It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Far-right activist Laura Loomer handcuffs herself to Twitter's New York headquarters

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: xuenchen

Never heard of her before now. She seems like a crazy person snowflake type. And she is obviously stupid to think that chaining oneself to anything is going to change something.
If only being stupid was against the law!



If being stupid was against the law, the us would have a 95 percent incarceration rate.

Careful what you wish for.


I believe knowing what to invest in and who to lobby isn’t that hard now!




posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yet here's Trump helping Twitter rake in tons of ad revenue by using it incessantly. While he happily helps them stay afloat you are here attacking them for running their own business how they please.

Either tell Trump to stop using it or stop complaining because you look like a giant hypocrite. Twitter is your direct link to Trump outside of the media, you're biting the hand that feeds you.
edit on 11/29/2018 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I still don’t see how anyone at all can be refuting the statement she made on twitter to begin with. Do they support anti-semitism? It would seem so.

Omar Ilhan IS anti-Jewish. That’s a fact. Regardless of how anyone feels about that, it’s still a fact.

Hitler was anti-Jewish too. Is it also considered ‘hateful’ to state that fact?

Hypocrisy abounds.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: xuenchen

Never heard of her before now. She seems like a crazy person snowflake type. And she is obviously stupid to think that chaining oneself to anything is going to change something.
If only being stupid was against the law!



She's bringing attention to the fact that Twitter protects anti-semites and bans people who call them out.


And she didn't have a date so her Thursday was open.


Haha the only thing Twitter protects is a little thing called the bottom line.
Clearly Trump helps and she doesn’t. Let’s think business here DB, you know better.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
I still don’t see how anyone at all can be refuting the statement she made on twitter to begin with. Do they support anti-semitism? It would seem so.

Omar Ilhan IS anti-Jewish. That’s a fact. Regardless of how anyone feels about that, it’s still a fact.

Hitler was anti-Jewish too. Is it also considered ‘hateful’ to state that fact?

Hypocrisy abounds.


Its not about facts....its feels and the the convoluted layers of oppression constantly fluctuating from the leftist hierarchy.

Its confusing....because it isn't based on logic. It circles back o itself because its principles are arbitrary.

It's hard to pretend you have a solid foundation when you're standing on quicksand.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   

After several hours of complaining about the cold, Loomer eventually requested to be removed from the door


I guess her convictions couldn't withstand a little cold weather... that's why Twitter and all the other tech monopolies will win the people they take advantage of are too soft.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Honest question not trying to bait but, how would you feel if Twitter was owned by Fox news or something, and they were silencing the left? It just seems like their T&C is followed very very politically, and I don't think that's an unfair point to make.

I see it as a conversation of whether or not Monopoly laws can play into this. Just a thought. I'm all for freedom to run your business but I'm against censorship. It's definitely a grey area. Where were the people who are defending Twitter now when the whole gay wedding baker situation was happening? I'd say there's hypocrisy on both sides. But we're too busy throwing mud to solve or reasonably discuss any actual issues.
edit on 29-11-2018 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

I know this question was not for me but I shall give my answer.
And the answer is simple.
They can censor whoever they damn well please. The gray area you speak of doesn’t exist here.

The only people that get upset by this are privileged sheeple, and hypocritical azz hats.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: sine.nomine

I know this question was not for me but I shall give my answer.
And the answer is simple.
They can censor whoever they damn well please. The gray area you speak of doesn’t exist here.

The only people that get upset by this are privileged sheeple, and hypocritical azz hats.

As a rule, I stop reading posts when the word "sheeple" is used but I doubt I missed much. Your response was quite rude, and may I remind you this isn't the mudpit.

I think the question is legitimate and I think a lot of other people do too, so why wouldn't that warrant discussion? A lot of services are directly tied to Twitter and Facebook, which naturally gives them an unfair advantage in a popular, new, and growing market. Shouldn't there be more regulations? I'm just posing questions... I'm generally against government regulations, but if say a phone company banned users, wouldn't it be a cause for concern?



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: sine.nomine

I know this question was not for me but I shall give my answer.
And the answer is simple.
They can censor whoever they damn well please. The gray area you speak of doesn’t exist here.

The only people that get upset by this are privileged sheeple, and hypocritical azz hats.


Well, call me a hypocrite (?) but anytime censorship is used, it shouldn't be celebrated like the left does.
(It makes ya'll look anti-freedom)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And right-wing fear & delusion has you really confused about what being "left-wing" entails.
Please, explain to me how a highly profitable capitalist outlet is in any way operating in a manner that could be described as left wing. But let's look at some facts...

Do the employees at Twitter own the means of production? No. So already we're a 'no' on the overarching idea of the left.
Do they (Twitter) do anything to promote the overthrow of the capitalist system by the proletariat? No. Hmmm, that's a hefty strike there as well. Seeing as that would put their entire business model... well, out of business.
So it's a 'no' on the two main elements of "left-wing".

So, what we have is a for-profit company that stands for money first and foremost & plays all the games of capitalism (advertising, profits for shareholders, etc.). Nothing about any of this is "left wing". And everything about these posts of yours (& pals) is fear mongering at it's finest. Never mind the fact that you are once again siding against capitalism. You sound much more like what you would call 'lefty crybabies' than anything else and want the government to tell companies what kind of content they should allow.

Are you ok with the T&C's at ATS? And please, I'm just saying for the sake of not seeming totally outer limits, stay consistent.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

I don't use Twitter and wouldn't care if they were shut down tomorrow. I honestly don't care what anyone chooses to do with their business, I just really can't stand seeing the blatant hypocrisy from those who claim to care.
edit on 11/29/2018 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: sine.nomine

I know this question was not for me but I shall give my answer.
And the answer is simple.
They can censor whoever they damn well please. The gray area you speak of doesn’t exist here.

The only people that get upset by this are privileged sheeple, and hypocritical azz hats.

As a rule, I stop reading posts when the word "sheeple" is used but I doubt I missed much. Your response was quite rude, and may I remind you this isn't the mudpit.

I think the question is legitimate and I think a lot of other people do too, so why wouldn't that warrant discussion? A lot of services are directly tied to Twitter and Facebook, which naturally gives them an unfair advantage in a popular, new, and growing market. Shouldn't there be more regulations? I'm just posing questions... I'm generally against government regulations, but if say a phone company banned users, wouldn't it be a cause for concern?


I am sorry if my post seemed to call you sheeple or any other words I used.
That was not my intention.
And I definitely understand what you are getting at. But for me free enterprise and capitalism grants these companies the right to do as they wish in this regard.
If my phone carrier decided to ban me for whatever reason then I would go to another. Hence why companies have competition. Kinda like if a restaurant has a “whites only” bathroom label. Well that is a right they have. But chances are they will loose business but that is there right. So the same principle can be applied to Twitter. If they keep banning those that they believe will affect the bottom line in a negative way it may bight them them in the arse.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't use Twitter either, I just find it to be an interesting discussion. Some people get too emotional over these things.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: sine.nomine

I know this question was not for me but I shall give my answer.
And the answer is simple.
They can censor whoever they damn well please. The gray area you speak of doesn’t exist here.

The only people that get upset by this are privileged sheeple, and hypocritical azz hats.


Well, call me a hypocrite (?) but anytime censorship is used, it shouldn't be celebrated like the left does.
(It makes ya'll look anti-freedom)


How does that make me look anti freedom man?
That is me being for freedom dude.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

See, now this is where I agree with you, but at the same time I see conflict. There is no real wide-reaching alternative to Twitter. Sure, the door is open for competitors, but they're so far in the game with no real competition. So the question should be whether or not that warrants certain regulations. After all, they are a major mass media platform, and so many companies are tied to them and Facebook that you literally can't get certain services without an account on Twitter/Facebook.

Just to be clear, this woman handcuffing herself is an idiot. But the overall issue may be worth exploring.

I understand your point, but that's why I called it a grey area. I'm conflicted about the whole situation, as I see both sides to be legitimate.

ETA: I urge you to read about antitrust laws and the reason for their formation. That's where I'm coming from, but it wouldn't be right to post that much information in this thread.
edit on 29-11-2018 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: sine.nomine

I know this question was not for me but I shall give my answer.
And the answer is simple.
They can censor whoever they damn well please. The gray area you speak of doesn’t exist here.

The only people that get upset by this are privileged sheeple, and hypocritical azz hats.


Well, call me a hypocrite (?) but anytime censorship is used, it shouldn't be celebrated like the left does.
(It makes ya'll look anti-freedom)


How does that make me look anti freedom man?
That is me being for freedom dude.


Being for the freedom to censor is not the same as being for freedom.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

You may be on to something but I personally feel that is a slippery slope to go down.
Yes it should be up for discussion but I have no idea on how to combat it.
So I guess that leaves us with you original question.

We actually got nowhere lol



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: sine.nomine

I know this question was not for me but I shall give my answer.
And the answer is simple.
They can censor whoever they damn well please. The gray area you speak of doesn’t exist here.

The only people that get upset by this are privileged sheeple, and hypocritical azz hats.


Well, call me a hypocrite (?) but anytime censorship is used, it shouldn't be celebrated like the left does.
(It makes ya'll look anti-freedom)


How does that make me look anti freedom man?
That is me being for freedom dude.


Being for the freedom to censor is not the same as being for freedom.


I like you DB but this time I will “bear arms”.



If you are for freedom then why be against a company that is utilizing that very freedom granted to them?



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou


Would you be for people having the freedom to rape?


Why would I ever be for the freedom to censor?

WHEN have I ever been for any type of censorship?


Censorship is the utter denial of different ideas. It is cowardice.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join