itself an escalation of the above mentioned trend. It has generally been temporary bans and de-monetization of videos or deletion of content, losing you verification marker on Twitter, stuff like that. And yes the effort primarily targets conservatives and right wingers, by the nature of Trump being a republican, but also by the fact that these are progressive and liberal organizations. It's the culture war in cyberspace kids, get used to it.
Rugian Member	Tue Aug 07 13:59:19 At the risk of sounding like a CT nutter, I also cant help but notice that this collective ban came down EXACTLY 3 months before the midterms. If the establishment going to be this blatant about it, they may as well just come out and announce "we control what you read online now."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 07 15:01:42 Rugian didn’t I fucking todeso? I fucking todeso, in MARCH! http://www...&thread=82280&showdeleted=true
Nekran Member	Tue Aug 07 15:03:04 I find it pretty funny that you guys consider them anti-trump and anti-right wing, considering they have been trump's biggest asset in getting elected. And these are not "progressive and liberal organizations". They go with the money. If it turned out there was more money in backing conservative ideals, they'd go with them. Sadly for you guys, but luckily for reality, societies tend to progress and conservatives always lose out in the long run. "If the establishment going to be this blatant about it" Who do you even mean by "the establishment" at this point?
Aeros Member	Tue Aug 07 16:06:45 The James Damore lawsuit says the exact opposite though.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 07 16:28:55 Jack Dorsey, the CEO of twitter himself says different. "It's no secret that we are largely left leaning, and we all have biases. That includes me, our board, and our company." Or Mark zuckerberg, "A month after CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged in a Capitol Hill hearing that Silicon Valley is an “extremely left-leaning place” — even as he stressed Facebook applies its policies evenly — Facebook commissioned a full review of its business practices to determine if there’s any conservative bias in how it treats employees or the way it handles content that appears on its News Feed." http://www...rect=on&utm_term=.597e517447d1 So if we accept that these people are humans just like us and 1. fallible 2. not monstrous amoral capitalists, between the biases they have and their attempt to remain neutral, they will fail. And they will fail predictably within the scope of their bias. I appreciate the efforts and honesty, but it also happens to be empirically true, a majority of silicon valley are left/liberal. So knowing what I know about group norms, bias and prejudice, color me skeptical :)
hood Member	Tue Aug 07 16:40:13 A big issue is that people seem to be applying the first amendment selectively. Everyone focuses on Alex Jones' freedom of speech. Nobody seems to bring up Facebook's (we'll use them as the example) freedom of association. Indeed, any attempt to grant AJ his free speech (some sort of extension of first amendment protections from government to business) would also extend the freedom of association or have to entirely eliminate it. Do we really want to eliminate freedom of association? Suddenly, gay wedding cake maker is legally compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple against his religious objections. The best way to get around this conflict of first amendment rights would be to... do exactly what we have done. If FB doesn't want to associate with AJ, then he will have to (and be perfectly free to) roll his own. I.e. Infowars is still a thing, AJ can still publish there, he still is allowed his speech and FB is still allowed it's freedom of association. I don't have a better compromise. Feel free to suggest one. The irony of this that Jones' infamy is both what kept him alive on FB this long and also why this is now a story. Plenty of people have been banned for less.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 07 16:46:56 "Do we really want to eliminate freedom of association?" Absolutely not, it is their right as you explained, but, if someone claims neutrality specifically on these issues, in as far as the application of policy goes, I believe it is fair to hold them to that standard and be critical.
Aeros Member	Tue Aug 07 16:48:24 The concern is control over what people get to see and hear. Alex Jones was on YouTube, but I never watched any of his shit on YouTube. The way these platforms work is that people get to decide what they want to view or listen too. We can dance around the issue all we want, but the fundamental issue here is that dictating what people are allowed to see and hear is exceedingly dangerous. Made all the more dangerous due to this bizarre desire by the Far Left to shut down anything they view as politically objectionable. Alex Jones was a big fat target. But who goes next? Ben Shapiro? The turning points USA crew? I would be less concerned if Alex Jones had been banned for spreading fake news. But these social media companies took great pain to say that was not why they did it. They don't want to be the arbiters of what is true. No. Instead they got rid of him for "hateful and violent" content. Which are buzz words of the Far Left, and far more dangerous. Instead of banning Alex for spreading misinformation, they banned him for being politically unacceptable.
hood Member	Tue Aug 07 17:17:37 @ nim, I wasn't specifically responding to you. I have no argument with your points and tend to agree with what you've brought up here.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 07 17:33:38 http://www...y/silicon-valley-politics.html Ok, Nekran is correct in one regard. Silicon Valley is very conservative/right leaning when it comes to the regulation of their industry. They don't like the governments nose in their business. What sane person does?
Nekran Member	Tue Aug 07 21:58:12 Jack Dorsey could be a hardcore communist at heart, he and his board would not let it get in the way of what's best for twitter. I do agree though that it is kind of scary that big companies are deciding what we get to see. Freedom of speech grants protection from the government, which seems to be growing less relevant every day. I do sometimes feel like we are at the starting stage of these dystopian stories where some major corporations hold all the power and are what people have allegiance to.
hood Member	Tue Aug 07 22:24:26 "I do sometimes feel like we are at the starting stage of these dystopian stories where some major corporations hold all the power and are what people have allegiance to." And this issue is only exacerbated by the deregulation crowd.
Aeros Member	Wed Aug 08 06:09:22 Congress does have the power to extend the first amendment to social media. They just have to pass a law stating it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 08 06:43:02 "he and his board would not let it get in the way of what's best for twitter." Well you assume that they do not think doing what I am saying they are doing, is what is best for twitter, this is where you are wrong. I am saying that after Trump was elected this is precisely what they went out and said they were concerned about the down sides of social media. They had been naive, they were going to take measures. That was exactly how it sounded back then. These are the measures we changed the algorithms to ban certain things. And since algorithms do not write themselves, it actually matters the composition of people who are to decide what is and isn't acceptable behavior when communicating with other people. If view point diversity matters, it matters for cases of neutrality, because individual humans are not wired to be neutral, not even Jack Dorsey. Being neutral has no relation with running a successful organisations, companies make political grand standing all the time and people reward and punish them. There are certain "Jobs" and lines of profession where it is easier to not separate your values from you work. Perhaps it even attracts activist type of people. I would say "media" is one of those. Activism journalism for example is a thing and organisations can be to varying degrees activistic and successful. The cultural sphere is another related area, dominated by liberals/leftists and clearly influences their work. Twitter straddles it all, culture, entertainment, news. And there is nothing inherently wrong or shocking in this. I think there is room for openly political and activistic organizations, I just think they should be open about. Of them all Twitter is probably the worse in terms of double standards. A recent example being the hiring of Sarah Jeong by the NY Times, she tweeted a couple of thousand anti white racist tweets, NY Times defended her. Twitter never banned her. A few days ago Candice Owens (black conservative) took a few of those tweets, changed "white" with "jews", to make a point, got banned for 12 hours. Small issue, no biggie, but there are many examples like that.
hood Member	Wed Aug 08 07:38:53 "Congress does have the power to extend the first amendment to social media." Yes, this would grant social media companies the right of freedom of association and they could exercise that right by refusing to associate with -insert person here-.
Aeros Member	Wed Aug 08 08:39:03 Incorrect. The social media companies have corporate personhood which already gives them free association protections. Congress however can implement regulatory authority on them similar to what the FCC does to broadcasters.
hood Member	Wed Aug 08 08:51:10 You missed the point, bro. Freedom of association is a first amendment right. Extending the first amendment would include this freedom of association as well, and still directly conflict with user speech. You'll notice that nobody is suggesting that broadcasters be forced to allow any schmuck use their screen time. If you're going to implement the broadcaster model, you aren't solving anything. Y'all need to fucking understand that before you go yelling free speech. It ain't that simple.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 08 10:04:08 It all gets very grey since for all practical purpose social media is a means of communication, an important one, perhaps the most important one. Can a telephone company terminate your contract because you make calls and say racist things with your friends or other things that are not necessarily illegal but douchy, spread ”fake news”? Use the roads? They are not exactly like utility, but they are not completely different. It really isn’t simple, there is no perfect solution, it is only a question of what to compromise on.
hood Member	Wed Aug 08 10:12:03 Well, roads are public property. A company could certainly block you from using their car access (parking lots, local on-site roads for large campuses), but general roads are not privately owned. Telephone providers can also cut access to their services. They don't care if you say racist things, but you also aren't having your phone conversations in public. Have Twitter et al banned anyone for content of private messages? I don't think there are many good analogies to this situation due to the overwhelming public nature of the social media network communication.
Aeros Member	Wed Aug 08 10:28:13 It's a new technology and a revolution in forms of communication. The danger that exists in trying to play moral police for the content of the communications is that everyone's morals are different. Silicon valley, where these companies are located, has a very different cultural morality to Buffalo, New York, which is different to Birmingham, Alabama. What we see here is an effort by the San Francisco elites to censor what they view as "problematic" speech. I never thought I would see the day when I would have to stick up for Alex Jones, but IMO we all have too. Petty authoritarians always whack the low hanging fruit first.
hood Member	Wed Aug 08 10:44:23 Er, excuse you. This ain't a San Fran thing. There are hordes of people clamoring for this exact outcome. On both sides. And for the most part, the social media companies are caving to pressure. They shouldn't, and people are stupid to want to wield the ban hammer so quickly and often (although Jones wasn't quickly banned by any means). Conservatives categorically lost the social media power race. Hence, you see them bitching now. They're oddly quiet on other fronts where they have won. Suspicious, almost.
Forwyn Member	Wed Aug 08 12:54:03 "Freedom of association is a first amendment right." Congress has already established a right, upheld by courts, to restrict freedom of association in relation to "public accommodations".
Dukhat Member	Wed Aug 08 14:40:41 People evoking 2nd amendment bullshit is retarded. Alex Jones and most conservative media blatantly lie to their supporters. It's not as bad as screaming fire in a crowded theater but it's effect on policy and discourse is probably even worst. Look at all the retards on this board that believe in oil company propaganda about climate change. If they want to use mainstream platforms to lie, then there are penalties and they got their ass handed to them. The truth is the truth.
Rugian Member	Wed Aug 08 14:53:55 "Stupid CT retards, the government isn't secretly conducting mass surveillance against American citizens. If they were spying on us then we would already know. Stop getting all of your news from idiotic fringe media and learn to trust our national institutions. The truth is the truth."
Rugian Member	Wed Aug 08 14:57:35 Stupid CT nutters, how can the government be advocating going to war with Iraq over evidence that they basically made up? Stop being a bunch of basement-dwelling incels and go outside and talk to a woman. Morons. The truth is the truth." Dukhat circa 2002
Rugian Member	Wed Aug 08 15:02:59 "Stupid CT asshats, I'm sick of hearing all these claims about how the election results might not be legitimate. That's just fake news. White people are a dying demographic and Hispanics would never vote for Trump. You fools should be scrubbed from the internet until you go and get yourselves a college education. Retards. The truth is the truth." Dukhat, circa mid-2016
Rugian Member	Wed Aug 08 15:05:10 "Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The truth is the truth. Dukhat, circa 1995
Rugian Member	Wed Aug 08 15:06:55 "I'm not a walking example of the Kruning-Dunner effect." -Dukhat, circa 2018
murder Member	Wed Aug 08 16:07:47 "Conservatives categorically lost the social media power race." They haven't lost anything. These are all publicly traded companies. They are all up for sale all the time.
murder Member	Wed Aug 08 19:40:09 The Case for Banning Alex Jones From the Weekly Standard no less. Jonathan V. Last There's no reason for conservatives to be defending this guy. One of the downstream effects of Trumpism is that the fact of having a President Trump has given conservatives a hair-trigger on defending every marginal figure, no matter how stupid or malicious. It’s easy to understand why: Trump is close to these people in form and substance, so allowing them to be attacked can be seen as a proxy argument against Trump. No conservatives would have felt duty-bound to defend Milo Yiannopoulos had Mitt Romney been president. But we are where we are, so various conservatives have risen to defend Alex Jones in the wake of Facebook, YouTube, and Apple kicking him off of their platforms. Their defenses come across three vectors, each of which is flawed. (1) It’s a First Amendment issue. Let’s dispense with this one off the top: No, it’s not. And conservatives used to understand the difference between having the right to say something and having the right to say something without consequences. None of the tech companies that have de-platformed Jones are impinging on his right to speech. He can still record and disseminate podcasts and videos. He can still publish whatever conspiracy theories he wants. No one is threatening him with violence or jail or a fine or denying him a license to carry on as he pleases. No arm of government touches this case in any way. All that is happening is that privately owned companies are declining to allow him to use their resources to broadcast his speech. There is no First Amendment case—none at all. (2) It’s an equal-access issue. You might recall a couple months ago when conservatives celebrated the Masterpiece Cake Shop decision. (Rightly, in my view.) The nub of their argument was that privately held businesses ought to be allowed to refuse certain kinds of services to certain customers, provided that (1) the refusal was based on reasonable, non-discriminatory grounds and that (2) the person being refused had reasonable recourse to an alternative remedy. That’s precisely what has happened here. Jones is being denied access based on his behavior and actions, not who or what he is. And he has an enormous, obvious, and reasonable remedy: The Internet. Alex Jones has his own website. On it, he can publish anything he likes. He can post videos and offer podcasts. He can send out newsletters. People who want Alex Jones can get all the Alex Jones they can handle with about half a second of effort and no additional barriers. And this isn’t like a newspaper telling Jones that he’s free to buy his own printing presses and start his own paper: The total bill for publishing all of this stuff will be in the range of a several hundred dollars a year. The platforms we’re talking about here—Facebook, YouTube, and iTunes podcasts—are nothing like public utilities. There are plenty of alternative channels and then there’s the giant World Wide Web itself, with all of the intertubes in it. There is one case that you can envision where the utility/equal-access argument might hold: If Google decided that they were going to ban Alex Jones from search results, then Jones defenders might have a point. Google is so dominant, and search is such a core function, that it could reasonably be viewed almost as the doorway to the internet. You could make a very good case that Google Search functions like a utility. But that’s not what we’re talking about here and even looking at Google Search in this way highlights the degree to which the entities in question are nothing like utilities. (3) The ban is imperfect. Have you seen all of the conservatives asking “What about Farrakhan?” There are a ton of bad users out on the tech industry’s leading platforms. But saying that these platforms shouldn’t ban Alex Jones because they haven’t banned all of the bad actors is like saying that the DA shouldn’t prosecute one criminal because the police haven’t caught every other criminal. The answer here is obvious: Tech companies shouldn’t give Jones a pass; they should get rid of the Farrakhans of the world, too. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Conservatives who worry about the slippery slope ought to wait until we get to a part that’s actually slippery. There is nothing about Alex Jones—nothing—that would allow him to be confused with a reasonably responsible, good-faith actor. This isn’t a hard case. If you have even minimum community standards for decency, you can draw a line here. The real question is whether or not you believe that tech companies should be allowed to impose any standards on their platforms. YouTube doesn’t allow pornography. Is that okay? Facebook doesn’t seem to allow the Daily Stormer to have a page. Does that make Facebook a worse experience for the average user? On the base question of whether or not private companies have the right to establish some minimum standards of decency on their platforms, the conservative response has almost always been, “Yes.” (I suspect the overlap between groups that insist that Facebook must allow Alex Jones on the platform and also insist that NFL should force players to stand during the national anthem is almost 100 percent.) But I’d go even further: The conservative view isn’t just that communities have the right to create standards—we have always believed that there is wisdom and virtue in doing so. If we didn’t, then we’d be libertarians. There may come a time when tech companies make a bad decision regarding who they allow to use their platforms. But this isn’t that. Maybe you think that the public square the internet has created over the last decade is healthy and optimal. If so, then banning Alex Jones is a bad idea. But if you look around online communities and think that they can, and should, be better—then the real problem is that tech companies haven’t gone far enough. http://www...to-ban-alex-jones-and-infowars
obaminated Member	Wed Aug 08 21:56:34 "I dont agree with someone, therefore i won't defend his right to free speech... my parents also raised me to be a good person." - murder
Dukhat Member	Wed Aug 08 22:33:07 Durr i cant read durr so ill pretend he said this durr
murder Member	Wed Aug 08 22:59:17 "I dont agree with someone, therefore i won't defend his right to free speech." I don't defend a douchebag's right to breathe. Some posters here must have me confused with one of the founding fathers. I didn't write or vote for the Bill of Rights. Also, the government is obliged to recognize those rights and others for everyone equally. I on the other hand am not required to recognize any god damn thing. I am not bound by the US Constitution. Fuck your rights! You are not someone that I "disagree" with. You are a toxin in the bloodstream of this nation. If Alex Jones was murdered in the street, on camera, with the killer intentionally leaving his dna and finger prints on the victim, the muder weapon, and a full confession on camera along with his original long form birth certificate and picture ID ... and I was on the jury, I'd vote to acquit, give the killer a medal, and start a gofundme page to raise reward money. Alex Jones isn't someone that I "disagree" with. He's a piece of garbage who tormented the parents of small children how were murdered, just so that he could make himself richer. Fuck him! Fuck you! And fuck anyone else that defends him, or speaks on behalf of him or his rights. As far as I'm concerned, he forfeited all rights. And that's because my parents raised me right.
Canadian Member	Wed Aug 08 23:06:32 I think a lot of Jones' supporters like Rugian are forgetting what's important - getting that special bottle of libtard tears(TM) for just $59.99!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 09 02:39:33 Twitter founder Jack Dorsey has defended his company’s decision to continue publishing the controversial tweets of the American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, saying Jones’s content “hasn’t violated our rules”. +1 for Jack Dorsey and twitter. I respect these attempts to be consistent and neutral.
obaminated Member	Thu Aug 09 10:37:23 "Fuck him! Fuck you! And fuck anyone else that defends him, or speaks on behalf of him or his rights. As far as I'm concerned, he forfeited all rights. And that's because my parents raised me right. " you are a good lil nazi.
murder Member	Thu Aug 09 11:34:35 "+1 for Jack Dorsey and twitter. I respect these attempts to be consistent and neutral." Twitter is massively overvalued and teetering. They can't survive a boycott by Trump and his minions.
murder Member	Thu Aug 09 11:36:00 "you are a good lil nazi." Yes, because Nazis are known for targeting bad people. Or at least that's how Nazis like to think of themselves.
hood Member	Thu Aug 09 14:29:59 .... Yes that's precisely his point.
murder Member	Thu Aug 09 14:30:50 No, that's not his point.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 09 15:07:09 You wouldn't get a point if we pointed it out to you.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Aug 09 15:18:07 That's not your point.
Billah Member	Mon Aug 13 01:58:07 My friend was one of his last interviews.
murder Member	Mon Aug 13 20:54:21 Are you bragging?
Canadian Member	Tue Aug 14 00:28:08 Oh course Billah is bragging. Then again, while "the Health Benefits of Piss-chugging" shouldn't really be a interview topic, in the time of Trump, it appears anything goes.
obaminated Member	Tue Aug 14 02:54:42 ah yes, piss chugger. where have you been?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 14 05:39:16 Sometimes I think you assholes want this place to die as quickly possible. What a way to great an old poster. What will you fuckers do after this place is dead, get shadow banned on twitter and deleted from facebook?
Jebbebiah Wilkins Member	Tue Aug 14 05:45:27 "What will you fuckers do after this place is dead, get shadow banned on twitter and deleted from facebook?" Switch to: http://muzzlefree.forumn.org/
Muzzlefree.com Member	Tue Aug 14 06:04:10 Join me!
hood Member	Tue Aug 14 07:40:45 "What will you fuckers do after this place is dead, get shadow banned on twitter and deleted from facebook?" Weep a tearless sorrow for the hole forever carved out of my abdomen.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 14 08:06:07 Hood, I feel you. I suggest we be 25% less shitty towards the 6 people left here. We could keep this place going for another 10 years. We could have revival as free speach zone if we could have NEW FUCKING MEMBERS. Imagine, the second golden age of Utopiaforums!
Delude Member	Tue Aug 14 08:08:09 HR will die soon.
hood Member	Tue Aug 14 08:17:57 25% less shitty by degree or by occurrence? I'm not sure I could be shitty 25% less often. 25% less shitty in my interactions? Well, then you only suck, Nim. I cannot confirm or deny whether you also swallow.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 14 08:27:21 Deal!
murder Member	Tue Aug 14 10:38:32 "We could have revival as free speach zone if we could have NEW FUCKING MEMBERS." As I've been saying since this was first proposed years ago ... it ain't happening. UP is it's own little circle of hell, and anyone straying upon it is unlikely to join in. If this place is no longer fit for Fred to post about fisting underaged mexican hookers ... what can we possibly offer people that would be appalled by that?
Jeff Fred Member	Tue Aug 14 11:38:19 I resent that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 14 11:51:38 :(
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: