Parler

Do I hate you? I don’t know you.

I read a lot of posts about this purgeboy. Never actually had an encounter. I can see by your reaction you’ve had some experience.

Purgeboy, demonic sounding indeed.
Must of let him out of the institution in 2018

Except this is the current situation.

Here on Imgflip. You know the rules. Post stupid stuff, there are consequences.
It’s not the Government. Free speech doesn’t allow me to yell fire in a crowded building nor post hate filled speech intended to harm, hurt, or target individuals.
It ought to be common sense.

The meme you reply to also reflects how Trump would prefer to run the government.

Nice try.
Censoring “hate speech” is a Liberal invention.

Really, so Trump never told his base at his rallies to throw out the protesters? Trump never sought to shut down the Press? Trump never told people not to testify? Seems to me that it's "par for the course."

Then again "free enterprise" is a conservative value (apparently democrats can't have this value.) Yet, when the value of Free Enterprise works against them....

You hear that? That familiar sound of the Trump camp?

*singsong* "Rules for thee, but not for me. Rules for thee but not for me." Yup. That's Trumpism alright.

Man, I would love to see where he actually said any of those things.

And in what context do you mean “testify?”

Shutting down the press is not a violation of free speech. In fact shutting down today’s MSM is the definition of freedom of the press. So speech is nowhere in there.

Meanwhile, Liberal politicans want to track down all Trump supporters and not let them outlive the fact that they supported a president.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So speech and press are both protected under the first amendment #knowyourconstitution

Not that you'll actually believe the evidence before your eyes...

"Throw him out."
0:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd95dufYBrU

"Attacking the press."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtP3yDf4yuo
Donald Trump calling the press "enemy of the people." This is a Fox Business interview with John Fund, a National Review columnist who cites that mainstream media is no longer news since "news" is instant and at our fingertips. The role now of mainstream media is news analysis and political commentary - claiming that its news when it actually isn't. He states that it is true NYT is hostile to Donald Trump. However, he adds that Donald Trump believes that criticism is illegitimate.

I would like to add that criticism is the very purpose that news exists. The right to a free press includes the right to criticize you of your words and your actions. Is it possible that there is misinformation in what they say? Absolutely, a lot of news networks as a whole misrepresent the facts. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. They report on what they interpret as to be vital. It's your responsibility as the reader to look into what you read. After all, you don't want to be a sheep, right? Don't believe everything you read. What pisses off Donald Trump, is that they're not telling the stories he wants them to tell and that is not within his jurisdiction of governance.

There are also many other instances cited across the internet that cites Trump calling the press "an enemy of the people." That is, if Fox Business is insufficient. I found articles by Rueters, videos by CNN, MSNBC, PBS, CBC, CBS. I am sure you can find a screenshot of him saying it.

I think I'm running out of room and I have completely and fully backed up my claims. Again, not that you actually checked me completely and wholly debunking the royal shit out of your "censorship is a liberal value" claim, do you want me to prove the part where he tells people not to testify?

I didn’t say “censorship is a liberal value.” I said “censoring hate speech is a liberal invention.”

And I have no reason to believe any of that is false. So I won’t reply to that.

Point taken. However, While misreading your statement, I replied with claims to the contrary on a different premise. As you read these claims, you asked for proof suggesting otherwise. You further went on to counter what I said with counterclaims. To which I countered your counter.

You then went on to make this separate claim:
"Shutting down the press is not a violation of free speech. In fact shutting down today’s MSM is the definition of freedom of the press. So speech is nowhere in there." You said Speech. Not Hate Speech. So, I have completely and utterly debunked the royal shit out of that.

Then, you asked this: "Man, I would love to see where he actually said any of those things." (in reference to my claims.) To which, I have supplied you with sources citing those claims.

So are you just going to back out now and take a cop-out saying that you didn't say what you initially said, only to ignore what you said following my reply? You're more than welcome to. I understand the fear of being wrong.

My last reply literally said that I had no reason to doubt any of what you said.

When I said “speech is nowhere in there,” I was talking about the press. “Hate speech” is in the speech category. But neither speech more hate speech have to do with the press or shutting down the press. That’s a completely different topic.

And I see your last paragraph is... nothing. Okay. The miracle of frightening replies away.

Gah I did it again. Point taken, my bad. I misread what you wrote ><

Funny how people left Facebook for Parler so they can circle jerk each other with dogs#*#, then, Parler (another privately owned website) kicks people off if they aren't right-wing enough.

Yes, that’s what it ought to be, but now people are just using it as a platform to censor “wrong people.”

Wrong people? Or people who are doing wrong?
There’s a difference.

I know there’s a difference.

It’s mainly “hate speech” because you disagree with it.
That’s basically the mindset of today.

If speech is used to insight a riot? Or a second civil war? Overthrow the Government?
That’s not a mindset. That qualifies in getting you banned.

Ugh, not this trash again.

For the 30,000th time, Trump did not insight any of those things. You’re twisting his tweets to make him look violent. That is all. Done and dusted.

I heard Trumps speech on January 6th. The aftermath that followed. I’m at a loss to understand what you believe,in the same way, as you for I.
The whole Country is at an impasse.

Just because a bad thing follows after an event, doesn’t make that the cause.

"I’m suggesting that just because there was a storming of the Capitol after a Trump rally, doesn’t make the rally the cause." You're right, that's impossible. The rally itself cannot have started the storming of the capitol. (Not many Trump supporters agree that the capitol was stormed in the first place. Lokiare for example has insisted that it wasn't that violent.)

I never called the Trump rally or any of his actions an insight for violence.
>> I never said you did, that was my claim, if I am understanding you correctly. I think you meant "incite." (Not trolling, I am just being very concise so things cannot be misinterpreted.) There is direct correlation between the mood of the rally, what was said at the rally and what happened in the events that followed which resulted in the capitol being stormed. For this, there's a strong case as people who have taken such actions in this manner have also been held accountable for their actions, intentional or not.

Correlation =/= cause

No one is suggesting that he started the riot (cause). That's absurd. People are suggesting he incited the riot.

in-cite
verb
encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).

You're suggesting, that just because Trump loaded the proverbial gun, that he's not to blame for starting a riot? Well, you would be right.

People are going after him for loading the gun and leaving it in the hands of a bunch of lunatics.

I’m suggesting that just because there was a storming of the Capitol after a Trump rally, doesn’t make the rally the cause. I never called the Trump rally or any of his actions an insight for violence.

We can agree to disagree. We’re at opposite ends in our beliefs on the cause and effect for the DC riot.

You should use this arguement from now on:
"No one is suggesting that he started the riot (Trump being the cause). That's absurd. People are suggesting he incited the riot.

in-cite
verb
encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).

You're suggesting, that just because Trump loaded the proverbial gun, that he's not to blame for starting a riot? Well, you would be right.

People are going after him for loading the gun and leaving it in the hands of a bunch of lunatics."

You are correct that correlation does not equal cause.

Just as just because you load a gun doesn't mean you're responsible for the murder. Yet in my analogy, if you give a gun to a bunch of lunatics, you can expect there to be blood.

The parallel being, if you remind a bunch of people why they're angry, start talking about taking back the country, etc. etc. then say let's walk to the capitol... It leaves room to raise some questions - at the least.