What are you afraid of?

This old wise white man is very smart.

I have little doubt that liberals call Douglass an early white supremacist.

Party On -595vd4.jpg (click to show) - Upvote for you!

fyi- the best upvotes come from WayneUrso!

Thank you for your very kind words!

You ask: “what are you afraid of?”

Well? Are you afraid of any of these things? Should you be?

And yet, the majority of the issues people have over this have nothing to do with your cute little list of the extremes out there. Your list is, at best, disingenuous given that the liberals at Twitter banned a sitting President, while allowing actual terrorists to maintain their accounts.

Me pointing out that there are only two genders, male and female, neither of which is "fluid", hardly rises to the level of posting directions for making bombs. But you would never know this based on how you snowflakes react. Why, even some of my direct statements in this comment likely warrant censoring according to your immoral and warped view on life.

As for "fascists, communists, traitors, insurrectionists", I have not heard of the DNC being banned a single time.

Some of your list is easily definable as dangerous- terrorism, doxxing, death threats, suicide taunts, bombs, stalking, sexual harassment, child porn, but much of the rest is highly subjective and utterly useless when in the hands of the typical leftist.

*Terrorism? Do you mean parents attending school board meetings to object to the child porn they have allowed in the curriculum?
*State sponsored propaganda? Would this include ads for Nike?
*Neo-Nazis, deniers of the Holocaust, etc.? If people are not harming someone else, then they may believe whatever nonsense they choose to believe, flat earthers included. "Extreme bigots"? I would define you as an "extreme bigot" based on some of what I have seen from you. Do you agree with my assessment? Should YOU be banned based on it? Liberals tend to think that their opinions amount to objective evidence.
*Hackers? Really? Hackers cannot be allowed free speech? I am pretty sure that words are useless when it comes to hacking.
"Extreme" medical information? Like citing real world evidence that Hydroxychloroquine might be useful in the treatment/prevention of Covid? Who gets to decide what qualifies as "extreme"? And what difference does it make? If someone is stoopid enough to base their medical decisions on what they read in a Twitter post, well, they are going to take themselves out one way or the other.
*Child porn? You mean, like stuff the "transgender" community posts of grade school aged children being subjected to extreme sexual perversity and abuse?

You seem to think that the world would be a safer place, if we would all just let YOU decide what qualifies as "safe". You are wrong more than you are right.

I created that list in an effort to try to get past this left-vs.-right framing that seems to be the exclusive focus of the “free speech” debate. It misses a lot of what moderation is about.

Specifically: There is a metric shit-ton of nefarious “speech” out there which internet mods have to whack on a daily, hourly, and minute-by-minute basis, or else their users will be flooded with crap that 99.999% of human beings don’t want to see.

“Who decides?” Well, *someone* has to decide, or else any given platform will be subsumed in a flood of dark web internet shit. Even if users put up with it (on an edgy platform like say, 8Chan), internet service providers can still pull the plug, which happened after a racist manifesto and live footage shot by the perpetrator of the Christchurch mass shooting was posted to 8Chan.

Most reasonable people can grasp that idea and would therefore agree some amount of content moderation is necessary.

Moving on to the more controversial political stuff: Maybe you think Trump shouldn’t have been kicked off of Twitter and Facebook. There are other alternative social platforms where he’s allowed and indeed would be gleefully welcomed. Twitter and FB no doubt took big hits to their userbase by making that call. They may have taken equal or larger hits to their userbase by *not* making that call.

If alt-right platforms like Parler, Gab, BitChute, and whomever want to ban the DNC for some perceived violation they certainly can. Though more likely, the DNC simply doesn’t post there for obvious reasons.

Now medicine. What qualifies as “extreme” medical disinformation? Set aside masks and vaccines and HXQ. Let’s just go with a more basic example: drinking bleach. Someone posts a video testimonial claiming that drinking a gallon of pure bleach is a miraculous and guaranteed treatment of COVID. Do YouTube, FB, etc. have some moral obligation to host that video? This actually happened, and these platforms decided to take such content down. This makes sense in a world where credulous people out there will literally follow the most insane advice they are given. Disinformation can and does literally kill people.

Now: If you were put in charge of Imgflip, defined me as an “extreme bigot” and banned me, then I would find somewhere else to go. It’s no skin off my back. It would be quite obviously the wrong call, though. :)

Using bleach in a way not listed on the instructions is illegal. Read the label.

"It’s no skin off my back. It would be quite obviously the wrong call, though. :) "

It would be the wrong call, but not for the reasons you may think. I find the fact that people think like you do, insulting. Insulting in the sense of prizing rational thought and basic morality. But I believe you have the right to be wrong, so long as you do not inflict actual harm on someone else.

Posting a video about drinking bleach, perhaps not unlike the Tide-pod eating craze, etc, should be allowed in my opinion. The thought that we can police the world to "save" the ignorant is a fool's errand. Liberals are why this is "necessary", just as labels to not drop hair dryers in the tub are "necessary". Seriously, labels warning us to not swallow clothes hangers?

I do not necessarily find your list here that objectionable, but that is not where the problem lies. You said, "Set aside masks and vaccines and HXQ", but the problem is, liberals did NOT set that aside, and they ***persecuted*** anyone who dared have an opinion contrary to the current liberal politicized narrative. FOR DECADES, scientists and doctors acknowledged that masks could do NOTHING to prevent the spread of infectious disease- this is simply a matter of history. And this, btw, was THE reason that Fauxci MOCKED the idea of the public wearing masks early on (March 2020). And many liberals, including here on imgflip, cited "recent studies" that were hastily written up that somehow undid the previous 60 years of basic science. Nonsense!

The point of all of this is plain- much of what liberals have been defining as "extreme", "hate speech", "harassment", "racist", "homophobic", etc. are anything but. Indeed, someone does need to decide, and many of us feel quite certain that it should not be anyone that believes a man can become a woman simply by wishing it to be so.

The science has always been clear that face masks help prevent infection, which is why surgeons have worn them in operating rooms long before COVID-19 was a thing.

In March 2020, Fauci put out guidance about masks that reflected the fact we didn’t have a ton of masks available at that time, and the ones we did have ought to be reserved for front-line workers. Later on in the pandemic, masks were recommended for general usage. The science didn’t change, only the production and availability of masks did.

Same reason why COVID-19 vaccines, when they first came out, were first made available to the elderly and vulnerable. When supplies are scarce, you go for maximum impact.

Public health is an intersectional field which requires consideration of science and societal resources — and yes, politics.

"The science has always been clear that face masks help prevent infection, which is why surgeons have worn them in operating rooms long before COVID-19 was a thing."

I can tell you have been watching your TV. Surgeons wear masks in operating rooms to prevent large droplets from getting into an open surgical wound, NOT to prevent the spread of airborne illness. "Droplets" was one of the words that Fauxci used during that interview.

As for the lie they dreamed up to explain the about-face concerning mask wearing? That is precisely what it was- a lie.

What is shocking to me is how gullible so many of you are. We know, WE. KNOW. that many of the deaths assigned to Covid do truly belong to Covid. I "love" the fact that Democrats decided to reward the medical field for declaring a death as Covid- political consideration, indeed.

*do NOT belong to Covid . . .

I hope having an opposing view dropped in front of you has helped, if not now, perhaps in the future when you have real-life responsibilities.

But honestly, I see no point in continuing conversing with someone who takes the coward's approach to debate. I get it that you "own" those streams, and I get it that there is no defense against my contrasting your "scary" list against your real actions on this site, but if that is all you got, we're done here.

Does it make you feel important, or that you have power, or that you have some control over the scary thing called "life"? I suggest you seriously rethink your life choices, and completely reevaluate your world view. From where I am sitting, it looks pretty pitiful.

;)

Hilariously most of those things are allowed on Twitter and other social media. Its only conservative speech that's not allowed.

If that’s true, then it’s as I suspected: Twitter doesn’t censor *enough.*

There are many conservatives on Twitter. You can tweet about lower taxes and government regulation and inflation all day long. But when you veer into racism, stalking, insurrectionism, medical disinformation, and other abuses, sure that can be censored. Whether you’re a rightie or a leftie.

That’s not conservatism, that’s just toxicity.

Sure if you have less than 10,000 followers you can get away with just about any tweet, but if you go over that they'll start adding disclaimers and shadow banning you. Then when you hit the 100,000 mark they will ban you for saying anything conservative and label it racism, stalking, insurrectionism, medical disinformation, and other abuses.

Ben Shapiro, 4M followers wants a word with you