EU has warned Elon Musk that Twitter could be banned in Europe

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: andy06shake

Aside from halftards that shoot up nightclubs of course.

Interesting choice of words since we just had the lgbt nightclub shot up and the press ran with right wing blah blah noise, and the guy turned out to be non-binary. Not exactly a right wing Christian conservative, or the orlando night club shooting and it turned out to be a pissed off gay guy.

It doesn't suit their argument aa they try to divert attention. It wasn't a right wing white male Christian? Then let's not cover the story that much.

But the reality is that they try to impose their ludicrous and absurd views online by accusing everyone of being transphobic and demanding that all gender critical views to be removed.

This is what they want Twitter to be. Just as it was until this point i.e a platform governed by a range of left wing lunatics and transgender ideologists.

a reply to: andy06shake

I don't need a lecture on what free speech amounts to

Apparently you do.

Loads of places around the world enjoy a modicum of free speech not just America including the EU and the UK.

A "modicum" of free speech is not free speech. Speech is either free or it is not.

I know what hate speech amounts to which is where the issues arise.

And Its hate speech they wish to see removed not free speech.

"Hate speech" is still speech, is it not? One cannot call something "free" when it is moderated.

The real issue is, what constitutes this "hate speech"? It seems to be defined as anything the "woke" crowd does not want to hear.

I also know the difference between Twitter and ATS

So far, your "difference" seems to be that Twitter is bigger and you don't like free speech.

there is not a darn thing you or Elon can do about it bar comply

I can speak out against the EU's censorship on platforms like ATS. That's called "free speech."

It seems you can't figure out the difference between Apple (a private company) and the EU (a coalition of governments). Let me educate you: Apple can't force a citizen of the EU to do one damn thing. Apple cannot stop Twitter from doing anything; they can only choose whether or not to carry the app on their platform. The EU can stop people from accessing Twitter and imprison or use deadly force against those who do not comply.

When you figure that out, let me know.

TheRedneck

a reply to: andy06shake

I'm not the morality police

You seem to be doing a right fine impersonation of them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: andy06shake

Live and let live is my motto people make their own choices in life with or without our consent.

...as long as people in the EU don't choose to use Twitter...

"Live and make others do/say/think as you want" sounds more like your motto.

TheRedneck

a reply to: andy06shake

As long as you don't persecute other people or promote hate speech

Like the EU is persecuting people who want to use Twitter?

Oh, there's the "hate speech" again... defined as "speech I don't want you to use."

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: andy06shake

As long as you don't persecute other people or promote hate speech

Like the EU is persecuting people who want to use Twitter?

Oh, there's the "hate speech" again... defined as "speech I don't want you to use."

TheRedneck

Or as he says anyone who is gender identify critical could be perceived as a transphobe and bigot and hence be suspended from the platform on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations as well as of...hate speech!

Example of hate speech: A man can never become a woman.

Dangerous speech one can argue...

It looks that their arguments are coming from to accusations of transphobia, bigotry, and hate speech, once everything else has failed which is what happens every time.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I want to point out how many times andy06shake has used the term "hate speech" in his (attempts at) arguments. It's almost every single post. However, I noticed that every time he uses an example of "hate speech" it is in relation to what he wants people to believe.

"Hate speech," as demonstrated by Mr. Shake himself, is defined as "any speech that is disagreed with."

I remember a time before "hate speech." People still said hateful things and they were called out for saying those things by people who thought the words were hurtful. Someone who consistently spoke hurtful things was ostracized form certain segments of society where their speech was considered hateful. Sometimes they received a lot of scorn from other people. But it was a free exchange of ideas. People could talk to each other and that actually helped people determine who was and was not a hateful person.

Then we made "hate speech" a legal term. At the time I was strongly opposed to that, not because I wanted to hear it, but because of what has happened.

"Hate speech" was never rigorously defined. Notice that such terms are never rigorously defined, because a rigorous definition both restricts future evolution of the terms and provides a clue to how such terms can be misused. So as time went on, the term "hate speech" became a catch-all. It was originally used to define speech that was bigoted or racist (two other terms that have evolved as well, but which both had rigorous definitions that had to be adjusted). Today it can mean simply saying the word "man" or "woman"... using a pronoun that someone has decided they don't like... expressing a desire to have some privacy in a restroom... or expressing a concern about a child's influences outside the home.

In short, the term "hate speech" was a Trojan Horse. It made sense to people that those who just hated for hate's sake should be punished more severely for crimes, but now those who hate for words' sake are given free reign to control everything others say. The real haters are the ones who cry "hate speech!"

This also means that today, no one knows what others think or how others really feel inside. Their words no longer provide clues to how much they hate, because their words are scripted code, approved by those in power who are the very ones who helped redefine the term. True racists now cry "racism!"; true bigots now cry "bigotry!" true haters now cry "hate speech!" And racism, bigotry and hate now flourish gleefully in a world created by their hoarders.

Well, wait, that's not entirely correct. One can usually tell from a conversation like this who is the real hater. They rail against those who have guns for self-protection, accuse others of things like "transphobia" out of the blue, and use terms like "racist" or "hate speech" to try and justify their positions. So we can still spot them, but it does take longer than it used to, and they are protected from being scorned as they once were. Showing scorn for those who would silence you is now considered "hate speech."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's almost an unwritten rule that at the end and in the absence of any valid claims and arguments the woke agenda will accuse of hate speech, bigotry, and transphobia. And demand your speech and your account to be censored and silenced.

It's at this point they admit defeat and hence you have won the argument as usual.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No, you may win the argument, but in doing so you lose the war.

That's what makes this ideology so dangerous. Every time they manage to get one person "cancelled," it only serves to embolden them next time.

I can tolerate any ideology as long as it meets one simple criteria: when one's ideology includes removing my ability to express my ideology, that ideology becomes tyranny. I will never support tyranny.

TheRedneck

a reply to: shooterbrody

It's the EU that is doing the telling son.

originally posted by: ziplock9000
a reply to: shooterbrody

It's the EU that is doing the telling son.

The EU should poll the people who give life to the leaders. Find out what they want.

originally posted by: carewemust
The EU should poll the people who give life to the leaders. Find out what they want.

The EU hate polls! That's one thing that has become clear, eh? Additionally, "their leaders" are unelected.

a reply to: paraphi

Indeed, they are an unelected bureaucracy granted extraordinary powers by national political systems that were either corrupt or incredibly unwary.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Indeed, they are an unelected bureaucracy granted extraordinary powers by national political systems that were either corrupt or incredibly unwary.

at this point in the cycle it looks like corrupt by good intention is the real answer.. itys why i see myself as a reformist,maybe even a radical as i feel to save the west it needs serious reform.. without that reform the west will go the way of the the soviet union..

the true strength of the west was in its actual diversity, in say the vein of the soviets it had to overcome the thinking, tactics and kit of dozens when Nato only had to think of the tactics and planning of 1.. A no brainer who'd win that one.

with this merging of the west has taken on the soviet unions biggest flaw and the enemies of the west only have to overcome the planning and thinking of 1, in that ukraine risks being a gift for Russia and China to learn how to take out NATO militarily in which ukraine sits as the lesser prize, and becomes a throway conflict like the Spanish civil war for testing each other..

a reply to: nickyw

I think it started out well and mostly on the up-and-up (I mean the early postwar days). Went off the rails after the Berlin Wall fell.

Amazing how the money grubbers restrained themselves so long as there was a possibility the Red Army might show up and hang them for sport. Once the Soviets brought their army back home, a particularly ugly form of capitalism sprouted in Europe and has since held sway (the socialist aspects of their societies notwithstanding).

That, coupled with an apparent desire of the larger states in Europe to return to 19th century solutions to international disputes. With the Russians, it is invasions of neighboring countries, with the EU it is attempting to build a modern version of Napoleon's Continental System. Sad overall, one wonders why the "statesmen" (if in fact that is what they are) don't exercise some vision for the future instead of reverting to failed approaches of the past.

Cheers

a reply to: TheRedneck

Says the fellows that wished to see homeless people taken off the streets and housed in tent cities out of sight and out of mind.

Not me that has problems with morality but you.

And in spades no less.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think you may find that its Twitter that the EU choose to persecute and not the people if indeed they decided to ban the social media platform, so far that's not happening.

The people will simply be able to use the likes of a VPN if they wish to circumvent any ban or removal of the site.

a reply to: TheRedneck

If you say so, well it must be a lie.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TheRedneck

Says the fellows that wished to see homeless people taken off the streets and housed in tent cities out of sight and out of mind.

Not me that has problems with morality but you.

And in spades no less.

You are trying to divert again by not addressing the issues discussed earlier.

So you say that hate speech is what the woke crowd defined to be hate speech...

And if anyone states facts such as that biological sex cannot change then this could be regarded as transphobia and bigotry, at which point the woke crowd will demand from the platform to block and suspend the account for their 'crimes' as they don't abide by the gender ideology.

This is comedy gold!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Nothing is free in this world, not even speech, not even in America, there is always a cost to be had.

A modicum of such is the best you can possibly hope for, freedom that is.

I know its hard to get your head around but it doesn't make it any less true even if it does somewhat hurt your already badly bruised sensibilities.

Good luck with your lord God Trump wanting to dump your constitution by the way, coz if that happens there goes your little 235-year experiment with democracy.

As to education ile take ours over your own any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.