GOP leader accuses Twitter of censoring conservatives, doesn't go as planned

Precisely, thus the point goes over your head 😏

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

No. I didn't read your unedited post, because you edited it. But regardless you are still wrong. You are trying to remove the Hitler association of those words when the context has ALWAYS been about Hitler and the Nazis.

Yeah context is your friend now GTFO! LMFAO!

Seriously, repeating this over and over is doing more to convince me that you don't know what the word context means.

context

1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : environment, setting

the historical context of the war

The context of that poem/speech is that he was talking about Hitler and the Nazis hauling people off to camps. End of story. Stop trying to redefine the context to suit your needs. You are just invoking Godwin's Law.

Just for your reference and for anyone else that is reading this here is my original unedited post, yes it’s is unedited.
here is my original unedited post it’s the 19th post down

I can interpret the poem however I like. And with regards to a voice being taken from people that we are not sticking up for that we are discussing in this thread, I think it is a very accurate time to bring it up. When they came for Alex Jones, I said nothing....

I’m using the original interpretation of the poem in an analogous way in order to put forth a similar idea or concept that I am trying to convey to the reader.

comprender?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you notice in my original unedited post where I posted that poem that what I posted was just a poetic version of a speech given by Niemöller and not his original poem?

Yeah context is your friend now GTFO! LMFAO!

Even if you did quote Hitler, it doesn't mean what you quoted from Hitler is wrong. It seems you fell into the OP's trap to deflect from your point.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
I can interpret the poem however I like. And with regards to a voice being taken from people that we are not sticking up for that we are discussing in this thread, I think it is a very accurate time to bring it up. When they came for Alex Jones, I said nothing....

Yeah. So? I can interpret the definition of stop to mean go, that doesn't make me correct. When people use that poem, they are comparing that event to the actions of the Nazis. That's how it works. If you want to pretend it means otherwise, then you are wrong just plain and simple. You are misrepresenting context of the poem.

I’m using the original interpretation of the poem in an analogous way in order to put forth a similar idea or concept that I am trying to convey to the reader.

comprender?

No you are trying to redefine the context of a poem so that you can use it for a situation that isn't even censorship.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
When they came for Alex Jones, I said nothing....

Not true.

When they came for Alex Jones I said, 'Hasta la vista, dickhead.'

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you notice in my original unedited post where I posted that poem that what I posted was just a poetic version of a speech given by Niemöller and not his original poem?

Yeah context is your friend now GTFO! LMFAO!

Even if you did quote Hitler, it doesn't mean what you quoted from Hitler is wrong. It seems you fell into the OP's trap to deflect from your point.

Lol. Let's ignore the fact that bringing up the poem in the first place is a deflection from the OP topic, but hey whatever.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you notice in my original unedited post where I posted that poem that what I posted was just a poetic version of a speech given by Niemöller and not his original poem?

Yeah context is your friend now GTFO! LMFAO!

Even if you did quote Hitler, it doesn't mean what you quoted from Hitler is wrong. It seems you fell into the OP's trap to deflect from your point.

Lol. Let's ignore the fact that bringing up the poem in the first place is a deflection from the OP topic, but hey whatever.

The only thing I see being ignored is your own hypocrisy. You, as the OP, have been discussing his post for the last 3 pages. It seems his post struck a chord with you and caused you to derail your own thread.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Fantastic. So instead of continuing to talk about irrelevant and off topic #, what are your thoughts on the OP?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wasn't the OP about a political figure crying "foul" when there was no foul, and he just could not work some simple configuration buttons on his own twitter account? That is what I took away.

The guy looks stupid, and doubled down to deflect from his stupidity.

So, all this other talk about 1st amendment (it is not), old German poems (weak) and the vast conspiracy to silence the right is pretty much off topic. A politician did something stupid, complained about it, and is now getting trolled.

Par for the course of fairness, I would say.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah. So? I can interpret the definition of stop to mean go, that doesn't make me correct. When people use that poem, they are comparing that event to the actions of the Nazis. That's how it works. If you want to pretend it means otherwise, then you are wrong just plain and simple. You are misrepresenting context of the poem.

You are wrong. Definitions are literal text. Literal language means exactly what it says. While figurative language uses similes, metaphors, hyperbole, and personification to describe something often through comparison with something different. Poetry is a good example where figurative language is used.

Another good example where figurative language is used is in songs. When Metallica writes a song and I listen to it, chances are I don’t interpret it the same way they do exactly, however the broad concept being portrayed in the poem or song can be interpreted and used within many different contexts of many different conversations and writings.

No you are trying to redefine the context of a poem so that you can use it for a situation that isn't even censorship.

No, I’m using the original interpretation of the poem in an analogous way in order to put forth a similar idea or concept that I am trying to convey to the reader.

This discussion is terminated.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wasn't the OP about a political figure crying "foul" when there was no foul, and he just could not work some simple configuration buttons on his own twitter account? That is what I took away.

The guy looks stupid, and doubled down to deflect from his stupidity.

So, all this other talk about 1st amendment (it is not), old German poems (weak) and the vast conspiracy to silence the right is pretty much off topic. A politician did something stupid, complained about it, and is now getting trolled.

Par for the course of fairness, I would say.

Dude, the title of the thread is literally “GOP leader accuses Twitter of censoring conservatives, doesn't go as planned” so I think it’s safe to discuss censorship. SMH

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Fantastic. So instead of continuing to talk about irrelevant and off topic #, what are your thoughts on the OP?

I thought I was right on target until you started replying and deflecting again.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Thank you.

I needed that laugh biggly!
+

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yes, my response was more general and less inflammitory.

But, the summary of the thread is politician does something stupid, deflects, and look even stupider.

Politician gets trolled for being stupid.

Notice I did not have to use any left/right stuff in my summary, or deflect, or bring up other issues, or call anyone names.

Theses are basic facts, no?

Ok, I guess we can bring all sorts of other things into this, like the average air-speed velocity of an unladen sparrow (with or without coconuts) but that is pretty far from the point of the OP.

I think the OP does have a sub-text: that the political silly season is on and a lot of politicians are acting silly.

Double.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
What’s your point?

He's likely wrong and over reacting since Youtube isn't taking him down at all, let alone next.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Martin Niemöller

Who did they come for?
Infowars is still up, no?
Stop being pathetic.
We still live in a world where every bigot scum can spread their propaganda on the internet, unfortunately.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

and demonstrate his inability to use Twitter?

Why do you keep saying that? Obviously he's referring to the fact that her content was deemed sensitive.

No. He obviously was attempting to stir the partisan pot and create idiotic controversy but ended up showing his Twitter illiteracy instead. What's even funnier, is that instead of recognizing his mistake he is doubling down on idiocy and now trying to claim the sensitive material warning is censorship. But if that were the case, any screen on the internet that required you to enter your age before entering would also be censorship. So yeah...

So he confirmed exactly what I assumed, yet I'm still wrong. Well alrighty then.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

Stop being pathetic.

Says someone in a thread making fun of an old dude for not knowing how to use Twitter.... AND being wrong about it.

That's about as pathetic as it gets.

censorship
NOUN

mass noun
1The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
‘the regulation imposes censorship on all media’

The suppression of Ingram’s tweet is censorship. Nothing and no one but Twitter has deemed her tweet worthy of hiding because it may be “potentially sensitive”.

censor
NOUN

1An official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
censorship
NOUN

mass noun
1The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
‘the regulation imposes censorship on all media’

The suppression of Ingram’s tweet is censorship. Nothing and no one but Twitter has deemed her tweet worthy of hiding because it may be “potentially sensitive”.

censor
NOUN

1An official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

On page 9 we'll be debating the meaning of suppression.... well y'all will.... im outa here.