ahh yes, you totally can’t use exaggeration or hyperbole - if you’re on the wrong side of the Woke spectrum…
totally reasonable to be fired for
5 Likes
She spoke out against hatred and believe me she’s seen ample amounts of it directed against her over the past year or so. It was probably a mistake to draw a parable to Nazi Germany no matter how apt it might have been because of course that’s an easy thing to hang someone with.
She has simply not accepted identity politics and this stirred up a hate mob that has ceaselessly harassed and threatened her for I don’t even remember how long and at no point has anyone cared to turn up to defend a woman being harassed out of their work or industry. Weird that.
What she actually posted (because full context is usually not something that gets provided):
Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children.
“Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”
Agree or not if you wish, but what she’s saying here is hatred is bad. Don’t follow anyone who asks you to hate someone else. That’s a pretty reasonable sentiment I would say.
4 Likes
these are the same people, that haunted and doxxed a girl, for a hair style, in a computer game, for kids…
that should fn say it all about the absurdity of these “liberal”/idpol/woke outrage crowds these days
-and the most striking and baffling thing is, they don’t even have a hint of irony or see their own fascism in these things they decry XYZ censorship/cancellation/retaliation over… 
4 Likes
hm, thx for providing context, I’m totally unaware of anything besides “Gina Carano … compared … Nazi Germany” (though the Guardian also said something about her comparing the media treatment of the republicans to Nazi Germany, more or less something like that) so ofc i concluded she must’ve been saying some dumb shit, but it felt wrong regardless that someone just gets their life pretty much destroyed over it (to whatever extent that might be; i dont know how much that might impact her, dont know anything about her)
turns out she might’ve been saying some smart shit
in any case, like i said, pretty ironic they’re proving her right by their reaction
2 Likes
“Post about Nazi Germany” … what did she post anyway? Because a lot of things can be posted about Nazi Germany.
EDIT : Ok , i’ve noticed @Fraggles post.
She literally said nothing wrong there. Poor women … I’m sure Grogu will miss his auntie 
4 Likes
Well there’s also this which gives me a little hope :
Disney can surely go and fuck off with their double standards.
4 Likes
3 Likes
the important question is; do gamer pigs make better bacon ? 
3 Likes
the only thing I’m concerned with is outfragging those noobs 
3 Likes
Hmpfh. Looks like they didn’t learn a single thing from the whole James Gunn fiasco. 
2 Likes
For science!
3 Likes
Just want to mention there are certain comparisons to Nazi concentration camps and a certain country called China. With detention camp groups that were thanked by Disney during Mulan. So Disney doesn’t like concentration camp comparisons on twitter. But literal inhumane detention camps are A O K.
Also, monkey beat pigs by a few days. No thumbs or snouts needed to play.
The monkey played pong. I skimmed the pig article and couldn’t figure out what game they played.
Man I want a neuralink. I won’t have to study and I can just think and get the information. With a little luck I may even get brain hacked and enter Ghost in the Shell territory.
3 Likes
great things have always spawned from this creed 
as long as it’s Pooh Bear, it’s always okay, coz Pooh Bear got big stacks of 
in his tree house
(even my own country, mostly thought of as pretty sober, has done some disgusting things, just to appease the mighty bear… 
)
5 Likes
If by “supported,” you mean “tweeted that racism is bad and did literally nothing else,” then yeah, a bunch of corporations did that.
Unless said speech was blatant lies used to incite violence, like what happened on Jan. 6.
The real question is, how does that quote relate to your response at all?
Honestly, this seems less like Big Brother Censorship and more like checks and balances working as intended (they never said it was oligarchs–or even the corporations–doing this), and the reason it’s a “shadow” campaign is because the poll workers/vote counters/etc. were just doing their jobs without going to Twitter and bragging about it. In other words, the only problem is the article’s click-bait wording (trying to play on conservatives’ censorship paranoia and liberals’ anti-Trump mentality, with both thinking the article leans the other way and neither changing their opinions).
2 Likes
just gonna point out it’s not 1 and the same, nor is influencing or even persuading “social media platforms” illegal, censorship, or infringing on freedom of speech or rights
aside from XYZ potential speech still having provisional limitations, you ofc also has the fundamental issue of (in the US) 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech or anti censorship not (yet) applying to social media platforms. Because they aren’t the state, and private businesses are allowed to control, and moderate speech as they will on their own terms. Thus no rights is violated nor is it “technically legally” censorship by constitutional standards.
there has been tons of lawyers going over these subjects and explaining things “recently”, since Trump/Twitter/Facebook happenings all made it “necessary” for them to remind people of what XYZ actually means and how it pertains to your individual rights/or the amendments
ex you have stuff like legaleagle, hoeglaw and/or lawful masses, and i assume plenty others, touching of these things because of the events and election through 2019/2020
and ofc the subject has also been touched upon many times just in regular YouTube contexts, like when they “deplatform”(ed) someone etc
TLDR, it’s “only” illegal for the State to limit/hinder/restrict free speech or freedom of the press - what a social media platform or newspaper choose to do/highlight or write/deliberately not inform is not, they have no obligation to tell you the “truth”/what you want to hear,
and is the reason you can have “media”/sites with outright provable lies or falsehoods, because lying isn’t illegal, and as long as it doesn’t fall under those provisions limiting speech, you can say/not say anything as a private entity,
and private entity speech moderation isn’t censorship, “only” when the state does, and social media/“platforms” hasn’t (yet) been legally classified as “actual” public forums where those 1st amendment rights would be enforced
3 Likes
The weather outside is beautiful.
3 Likes
nothing, nor why are you supposed to/have any “right” so? - it’s their playground, they can fck around as bad as they like/want, and if “we” don’t like it we are free to leave the playground.
how is that new, or different, or a “problem”? - unless you mean to dictate what people should believe, absorb or accept. Let idiots discern their own sht, and make their misguided/uninformed actions of their own volition as long as it doesn’t directly impact others, eg calls to violence or Kool-Aid suicide cults
what people vote or their underlying “reason” for voting, is of no importance to anyone but themselves, because even if there were no “collusion, manipulation, interference”, people are still allowed to make whatever dumbfound decision they want, even if just for shts and giggles or to piss someone else off or prank troll
putting the blame on “people”/CEOs and other rich folks (ab)using their power, (like they do on any other day and has so for the past 5000years and will never change), doesn’t accomplish anything/help anyone 
counter lies with truth, fear with reason and malice with compassion
3 Likes
I’m allowed to live.
4 Likes
I don’t understand this…
2 Likes
well “if they come for you”, you have 2A to defend yourself (yet) 
4 Likes