Thread: Instagram and Facebook Ban Far-Right Extremists

The right can't debate so they whinge and whine about being persecuted victims of a imaginary conspiracy to silence them as they shout-down others.

Originally Posted by pedro01

Paul Joseph Watson is anti-left - he is in no way far-right

Are you drunk?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

The right can't debate so they whinge and whine about being persecuted victims of a imaginary conspiracy to silence them as they shout-down others.

I've never seen a right winger defend their position in argument. That goes for the few that come here as well. Boon me, longway and coattails.

Originally Posted by Cujo

I've never seen a right winger defend their position in argument.

You can not defend the indefensible. The reality is that they are racist bigoted nasty people that is why they are happy with this administration.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Are you drunk?

Nope.

Feel free to provide clips that show PJW saying anything that would put him far right though.

Originally Posted by Cujo

I've never seen a right winger defend their position in argument. That goes for the few that come here as well. Boon me, longway and coattails.

So by right wing - you mean anyone left of center?

You have never seen anyone but a liberal defend a political position?

That's pretty ludicrous.

Originally Posted by pedro01

Nope.

Feel free to provide clips that show PJW saying anything that would put him far right though.

Just about any fucking time he's stood in for Alex Jones.

Originally Posted by pedro01

Feel free to provide clips that show PJW saying anything that would put him far right though.

He is a complete fucking nutter the fact that you try to paint it otherwise is proof that you are also a fucking wackjob.

Originally Posted by bsnub

He is a complete fucking nutter the fact that you try to paint it otherwise is proof that you are also a fucking wackjob.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Just about any fucking time he's stood in for Alex Jones.

So there's not even 1 thing you can find that he said that makes him far right?

Because usually, such vociferous opinions can be backed up with facts.

I've seen a lot of his video's - he's obviously a libertarian. He's obviously anti-left. I've not seen a single thing that would put him in the far right. And I usually go by what I've seen myself.

Originally Posted by pedro01

Paul Joseph Watson is anti-left - he is in no way far-right

Never heard of him but here he is.

^
jesus, that's quite a list of grievances that pussy has.

he's also got the perpetual victimhood act down well.

yawn.

Originally Posted by pedro01

So there's not even 1 thing you can find that he said that makes him far right?

Because usually, such vociferous opinions can be backed up with facts.

I've seen a lot of his video's - he's obviously a libertarian. He's obviously anti-left. I've not seen a single thing that would put him in the far right. And I usually go by what I've seen myself.

So he joined UKIP because of their heartening libertarian views did he?

And he's mates with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and Alex Jones because they all like a pint and a game of darts.

FFS you muppet.

https://www.diggitmagazine.com/artic...on-and-youtube

Actually this is better, it has more references.

It shows how he uses this "I'm not right wing, I'm just anti-left wing" bullshit to con the gullible.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So he joined UKIP because of their heartening libertarian views did he?

And he's mates with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and Alex Jones because they all like a pint and a game of darts.

FFS you muppet.

https://www.diggitmagazine.com/artic...on-and-youtube

OK - so you are now closer to an actual debate.

Forgetting 3rd party accounts, such as the ones you posted - based on your own experience - what makes you personally think PJW is far right?

This should be based on his personal actions and words, either written or spoken. Is there something specific you can recall personally?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Actually this is better, it has more references.

It shows how he uses this "I'm not right wing, I'm just anti-left wing" bullshit to con the gullible.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson

But you aren't making a point based on what you have seen yourself. You are reading an opinion piece and taking that as gospel.

I wouldn't call someone far right until I'd verified they were far right by my own eyes & ears. I don't formulate opinions based on other people's opinions. Let's have a meaningful discussion based on 1st hand info.

Originally Posted by pedro01

The left don't like debate - so they silence the opposition

Originally Posted by pedro01

But you aren't making a point based on what you have seen yourself. You are reading an opinion piece and taking that as gospel.

I wouldn't call someone far right until I'd verified they were far right by my own eyes & ears. I don't formulate opinions based on other people's opinions.

That's not very consistent is it.

Unless you have some personal experience with this amorphous 'The left' of yours?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That's not very consistent is it.

Unless you have some personal experience with this amorphous 'The left' of yours?

Well - it's pretty consistent with the title of this thread "Instagram and Facebook Ban Far-Right Extremists".

I'd call that personal experience of observing the left (Facebook and Instagram) silencing the opposition (PJW and Milo).

See how that works - we can take observable facts and form an opinion. We don't need to pass on 2nd hand opinions from elsewhere.

But I guess this change of topic means that no-one can find all this far-right content from PJW. As it doesn't actually exist.

Originally Posted by pedro01

But you aren't making a point based on what you have seen yourself. You are reading an opinion piece and taking that as gospel.

I wouldn't call someone far right until I'd verified they were far right by my own eyes & ears. I don't formulate opinions based on other people's opinions. Let's have a meaningful discussion based on 1st hand info.

I agree, it's not fair to criticise things you haven't heard.

I have listened to Alex Jones, and I've listened to Watson and him having a circle jerk on his show.

They both work themselves into a masturbational frenzy about the Dems trying to "take away our guns" and shit.

They speak from the trumpanzee position and they both love baldy orange cunto.

If you think he isn't a right wing arsehole parroting what the trumpanzees want to hear, I can only assume that you're a trumpanzee yourself.

Maybe you need some of that "Brain Force".

Originally Posted by pedro01

So by right wing - you mean anyone left of center?

You have never seen anyone but a liberal defend a political position?

That's pretty ludicrous.

I've known them to state their position but when they are challenged on it they run away.

Originally Posted by pedro01

Well - it's pretty consistent with the title of this thread "Instagram and Facebook Ban Far-Right Extremists".

I'd call that personal experience of observing the left (Facebook and Instagram) silencing the opposition (PJW and Milo).

See how that works - we can take observable facts and form an opinion. We don't need to pass on 2nd hand opinions from elsewhere.

But I guess this change of topic means that no-one can find all this far-right content from PJW. As it doesn't actually exist.

You've not only missed the point but then conflated it with something else.

You don't have personal experience of all 'the left' -- that would be impossible -- yet you're attributing and ascribing the same thing to all.

And by the way, Milo and Co. were banned or suspended or whatever from Facebook and the like because they're attention whores who can't follow the TOS. That's it and nothing more. Why should they get special treatment.

Calling Facebook 'left' isn't a fact it's an opinion.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Calling Facebook 'left' isn't a fact it's an opinion.

Facebook didn't ban them because of their political shade, but because they're fucking arseholes.

Facebook says the newly banned accounts violated its policy against dangerous individuals and organisations.
The company says it has “always banned” people or groups that proclaim a violent or hateful mission or are engaged in acts of hate or violence, regardless of political ideology.

The fact is you don't see the left running around spewing hate speech about peoples race or religion; for the right it's always there, and at the extremist end they are always promoting it. Look how Stephen Yaxley-Lennon would retweet any stupid made up story about Muslims without even checking it.

It's very simple to avoid breaching Facebook's terms and conditions: Don't be a c u n t.

(Although I was a bit of a c u n t last week apparently; in response to some Indonesians who tortured their maid by pouring a kettle of boiling water over her, I made the comment that "I hope they get cancer and die a slow and painful death". However, I took my punishment like a man, instead of whinging about it like these fucking snowflakes, even though no politics was involved).

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Facebook didn't ban them because of their political shade, but because they're fucking arseholes.

Exactly. Whiny, snowflake, entitled arseholes.

All the right do is whinge and play the victim card. Poor oppresses white males,eh?! Can't be racist,homphobic or a misogynist! Thots and prayers

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

There's no such thing as 'Freedom of Speech' on social media.

They are all owned and driven by companies and to use them you need to agree to and abide by their Terms of Service.

Oh contraire, my dear Ant. A company must operate within the laws of that country. If a company in Australia has a certain warranty period and the product fails outside of the company's warranty terms, the company will be forced to replace the item if it differs from Australian consumer law, regardless of the company terms. At least in Australia, the law overrides any companies terms of service.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Oh contraire, my dear Ant. A company must operate within the laws of that country. If a company in Australia has a certain warranty period and the product fails outside of the company's warranty terms, the company will be forced to replace the item if it differs from Australian consumer law, regardless of the company terms. At least in Australia, the law overrides any companies terms of service.

Well to be more precise it means that their terms and services must comply with the the laws of Australia.

Which presumably they do, or the lawyers would be all over them .