textgel

11 ms·

91.
by textgel 5y ago
The comment I have quoted is alluding towards censorship of "demonstrably false" statements; that comment is what I was replying to as can be seen via the technique of reading-the-comment-chain; most with a basic understanding of
92.
by textgel 5y ago
> It doesn't hurt when others publish their own views on what they think of others' statements. What hurts this process is when their comments are based on demonstrably false information.
93.
by textgel 5y ago
Exactly, thus eliminating the need for the we-know-better than you authority on what can and can't be discussed in the first place; glad to see we have yet again come back around to the same conclusion on censorship.
94.
by textgel 5y ago
Corrupt authorities are happy to label anything they don't like as "demonstrably false" so we're back to square one.
95.
by textgel 5y ago
No, the threat at the moment is coming from malicious actors claiming that the sky is falling and that they are the ones who can protect you from it if you'll just give them the power to rule. Those advocating for this have been shown
96.
by textgel 5y ago
One is criticism of the running and operation of an organisation; the other is steeped in the history of genocide and slavery, there are even laws in place around the world to protect people from it because of it's heinousness. But y
97.
by textgel 5y ago
Don't you think you're walking a bit of an edge there, minimising racism by equating it with criticism of an organisation? I hope you're aware the history of it isn't something that should be trivialised?
98.
by textgel 5y ago
I'd not like to see this response go unanswered; I'm the first to attack these organisations for the damage they do and I've long abandoned reading them, having written them off for the damage they've already done. But I
99.
by textgel 5y ago
No, the pattern of slander an individual, wait for the story to pass then apologise later once the damage is done and a litigious response is coming to bear (claiming it was a "mistake" or whatever excuse is necessary) is a tactic
100.
by textgel 5y ago
Yes, they were even forced to walk it back https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/opinion/covington-teenage...
101.
by textgel 5y ago
agreed, but generally that comes with being a slanderous news organisation
102.
by textgel 5y ago
They do, however those comments with links to evidence all seem to get flagged for some very strange reason.
103.
by textgel 6y ago
Gazillion +1 times.
104.
by textgel 6y ago
No problem :)
105.
by textgel 6y ago
I think you replied to the wrong person?/friendly fire? My message wan in reponse was to. > Toxic is an inflammatory and unnecessary word to use when no-one is privy to the actual facts.
106.
by textgel 6y ago
A word you seem to have no reservations about using against your opponents just from a quick search of your comment history. Why such outrage when it's turned back on your own sacred cows?
107.
by textgel 6y ago
> Basically, you've decided the fact checkers are somehow malicious actors, without any particular evidence of that actually happening, and vaguely labeled their speech as bullshit. Seems like nonsense[1] to me. ^ This is you statin
108.
by textgel 6y ago
That would meet number 11 on the list.
109.
by textgel 6y ago
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-condemn-white-suprem... > Mixture: During the debate, Trump was repeatedly asked and invited to explicitly and clearly condemn white supremacists, and he did not do that. He d
110.
by textgel 6y ago
You literally just made a word salad that condenses down to accusations of irrationality without pointing out why. Are you sure you want to so blatantly expose yourself in a thread that focuses on bad faith arguments and fallacies?
111.
by textgel 6y ago
There were plenty of very loud, often repeated warnings about exactly this problem happening but is seems only so much can be done.
112.
by textgel 6y ago
The same reasons that are always ignored or considered sinful by progressives. Some people are more interested than others, just the same way that nursing and numerous other non-diverse fields that you mysteriously aren't concerned ab
113.
by textgel 6y ago
So you admit you just spent several comments lying in the hope your opponent wouldn't go to the bother of pointing out the evidence?
114.
by textgel 6y ago
You can find it as depressing, problematic and triggering as you like; those interested in a civilised society aren't interested in bringing in witch trials no matter how traumatised the progressive crowd are by their unreasonable dema
115.
by textgel 6y ago
Out of curiosity if the method of grounding lightning clouds is considered a viable one, what would be wrong with a weather balloon and a reel of conductive wire; too much height required? too costly? I'd heard of high altitude parasai
116.
by textgel 6y ago
For the third time. > your faith believes false accusations against perceived heretics are acceptable tactics; your word against them is less than empty.
117.
by textgel 6y ago
Perhaps the fixes for the problems we have shouldn't involve some patchwork bodge to the laws that align our principles but should instead start at investigating why we need these bodges in the first place? It's an unthought out
118.
by textgel 6y ago
That's a fair point; I know there's a lot of truth in the quote “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” and I've seen plenty examples of major damage caused thanks to the phenomenon
119.
by textgel 6y ago
Again, your faith believes false accusations against perceived heretics are acceptable tactics; your word against them is less than empty. Your ancestors and plenty of other examples throughout history are proof where censorship and book bu
120.
by textgel 6y ago
Now you mention it, the official position on the correct response to coronavirus flip flopping and changing from location to location is a good recent example too.

More ›