4 ms·

I disagree. You get blocked for going against anything one political side says. Just because one political side does not agree with something does not make it

I disagree. You get blocked for going against anything one political side says. Just because one political side does not agree with something does not make it hate. Trying to claim discussing medicine side effects is hate is absurd. Trying to claim discussing off label medicine use is hate is absurd. Both are things mainstream registrars will ban you for. You are implying all sites hosted on Epik are hateful. This is simply not the case. There are plenty of non-hateful reasons someone may have chosen Epik. Science requires discussion and testing of theories and hypothesis. You then use the data you observe in testing to reach you conclusions. Sometimes your initial hypothesis is supported, sometimes its not. Shutting down all discussion before any data is collected is not science, its anti-science in fact. It is like half the world forgot this.

user-the-name 5y ago
Those are not hate, they are just things that kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. I'm pretty happy you're getting booted for doing things that are that fucking dangerous and damaging. Stop doing them.
- kiawe_fire 5y ago
  The counter narrative is rarely banned because the in-power authorities openly say “you expressed dissent against our official narrative”. It’s almost always done “to protect people”. Although it seems your criteria has already quickly expanded from “hate speech” to also “dangerous and damaging speech”, I’m curious at what point you would become concerned yourself? Is your only criteria for when the line is crossed an open admission by those in charge that they are enforcing one political side over another, with no attached moral justification? What if someone you respected in your personal life were suddenly deplatformed? What if, tomorrow morning, you personally experienced and verified something to be untrue that today, based on the current narrative, you believe to be true (and therefore “fucking dangerous” if opposed)? If I’m wrong, and truly only the most vile of speech is being (justifiably) removed, then what circumstances would have to change for you to share my concern? I’m not being rhetorical or facetious, I’m generally interested in hearing where the line is for you.
- keneda7 5y ago
  So you have now expanded your criteria. I'm guessing it will never stop expanding. Smoking kills 30k or so from second hand smoke alone each year. Why are all smoking company's not banned. Heart disease is the leading cause of all death in the US, why are sugar companies or site normalizing being obese not banned? Medical malpractice is believed to kill over 200k a year, why are doctors not banned? You are happy anything you disagree with gets banned. What happens when your side loses power and the opposition decides to ban you as they deem you dangerous and damaging. I would assume you are going to turn yourself in to be disposed of? Edit: You claim doing science is dangerous and damaging and will kill 10s of thousands of people. So how did the vaccine get made? Magic?
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    If you want to engage in debate about things, I would suggest you first work on learning how to do so in good faith. If this is how you act, you make it very clear there is no point talking to you.
    - keneda7 5y ago
      This is a typical response when someone can't support their side of the debate. Bad faith is what you did. I never once mentioned anything that is dangerous or could cost live. Talking about medicine side effects or talking about off label drug use are not dangerous and do not cost lives. Your wrongfully try and claim it is.

user-the-name 5y ago

Those are not hate, they are just things that kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. I'm pretty happy you're getting booted for doing things that are that fucking dangerous and damaging. Stop doing them.

kiawe_fire 5y ago
The counter narrative is rarely banned because the in-power authorities openly say “you expressed dissent against our official narrative”. It’s almost always done “to protect people”. Although it seems your criteria has already quickly expanded from “hate speech” to also “dangerous and damaging speech”, I’m curious at what point you would become concerned yourself? Is your only criteria for when the line is crossed an open admission by those in charge that they are enforcing one political side over another, with no attached moral justification? What if someone you respected in your personal life were suddenly deplatformed? What if, tomorrow morning, you personally experienced and verified something to be untrue that today, based on the current narrative, you believe to be true (and therefore “fucking dangerous” if opposed)? If I’m wrong, and truly only the most vile of speech is being (justifiably) removed, then what circumstances would have to change for you to share my concern? I’m not being rhetorical or facetious, I’m generally interested in hearing where the line is for you.
keneda7 5y ago
So you have now expanded your criteria. I'm guessing it will never stop expanding. Smoking kills 30k or so from second hand smoke alone each year. Why are all smoking company's not banned. Heart disease is the leading cause of all death in the US, why are sugar companies or site normalizing being obese not banned? Medical malpractice is believed to kill over 200k a year, why are doctors not banned? You are happy anything you disagree with gets banned. What happens when your side loses power and the opposition decides to ban you as they deem you dangerous and damaging. I would assume you are going to turn yourself in to be disposed of? Edit: You claim doing science is dangerous and damaging and will kill 10s of thousands of people. So how did the vaccine get made? Magic?
- user-the-name 5y ago
  If you want to engage in debate about things, I would suggest you first work on learning how to do so in good faith. If this is how you act, you make it very clear there is no point talking to you.
  - keneda7 5y ago
    This is a typical response when someone can't support their side of the debate. Bad faith is what you did. I never once mentioned anything that is dangerous or could cost live. Talking about medicine side effects or talking about off label drug use are not dangerous and do not cost lives. Your wrongfully try and claim it is.