GOP Releases Bill To Stop Administration From Pressuring Social Media Companies… And, It’s Actually Not Totally Crazy?

from the a-surprisingly-not-terrible-bill dept

Now that the House is (barely) in the control of the Republican Party, we expected an awful lot of dumb anti-tech laws (the Democrats are also pushing dumb anti-tech laws, but of a different nature). The GOP has, in the recent past, laid out a big long list of bills as part of its “big tech” platform, and most of them are ridiculous and often unconstitutional (and many of them conflict with each other). Furthermore, it was noted that part of Speaker McCarthy’s negotiations with hardliners, who initially withheld their votes in his quest to become Speaker, included setting up a silly special committee to “investigate” government “weaponization” of social media. This has come to pass.

So, I fully expected the first tech-related bills to come out of the House to be pretty stupid. But… I’m actually kinda surprised. Representatives James Comer and Cathy McMorris Rodgers have introduced a bill to stop the administration (amusingly, their press release focuses on the Biden administration, without noting that such a bill would, in theory, bind future administrations of either party) from “pressuring social media companies” in how they moderate.

And, on the whole, I actually like the concept of the bill. The government shouldn’t be pressuring anyone regarding their moderation decisions. Of course, that kind of pressure is already a violation of the 1st Amendment, but having it explicitly laid out in a law like this avoids having to go down the trickier 1st Amendment challenge route. The crux of the bill:

In General—An employee may not —

use the employee’s official authority or influence to advocate that any third party, including a private entity, take any action to censor any speech.

There are a bunch of caveats and definitions in the bill, but.. yeah, in general any of that would likely be a 1st Amendment violation (or at least close to it). I am concerned about the inclusion of “influence” here, because, it’s never a 1st Amendment violation for the government to use the bully pulpit to try to persuade companies or individuals to do things, they do that all the time. The 1st Amendment issue — as courts have repeatedly noted — only comes in when there’s some sort of coercion, usually in the form of a threat of punishment. Merely trying to influence, however, is standard practice for the government.

Still, the real issue is that many people are (falsely) insisting that there’s evidence that the Biden administration has already been engaged in forcing companies to “censor,” when the details suggest otherwise. That doesn’t mean the administration hasn’t gone right up to the line in ways that were counterproductive, or just fucked up the messaging in its initiatives in a manner that enabled bad faith actors to lie and pretend that there was censorship going on.

And, yes, the White House should stop doing that.

Of course, the Trump White House regularly would have violated this law in demanding that social media companies moderate in the way they wanted, but we’ll leave that aside as well.

The big issue with the bill is in some of the gray areas of the definitions. Would the White House merely talking about foreign influence operations or election disinformation be seen as “influencing” social media to remove that content? Because, if so, that would obviously be ridiculous.

The way current 1st Amendment precedent stands, there needs to be some real coercive aspect to the government speech, including some sort of threatened implication for not obeying and taking down the concerning speech. So, the fear with this bill is that the broad concept of “influencing” social media could sweep up what should be perfectly normal, valid governmental actions around public education.

That said, a bill like this could have been much worse. Indeed, given the other things the GOP has said of late, I expected it to be way worse.

It’s unlikely this bill goes anywhere, of course, but kudos to Reps. Comer and McMorris Rodgers for actually introducing a bill that mostly seems focused on actually reinforcing the 1st Amendment’s protections.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “GOP Releases Bill To Stop Administration From Pressuring Social Media Companies… And, It’s Actually Not Totally Crazy?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
408 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Well, THAT'S not true

I love that you guys have just totally made up this fiction amongst yourselves. The fiction is something along the lines of “Bent over backwards not to ban them…based on the unfair double standards I have invented on policies that are themselves biased” Like you’ll claim Lorenz doxxing Libs of tiktok was fine, but Libs of Tiktok just reposting public videos some idiot made to point and laugh was not. Some of the includes yes, refusing to pretend a man is a “real” woman (which has all sorts of practical implications for sports and violence against women) and against covid “misinformation” a great deal of which turned out to be true.

Political persecution of conservative thought was clear and present. Not just bans, btw, but also numerous (layered, varied, and complex) shadowbans. Immediately after Musk took over basically all conservative pundits, personalities and in fact politicians saw their follower count rise. Many of these shadowbans, including against whole topics, are clearly laid out in the twitter files, also.

bent over backwards to keep conservative politicians and pundits (up to and including a then-sitting President of the United States) from being hit with the hardest punishments for their TOS violations?

That’s just made up. But you guys do this. You repeat things amongst yourselves until you think it’s true. When asked for “source” you’ll just link someone’s opinion.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The fiction is something along the lines of “Bent over backwards not to ban them…based on the unfair double standards I have invented on policies that are themselves biased”

They’re biased against misinformation, which many conservatives apparently can’t stop spreading.

Political persecution of conservative thought was clear and present.

No, that’s the fantasy you’ve made up in your head.

Immediately after Musk took over basically all conservative pundits, personalities and in fact politicians saw their follower count rise.

Is that supposed to be evidence of something other than Musk rewriting policies and letting bullshitters back onto the platform?

That’s just made up. But you guys do this. You repeat things amongst yourselves until you think it’s true.

No, that’s you again.

When asked for “source” you’ll just link someone’s opinion.

There’s literally a study showing this, as detailed by Techdirt, which you would know if you knew how to read.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

They’re biased against misinformation,

Oh? Like that the covid vaccine has single digit effects on transmission, removing any justification to force someone else to get it? Cuz that was labeled “misinformation”. Also happens to be true.

How about that hospitals were (still largely are) massively overcounting covid deaths, labeling any death with covid as from covid? Cuz that clearly happened. Was labeled “misinformation”.

There’s literally a study showing this, as detailed by Techdirt, which you would know if you knew how to read.

No, he cited a CNN opinion piece. Not that being a “study” would anything, look up the reproducibility crisis. Sociology papers are basically position pieces.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

How about that hospitals were (still largely are) massively overcounting covid deaths, labeling any death with covid as from covid? Cuz that clearly happened. Was labeled “misinformation”.

Perennially lliterate Bratty Matty has the definitions of “misinformation” swapped for the definitions of “true” and “actually happened.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/covid-pandemic-deaths-hospitalizations-overcounting/

Mhmm. Btw, these continual attempted uses of diminutives says a great deal about you, nothing about me.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Robin Dretler, an attending physician at Emory Decatur Hospital and the former president of Georgia’s chapter of Infectious Diseases Society of America, estimates that at his hospital, 90 percent of patients diagnosed with covid are actually in the hospital for some other illness. …

Another infectious-disease physician, Shira Doron, has been researching how to more accurately attribute severe illness due to covid. After evaluating medical records of covid patients, she and her colleagues found that use of the steroid dexamethasone, a standard treatment for covid patients with low oxygen levels, was a good proxy measure for hospitalizations due to the coronavirus. If someone who tested positive didn’t receive dexamethasone during their inpatient stay, they were probably in the hospital for a different cause.

“Estimates”. “Probably”. Y’know, if I didn’t know better, I’d say that these doctors don’t know for sure whether the numbers of COVID-19 deaths are being overcounted. Sure, they probably have more knowledge than us on the matter⁠—they are physicians, after all⁠—but when it comes to this discussion, I’d prefer hard statistics over educated guesses.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Real cute minimizing language. “Estimate” in this academic sense means “tried to do some real calculations with real-world imperfect data.” It’s not a loose guess.

Fact is it was real clear at the time people were dying of other, violent causes (gunshots and motorcycles) and yet being listed as “covid deaths”. Hospitals were given financial motivations to do so. I mean, of course if you count literally every patient who was infected with covid as a “covid death” you’re going to overcount them and that’s what happened.

This isn’t even arguable, actually, it’s just the first time someone prominently cited by the media (and previously calling such things “misinformation”) is admitting it.

Damn, really NO citation is good enough for you people, is it?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

“Estimate” in this academic sense means “tried to do some real calculations with real-world imperfect data.” It’s not a loose guess.

But it is still a guess, educated though it may be. Trying to pass that off as a certifiable fact is misleading at best.

it was real clear at the time people were dying of other, violent causes (gunshots and motorcycles) and yet being listed as “covid deaths”

I imagine that those cases were not as widespread as you want me to believe they were. Besides, I’ve also heard stories about people proclaiming that deaths attributed to COVID were caused by some other malady⁠—and in the majority of those stories, the patients (or their families) were conservatives who wanted so much to not face the reality of COVID-19.

Damn, really NO citation is good enough for you people, is it?

Your source isn’t offering much more than an educated guess. Despite how good that guess may be, it isn’t a proper substitute for actual statistics.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Your source isn’t offering much more than an educated guess

So that’s not true. The reporting bias is a known fact, has been a long time. (the statistics have always been available) The notable bit is that one of main deniers of that fact admitting the fact. Maybe you’re just too ignorant of the news to be aware.

But I remain amazed that literally no citation is ever good enough. Gee, I wonder why we don’t respond everytime a liberal screams “sOUrcE!” If you don’t attack the publication itself (mostly likely because your preferred liberal papers just refuse to cover it) you’ll do what you’re doing an misinterpret words like “estimate” that you don’t even understand the significance of.

Go ahead, Stephen, claim cuz I’m calling you ignorant I hate the gays (or transgenders or black people). Par for the course.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

The reporting bias is a known fact

That doesn’t mean someone claiming the near-exact opposite⁠—that an overwhelming majority of deaths attributed to COVID are not actually COVID-related⁠—is the factual backed-up-by-statistics truth. Again: The sources for that opinion article are making educated guesses; as good as those guesses might be, the credentials of those making those guesses doesn’t turn their guesses into objective facts.

I don’t doubt that COVID deaths are overcounted. But the extent of that overcounting will likely never be known for sure. Acting like someone does know for sure because their educated guesses aligns with your own biases about the pandemic or “liberal reporting” or whatever is the kind of bad faith argument that we’ve been trying to tell you is considered weaksauce around here.

no citation is ever good enough

Again: I don’t doubt that COVID deaths are overcounted. But for someone to proclaim a number with some degree of certainty, then call it an “estimate”, indicates that even the person making that estimate can’t be sure if they’re right. I’m all for citations of fact; an estimate, no matter how educated, is not that.

you’ll do what you’re doing an misinterpret words like “estimate”

Per Merriam-Webster:

estimate — verb — 1.a. to judge tentatively or approximately the value, worth, or significance of

Note the key adjectives in that definition: “tentatively” and “approximately”. Those aren’t signifiers of certainty. An estimate is still a guess, however educated it may be, and shouldn’t be considered a statistical fact.

Stephen, claim cuz I’m calling you ignorant I hate the gays (or transgenders or black people)

Ah, yes, the “I disagreed with a lib, now watch him call me a bigot for that” ploy.

You think that’s intelligence you’re expressing?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:10

is the factual backed-up-by-statistics truth.

It is, actually.

Again: The sources for that opinion article are making educated guesses

Again, that is NOT correct, actually. They are statistical estimates of the same type used in medical papers. You are dramatically misunderstanding what a scientist means by the word “estimate”(maybe on purpose?)

But the extent of that overcounting will likely never be known for sure

No, that’s not true, we have a rough estimate (like, with error bars) now, and all the data is there to provide a precise accounting. But first, one must admit there’s a problem.

I stopped reading there. You are either blowing shit out your ass cuz you have no idea or just not arguing in good faith, and I stopped caring which.

No source will ever be good enough. Particularly if the liberal isn’t very smart.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I stopped reading there.

If only you would, but you keep coming back anyway. Take your Ls and leave, bro. Besides, the only reason you keep coming back is to provoke a confrontation with people you hate for the sole purpose of “owning the libs”.

I suggest you read a book⁠—maybe try To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf, which entered the public domain at the start of this year.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:12

provoke a confrontation with people you hate for the sole purpose of “owning the libs”.

You rejected legitimate experts and an actual scientific estimate –which no, is not a “guess”, and you mark yourself as ignorant for labeling it such — as well as the notable fact that this same woman had been calling that exact statement “disinformation”. All to pretend you had not been refuted.

Yeah, I feel like I’m owning the libs.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:18

Some dipshits opinion isn’t a fact.

Ah, so you didn’t read it. Cuz it definitely wasn’t that.

“Lao-Tzu Allan-Blitz, MD is the chief resident physician, Howard Hyatt Global Health Equities Residency, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Jeffrey D. Klausner, MD, MPH, is a USC professor of medicine and public health, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention medical officer and a former San Francisco city and county deputy health officer. ”

Then goes through their methodology and math, etc, the usual thing you see in an academic study.

fuck why do liberals hate facts so much

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

That doesn’t mean someone claiming the near-exact opposite⁠—that an overwhelming majority of deaths attributed to COVID are not actually COVID-related⁠—is the factual backed-up-by-statistics truth.

Come on, you know that Deep uhhh… Medicine would have us believe that people were dying of Covid, when in fact, we had thousands of bodies in trailers outside and stuff due to some other mysterious reason. (Shot on a motorcycle, most likely.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Sounds more like a current problem with how the news reports things to which no one pays attention, so big deal. As for 20% Medicare whatever, so what? That will go away in a bit.

currently reported COVID-19 deaths are an overestimate.

Maybe. That’s any cause of death, though, being over- or under-reported. That’s just how things are. Could we have massively excellent and mandated post-mortems on everyone? Sure, you wanna pay for that?

adding COVID-19 as a contributing cause of death to every death certificate in all SARS-CoV-2 positive hospitalized patients.

Wow, it’s a contributing cause. Who every would have thunk? (This is how death certs work.)

and excess testing among the workforce, which leads to lost productivity and staffing shortages.

Blah blah blah. No. Wall Street, industry, banks, and the Federal Reserve have that covered. Keep people unemployed. Keep prices high, using any excuse. Don’t produce the stupid oil to keep prices up, but no one is allowed to move on from it either.

In the height of a pandemic (or epidemic), yes, things should stop. Because business can’t seem to handle that is a problem with how business is done, and economies are run.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Wow, it’s a contributing cause. Who every would have thunk? (This is how death certs work.)

OK, damn, so you didn’t understand ANY of what was talked about in that article. Wow.

In the height of a pandemic (or epidemic), yes, things should stop. Because business can’t seem to handle that is a problem with how business is done, and economies are run.

OK, point of order: economies do not run when they are stopped, I sense you’re making a sorta anti-capitalist argument here (dumb on it’s face) because this basic question doesn’t even involve money: Do you want the bread to be baked and lights to be on? Even if you’re communist the economy needs to run for that.

More broadly the relevant question is: were the lives saved worth the cost saved? Since the lives saved was a very low number, very close to zero (one estimate I saw was 0.2%….of the deaths, already a low number) and the costs were enormous it’s pretty hard to conclude that was worth it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Yeah man, all those facts are TOTALLY undone by a single tweet! /s

Actual data seems to indicate we are slightly less than doubling the number of deaths due to covid.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3622402-mandatory-hospital-screenings-fuel-inaccurate-covid-death-counts/

BTW, in normal times “excess deaths” can be pretty useful for computing deaths due to a novel disease. Problem is, the last 3 years were not normal times. “Deaths from despair” (suicides, overdoses, primarily) went way up due to the lockdowns (fentanyl helped)(and yeah, if were coincidentally infected, got counted as a covid death). Deaths due to violent crime went way up (arguably more due to Floyd and bail policies, but same time) and probably way more important you have a lot of people who just weren’t getting their routine screenings for heart and cancer conditions and then those wind up more deadly.

All told the lockdowns might have caused almost as many deaths as covid did. (Probably unfair to count Fentanyl (large) and murder (small) in that, but a good chuck of the deaths of despair were probably lockdown related)

Again, we’re counting covid deaths something like 2:1

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Yeah man, all those facts are TOTALLY undone by a single tweet! /s

You bash people for not properly reading your sources, and then proceed to only glance at what someone else links. Fucking hypocrite.

If you knew how to read, you’d see there’s a link to a data site that has collated data from Johns Hopkins.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:8

You bash people for not properly reading your sources, and then proceed to only glance at what someone else links. Fucking hypocrite.

“Glance”? It’s one sentence and a chart. I read it, and then told you why it’s irrelevant.

We’re overcounting covid deaths (STILL) a little less than 2:1

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

“Glance”? It’s one sentence and a chart. I read it, and then told you why it’s irrelevant.

I guess you’re technologically illiterate as well, now. Scroll down the thread a bit and there’s a LINK that shows data on Covid mortality.

We’re overcounting covid deaths (STILL) a little less than 2:1

A claim that you have yet to provide a source for, you hypocrite. The opinion piece you provided certainly doesn’t back you up, even if you think it does.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:10

I guess you’re technologically illiterate as well, now. Scroll down the thread a bit and there’s a LINK that shows data on Covid mortality.

You probably should have linked to the actual info then. You know how to do that, right? You didn’t cite “everything this retard said in this big thread”

A claim that you have yet to provide a source for, you hypocrite. The opinion piece you provided certainly doesn’t back you up, even if you think it does.

I did and it did. Sorry you can’t read. There’s tons of other studies I could cite too, but it doesn’t matter, you’ll just reply with some retard with a graph, so why bother?

Fuck man, in order to understand statistics you need to be able to do math.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

You probably should have linked to the actual info then. You know how to do that, right? You didn’t cite “everything this retard said in this big thread”

I’m very sorry for assuming that you knew how to use a scroll wheel on a mouse.

Fuck man, in order to understand statistics you need to be able to do math.

That explains why you struggle with it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:17

I said so? Anyone can write anyone’s name in there. Actually considering your eagerness to post it, it’s most likely you wrote it.

Or it’s more likely that in your neverending quest to shit on everyone here, you posted it yourself to try and paint everyone as homophobic.

Keep trying to own the libs, Matt. Weak little gotchas is all you have.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

No, he cited a CNN opinion piece. Not that being a “study” would anything, look up the reproducibility crisis. Sociology papers are basically position pieces.

He did not cite a CNN opinion piece. He cited the authors of a report for the January 6th Committee tasked with exploring the impact of social media on January 6th, which was able to subpoena and review evidence from Twitter.

But, yet again, Matthew Bennett is not here to be truthful. He is here to push a narrative.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Yeah, no, the Speaker doesn’t get to pick the committee members of the opposition party. It was the picture of a show trial, with no opposing arguments. That you would even cite it indicts you.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3519890-pelosis-court-how-the-jan-6-committee-undermined-its-own-legitimacy/

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Holy shit you just now figured out that a word can mean more than one thing. Most people have that figured out by third grade but good on ya for getting there in the end.

You seem to have the definition of fact and opinion mixed up because you seem to have suffered severe head trauma in the recent past.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Holy shit you just now figured out that a word can mean more than one thing

Ironically not a great example of a word meaning two different things. (those do exist of course) Judges ruling is just an opinion, same as any other opinion. It’s a binding opinion, but the term recognizes there’s a great deal of interpretation involved.

You kids are fucking amazing, truly.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

No, it was a reply to you insisting that the “citation” showing that Twitter favored Republicans was to a “CNN opinion piece.”

That was objectively false. The piece does link to a CNN piece, but only to support the factual claim that Musk denied something. The CNN piece had nothing to do with the underlying claim, even as you tried to dismiss it as such.

Meanwhile, I will note that in this single thread you both try to dismiss an argument by waving it away as a “CNN opinion piece” while simultaneously insisting that we should all take a Washington Post “opinion piece” as gospel.

It’s almost as if you’re cherry picking.

Take the L, dude. Admit you’re wrong, like a big boy.

Can you do it? History to date has shown you cannot.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Yeah, OK, there was no factual underpinning of the claim then. There was no evidence that twitter favored conservatives. That’s just actually made up, yeah? If you have actual numbers based on something objective (no idea how, violating a TOS is obviously judgement call subject to disagreement) then post that.

Meanwhile, I will note that in this single thread you both try to dismiss an argument by waving it away as a “CNN opinion piece” while simultaneously insisting that we should all take a Washington Post “opinion piece” as gospel.

Except these things are not equivalent. One is just a standard reporter mouthing off their opinion (on CNN you’re lucky when they don’t try to pass that off as actual news) on the other you have a medical expert, who had been cited claiming this was “misinformation” in the past, now saying it is true, and citing actual statistics and math. Those are vastly different cases.

So you’re just dumb, then? Like I don’t even know what you want me to do with this. Do you realized how little sense that made?

Take the L

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Nah, loser, you clearly have lost over and over again in this thread. It wasn’t “just made up.” It was a Congressional investigation, in which they hired expert researchers and academics to explore this one issue, in which they had subpoena power to get detailed internal information from Twitter.

You’re wrong.

Be a big boy now and admit it.

Or, do what you always do and throw a childish temper tantrum like a 7 year old and insist you’re never wrong.

Matty: here’s a little secret you should know: every single person reading this threat things you’re a dumbass, pathetic, immature excuse for an adult. Every single person sees through your silly pointless bravado into the empty husk of a person you are.

That’s why all your comments get blocked. No one agrees with you because everyone knows you’re full of shit.

I know, you’re so insecure that your fragile ego can’t take it, but deep down inside, you know it’s true. You know you have nothing. You have nothing to back up what you’re saying. You’re just simping for disinfo peddlers who are laughing all the way to the bank at your pathetic gullibleness.

It’s true. And you know it. Deep down inside.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

KineticGothicTank says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Oh sure, just ignore the plentiful pieces of actual misinformation, like claims that the vaccines magnetize people, contain graphene oxide, hydras, mind control nanobots, or that the disease was caused by 5g, that the vaccines “shed” or cause prion disease, or that people vaccinated have higher viral loads than the unvaccinated. AND THAT’s not even getting into the promotion of various forms of snake oil, from chlorine dioxide, to borax and epsonsalt “vaccine detox”,

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I definitely was NOT trying to claim misinformation doesn’t exist. I am saying lots of things that were true got labeled as “misinformation”, and that no one is particularly good at nor trusted enough to make that determination.

You can’t actually stop people from saying things that aren’t true, and you shouldn’t try.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

When Donald Trump was sitting in the White House, someone had the bright idea to mirror all of his tweets verbatim on a separate Twitter account. By the time Trump’s ban came down, that mirror account had eaten more suspensions than Trump’s account ever had⁠—and each one was for violating Twitter’s TOS merely by repeating, to the letter, something Trump had said.

My point was and is simple: Whereas Trump (and other conservatives) were given multiple chances to violate the TOS without eating a suspension or a ban⁠—even if they did suffer other, smaller punishments⁠—an account that mirrored Trump’s speech was dinged for multiple TOS violations. If Twitter had been playing fair and refusing to moderate based on some sort of partisan political bias, it would’ve suspended Trump himself for the same posts. But as proven by the “Twitter Files” the company gave conservatives multiple lesser punishments for TOS violations that, as I’ve explained with the Trump example, likely would’ve gotten anyone else suspended or banned.

Yes, Twitter bent over backwards to placate conservative politicians and pundits by not suspending/banning them for their TOS violations. That they may have been shadowbanned, downranked in searches, or received a “lighter” punishment still speaks to the idea that Twitter was unwilling to suspend those conservatives for blatant TOS violations. The reasons why may forever be a mystery (no person can know such things with the certainty of God), but the fact that these things happened remains a factual truth.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

When Donald Trump was sitting in the White House, someone had the bright idea to mirror all of his tweets verbatim on a separate Twitter account. By the time Trump’s ban came down, that mirror account had eaten more suspensions than Trump’s account ever had⁠—

Seeing as numerous twitter employees admitted and argued Trump never violated any TOS, that would just mean twitter was banning people based on political bias and not actual violations. Which is exactly what happened.

and each one was for violating Twitter’s TOS merely by repeating, to the letter, something Trump had said.

Since Trump never vilated TOS, that seems to be just made up.

As I said, you guys tell yourselves fictions. It’s like it’s own mythology.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

numerous twitter employees admitted and argued Trump never violated any TOS

Other ones did. Besides, for what reason (other than naked partisan bias) should the employees who believed Trump didn’t violate the TOS be considered the final word-of-God authority on the matter over the multiple suspensions handed down to the account that literally mirrored Trump’s tweets verbatim?

that would just mean twitter was banning people based on political bias and not actual violations

If that were true, Trump himself would’ve been suspended. An account mirroring Trump’s tweets was suspended instead. Seems like any bias at Twitter at the time ran in favor of, rather than against, Donald Trump.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

for what reason (other than naked partisan bias) should the employees who believed Trump didn’t violate the TOS….down to the account that literally mirrored Trump’s tweets verbatim?

[your grammar’s a bit muddled here] Well, for one thing probably different employees but yes **”naked partisan bias”* is the exact accusation. ““Bent over backwards not to ban them…based on the unfair double standards I have invented” Yeah, that bit. The copycat account didn’t violate TOS, either, but it did come afoul of Naked political bias and didn’t have the benefit of being famous.

If that were true, Trump himself would’ve been suspended

Except that’s not true. Harder to apply double standards in the limelight.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The copycat account didn’t violate TOS

For what reason, then, was that account suspended despite it being nothing more than a clearly labelled mirror of tweets from Donald Trump? If Twitter’s bias was as naked and partisan in favor of “the left” as you claim it was, for what reason didn’t Trump himself⁠—the man who actually made the tweets that account mirrored verbatim⁠—receive those suspensions?

Harder to apply double standards in the limelight.

The double standard was applied in the limelight⁠, though. And it was applied in favor of Trump. He posted the words that the mirror account reposted verbatim. But he didn’t get suspended⁠—the mirror account did. And other than to note that Trump was being treated with kid gloves for the same speech that got the mirror account suspended, nobody really cared about the mirror account all that much because Trump’s account was always visible and available prior to his ban.

You seem to think that suspending the mirror account was a worthwhile substitution to suspending Trump. But that would only be true if the mirror account was equally as popular than Trump’s, which it wasn’t. Nobody paid any real attention to it until it started eating suspensions for repeating Trump’s posts verbatim. Again: If the bias was as naked and partisan against Trump/conservatives as you believe it was, for what reason did the mirror account eat the suspensions instead of Trump?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

For what reason, then, was that account suspended despite it being nothing more than a clearly labelled mirror of tweets from Donald Trump?

Naked Partisan Bias

You’re just repeating the same thing, there’s no new argument in there, so you get the same answers. You’re acting as if it’s some logical conundrum, but it obviously isn’t.

If they were aware the account was just copying Trump, why would they treat it differently, exposing their bias (in either direction)? Answer: They didn’t. They treated it as any other conservative account and banned it based on their own biases, rather than any actual TOS violation.

You seem to think that suspending the mirror account was a worthwhile substitution to suspending Trump.

Nope, not what I said at all, reading comp fail on your part.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Naked Partisan Bias

Again: If the bias was as naked and partisan as you claim, suspending Donald Trump would’ve been what happened. But that happened to an account set up to mirror his tweets verbatim as an experiment to see whether it would get suspended for directly repeating his speech.

They treated it as any other conservative account

Donald Trump’s account was a conservative account. Donald Trump’s speech ran afoul of the TOS on multiple occasions, as proven by the mirror account being suspended multiple times. For what reason did Twitter continually refuse to punish Donald Trump, if not for a pro-conservative bias?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:8

If the bias was as naked and partisan as you claim, suspending Donald Trump would’ve been what happened.

Incorrect.

Donald Trump’s account was a conservative account

Well, no, actually, but he sure did say things liberals hated.

Donald Trump’s speech ran afoul of the TOS on multiple occasions,

Incorrect

For what reason did Twitter continually refuse to punish Donald Trump, if not for a pro-conservative bias?

Because they felt prohibited from unleashing their liberal bias by the public’s attention. (they did eventually)

I really did lay all this out, you just don’t read so good.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

they felt prohibited from unleashing their liberal bias by the public’s attention

If that were true, that would mean they were afraid of running afoul of conservative anger⁠—the same kind of anger that fueled the insurrection⁠—and thus showed a greater bias in favor of conservative politicians and pundits by refusing to suspend or ban them for content that would net the average user a similar punishment.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

You are attempting to configure a string of “therefores” that simply don’t exist.

No, I’m not.

Conservative politicians and pundits have spent years (and are still working on) convincing the conservative/right-wing voting base that Big Media, Big Tech, and Big [x]-es in general were(/are) all dominated by lefties. Those mean Bigs were(/are) all kinds of in the bag for Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism and totally against Good Ol’ Fashioned Traditional Conservative Values™. Why, a conservative couldn’t(/can’t) even express a simple Conservative Idea™⁠—you know the ones⁠—on social media without getting ultra-super-hyper-turbo banned! As a result, a significant number of the people within that voting base⁠—as well as the politicians and pundits themselves⁠—came to believe, without any real evidence, that Twitter (amongst other companies) had a bias against conservatives/right-wingers for expressing even the most benign of opinions.

At the top of this “anti–Big” pyramid of hate stood Donald Trump, who kept proclaiming his hatred of the Bigs on a regular basis (with the help of those same Bigs, ironically enough). His rallies sometimes featured violence, and his fans were known to be fervently angry in re: “the libs”. This culminated in violence such as the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the deadly white supremacist rally-turned-riot in Charlottesville, and the insurrection at the Capitol.

Twitter (as well as Facebook) saw the obvious: The chance of violence being visited upon Twitter employees was not-zero if the company did anything to piss off conservative politicians and pundits. For whatever political bias individual Twitter employees may have had, the company as a broader entity had a different bias: “Keep conservatives as happy as possible even if it means ignoring TOS violations.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:12

“all my dystopian shit is justified cuz you republicans are just so scwary

Is the half naked guy with the buffalo horns in the room with you right now? Does the little old lady hawunt your dreams? What about that very cherry guy with the podium?

No, you actual moron, that they were scared of banning Trump because that would expose their hypocrisy, no that does mean they were being over kind to all conservatives by extension. Very much the opposite.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:14

Why? I won. You’re a science denier.

Because you’re dumb, you made me do some googling. Turns out there’s LOTS of these studies (“Estimates”), prevailing narrative be damned. Looks like we’re overcounting covid deaths by not quite double.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3622402-mandatory-hospital-screenings-fuel-inaccurate-covid-death-counts/

Take the L, Stephen.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 You want it both ways so bad

Matt, you’re contradicting yourself. You want to assert that Twitter had such a liberal anti-Trump bias they wanted to censor Trump and conservatives, but then you say they felt they couldn’t because he was “too public” so they went after the copycat instead. If you want to suppress speech, why would you go after the account that had no reach? So which is it, Matt?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

I never said anything about a spectrum license… I am going to continually post about how you were too fucking stupid to know the difference between a public house and public housing.

And add to the fact that I told you over and over again that the TexasAG has no means available to him, must carry laws or otherwise, that could force DirecTV to carry OAN.

And guess what, it didn’t happen so therefore, again, I am right and you are a fucking moron.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

“And add to the fact that I told you over and over again that the TexasAG has no means available to him, must carry laws or otherwise, that could force DirecTV to carry OAN.”

Funny that’s the exact same thread what Mike said DishNetwork owns their spectrum lol

But you dont really fucking care that the owner of TechdDirt doesn’t know how spectrums work do you?

Nope you are just a complete and total fucking hack!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Funny that’s the exact same thread what Mike said DishNetwork owns their spectrum lol

I didn’t say it so what’s your point in bringing up Mike.

But if you want to say that, I will point out that owning and leasing a spectrum license is much closer together in terms of what they mean than a public house and public housing. One serves drinks and the other is for government owned housing.

So you still are wrong, take the L dude, I told you over and over again that the Texas AG has no “must carry” law that it could have used to force DirecTV to carry OAN.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Yeah, I miss the good old days of Trump giving out his medical shit nuggets during Covid, and his morons doing everything they could to try and prove it was no big deal or some hoax.

I’m looking forward to fewer guardrails for you people next time. It wasn’t the smart people eating horse dewormer, or deliberately getting infected to show how free they were.

Now that Musk will allow freeze peach to flourish, it’s only a matter of time before you simps are tricked once again into competing for Darwin Awards.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

As an agent against parasites, and not for Covid, hence people using real horse dewormer.

It’s actually a well known medical fact that many anti-paristics have a weak, but general anti-viral effect. (yes, quinine and hydroxychloroquine which is a derivative, too) The mechanism isn’t understood but the effect has been noted for many decades.

Seriously, I know the science better than you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

The craziest thing about this whole ivermectin is that you people followed baseless advice like sheep.

And how do you square the fact that the company that developed and produces ivermectin has said directly that it has no effectiveness against covid-19.

How many times did you inject yourself with disinfectant?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:10

And how do you square the fact that the company that developed and produces ivermectin has said directly that it has no effectiveness against covid-19.

Because that’s not what it was FDA approved for. They are actually TIGHTLY restricted in what they can say. It’s caused “off-label” usage.

Fuck you’re ignorant.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

“calling it “horse dewormer” is super dumb”

That was mockery of the people taking it against medical advice, not because people thought that’s all it was.

In reality, early in the pandemic, everything was being tried as a possible treatment until vaccines were available. Ivermectin was one of those that showed some early promise. However, on further examination it was not suitable, and in fact required super high doses to have any effect. IIRC, some of the early meta analysis was skewed by success in countries with high rates of parasitic infection – that is, Ivermectin helped you battle COVID if you weren’t also battling parasites, but that means it was effective at its intended use, not a miracle cure for other things.

So, why “horse paste”? Well, actual doctors refused to prescribe the unproven medicine to people just because they read that it was effective on Twitter. People who swallowed the misinformation, or who believed in some conspiracy theories by “big pharma” to sell vaccines (even though it’s made by the #4 pharma company) decided that they knew better than doctors, and went to feed stores to buy the veterinary formulation largely made for horses. They thought they were being clever, but in fact all they were doing was harming themselves, and ensuring that there was less available for its actual intended use.

The simple fact is, Trump believed and spread yet another set of misinformation, to the point where the drug’s manufacturer had to come out and tell people not to take it (and, surely, even you know you’ve messed up when “big pharma” is asking you not to give them money). The “horse dewormer” is mocking the people who went to feed stores instead of human doctors, especially after vaccines and other safer treatment were available and known to be more effective.

If you want to complain about the term “horse paste”, consider why people say it and its intended target. Ivermectin is a fantastic drug for treating parasitic infection. It has zero proven effect on COVID in people not infected by parasites. If you want to continue to claim it does despite all the studies and evidence to the contrary, you’ll be mocked with the horse paste meme, because you’re displaying the same logic and aversion to facts as the people who started eating horse paste.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:10

That was mockery of the people taking it against medical advice, not because people thought that’s all it was.

The vast majority of people who took it were prescribed it by their doctor. Basically everything you said after that was invalid.

I get it, you hate Trump a whole lot, but TDS isn’t an argument. “Big Pharma” is actually essentially forced to say certain things by the FDA, actually. Man, you just don’t know very much.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

The vast majority of people who took it were prescribed it by their doctor

Then why were farm stores running out of their horse dewormer — ivermectin?

Somewhere along the line, you people decided you knew more than most doctors and since a normal doctor wouldn’t just give out scripts for ivermectin, therefore, if you wanted it, you had to procure it by other means… ergo, you bought horse dewormer.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

“Not when what you are buying is compounded for deworming horses”

Nobody minds that. The mockery is simply about the fact that some people believed misinformation about it, then when human doctors refused to give it to them, they raided feed stores.

In actual fact, most would approve extra supplies to countries that have higher levels of parasitic infection since it’s clear that fighting COVID is easier if you don’t also have other infections. It’s the weirdos who think that taking a big pharma drug because they’re afraid of a big pharma drug that area problem (as they complain about fantasy mRNA effects despite non-mRNA vaccines being aviable) who are the bigger problem.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Referring to it by one of those other drugs is just you uneducated fucks being dumb.

You refusing to realize that even though ivermectin can be prescribed to humans, there is also ivermectin used as a horse dewormer.

Which one to you think people picked up from their local farm and ag store?

Tell me who is the one being fucking dumb because it sure as hell isn’t me.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

“You refusing to realize that even though ivermectin can be prescribed to humans, there is also ivermectin used as a horse dewormer.”

Indeed, nobody is mocking the people who get a prescription for the human version, especially in countries where parasitic infections are common. It’s only the first world residents who rejected other proven drugs and vaccines then raided veterinary stores who are mocked. Especially if they whine about “big pharma” while buying animal drugs from a big pharma company who told them not to buy them.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

“Calling it “horse dewormer” is super dumb.”

Again, no. It’s accurate, as is calling it “human dewormer”.

What’s dumb is calling it “miracle cure for COVID in humans not infected by parasites”, especially if you use that description to detract from other known medications.

You might wish to stop complaining about the terms used to mock you, and consider why the US was disproportionately affected by the pandemic and why red states that politicised basic prevention experienced higher levels of infection and mortatlity.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

“The vast majority of people who took it were prescribed it by their doctor”

I doubt thats true, but those aren’t the people mocked. If a doctor prescribed it, that’s on them. If someone went to feed store after they were told not, they’re an idiot.

““Big Pharma” is actually essentially forced to say certain things by the FDA”

OK.. Are they wrong, or are you saying that when the people who made Ivermectin said “stop taking unprescribed horse paste because doctors won’t prescribe it” the FDA made them?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

“The vast majority of people who took it were prescribed it by their doctor”

I’d love to see numbers given that the drug manufacturer told people not to buy it. But, I won’t mock the people who were prescribed it. Only the people who decided to eat animal paste after they chose to believe a bankrupt con artist instead of doctors.

“I get it, you hate Trump a whole lot, but TDS isn’t an argument. “Big Pharma” is actually essentially forced to say certain things by the FDA, actually. Man, you just don’t know very much.”

That’s a weird non-sequitur bunch of words. But, let’s take them a little at a time…

“TDS” seems to be term used to pretend that there’s no valid criticism of Trump, and is a weak “no U” retort to when people used similar terms to mock people who attacked Clinton and Obama during their terms. In reality, there’s a lot of very reasonable reasons to criticise Trump’s term in office. ore supported by evidence. None provided to right-leaning outlets under normal circumstances, but available here if you ask.

“Big Pharma” forced to say things by the FDA? Well… yeah? They would sell you a caffeine pill for $1200 if they could get away with it. Which they can’t in most places in the world. They’ll bombard you with ads about prescription drugs that are illegal in most places, etc.

“Man, you just don’t know very much.”

As others have said, you should apply to IMAX. Your ability to project is pretty good.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

See, this is funny, cuz Ivermectin is routinely prescribed for humans.

Not in the strength sold at Agway. But sure.

It’s not “horse dewormer” any more than Benadryl is canine anti-anxiety medication

The stuff from Agway is. That’s the stuff you fools were eating because Ivermectin wasn’t a treatment for Covid. Probably because we don’t have the same diet of river water than people in Latin America, where the thought that people could use it originated from.

But like I said – you tards are entertaining! There’s no cause too stupid for you to donate to, no miracle cure that’s too idiotic to try (especially for a made-up hoax virus that’s just like the flu).

One might ask (I did, it’s doubtful you would) why you wouldn’t bother treating a flu-like virus with flu medicine, instead of eating stuff that gives you the shits. But then again, I like watching you people do stupid things to yourselves.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

The stuff from Agway is

Why tf are you talking about Agway?

You understand real doctors prescribed this stuff, right? To people. Based on their medical knowledge. An awful lot of anti-parisitics have been shown to have an anti-viral effect. The effect is not understood, but well documented.

Fucking liberals. Would tell Ben Carson he doesn’t know anything about brain surgery.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Let’s see if all these facts at once will make Matthew go anaphylactic:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/largest-trial-to-date-finds-ivermectin-is-worthless-against-covid/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/more-people-are-poisoning-themselves-with-horse-deworming-drug-to-thwart-covid/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/forced-use-of-horse-dewormer-on-covid-patient-overturned-by-ohio-judge/

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:10

You keep getting angry that people who gorged on ivermectin are getting insulted.

Against voltage or temperature?

Fun fact: about 60-70% of metals thermal conductivity is based upon the shared electron shell, i.e. what makes it a metal and means electrical and thermal conductivity is highly correlated but not exactly linearly and that only holds true for metals.

All of that has nothing to do with anything, except that I know more than you, natively. Not actually natively, of course, when born I knew almost nothing, but I mean intrinsically, as a part of who I am, I know how some things work.

But you don’t. So you make jokes about Ivermectin you don’t understand.

KineticGothic says:

Re: Re: Re:7

You do understand that people buying and using the veterinary formula on themselves was an actual thing, to the extent that feed stores like agway ran short of the drug. The reason why people mocked ivermectin as horse dewormer, was that people were actually taking horse dewormer, and doing so without a doctor’s involvement.

And that’s of course not to mention cases like the prison doc in LA who decided to give dangerously high doses to his captive patients without knowledge or consent, and then was lauded for his “research” by the covid quacks like those on parade on the Reawaken America tour.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:8

people buying and using the veterinary formula on themselves was an actual thing

Sure, but the vast majority of people who took it were prescribed it by their doctor.

The reason why people mocked ivermectin as horse deworme

No, the “reason why” is because liberals are largely ignorant and hateful little shits.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Good old boys been using vet meds for yours you fucking arrogant dumbass. Veterinary meds, equine especially, are arguably higher quality than human.

KineticGothic understand this you arrogant piece of shit. YOUR LIFE IS WORTH LESS THAN A RACE HORSE. An equine drug manufacture will be paying more in damages if they kill a racehorse than a human drug manufacture will be paying if they kill your worthless ass.

Your life is not as valued by our society as that of a race horse and don’t you ever fucking forget it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

there is no mechanism by which Ivermectin can help a Covid patient

Again, anti-parasitics are well known (in general) to have a weak anti-viral effect. No one knows the mechanism, but it’s well documented. SO the mechanism exists.

They’re also quite cheap. No one was getting rich off of it. Paxlovid, on the other hand, is insanely expensive, so if you wanted to make your argument based on profit conspiracy theories, it would go the other way.

You have to be uniquely ignorant (or rabid) to think you’re making a point here.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

“Again, anti-parasitics are well known (in general) to have a weak anti-viral effect”

The key here being “weak”. There’s no evidence that it’s effective against COVID specifically, and the early studies that said it did have either been retracted or required an unsafely high dosage. What is proven to have a much more beneficial effect is vaccines. Which is why people were mocked because they ignored doctors’ advice to get vaccinated and turn to horse paste when they couldn’t get doctors to prescribe ineffective treatment because they believed in online disinformation campaigns.

“No one was getting rich off of it”

Especially because the manufacturer came out and explicitly told people not to take it to treat COVID. The people running the disinformation campaigns to spread fear about vaccines, etc., do seem to be raking it in.

“You have to be uniquely ignorant (or rabid) to think you’re making a point here.”

His point appears to be that, as doctors and the drug manufacturer have confirmed, Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

Seriously, do you have a different dictionary to everyone else? You seem to keep claiming that “ignorance” and “believing documented, proven facts” are synonyms for some reason.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Especially because the manufacturer came out and explicitly told people not to take it to treat COVID

Well, no, they’re essentially mandated to say that by the FDA. And they don’t say “Is not effective” they say “is not clinically proven”.

Your ignorance isn’t an argument.

“You have to be uniquely ignorant (or rabid) to think you’re making a point here.”

That remains true

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

“Well, no, they’re essentially mandated to say that by the FDA. And they don’t say “Is not effective” they say “is not clinically proven”.”

OK. So, people who ignored that advice and said “I’ll ignore that and raid the horse medication” are still mocked. Especially since the US still had way more deaths, and other problems than places that used masks and vaccines. Look at the differences between places that politicised basic healthcare and those that didn’t… it should be rather depressing. At least with me personally, I recall minimum wage Americans workers being threatened with violence for requesting for basic mask and social distancing during a time where infection rates were so low where I am that the demands were being lifted. As in, while the “freedumb” people were threatening to shoot people for asking to mask up those of us who already did with almost completely free from the need.

“That remains true”

That you’re uniquely ignorant? Of course.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Political persecution of conservative thought was clear and present.

Especially when that “conservative thought” includes racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia and just plain ol’ bigotry.

But you people will rarely admit that the above examples of “conservative thought” is what is being banned, and at the same will never admin what specific conservative thoughts are being banned.

Chances are, “conservative thoughts” about lower taxes, smaller government, etc are not the thoughts being banned.

So tell us Matthew, what exactly are the “conservative thoughts” that are being banned?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Especially when that “conservative thought” includes racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia and just plain ol’ bigotry

Liberals will just claim that about any “cultural war” issue. Don’t want sex-ed taught to 6 year olds? “You must hate gay people!” Doiesn’t matter if it’s true.

“conservative thoughts” about lower taxes, smaller government, etc are not the thoughts being banned.

Oh, you haven’t heard? Small government is racist, too. (https://www.politicsnc.com/small-government-politics-requires-white-racism/) Seriously, you guys will do this with anything.

So tell us Matthew, what exactly are the “conservative thoughts” that are being banned?

I’m a libertarian, and to be honest small government less taxes (and less government censorship by proxy) are my main hobby horses. I’m quite supportive of people wanting to live as the other gender. But I am unwilling to pretend that means they are in all ways the same as the other gender. Men can’t get pregnant, and biological men joining women’s sports largely invalidates those sports. (in boxing it’s real dangerous and has come up a few times, even volleyball) Has huge implications for prisons and women’s shelters. Yet pointing that out would be called “transphobia” and get me banned.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Don’t want sex-ed taught to 6 year olds? “You must hate gay people!” Doesn’t matter if it’s true.

When people bring up this canard, it tends to serve a double purpose:

  1. It demonizes queer people and their allies as being “groomers” and sex pests.
  2. It insists that any sex education taught to a six-year-old wouldn’t be age appropriate.

The funny thing is, teaching (age-appropriate) sex ed to children would be more likely to help them recognize if someone is sexually abusing them than literally anything else you can imagine. I would think that’s a good thing, but what do I know, I’m just one of those icky queer f⸻ts you like to complain about.

I’m a libertarian

Ah, so you’re a conservative who knows what the age of consent is in all 50 states.

small government less taxes (and less government censorship by proxy) are my main hobby horses

Can you cite anyone who has ever been suspended or banned from Twitter for expressing those opinions?

pointing that out would be called “transphobia” and get me banned

You’re not transphobic because you’re pointing out some serious issues with a changing landscape in re: gender identities. We can have those discussions without being disrespectful of trans people. You’re transphobic because you continue to disrespect and demonize trans people, apparently under the assumption that less than 1% of the U.S. population should receive primary (if not exclusive) blame for being the root cause of society’s many problems. That is the first step down a short road to the kind of thinking that leads to some dark fucking ideas about “solutions” to a “question” about a group of marginalized people.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

It insists that any sex education taught to a six-year-old wouldn’t be age appropriate.

Yes, correct. No, “Uncle shouldn’t touch you in your no-no places” is not “sex-ed” nor at all what the bill was about.

You’re not transphobic because you’re pointing out some serious issues with a changing landscape in re: gender identities. We can have those discussions without being disrespectful of trans people.

Oh, hey, I’m so glad I have your permission to have opinions! (not how free speech works, btw)

You’re transphobic because you continue to disrespect and demonize trans people

Oh wait, never mind.

apparently under the assumption that less than 1% of the U.S. population should receive primary (if not exclusive) blame for being the root cause of society’s many problems.

[Real talk] Try to be serious for a second, when I have I EVER said something that would suggest that? [/Real Talk]

[snark]Banning “misgendering” was definitely to blame for getting Bablyon Bee suspended (seriously, not most of what they write about) which got Musk to buy Twitter, so……

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

No, “Uncle shouldn’t touch you in your no-no places” is not “sex-ed”

No, that is an age-appropriate form of sex ed, even if it might not be directly called sex ed.

I’m so glad I have your permission to have opinions!

I never said you couldn’t have opinions. But you seem to want to express an opinion without any criticism or critique.

Try to be serious for a second, when I have I EVER said something that would suggest that?

If I had the time, energy, and desire to actually go back through the past month or two of articles, unhide all your comments, and give them a proper perusal, I’m sure I could find something. But since I won’t because even I’m not that desperate to win a meaningless Internet slapfight with a shithead like you, it’s a safe assumption that your willingness to shittalk queer people extends to trans people⁠—and likely with far more fervor.

Banning “misgendering” was definitely to blame for getting Bablyon Bee suspended … which got Musk to buy Twitter

Says a lot that Musk figuratively burned billions upon billions of his own personal wealth and completely fucked over Twitter’s ability to court a lot of major advertisers in the pursuit of unbanning an unfunny “satire” site that was banned for being shitty towards trans people.

None of it is good, but it does say a lot.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

No, that is an age-appropriate form of sex ed, even if it might not be directly called sex ed.

OK, I don’t care about your definitional argument. It’s not what’s banned by the bill and certainly not anything conservatives have a problem with being taught.

I’m sure I could find something

Well that’s telling, actually. You can’t think of anything (which you could if I had actually said anything of the sort) ….but given enough time you think you could find something you could “interpret” to be such. This is generally my experience with liberals, they’ll find something they can misinterpret if they try hard enough.

it’s a safe assumption that your willingness to shittalk queer people

Oh? You can’t think of a time I said anything like that either, can you? Look, dude, this isn’t OK. You can’t just throw accusations like that as if they don’t matter and you don’t have to justify them, that’s actually the whole fucking problem.

An adult would admit I’d said nothing of the sort.

Says a lot that Musk figuratively burned billions upon billions of his own personal wealth and completely fucked over Twitter’s ability to court a lot of major advertisers in the pursuit of unbanning an unfunny “satire” site that was banned for being shitty towards trans people.

Of course I disagree with most of that characterization but it’s almost as if people used to say, “I may hate what you say, but I will defend until death your right to say it” with pride. Seriously, these principles matter. BB and Musk offends you? I honestly think that’s fucking silly but so what? You’re offended! Move on. If you think the right response is to kick them off the internet something is wrong with you.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

BB and Musk offends you? I honestly think that’s fucking silly but so what? You’re offended! Move on.

…says the guy who keeps coming back to a blog he hates so he can argue with people he despises only because he takes pleasure in trying to make people as miserable as possible for the sake of feeling like he’s accomplished something meaningful by “owning the libs”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

So tell us, what exactly are the “conservative thoughts” that are being banned?

  • Shutting down the economy for a mostly-survivable flu was stupid and used to advance the destruction of the country by Democrats.
  • Criticizing actions of the Chinese government.
  • Criticizing actions of the Democrat Party voting base or the Burn, Loot, Murder (BLM) “protests”.
  • Exposing the mutilation of children and the virtue signalling of support for transgenderism.
  • Contradicting anything the CDC or WHO says about Covid, whether they have said it in the past or not.
  • Anything about “died suddenly” or its causes.
  • Exposing criminal activity of Democrat politicians.

And many more…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

So, why don’t you give us some concrete exampled of people being banned because of their “conservative thought”

Just listing out what “you” think is getting people banned doesn’t really mean that people are actually getting banned for those reasons…

So again, how about some real-world concrete examples of people being banned for nothing more than “conservative thought.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

questioning school lockdowns and pointing out they would harm children’s development.

What’s so funny about that statement is now your political comrades are suggesting that public schools are too “woke” (I dare you to give us your definition of woke) and that parents just start homeschooling their children.

So what is it, children learning at home is harmful to their development, or children are not harmed by home schooling and that should be the norm?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

What’s so funny about that statement is now your political comrades are suggesting that public schools are too “woke”

What’s fascinating is you think that’s a contradiction. Committing to homeschooling is far different (and requires a lot of sacrifices) than sticking with a school system that just isn’t doing it’s job.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

a school system that just isn’t doing it’s job

It’s hard for that system to do its job when politicians routinely cut its budget in favor of funding other institutions (like the police). And I should note that Republicans have a special hatred for public education⁠—which is why destroying it in any way possible has been one of their pet projects for a long goddamn time.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:8

It mostly didn’t do it’s job because of teacher’s unions and political partisanship. You’ll be interested to know that both teacher’s pay and academic performance have almost no correlation with funding levels. All schools do with more money is hire more administrative bloat, still be fucking useless.

Tell you what: We can make us BOTH happy and just privatize the whole thing. No no, I still want poor kids to get an education, vouchers for everyone!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Shutting down the economy for a mostly-survivable flu was stupid and used to advance the destruction of the country by Democrats.

Too bad Trump was such a powerless impotent douche who surrounded himself with incompetents who chose to do nothing about it. You guys voted for him, I didn’t.

Criticizing actions of the Chinese government.

Are you now supportive of the Chinese government?

Criticizing actions of the Democrat Party voting base or the Burn, Loot, Murder (BLM) “protests”.

Still butthurt about not taking the Capitol on 1/6, huh?

Exposing the mutilation of children and the virtue signalling of support for transgenderism.

Uh-huh. You’re so worried that you’re not masculine enough for your kids, aren’t you?

Contradicting anything the CDC or WHO says about Covid, whether they have said it in the past or not.

Hey, you guys eat your aquarium cleaner, horse dewormer, whatever. That was entertaining as all fuck for me – watching you people try and fail, sometimes with diarrhea other times with a ventilator tube shoved down your throat. What’s even funnier is that none of you were smart enough to see how your own constituents dying might affect your voting bloc. Good times!

Anything about “died suddenly” or its causes.

Show me where on the doll the obituary touched you.

Exposing criminal activity of Democrat politicians.

That’s the funniest of all. You ran on ‘Lock her up!’ – and didn’t. You actually didn’t lock anyone up, except members of your own party. But that counts for something!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Criticizing actions of the Chinese government.

Criticizing the Chinese government is such a fucking non-point that it’s amusing anyone thought the Democrats of all people would be hiding that. There is a touch of irony, though, that now we’ve completely come full circle in the pandemic, in that now China is pissing and moaning about other countries testing their citizens. We’ve come full circle since 2020 and even now China wants to downplay their shitshow.

You ran on ‘Lock her up!’ – and didn’t. You actually didn’t lock anyone up, except members of your own party. But that counts for something!

Consider one of Trump’s explanations for the Mar-a-Lago raid – he claimed that they were looking for Hilary’s emails. Which would suggest that he was holding onto them, and didn’t use them in his four years of presidency to actually do something about them. It’s embarrassing that he thought this was a good look.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Criticizing the Chinese government is such a fucking non-point

See, this is funny, cuz I’ve seen people claim it’s somehow racist to criticize China. Got their own mini-holocaust going on over there, but how dare you call the CCP evil!

Consider one of Trump’s explanations for the Mar-a-Lago raid – he claimed that they were looking for Hilary’s emails.

……holy fuck, you realize that that was a joke, right? Because what Hillary did was so much worse than anything Trump or Biden did.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Because what Hillary did was so much worse than anything Trump or Biden did.

Perhaps someone should have campaigned on locking her up. I bet a guy like that would win, and once he’s in there, he can lock her up once and for all instead of just complaining about her.

That would take care of Hillary, and all of her faults. If only someone had the balls to actually do it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Not provable in court” is not the same as “did not happen”….and this wasn’t even a court suit, just a ruling by an FEC coming off a democratic administration. The statistics were pretty clearly on the RNC’s side.

But in this case we have smoking gun emails and chats and the rather obvious fact that everyone’s (conservative) follow accounts changed rather dramatically after Musk’s take over. Shadow bans were a fact.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:8

The part where he thinks he’s a brave truth-teller telling truths to the liars and the crooks and the crooked liars of the ultra-far-left and their allies in the National Antifa Polycule instead of an asshole.

Aww, you get me.

(but then why did you pretend I’m some sorta anti-gay ant-trans crusader earlier?)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:10

I didn’t.

Oh yeah you did

You’re transphobic because you continue to disrespect and demonize trans people, apparently under the assumption that less than 1% of the U.S. population should receive primary (if not exclusive) blame for being the root cause of society’s many problems.

and

it’s a safe assumption that your willingness to shittalk queer people extends to trans people⁠—and likely with far more fervor.

Don’t lie about what you just said. Not only did I give no justification to say either of those things but I think they fit the description of “some sorta anti-gay ant-trans crusader”. (Cue Stephen trying to weasel about what the definition of “is” is.)

a queer person like me.

Well, I wouldn’t be treating you equally if I didn’t “shit talk” you, on a personal level (not because you are gay) for playing the “queer card” (i.e. trying to use victimhood status as a defense in an argument where that status was not attacked) That is some weak ass shit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:12

bro, be as fabulous as you want, live your best life. The women who are interested in you aren’t gonna to be into me and vice versa, we’ll be OK. Also I’ve been married for a billion years so it’s all kinda null.

Also I think Musk has 9 kids? He’s doing OK, depends on what you want in life. Personally I want to spend more time with my kids but Musk seems a kinda “married to his job” sorta guy.

I mostly get mad at stupidity tbh.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Why? I won. Conclusively.

You mean lost conclusively.

Considering my posts are quite often marked with the insightful badge, and none of yours are…

And none of my posts are hidden, and almost all of your posts are hidden…

I would say that I have conclusively and convincingly won over your sorry loser ass.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:9

For someone who’s “winning” you sure bitch and piss and moan a lot about being flagged.

Well, I find it strange and funny. I obviously shouldn’t whine about it, since ALL of you see my comments and ALL of you seem super desperate to respond with your useless, infantile opinions. But still.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Or you could, you know, just enforce the first amendment...

In General—An employee may not —

use the employee’s official authority or influence to advocate that any third party, including a private entity, take any action to censor any speech.

One need only look back a week or so to see how trivial that would be to abuse as several people(some more than others) have been insisting that ‘notifying a platform of potential TOS violations’ counts as ‘censorship’, going back farther you’ve got people arguing that adding warnings and corrections to comments counts as ‘censorship’, I’ve no doubt that anti-vaxxers and Big Lie supporters would argue that the government saying ‘hey it might be a good idea if you didn’t host something that would get people killed and/or undermine democracy itself’ would count as ‘censorship’…

It might sound good at first glance, and it’s certainly tamer than what might be expected from the GOP at this point but there are just so many ways I could see this going wrong and/or being misused that ‘just punish those that violate the first amendment that already exists’ still seems like a much better option.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bluegrassgeek (profile) says:

Re: It's a total mess

This gets to the heart of the problem with this bill. It is so vague as to make it impossible for a government employee to even say “Hey, you’re hosting illegal content, you need to take that down.”

Hell, let’s just go right to a Hunter Biden situation: let’s say a sitting member of Congress gets hacked and has their dick pic put up on Twitter. Are they seriously not allowed to ask Twitter to take it down, lest they fall afoul of this law? What if one of their personal staff members is the one who sends the request, does that still count? Do they have to literally find some disinterested third party to request the takedown or does that still count?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re:

been insisting that ‘notifying a platform of potential TOS violations’ counts as ‘censorship’, going back farther you’ve got people arguing that adding warnings and corrections to comments counts as ‘censorship’

It is.

I’ve no doubt that anti-vaxxers and Big Lie supporters would argue that the government saying ‘hey it might be a good idea if you didn’t host something that would get people killed and/or undermine democracy itself’

Actually, no, that’s exactly what I don’t want government doing. (nvm that if you think speech can undermine “democracy itself” you’re a fucking idiot) That’s exactly what the 1A is meant to prevent.

Hey, Iran also want to ban anyone saying that their elections are rigged. Oh, you think that’s true in the case of Iran and false in the case of the US? Good for you, but that’s not a governing principle. You CANNOT be having the government deciding what is true or not and suppressing speech it thinks is false, or punish the people saying it, and that way lies tyranny.

Nevermind you crying about “antivaxxers” lots and lots of actual doctors were pointing out that the vaccine was unlikely to work as well as advertised, that the risk to the young was VERY low, and that lots of the lockdowns and mask mandates had little effect but great costs and they were shadowbanned as a result. Much of this was in debate at the time but has proven true since. They were silenced. That isn’t OK. Heck, not twitter, but Facebook promised the white house that they would suppress information that they knew to be true at the time because they might cause “vaccine hesitancy”.

That’s not OK. That is exactly what should not happen. If you think that suppression is good you’re a totalitarian at heart.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

Besides having been proven to have little effect, Russians have free speech too, at least in the US. Memes can’t hurt you.

Again, this comes down to the totalitarian position: you believe people shouldn’t be allowed to say things you don’t like. Labeling it “interfering in an election”, regardless of whether that’s true (it wasn’t) doesn’t change anything.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Besides having been proven to have little effect

“It had little effect” doesn’t mean “it didn’t happen”.

you believe people shouldn’t be allowed to say things you don’t like

If a Nazi wants to sieg heil, I say let them. But I don’t have to let them do that on my property⁠—whether that’s my home in meatspace or a forum I run in cyberspace⁠—and I sure as shit don’t have to keep my mouth shut about it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I wouldn’t mind twitter banning “sieg Heil” but the fact is they allow all sorts of awful shit from around the world. They were primarily concerned with ideas they didn’t like from Americans. I’m very against that. I’m militantly against it when the government plays a role.

The fact that some Russians made some memes an idiot didn’t like has little to with that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Labeling it “interfering in an election”, regardless of whether that’s true (it wasn’t) doesn’t change anything.

Being able to say nasty things about minorities in America is one thing, and YOU are allowed to say that.

Interfering in a peaceful election, violently, is another matter altogether, and actually happened, no matter what you think.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Being able to say nasty things about minorities in America is one thing, and YOU are allowed to say that.

Kinda belies the fact that you’ll label anything you don’t like some form of “hate speech”

Interfering in a peaceful election, violently, is another matter altogether

Speech is not violence. Russian trolls making memes is not “intefering in an election” (you kids used to claim “hacked an election” at least you gave that up)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Kinda belies the fact that you’ll label anything you don’t like some form of “hate speech”

What I hate is actual harassment being done and its perpatrators getting the fuck away scot-free. Like YOU. Being flagged is a slap on the wrist compared to what I’d to you if it weren’t illegal to do so.

Speech is not violence. Russian trolls making memes is not “intefering in an election” (you kids used to claim “hacked an election” at least you gave that up)

Yes to the first point, with exceptions like “fighting words”, ie, saying you want to violently beat up certain groups of people.

As to your second pojnt, other than saying “congratulations for finally admitting you’re defending Russian interference in the election campaign through weaponized disinformation”…

I can meme harder than most Russians. I may be able to even make Russian memes funnier.

But what happened on Jan 6 definitely happened. And no, it wasn’t a bunch of Juggalos breaking into a government building to take selfies for their idols. It was white supremacists performing a fucking insurrection.

As usual, you continue to be a threat to America.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

What I hate is actual harassment being done and its perpatrators getting the fuck away scot-free. Like YOU. Being flagged is a slap on the wrist compared to what I’d to you if it weren’t illegal to do so.

OK, real talk, I want you to realize that you acting as if I’m a war criminal is rewarding to me. It’s a hyperbolic and dumb thing to say but it also means that I’ve hit home which is why you’re so bothered. “Owning the libs” indeed.

I can meme harder than most Russians. I may be able to even make Russian memes funnier.

No you can’t. Not that the Russians were funny or effective (there’s a study on that) but the Left can’t meme and you are exactly the sorta humorless Karen who makes that axiom true.

It was white supremacists performing a fucking insurrection.

Look, seriously, you can’t just go calling everyone who disagrees with you racist, makes you look really dumb. But you know how right wingers have 300 million guns? When we decide to have an insurrection you’ll know. It’s not going to be cute little old ladies and nice man taking a podium. This is what disgusts me about you people, you have no sense of perspective at all.

As usual, you continue to be a threat to America.

You have no idea what that means. But y’know, red coats and all that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

There are.

But the only threat I’m seeing right is people like you. Who took on the mantle of the Nazis and try to push for an actual fascist leader to take over, despite the fucking evidence, domestically and INTERNATIONALLY, that they should NOT be holding the reins at a bare minimum.

Not the bloody Democrats, not the Greens, not actual conservatives who are more than happy to let Trump go and Biden peacefully reelected. And definitely not the commies, who, I would like to remind you, are relegated to being discussed on in academia and nothing else. And not the modern antifa as well, because they aren’t commies, first and foremost.

What does that leave us with? You and the usual suspects, the people who stormed a public building on Jan 6 to stop a peaceful political process being fucking watched by EVERYONOE ALL OVER THE WORLD, and the 73 million who boted in Trump in 2016 and tried to do it again in 2020.

MATT, YOU ARE THE NAZIS.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.