-
Posts
1,408 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Won
395,317 [ Donate ]
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by KoreaxxLove
-
-
-
17 minutes ago, abra said:
I hate to admit it but it's not impossible
Exactly, like this is a completely laughable article. It's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to think--whether they like the Trumps or not--that they don't have a political future. I'm sure Ivanka would have tremendous support in a White House bid--not that I'm saying she would necessarily win. She would likely win over many of the suburban women Trump did so poorly with, and with Kushner's incredible record in the Middle East, they may have more clout and experience than people expect.
22 minutes ago, choiyujins said:imagine the US finally getting a female president... and it's ivanka trump
The first Madame President is 99.9999999999999999% likely to be Kamala Harris.
-
19 minutes ago, doki-doki said:
Fanfics about real people have never sat right with me, it’s a weird form of objectification and sexualisation.
Yeah, I've always found them to be strange as well. I'm not sure how I'd feel if people were writing fics like that about me.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Jikrytae said:
Wait... The fuck?
This feels like that time he claimed to be "hard on China" and then we found secret bank accounts of his... in China.
I also can't decide if the thought of him actually using a potential account on that particular platform is hilarious or horrifying.
Trump has been tough on China. Thankfully, Biden says he doesn't have plans to remove some of the policies Trump put in place.
Editing to add that, as of 1/8/2021, Trump doesn't even have TikTok.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, satoori said:
The point already been made.
Anyways, while i find it cute you want to keep talking with me, I don't have anymore time right now. Bye~
You missed the point the entire time. You're the one who keeps insisting on talking and not actually saying anything.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Any Republican doing that would be committing political suicide unless they plan on flipping to the Democrat party. This is just noise.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
47 minutes ago, satoori said:
No, it's not.
And that's not the point. It's never been the point. We the people didn't do anything with Twitter. Goodness, you're dense. I'm convinced at this point you're just saying nonsense to have the last word. What are you? 12?
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, satoori said:
The point remains, Trump is dangerous to America and rightfully deserves to be removed. Period.
And IF in the future another President(s) is just as dangerous on sns, then their a** can be removed as well.
Let this be a learning lesson to these leaders whose job is to serve and protect we the people.
That's not the point, and it's not true. He's not dangerous, and he doesn't rightfully deserve to be removed.
The point is that this is a dangerous precedent to set in terms of censorship, whether you like the man or not. And it's not just Trump being censored here, anyway.
-
2
-
2
-
-
Just now, satoori said:
Trump is dangerous himself. We the people (including private companies) have the right to remove and/or impeach the President, so...
Justify it however you want, but the point remains. This censorship is setting a dangerous precedent--and, might I add, is doing absolutely nothing to cool tempers across the country. It's just going to make things worse.
-
3
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, satoori said:
It's not a realistic way of thinking, but it's my honest opinion about Trump.
However yes I know they would not be able to do it.
And that's the attitude people have here. Y'all dislike Trump so much you don't realize how dangerous of a precedent this is censoring him and other conservatives like this.
-
1
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Yggdrasil said:
No. After what happened on Wednesday, we need to make sure he can never hold office again. Enough is enough.
Noted, but I don't agree. He's no more to blame for that than Pelosi is for inciting violence during the BLM riots. Or Kamala, for that matter.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, satoori said:
Side note: IF the internet and phone companies decided today to block/cancel Trump, I for one wouldn't care either. Of course I don't see why they would do so, but...
THAT'S a problem, but the point is that they can't do that because it infringes on the right to free speech.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Jikrytae said:
KoreaxxLove, ladies and gentlemen. No new ideas or self-realization that hey, maybe the one guy arguing against an entire thread of people might just be the one who's wrong. Just a dog chasing its tail, pretending he's smarter than everyone else, not because he can prove it through the course of an argument, but because that sacred notion is the only thing keeping his ginormous ego from shattering into a million pieces, leading to a melodramatic existential crisis. And so in circles we go.
By the way, rananicolee blocked you, so you're just wasting your time responding to them. I mean you're wasting your time responding to everyone, really, but I just thought you'd like to know.
The only reason that we're going in circles is because none of y'all are contending with my argument, so we end up just having to repeat ourselves over and over. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than everyone. I'm saying that I'm smarter than you and anyone who thinks stating the premise of an argument is the same thing as making an argument. It's not. You're either all really young or just not well-educated.
Honestly, it's like someone going, "this is a private company, so it's not the same thing." I ask for an argument and provide mine, and the only reply is, "but this is a private company. First Amendment doesn't apply." THAT'S why we're going in circles. I have asked you--and others--to engage with the content of my argument and to actually MAKE a case as to why social media platforms aren't public utilities in the same way as phone companies (which are also private companies) and the Internet (where Internet providers are also private companies). None of you have even tried. I have provided you obvious instances where your premise doesn't apply. I have explained to you why social media sites and giant tech corporations that have a monopoly on online public social discourse fall into the same category. And you have done nothing to refute it. You just keep repeating the premise over and over again. Your premise can't take the place of the actual argument--the argument that neither you nor anyone else here has made yet.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Jikrytae said:
1. Your "Freedom of speech" argument is still just as invalid as the last time you posted. Or perhaps it's becoming incrementally more invalid every time you stubbornly return to it. I'm not entirely sure, but what I do know is that you're a hopeless case.
2. So because Democrats are about to be in power, and that could potentially affect gun rights, that gives Republicans justification to commit treasonous acts of domestic terrorism? I don't know about you, but I'm personally gonna go with a big NO on this one. Screw them and anyone who makes such poor excuses on their behalf.
3. Their votes counted. Cut the bullshit already.
1. You keep refusing to actually make that argument because you're not smart enough to.
2. No, I don't agree with the riots and think anyone involved should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. They simply asked what rights they thought they lost. I answered. That's your misunderstanding.
3. I didn't say they didn't. I said they believed they didn't,and that's what's relevant here.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Jikrytae said:
I don't need to prove anything, it's self-evident. Everyone in this thread understands where the 1st amendment is applicable and where it isn't, except for you. You're the lone exception. Seriously, read the room and accept that maybe, just maybe, you aren't right all the time. (In actuality, you're almost never right, but that's beside the point.)
Besides, since when did Trumpers actually require evidence for anything in order to to believe it?
Understatement of the century. They could arguably be used as proof of human devolution.
You have to prove what you're arguing. I know where the First Amendment is applicable. You're not contending with any of the nuanced points here because you don't know what to say about them. You've got the IQ of a wolf rat, and you're always picking things with me that you can't finish and then running away when you can't make your point. So far no one in this thread has done anything but repeat the argument to me without making it. Not one person here has been able to make any case as to why social media platforms with GOVERNMENT protection from Section 230 should have the ability to censor wide swaths of the population, nor have they addressed that when they band together in such a way that it's a modern-day monopoly on communications. If social media platforms want to curate the content that goes on their site, they should abandon Section 230 protections that protect them from being liable for what users post on their site. Until they drop US GOVERNMENT PROTECTIONS against them for the content that is on their site (which effectively makes them a public service communication PLATFORM just like telephones and the Internet), this isn't a case of cut-and-dry public vs private debate. Again, none of you would agree that your phone service has the right to cut off your service just because they don't like what you're saying (and they are private companies, too).
12 hours ago, valeriekmy96 said:Trump supporters aren't very smart are they?
If you're so smart, make an argument against what I'm saying. But you know you can't, so you just want to insult instead. It's like I'm arguing with children. To be fair, on this platform, I probably am.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, rananicolee said:
Trump: MARCH TO THE CAPITOL. YOU ARE PATRIOTS. TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY.
Social media sites: We are banning Trump in fear of inciting more riots.
Reddit: We took down the Trump reddit page because his supporters were threatening people by NAME and trying to incite more riots.
There is a subreddit called ParlerWatch where people show other people what is happening on there and they are planning another riot.
This is not a case of censorship. This is a case of stopping what happened on Wednesday. What Trump did was illegal. He DID incite riots. Yes, he told his supporters to go home but, in the same breath, he continued his lies on election fraud which is why they think their "rights" are taken away. His "speech" on Thursday was not written by him and everyone can tell that. If you cannot tell, you are blind.
What they are "protesting" for is to take back "their" country, their words. None of this has to do with BLM. BLM protested for RIGHTS for black Americans. Yes, sure outliers started fires but that doesn't represent the movement.
If you are a Trump supporter and you reply to this, you are WASTING YOUR TIME because I don't care what you have to say.
And this is what Trump supporters look like defending their Grand Wizard.
He didn't tell them to be violent anymore than Nancy Pelosi told people to be violent when she said that she didn't understand why we didn't have violent uprisings all over the place. And he was much less so than Maxine Waters telling people to harrass officials.
You can justify this any way you want, but there's no excuse for mass banning. Call in law enforcement to investigate the IP addresses of anyone making terroristic threats. There are ways of handling that. NOT by mass banning. That's exactly the same excuse that China used for banning Facebook because they said they were using it to coordinate a rebel in Xinjiang. Now those people are in concentration camps.
This has everything to do with BLM. You realize that they estimate that nearly A MILLION people came to DC to peacefully protest? And how many were violent? A VERY SMALL FRACTION. This same argument can be used in reverse. The reality is that BLM protests turned violent and resulted in more death and more destruction that the riot on Capitol Hill. RIOTING from BOTH SIDES is wrong, but you'll go to your grave defending BLM when its slogan was literally NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE.In what world is that not inciting violence??
Many politicians have speeches that aren't written by them. It's literally a job. That's just a stupid thing to point out. You can keep trying to spin this any way you want, but you'll never escape the fact that you're wrong and that reality is just not on your side.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Solfa said:
This event has led to Twitter changing rules in general, adding a anti-dehumanization rule. They removed the baby-making machine tweet from the Chinese government too
And how long did it take them to do that? And why not ban their Twitter account? Why not ban Kathy Griffin? Why not take down tweet supporting the riots over the summer?
1 hour ago, Jikrytae said:I'll just leave this helpful visual guide here. Maybe it can help anyon.... the one person who needs it.
Lol, Relying on other people to make your arguments for you, and it's still wrong. Embarrassing.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Asuka Langley Soryu said:
please tell me what freedoms you genuinely think the average white, middle aged, middle class capitol rioter is at stake of losing and how those compare to the freedoms American colonialists (also, slave owners, just by the way) "lost" to British imperialists?
Freedom of speech, potentially gun rights now that the Democrats are in control. They believe (either rightly or wrongly) that their votes didn't count.
But my point is that this censorship is infringing on the freedom of speech.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, deobizone said:
Trump/trump supporters deserve to be censored tho
they r objectively shitty ppl
What a terrible thing to say, but honestly this is the attitude I think most of y'all have that makes y'all think this is okay. It's not. It's a very dehumanizing idea.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Asuka Langley Soryu said:
the difference is that BLM were protesting against police brutality and black people being literally murdered?? trump supporters staged a coup at the capitol for what? because their fave doesn't get to destroy peoples lives for another four years?
And these people would argue that they're protesting the loss of their freedoms--you know the same freedoms that caused the Revolutionary War. The end result of the BLM protests is that they left plenty of black lives dead, cities destroyed, and livelihoods ruined.
4 hours ago, one-hoe wonho said:if i made a website, i can do whatever i want to it. if i want to ban certain people from entering my website, i can and no one can tell me otherwise because it's a privately owned platform by me. that's the same thing with twitter banning trumps account. they can do whatever they want, but you can use your freedom of speech anywhere else that other private platforms allow. the point: you are not obliged to use your freedom of speech everywhere, especially when it's a private owned platform. i mean, even your first amendment says freedom of speech doesn't protect private owned platforms or organisations.
Y'all all come here saying the same thing like you haven't even read my response to it yet. And no, it's not the same. These large social media companies enjoy Section 230 protection from the government so that they get treated as platforms and not curators. They are modern-day public services, just like telephones and the Internet, and when they're working in unison to silence ideas from just one side, it DOES silence free speech. Saying there are alternatives is incorrect. These are the megaphones and platforms where ideas are transmitted in the 21st century.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Jikrytae said:
There's nothing to get. You have no valid points, only verbal diarrhea.
And if you were able to prove that, you would. But you're not, so you just say it and hope if you say it with enough sass people will believe it. Doesn't work on me.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, seokii said:
Congratulations on identifying your actual problem instead of making ridiculous comparisons between government authorities censoring dissent and social media platforms having very clear outlined terms of service.
What a completely nonsensical reply. This isn't a ridiculous comparison at all. Censorship is censorship. It's not about them having very clear outlined terms of service. As I stated, and you failed to understand, they obviously aren't being enforced equally across the board, and there are large groups of people who are losing their right to express their opinions in major public avenues. My argument is that these social media platforms are modern day public services akin to telephones (which we don't monitor and do that to) or the Internet. They are that large and should be treated as such, and not one person here has been able to actually speak to this point. Probably because they, like you, can't seem to grasp my obvious point.
Try harder next time.
-
2
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, satoori said:
more like i already made my argument and point.
and there's no point wasting my time going in circles with you.
You've stated an argument without arguing it.
3 minutes ago, Jikrytae said:Sorry, but no one's charging you to use social media. It's a free, PRIVATELY OWNED platform. So your comparison is complete bunk.
I've already explained why that's not the case. I'm not surprised you didn't get it though.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, satoori said:
yep, it's the point.
K. You obviously have no argument. I'm done wasting my time.
-
1
-
1
-

Trump Releases Video Urging Peace, Denouncing Violence
in Current News & Events
Posted
On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump released a video condemning political violence from both the left and the right. In his address, Trump acknowledged intelligence that suggests more violent demonstrations are planned leading up to President-Elect Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20.
In a strong statement, President Trump again condemned the actions of those who rioted at the US Capitol last week, a deadly insurrection attempt that left five dead and led to the President being impeached a second time shortly before the release of his video statement. Trump rebuked the Capitol rioters, saying that those who perform violent acts and that those who do not respect law enforcement do not represent his America First movement and are not true supporters.
The President also condemned widespread censorship by Big Tech platforms, suggesting that such censorship simply builds anger and cannot replace civil dialogue. The video message was posted to the official White House Twitter account, as Twitter banned the President's personal account to much criticism last week. Since then, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has defended the ban of the President while acknowledging that the move does set a bad precedent. Global leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Mexico President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, have also spoken out against the ban.
Soon after his Twitter ban, the President issued tweets from the official White House account. The tweets were quickly removed per Twitter's ban evasion policy; however, the President's message urging peace and unity has been allowed to stay on the platform.