Pudendum wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Apparently, you believe that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.

But if I am mistaken about that, please do tell me and I will immediately retract and apologize for my mistake.

You are mistaken.

Hold on... I almost missed this on account of not bothering to read your lying, self-serving wank.

So you DO acknowledge that Twitter has NO OBLIGATION to host speech it considers inappropriate for its site?

So for example, when they briefly suspended and warned Trump not to continue inciting violence after people had stormed the capital threatening sitting representatives and senators, and then he returned and continued to push the lie fanning the flames, they had every right to ban him on the spot, regardless of what position he has in a nation, not least when he'd just lost that position and was using their platform to lie that he hadn't.

Well then, that's your trolling done and dusted, innit?

Petard flying high!

Spearthrower wrote:

Hold on... I almost missed this on account of not bothering to read your lying, self-serving wank.

So nice of you to say.

So you DO acknowledge that Twitter has NO OBLIGATION to host speech it considers inappropriate for its site?

Not at all.

If they promised something to their shareholders, or advertisers, that obliges them to their promises.

Maybe if they made statements before the House or Senate, they have obligations there, too.

Or to the guy buying their microblog. If they sold him something based on lies, that could entangle them in obligations.

So for example, when they briefly suspended and warned Trump not to continue inciting violence after people had stormed the capital threatening sitting representatives and senators, and then he returned and continued to push the lie fanning the flames, they had every right to ban him on the spot, regardless of what position he has in a nation, not least when he'd just lost that position and was using their platform to lie that he hadn't.

Well then, that's your trolling done and dusted, innit?

Not really. The 'lie' you talk about is one perspective, but not his.

What is his perspective on it? Or have your media sources been purged of his statements, unless filtered and edited by his detractors?

Petard flying high!

So you still want to pretend they don't have any obligations to be fair?

Why? Why try to make it sound ok?

If you don't care about twitter, why do you care that they are being exposed for being politically biased in the application of their rules?

Keep repeating the phrase 'the Big Lie', and for fun, I'll ask if you are talking about Clinton moaning about losing in 2016, or Trump moaning about losing in 2020. Then you can pretend you missed the point.

Which should bring us back to one of your other trollings...the Georgia video maybe?

So we're still operating on the assumption that people will just openly admit when they've defrauded the state? I guess that means 2000 Mules is a big nothing burger, given that Democrats would obviously have confessed to rigging the election? Or maybe Trump is just different, because he obviously has nothing to gain by lying about whether or not he actively tried to undermine the democratic system of the US.

Greg the Grouper wrote:So we're still operating on the assumption that people will just openly admit when they've defrauded the state? I guess that means 2000 Mules is a big nothing burger, given that Democrats would obviously have confessed to rigging the election? Or maybe Trump is just different, because he obviously has nothing to gain by lying about whether or not he actively tried to undermine the democratic system of the US.

I know this is tough to grasp, but the Dems are in charge of everything right now. If there is evidence to prove what they are saying about Trump, they will have an expensive committee, who will have access to ALL the available evidence, then there will be indictments of Trump and whoever joined him in his crimes.

Or, alternately, the Dems could be lying, too.

We'll see, since they have the big public committee findings. If Trump survives it, maybe they'll start looking into why so many people showed up to protest.

They could always review DeSouza's film, and try to empathize with the citizens who do have problems with the way that election was run.

Pudendum wrote:I know this is tough to grasp, but the Dems are in charge of everything right now.

I know that this is tough to grasp, but that isn't relevant to what I said.

I know that this is also tough to grasp, but the SCOTUS isn't made up of bleeding heart liberals who vote blue no matter who.

I was gonna keep going with this, but then I looked up Congress demographics and found that the Senate is comprised of 48 Democrats, 50 Republicans, and 2 Independents, as per senate.gov.

If there is evidence to prove what they are saying about Trump, they will have an expensive committee, who will have access to ALL the available evidence, then there will be indictments of Trump and whoever joined him in his crimes.

There are already indictments. There have been indictments for quite a while. Some have even plead guilty to sedition, such as William Todd Wilson.

Or, alternately, the Dems could be lying, too.

This is the closest you've come to admitting that Trump could be lying about something, and I, for one, am so very proud.

We'll see, since they have the big public committee findings. If Trump survives it, maybe they'll start looking into why so many people showed up to protest.

They already know? They were convinced that the election waa fraudulent, and that their country was being stolen from them. That was day 1 of the show, man.

They could always review DeSouza's film, and try to empathize with the citizens who do have problems with the way that election was run.

Listen man, if yoi're not working for public transit, you're not getting paid to kill time.

I don't see the appeal of responding to someone who is fundamentally dishonest in their engagement.

BWE wrote:I don't see the appeal of responding to someone who is fundamentally dishonest in their engagement.

If you are vaguely accusing someone of being dishonest, why not outline where they were dishonest? Unless you are just trolling, of course.

I don't think Spearthrower is dishonest. I think he is just unable to acknowledge any evidence which sheds a positive light on Trump. It isn't his fault. There is a lot of that going around.

As to the Dems controlling the house, senate and executive, it appears I was wrong.

Some guy got indicted for inciting...something.

Funny how the most heavily armed party, in the most heavily armed country in the world, went to an insurrection and didn't bring guns...

Anyway, I'm waiting to see if there were any sane criticisms of the movie. So far, it seems that the only assailable parts were:

DeSouza's criminal history
Quality of data (which should be convincing to anyone not using a smartphone)
Deceptively edited images in the film.

That's it so far, but I did learn about one of them here.

Pudendum wrote:
If you are vaguely accusing someone of being dishonest, why not outline where they were dishonest?

1. Because no one has any reason to think that someone who is fundamentally dishonest is going to admit to any wrongdoing, as doing so runs contrary to their being fundamentally dishonest

2. He wasn't vague whatsoever when he actually accused you of being fundamentally dishonest, and what you're quoting is more a comment directed at folks such as myself and Spearthrower than it is at you, someone he's already regarded as too fundamentally dishonest to have any meaningful engagement with.

I think he is just unable to acknowledge any evidence which sheds a positive light on Trump. It isn't his fault. There is a lot of that going around.

I just find this bit with Spearthrower so bizarre; I do honestly think you believe the things you're suggesting, but this is all very clearly in error, and it's very clear even in this thread that the regular forum users simply do not have this impression of Spearthrower.

On the contrary, Spearthrower is a regular contributor to discussion, whom we've all disagreed with on one thing or another, and have all found to possess a degree of reason sufficient to be convincing and, more relevant to this point, a degree of honesty sufficient to concede when he's been shown to have been in error.

You likely wouldn't know this, of course, seeing as your entire engagement with this forum has been with this single thread (since I've been a member, at least), and from what I hear, one other thread which you made in the past where you did manage to cement your reputation with the regulars of this forum.

Seriously, all you'd have to do is click on some other thread to find evidence of this. So why continue on with this? You're not gonna get him to concede anything or apologize to you at this rate, and you're most certainly not going to convince the membership of this forum. They're free to correct me on this as they see fit, but as far as I can tell, they simply see this as Spearthrower treating you with the degree of respect you've managed to earn for yourself.

As to the Dems controlling the house, senate and executive, it appears I was wrong.

Hey, we're all wrong about something, sometimes. No need to stress about it.

Some guy got indicted for inciting...something.

Right, so now we can take the Jan 6th committee seriously, right? Because actual indictments occurred as a result of that investigation, right? The criteria you yourself previously gave, right? Or are we gonna just shrug that off and say that nothing about this was serious as long as Trump isn't behind bars?

Do you think we'll still be arguing about this if they put out a warrant for Trump's arrest tomorrow? I think we will, to be honest; I think the criteria will change once again, with claims that there's no evidence and that this is all just the Dems being scheming liars or something. When will we get to the point where you'll actually take this as seriously as 2000 Mules?

Funny how the most heavily armed party, in the most heavily armed country in the world, went to an insurrection and didn't bring guns...

Mark Mazza of Indiana has been charged with carrying a loaded firearm to the Capitol on January 6th. Prosecutors have pieced together evidence suggesting that Oath Keepers had a stockpile of weapons at a nearby hotel in Arlington. You're welcome to perform a Google search yourself before deciding to make these comments, it would certainly save me time, especially if you bother reading some of the stuff you'd find.

DeSouza's criminal history

There you go, we found our reason why any sane person would disregard this film. Crack open the beers, folks, time to celebrate a job well done.

Quality of data (which should be convincing to anyone not using a smartphone)

If you can actually explain the substance of this critique as well as your reason for disregarding it, I will be shocked, genuinely.

Pudendum wrote:

BWE wrote:I don't see the appeal of responding to someone who is fundamentally dishonest in their engagement.

If you are vaguely accusing someone of being dishonest, why not outline where they were dishonest? Unless you are just trolling, of course.

I don't think Spearthrower is dishonest. I think he is just unable to acknowledge any evidence which sheds a positive light on Trump. It isn't his fault. There is a lot of that going around.

As to the Dems controlling the house, senate and executive, it appears I was wrong.

Some guy got indicted for inciting...something.

Funny how the most heavily armed party, in the most heavily armed country in the world, went to an insurrection and didn't bring guns...

Anyway, I'm waiting to see if there were any sane criticisms of the movie. So far, it seems that the only assailable parts were:

DeSouza's criminal history
Quality of data (which should be convincing to anyone not using a smartphone)
Deceptively edited images in the film.

That's it so far, but I did learn about one of them here.

I rest my case

My experience of twitter is that it is left-biased, but that's probably because i follow mostly lefties and get fed more lefties by the algorithm. A rightie might find that twitter is right-biased. What's your rightie experience, Pudendum?

And even if twitter was left-biased... so what? What's the point you are trying to make? That a private company (in the sense that it's not a public government service) can't moderate their forum to their liking?

What does the ven diagram of right biased and lie biased look like one wonders.

Pudendum wrote:

BWE wrote:I don't see the appeal of responding to someone who is fundamentally dishonest in their engagement.

If you are vaguely accusing someone of being dishonest, why not outline where they were dishonest? Unless you are just trolling, of course.

I don't think Spearthrower is dishonest. I think he is just unable to acknowledge any evidence which sheds a positive light on Trump. It isn't his fault. There is a lot of that going around.

As to the Dems controlling the house, senate and executive, it appears I was wrong.

Some guy got indicted for inciting...something.

Funny how the most heavily armed party, in the most heavily armed country in the world, went to an insurrection and didn't bring guns...

Anyway, I'm waiting to see if there were any sane criticisms of the movie. So far, it seems that the only assailable parts were:

DeSouza's criminal history
Quality of data (which should be convincing to anyone not using a smartphone)
Deceptively edited images in the film.

That's it so far, but I did learn about one of them here.

Also, to make myself clear, I am saying you are simply too dishonest to even be interesting to me.

Greg the Grouper wrote:You're not gonna get him to concede anything or apologize to you at this rate, and you're most certainly not going to convince the membership of this forum.

I'm not trying to convince him of anything. Just answering him where I can. And where I think he's asking stuff honestly.

I'm not seeking an apology. Just as I said when I laid this out. Honestly, I am interested in the (predictable) reaction to this, from the corporate media/blueanon conglomerate, AND some individuals who I trust are real individuals, who have a common thread with me going back years.

I don't know what happened, to cause such strong division between the political groups, but it is clear there are no Trump or Republican friendly people here.

Coindicidence? Maybe. But with every hateful fuck pushing division, I don't trust it. It's something I keep coming back to.

Some guy got indicted for inciting...something.

Right, so now we can take the Jan 6th committee seriously, right? Because actual indictments occurred as a result of that investigation, right? The criteria you yourself previously gave, right? Or are we gonna just shrug that off and say that nothing about this was serious as long as Trump isn't behind bars?

Nope, but I still think it is little more than political theatre. Bad theatre at that.

Do you think we'll still be arguing about this if they put out a warrant for Trump's arrest tomorrow? I think we will, to be honest; I think the criteria will change once again, with claims that there's no evidence and that this is all just the Dems being scheming liars or something. When will we get to the point where you'll actually take this as seriously as 2000 Mules?

There isn't much hidden about what he said. One side sees those words as incitement to insurrection.

The other side doesn't.

Same facts, different conclusions.

Funny how the most heavily armed party, in the most heavily armed country in the world, went to an insurrection and didn't bring guns...

Mark Mazza of Indiana has been charged with carry ing a loaded firearm to the Capitol on January 6th. Prosecutors have pieced together evidence suggesting that Oath Keepers had a stockpile of weapons at a nearby hotel in Arlington. You're welcome to perform a Google search yourself before deciding to make these comments, it would certainly save me time, especially if you bother reading some of the stuff you'd find.

So stories of maybe weapons elsewhere, and only the one death (Ashley Babbit) as a result of the violence.

The insurrection happened, and the only guns were left back at the hotel room?

Sounds like it wasn't very well planned. Must have been because they used Parler, instead of the much more robust and reliable facebook groups and facebook chat.

DeSouza's criminal history

There you go, we found our reason why any sane person would disregard this film. Crack open the beers, folks, time to celebrate a job well done.

You think the filmmaker is flaky. Heck, after Weinstein I get that.

But what of the investigator (Greg P./Catherine E.) and TTV. Aren't they really the ones who matter, with regard to the evidence.

The showman (DeSouza) definitely IS responsible for the show, and the show is pretty over-dramatized, but if I went by this thread, I would think TTV and everyone involved was good, except for DeSouza, who (in interviews) clearly explained his criminal acts.

That Greg chap has an epic beard. Must be long experience.

Quality of data (which should be convincing to anyone not using a smartphone)

If you can actually explain the substance of this critique as well as your reason for disregarding it, I will be shocked, genuinely.

What they said they examined with the aggregated data they purchased, is easily possible with data I am very familiar with. It isn't hard to accept they could do it.

With so many other things to pick on (that are legit) I don't know why anyone bothered...it was a weirdly poor criticism.

gobshite wrote:My experience of twitter is that it is left-biased, but that's probably because i follow mostly lefties and get fed more lefties by the algorithm. A rightie might find that twitter is right-biased. What's your rightie experience, Pudendum?

I used it briefly years ago, and check it rarely.

It was mostly corporate/government messages, rather than people. I would check it for some announcements (power outage, city stuff) but don't bother anymore.

Mostly, I hear about rules that favour one side of the political argument (in a few areas) so don't trust it enough to put much in.

And even if twitter was left-biased... so what? What's the point you are trying to make? That a private company (in the sense that it's not a public government service) can't moderate their forum to their liking?

They could, until they started making agreements with users about how those rules would be applied. Making agreements with those purchasing ads. Making statements to governments about things like shadow-banning or such.

Thanks for acknowledging it. It seems like pulling teeth sometimes just to get that across. Rogan, who hosted a discussion between Dorsey, Tim Pool and Twitters top lawyer, revealed very clearly that was the case, but not a lot of people have time to really see it.

It's the kind of thing that can affect wider public opinion on something like this movie. Or the subject of it.

BWE wrote:
Also, to make myself clear, I am saying you are simply too dishonest to even be interesting to me.

You too, but

Pudendum wrote:
I don't know what happened, to cause such strong division between the political groups, but it is clear there are no Trump or Republican friendly people here.

That's because rationalists tend to have higher IQ than your average dumb-as-dog-shit Trumpist.

Pudendum wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
So you DO acknowledge that Twitter has NO OBLIGATION to host speech it considers inappropriate for its site?

Not at all.

Ok, so from one post to the next you have completely contradicted yourself.

Now, according to your own statement, which has taken you pages to produce in answer to a simple question, I can say with truth and accuracy that...


Pudendum believes that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.


I don't need to add any careful addendum that I might be inaccurate.

Pudendum wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:So we're still operating on the assumption that people will just openly admit when they've defrauded the state? I guess that means 2000 Mules is a big nothing burger, given that Democrats would obviously have confessed to rigging the election? Or maybe Trump is just different, because he obviously has nothing to gain by lying about whether or not he actively tried to undermine the democratic system of the US.

I know this is tough to grasp, but the Dems are in charge of everything right now. If there is evidence to prove what they are saying about Trump, they will have an expensive committee, who will have access to ALL the available evidence, then there will be indictments of Trump and whoever joined him in his crimes.

Or, alternately, the Dems could be lying, too.

We'll see, since they have the big public committee findings. If Trump survives it, maybe they'll start looking into why so many people showed up to protest.

They could always review DeSouza's film, and try to empathize with the citizens who do have problems with the way that election was run.

In Binary post-Truthism land, facts are discerned by whether they are left or right, and binary post-truthers squeeze everything into either left or right.

Pudendum wrote:

And even if twitter was left-biased... so what? What's the point you are trying to make? That a private company (in the sense that it's not a public government service) can't moderate their forum to their liking?

They could, until they started making agreements with users about how those rules would be applied. Making agreements with those purchasing ads. Making statements to governments about things like shadow-banning or such.

Thanks for acknowledging it. It seems like pulling teeth sometimes just to get that across.

Acknowledging what? Twitter is left to me, but that's probably due to the algorithm feeding me what i associate most with. It might be entirely different for people of other political persuasions.

BWE wrote:Also, to make myself clear, I am saying you are simply too dishonest to even be interesting to me.

My goodness, another person finds Pudendum completely lacking in any form of integrity.

What a strange coincidence, I wonder how he can explain this away to himself.... oh, I think I know...


YOU LEFTIE!!!!!