11 ms·
Parler bans people that post poop pics. It just so happens that mainstream services have a higher standard. But seriously, how is mounting an insurection a sli
by ketamine__ 6y ago
Parler bans people that post poop pics. It just so happens that mainstream services have a higher standard.
But seriously, how is mounting an insurection a slippery slope? At this point I get the feeling that a lot of people posting here are apologists for domestic terrorism and it worries me.
There are violent people and they think like Timothy McVeigh. That should worry you. It should worry you even more if they can find like-minded friends like Terry Nichols on cesspools like Parler.
- zaroth 6y ago> At this point I get the feeling that a lot of people posting here are apologists for domestic terrorism and it worries me. What a great way to shut down any discussion. Anyone who doesn’t agree must be terrorist apologists? If you read these comments and all you can see in anyone not posting full throated praises of this purge are people defending terrorists, consider taking a break from the discussion and come back when you’re ready.
- pmiller2 6y agoWhat else do you call it when those people arguing in support of someone who incited a mob on the Capitol?
- zaroth 6y agoI’d suggest the comments are actually not as much to do with Trump specifically as you seem to suspect.
- pmiller2 6y agoOh, I see. Are we talking about the 75 million people who supported the person who incited a mob? Members of the mob themselves? What's the difference?
- zaroth 6y agoI get it - to you it's just a political flame war. Easier to just brand everyone who voted for Trump a terrorist sympathizer, than to consider the myriad reasons they may have had for voting how they did. It's only 74.2 million people after all. Maybe easier for you to dismiss concerns your fellow technologists might have, when Big Tech's largest companies unite to completely destroy a competitor with millions of users in a single day, based on the actions of a tiny sliver of its users. "What's the difference?" you ask, I assume non-ironically. I wonder, let's say if a politician started a fund to bail out the arrested protesters, would you consider them complicit in the violence?
- pmiller2 6y agoPeople who support fascists are fascists. Period. And, yes, if a politician started a fund to bail out these fascist protestors, they would be complicit.
- zaroth 6y agoIt’s not about “fascists”. That’s your politics talking. It’s about violence. And that bail fund? That was Kamala Harris.
- pmiller2 6y agoNo, it's the literal definition of "fascism": > Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. [0] This is what Trump wants. This is why he's tried to overturn a democratically held election. This is why he's incited his followers to riot. You seem to be assuming I'm a Democrat. I am not. BTW, I love how you've disingenuously implied Harris funded bail for the DC protesters. She did not. It was for the BLM protestors, who, are clearly not fascist, if you look at the definition. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definitions
- ketamine__ 6y agoAnyone that says terrorists should be allowed to freely communicate and assemble is defending terrorism, right?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]