Lurker > PBusted

Such as?

Name a single thing I'm factually wrong about

User Info: joe40001
Active Posts: 411

No, when I interact with reasonable people offline, this kind of stuff doesn't happen.

The vast majority of people on CE literally said I was wrong about something that Reuters itself admitted I was right about.

The internet is a place with a lot of toxic people, and so I'm fine not having their approval.

There are plenty of good people on here, and some who I can tell are on the fence but reachable.

Otherwise I will stand my ground against bullies because that's what's appropriate.

I'm just articulating the truth to people who for some reason want to be obtuse.

It's gotten to the point that talking to a lot of CE is the exact same sensation of talking to anti-mask COVID deniers

This is one nuclear reactor of a meltdown.

They are censoring taboo conversations that yes might involve race, and yes that is exactly the kind of thing that all the founding fathers would have recognized as important not to censor.

"This is a free speech site that doesn't allow porn"

"I'm posting sonic porn"

"You can't post porn"

"WeLl ThEn ItS nOt ReAlLy FrEe SpEeCh"

---

"Welcome to the Olive Garden where we offer unlimited breadsticks"

"I want 10 billion breadsticks"

"You can't have 10 billion breadsticks"

"WeLl ThEn ItS nOt ReAlLy UnLiMiTeD bReAdStIcKs"

porn is not nor was it ever part of their pitch.

Ok, but courts and lectures and discussion halls are apt comparisons for places of discussion. And so porn without commentary wouldn't be accepted there.

Not everywhere, and I think it's fairly clear what this site's goal is. Free discussion, not free porn sharing.

Those are cases about porn. The porn itself wasn't the argument but the discussion of it.

Um yeah they have.

The basis of court cases have been "conspiracy theories". Where the whole case is arguing the conspiracy theory.

There has never been a court case were the whole case was just showing porn.

You are confusing commentary or analysis of porn (which are arguments) with porn itself, which is not an argument.

They do show them in certain scientific contexts and legal proceedings.

I'm pretty sure several "conspiracy theories" have been brought up in court.

Why don't they just show pictures of porn without context in legal proceedings? Or in scientific or business presentations?

@LiterallyEverybodyElse

Is PBusted a known troll? That's the only way I can make sense of them at this point.

Yes you clearly did, calling me spiteful incel is not true, an insult, and has nothing to do with this topic.

You've said I'm anti-vaxx and alt right. Yet all evidence goes against that

??? No I just said that it's generally better and more appropriate to be critical of behaviors than people.

Insults aren't arguments.

There's nothing here I've been wrong about, you are wrong about about my very voting record, vaccine record, and ideology.

That actually would be a better claim.

Rude people say rude things, this is a shock how?

Ad hominins are a sign of a desperate person.

This is sad at this point

Not the tweet but your Nope at acknowledging reality.

No I am saying your are not being reasonable, I'm not telling you your views. Anybody can understand this distinction.

No it doesn't. If I'm a troll that means I don't believe what I say, but you insist I do believe what I say. You are arguing with yourself at this point.

No reasonable person tells others what they think and feel

First of all, me being a troll doesn't reconcile with all the stuff you claim about me being alt-right and anti-vaxx, secondly finding some other people on gamefaqs who don't like a person is hardly evidence of anything.

I'd guess we could find some unfavorable reviews of you.

Correct, you refuse to acknowledge reality.

Well that comparison would only make sense if I was lying about something about myself.

I'm vaccinated and pro-vaccine. There is no argument here, you are wrong.

You called me a dumb spiteful anti-vaxx incel.

Porn is not sharing of ideas, porn is sharing of porn.

I literally just told you I don't think I'm being persecuted.

No it doesn't.

I'm not a conservative and again what this site is doing is obvious to everybody but apparently you.

You are just lying at this point. Trying to tell me my political stance when it doesn't line up with the truth in any way.

I mean what good is talking to you when you refuse to even acknowledge reality?

That doesn't make sense

Saying citing fallacies are fallacies is by definition self-defeating. I haven't been proven wrong, you are overtly wrong in this topic. You are calling a pro-vaccine vaccinated person "anti-vaxx"

You haven't shown anything, and I'm not the one being petty and insulting.

"They are not pro free speech in the absolutist sense, they are pro free speech when it comes to the sharing of ideas, or alternatively they are pro free speech but not a place for pornography."

I don't think I'm being persecuted. So you are wrong.

It can be critiqued, that doesn't make it a discussion or an idea in and of itself.

It's INSANELY clear to everybody that this site is pro free speech in the context of discussion, and not just random content hosting. This is super obvious. And I am fine with sites hosting porn, but that's not what this site is about.

What? Alt right is a political affiliation, usually linked to supporting the extreme right. Since I largely don't even support the regular right you are just painfully wrong.

I'm vaccinated and I support vaccinations. You are obviously wrong calling me anti-vaxx.

Nope, pretty much anybody acknowledges that a person who resorts to ad hominins is losing the argument and not really conducting themselves in a respectable way.

You call me an idiot but can't point to anywhere that I'm wrong. The only things that get reality checked (my vaccination, my voting record) show you to be wrong.

I allow pornography, but this site doesn't. As I said countless times:
"They are not pro free speech in the absolutist sense, they are pro free speech when it comes to the sharing of ideas, or alternatively they are pro free speech but not a place for pornography."

No, I'm saying true things. I've never directly been the target of these phrases.

You are pretty much on an island when you are saying "porn is the same as discussing ideas". I don't know where you get this everybody agrees with you idea.

You are trying to gaslight me about my own self. That's just sad. And even my detractors will tell you I'm insanely pro free speech.

Um considering you were calling me alt-right, the more apt analogy would be "I've never committed a crime, I'm not a criminal"

You called me an anti-vaxxer and I'm vaccinated. You obviously just lose here.

Ad hominins are a sign of a desperate person. Words about ideas communicate ideas, they are not graphic depictions of sex. Anybody can wrap their heads around this aside from apparently you.

Jesus you are doubling down on ad hominins which just reflects badly on you. Porn can be artistic expression, and if this was a free speech art gallery you might have a point, but the point of this site was the exchange of words/thoughts/ideas. It's not a porn site. It's as simple as that.

I've broken it down countless times, but I'll do it again:
"They are not pro free speech in the absolutist sense, they are pro free speech when it comes to the sharing of ideas, or alternatively they are pro free speech but not a place for pornography."

I've never voted for a republican president. You are delusional.

I'm vaxxinated, you're delusional.

It's porn, it's not providing any commentary, it's just showing porn. You are delusional.

Again bad faith ad hominem. Porn is not an argument, it's not a thought or idea, it is porn, it's like saying they aren't free speech because they don't allow hosting copyrighted movies. That's clearly not what they are about. You acting otherwise is delusional.

They kinda do though.

The issue is that Gettr will allow any idea, but places like twitter won't. Free speech as in open discussion of all ideas. Anybody can clearly understand what they are talking about when they talk about free speech in the context of sharing ideas. Except you, apparently.

Again it's just sad and pathetic you are telling me I'm alt right when it's demonstrably false.

I'm pro
UBI
Healthcare for all
Free speech
Police Reform
Fighting Climate change
Gun reform
Anti-big company
Individuals rights

And I've never once voted for a republican president.

If you call that alt-right you are painfully and obnoxiously delusional or bad faith. Either way, it's sad.

How so?

Right. So by posting a thought to your followers, that can't be fighting words.

Well your thesis is I'm alt right and that is pretty obviously demonstrably wrong

That first part is just sad. "here's a shitty guy, sounds like you". Ok that's not an argument.

Also this doesn't make any sense and doesn't address my claim about how you are wrongly and inaccurately telling me my political stance.

Wow, that's pretty clear reflection of your character there. I have achieved things, but I do have severe chronic depression. If you feel that's a valid point to dunk on me for, you win that point I guess.

A picture of sonic fucking knuckles, what idea does that share? What does that communicate? I don't think anybody is going to cosign you here. Even the people who like trolling the right.

Yeah no

No because porn is not discussion.

You can't pretend them having a policy against something isn't an indication that they are censoring it.

Some people don't like me. But generally they can't point to things I've got wrong, just things like ivermectin which I feel I'll probably get proven right on. And they conveniently ignore things like lab leak and Reuters where I was proven right.

At this point your are being obtuse. As I said before, if you have to be spoon fed this then:
"They are not pro free speech, they are pro free speech when it comes to the sharing of ideas, or alternatively they are pro free speech but not a place for pornography."

Yeah, I post other topics critical about republicans and they never get responses, then people like you apparently just pretend they don't exist.

In the topic about republicans trying to punish people for protesting at the Olympics I say they are totally out of line.

I was very vocal against Eric Adams who was a corrupt republican running as a democrat in the new york mayoral election. I've never voted for a republican for president.

You don't get to tell another person their politics.

They care about free speech as in the free discussion of ideas, not spamming sonic porn. These are obviously different things.

If they were banning democratic leaning posts you'd have a point, but they aren't, they are banning porn, which is in line with free speech as an ideal if you consider the SPEECH part of free speech to be sharing ideas and not sonic porn.

Except that they do, they allow any ideas, just not porn.

Porn isn't what anybody sensible is talking about when we talk about free speech as in the free exchange of ideas, yeah it's fine for people to make it, but it's not exchanging ideas, it is a false equivalence and you know it.

"Welcome to bob's ice cream, were we serve any ice cream any way you want it!
You: Great I'll have 2 fried chicken drum sticks and potatoes"
"Those aren't ice cream, we have ice cream here here, any way you it."
"You: I WANT MY ICE CREAM REPLACED WITH FRIEND CHICKEN DRUM STICKS AND POTATOES!"
"We don't do that here"
"Well then you are no different than any other ice cream place."

A site that is pro free SPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH (as in free discussion of ideas) can perfectly reasonable not allow pornography because it's not the point of the platform.

Based on how they define hate speech I am pretty sure they currently do allow hate speech against white people. I'd have to look more if they allow death threats, but I'd kinda be surprised if not a single person has an anti-trump death threat on there.

I don't think if they aren't directed at people they'd be considered "fighting words".

They have policies about these kinds of things though, so it's clearly not random.

It's incredibly difficult to curate random people's deleted posts on twitter, believe me or don't, but I think it's very likely true.

When it comes to this new website "free speech" in a silly pedantic sense is not all we are talking about.

I'm confused, we agree here.

It was and I don't doubt it.

Yes but there are other dimensions at play, and they are not the same thing.

Many people like me. And how do you reconcile me regularly being critical of republicans, and voting primarily democratic with me being an "alt right concern troll"? Also what, in your estimation makes me alt right and not just right? My cares about free speech.

And if you want to play by those rules which I think are crappy rules, playing by your rules, you have no argument here.

Why do you keep insisting it's a persecution complex? It's just a point about the arbitrary nature of what "hate speech" as defined by tech giants is.

That talks about viewing porn, not sharing it.

And do you honestly think spamming sonic porn on a forum for discussion of ideas isn't causing a disturbance?

Nobody:

CE pedantic liberals:
Stop censoring underage furry porn you hypocrites!

This is not true.

Whatever your sources is on that, I wouldn't trust it. As far as I know she never misgendered people and btw I don't know how you "aggressively" gender somebody.

I maintain that "men are scum" "or white people are subhuman" or "white men are evil" are much much much more culturally accepted than even something like using "he" when you should say "she" about a trans person.

Sharing porn isn't sharing ideas, it's sharing porn. And you can't share it in public in such a way that a stranger can see it, whereas almost all ideas you can.

Yes porn is fine and part of free speech, but it is not appropriate in all contexts, and in a site about exchanging thoughts and ideas it is not appropriate.

Facebook for sure it was banned, maybe yt and twitter. Yt has taken down the CSPAN ivermectin testimony and a fair amount of stuff like that.

Porn and discussion of ideas are obviously different things. No ideas are being suppressed by limiting porn to appropriate areas, like I said, even the law recognizes this. You can say crazy ideas on the public street corner but you can't show porn on the street corner.

Somebody did get banned for saying "men aren't women"
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/420033-self-described-feminist-banned-from-twitter-says-platform-is-setting-a

Here are twitter results for "white men are the devil":
https://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=%22white%20men%20are%20the%20devil%22&src=typed_query

And "white men are evil"
https://twitter.com/search?q=%22white%20men%20are%20evil%22&src=typed_query

To be fair I did search "black men are evil" but didn't really find any where the person was saying it instead of suggesting somebody else was implying it or thinking it.

You are being obtuse though.

If you have an online site that is pro free speech and you clearly mean "something that isn't illegal to say in public" it's bad faith to say "BuT wHaT aBoUt DoXxInG? BuT wHaT aBoUt SoNiC pOrN?"

You know exactly the distinction I'm talking about, a free exchange of ideas is quite clear what that means and it doesn't involved doxxing, crimes, or sonic porn.

If it helps you "Totally free speech, but not a place for porn."

Wizards in the HP universe must have some of the freakiest sex you can imagine. Even the innocent stuff that's in the actual children's books could have wild implications.

Like, real talk, if Tonks can turn her face into a pig snout, there's no reason she couldn't grow a dong.

Whorehouses that keep Polyjuice on tap for customers to bring in stolen hair.

Absolute weirdos that bang animagi in their animal form.

BDSM stuff with Petrificus Totalus.

to make it explicit for people who are dense or delibrately obtuse:

I'm pro free speech when it comes to the discussion of ideas, I don't consider the right to post sonic porn anywhere the same thing. Porn is not part of the free exchange of ideas, which is why you can stand on the street corner of the town square and legally say whatever but you can't hold up pictures of sonic porn.

Everybody pretending to be pro-sonic porn would never post such a thing on twitter or facebook and I believe is likely acting in bad faith by trying not to recognize the distinction.

Saying lab leak was plausible was banned, and saying it was impossible wasn't. And the former was true and the latter was false. They banned information and supported misinformation.

Maybe if people can't get what is and isn't true right, you shouldn't give them the power to ban it.

Same goes for "hate speech". I PROMISE you, in other right leaning authoritarian states some of the common sense liberal things we'd say would be banned as "hate speech". People on the right even 20 years ago were trying to ban gay acceptance with similar authoritarian nonsense.

If you support authoritarianism when it goes in your favor you are unprincipled.

Also "hate speech" is obviously nebulously defined to police speech we don't like.

"Men aren't women" = Bannable hate speech
"White men are the devil/subhuman" = Not hate speech
"All cops are bastards" = Not hate speech

It's not that hard to understand free speech for ideas is different than posting sonic porn where-ever you want. You know god damn well that you will never post sonic porn here or on twitter or anywhere, because you'd feel they are totally in their right to ban you for such things, so don't pretend like you care or believe in a person's right to post sonice porn whereever they please. It's as simple as "you don't like people on the right, people on the right are annoyed by this trolling, you are getting off on their annoyance."

It's shallow schadenfreude at your fellow human being, and anybody who is largely defined by getting satisfaction over hurting people they don't like isn't a ethical person.

Also it's telling how often you dive back into the well of ad hominin and generalizations.

It's weird how the anti-"hate speech" folks so often have so much damn hate in their hearts.

Wow this is like 8 different levels of toxic.

If porn is against the rules of a discussion site that makes sense. And yeah the rules for kids tv are obviously going to be different than the rules of places like twitter or porn sites.

Your inappropriate ad-hominems not withstanding I am very much pro free speech. To be clear about the drag thing, I think nickleodeon has a right to show it, I'm just not sure it's appropriate for children. They probably have a right to just put the "SAW" movies on kids tv but it wouldn't be appropriate.

And saying things like "dangerous far right ideology" is bad faith, when almost half the country finds there to be merit in something, it's not "far right" and IMO this dystopian censorship is more dangerous than most things people on either party are saying. Free speech isn't nearly as dangerous as it's alternatives.

But Democrats on GameFAQs thought they had a "gotcha" moment.

Um, no I'm pretty consistently free speech, whether that means I'm backing the left or the right.

Also you've been shown to be wrong/misrepresenting several things about me and my arguments, so it seems like that misrepresentation is caused by a flaw in your understanding of me.

I'm pretty independent. Maybe that's confusing for you if you live in a partisan world, idk.

And do you really think there is nothing taboo/sexual about drag? And you are confident all of society would agree with that?

You are projecting and wrong.

And yeah a kid can use a computer to access all manner of things, but that doesn't make them appropriate, and that doesn't mean I wouldn't speak up if they showed up on kids tv.

When youtube kids was super fucked up a few years back I was really critical of that too.

That isn't me arguing for anti-vaxx that is me arguing for free speech.

Specifically this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xprabkl1LD4

That wasn't "we accept gay people" that was a person in pretty heavy drag on kids tv. And considering even the gay community acknowledges drag as somewhat taboo/transgressive/sexualized it makes sense to ask "is this too much"?

Being a "drag queen" isn't a sexual orientation it's a kind of garrish performative thing that honestly even for typical gay kids might be confusing if you are like "this is what being LGBT+ is"

Finally I do think it's odd to add a racial dimension to sexual orientation and I stand by that.

So Ruvan22, you can see what I actually said, and then you can see how they dishonestly framed it. And considering that they are apparently pseudo-stalking me with logs of everything I said, you know had I ever said something actually anti-vaxx or actually anti-gay they'd have that queued up, but they didn't because I haven't said such things.

I'm pro free speech and I'm not certain drag queens are appropriate for children's television. If that makes me a "monster" so be it.

So this joe40001 guy is "pro-free speech", but is also "pro-ban free speech"