0
33

[–] Frygar 0 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago 

They wont because they are absurdly hypocritical because they are absurdly vacuous.

0
18

[–] Alhambra 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

leftists view hypocrisy as a tool, rather than a character flaw. as long as it gets them what they want in the moment, who cares about future consequences?

0
3

[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Hope they rethink once the muzzi/spic cock is up their ass.

0
2

[–] PotatoFarm 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The puppet masters do, the average one is just an useful idiot that finds such double standards to be a necessity for the "greater good".

Remember, they see themselves as heralds of justice and progress; they firmly believe the future they are fighting for is worth all the sacrifices needed. Anything that goes against such goals, call it facts, reality, science, decency, justice or even common sense is to be shamed into oblivion, unless it supports their position.

Is that movement doomed? Of course, that hypocrisy and delusion is driving them into their own end. An end that will be celebrated.

However, I do fear I see a lot of that maniacal irrationality in voat, naturally, with one huge difference: Where the current leftist ideology is a fabricated dogma of feel good lies and deceptions, the right one is at least a naturally created one born from the counter-culture that opposes such artificial leftist movements.

0
3

[–] Greenzero86 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

And self righteous. When you are hypocritical, vacuous, and self righteous, being able to understand other opinions/perspectives is impossible due to the amount of cognitive dissonance those traits can create.

0
3

[–] ChippyTubes 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Salty, top Kek!

9
-9

0
13

[–] aria_taint 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

If you tell a liberal that they will respond with "well, it's not the same". That's what they do! Hypocrisy is part of there everyday life. They truly don't see they're own hypocrisy.

0
8

[–] patriot_biz 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

It's OK to be white.

0
10

[–] dog_soldier 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't endorse it, but I can see what the argument will be. Something like this:

1) Twitter users are not customers of Twitter. They don't pay Twitter anything for the use of the service. They are just users of a private system designed for generating revenue. Frankly, I don't use Twitter so I don't know who DOES pay Twitter, but I guess there are some ads in there somewhere.

2) The nature of the product that Twitter does sell (or hopes to sell?) is that it is an sort of ecosystem that attracts the product (users) that Twitter sells (is going to sell?) to advertisers.

In Twitter's business judgement, certain political opinions and behaviors detract from its ability to earn revenue because:

a) The total number of customers goes down when these "offensive" views are permitted, and

b) Advertisers do not want to be associate with these views, and so don't utilize the service.

Making you bake a dildo cake if you are a Christian baker doesn't result in either effect - nobody knows you baked the dildo cake unless you tell people about it, so you don't lose revenue.

3) It's legal to organize your business in a way that maximizes revenue as long as you don't discriminate against CUSTOMERS on the basis or race, creed, color, religious affiliation and the other protected classes, whatever they are. (I don't think sexual orientation is included yet, at least at the federal level, but it is at the state level. That's why Oregon was able to sue the bakers.)

It's also perfectly legal to discriminate against ANYBODY on the basis of political opinion, behavior, or anything as long as it's not something tied to the protected classes.

USERS who are just hanging around don't really have any "standing" to sue Twitter to begin with, and even if they did have "standing" they have no case, because they are being legally discriminated against - i.e. because of political views, behavior, etc.

Now - here's the interesting thing. If a Christian church that was vehememently anti-gay and anti-gay marriage, or other protected class tried to advertise on Twitter and they were turned down - THEN there might be a case to take them into courts

There might be some shred of a case to present at least.

As it is, mere USERS probably don't have a case agains Twitter in the way that the lesbians did against the cake bakers.

It could be argued that Twitter is a monopoly, and that it needs to be regulated as such and forced to provide service to all users.

But I don't think this flies either, because, again, USERS are not CUSTOMERS. They're just people who hang around and contribute - or detract - from the product that Twitter is trying to sell to advertisers.

Also, there are alternatives to Twitter, like Gab, designed specifically for these objectionable users. They can go there. Or use some other lesser known similar service.

0
5

[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Your first point shows why social media should be treated as a public street corner and the users protected by the 1st Amendment.

0
1

[–] dog_soldier 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't really see that. It's not public. It's private. It wasn't built with public money and it is not owned by the public.

Understand that I don't agree with Twitter's policy.

I think we need to rewrite the law in this area to cover cyberspace, because there are unique conditions here that aren't covered in the law.

I think that in order to have free speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment, the primary private platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc need to be FORCED to allow users with opinions they don't like. Not doing that gives these companies what is EFFECTIVELY a monopoly on a channel of communication. I say FORCED because I think the existing law doesn't really cover them. So we need new law that does.

These companies have taken over much of the role formerly occupied by television and newspapers - and the way it is right now the government limits the control that companies can have in those markets. Well, at least in theory they do. The reality is that they don't even break up monopolies in that area anymore.

Problem is we have a lot of liberal judges now, and they're not going to do it because they are steeped in liberal ideology and any opinion to the right of Karl Marx is Nazism as far as they are concerned. Which shouldn't matter if we had free speech. But we don't, and it does.

That's why we need a new law. I hope Trump sees this and introduces legislation to do it.

0
0

[–] Diggernicks 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Tl;dr

0
0

[–] dog_soldier 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

IQ < 90

0
8

[–] TakenOutofContext 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Protected privilege class: the thoery that you can choose to be whatever political flavor you want, but you cannot choose to be a faggot.

0
6

[–] firex726 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Politics is a protected class in Cali.

0
1

[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And only if you are a marxist.

0
2

[–] csicskageci 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

OK at least the second most upvoated comment gets it right. US Federal law has protected classes, religion, sexual orientation etc. If you want to troll them write something hateful, back it up by Bible verses or quotes from any major religious book and state that these are your religious beliefs. If they ban you you can sue them.

0
1

[–] absurdlyobfuscated 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

So, the Westboro Baptist Church strategy?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

8
-1

[–] Frygar 8 points -1 points (+7|-8) ago 

-oe +eo

Being a Faggot is a biological condition. Being a fucking cunt is a choice.

1
8

[–] Creativity1488 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Did you fall for the meme that gays are born that way?

0
5

[–] samuraichococat 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

cant someone actually just sue twitter and cite that case ruling as prescident?

0
7

[–] L3D 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Milo is currently suing Twitter, but wanting them to be treated as public utility https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/right-wing-activists-lawyer-up-fight-tech-giants-1074051 gay cake precedent would work better I think too.

0
2

[–] dog_soldier 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I don't think that's going anywhere, for the reasons I cited above.

The courts can find whatever they want. They just have to justify their opinion, so really if they wanted to they could find a way to let Milo win. But they're political as hell. In the current environment these lower level judges are mostly libs to begin with. And if they're not, then they're looking to move up. They stick their finger up and see which way the wind is blowing. Then they make their decision based on that.

0
0

[–] themaestro777 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What's the point of making twitter a public utility?

1
0

[–] Cheesebooger 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

oh yeah a homosexual degenerate race mixing jew is going to save us!!!!! noinch

2
3

[–] 11628516? 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Twatter isn't even a private company, its a publicly traded company.

2
0

[–] MaunaLoona 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Private means it's not run by the government.

1
0

[–] 11629185? 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Are you high? A private company is owned by a private entity, not publicly traded.

1
2

[–] hailcolumbia 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Perfect example of current (((double standards)))

0
1

[–] FakeNewzIsFake 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They can.. Bakers aren't getting closed due to Gov. They are losing business because they refuse.

You don't have to use twitter just like nobody is forcing you to use a Bakery, if you don't like twitters practices, stop using it.

load more comments ▼ (18 remaining)