President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Jimmy Kimmel suspended do I think he should have been ? Nope. Do I care not at all just as many of you never cared when folks were cancelled during the George Floyd era just for not posting a black IG page
Late night TV way way in the Carson days was not about politics now it is . Trump is a baby but the networks are bigger ones. They should have said go ahead and pull our license
so when half or more of corporate american went with a full black screen on social media during actual riots in 30+ american cities, that wasn't scary or frustrating, but institutions doing 1/100th of that to align a bit with the right after decades of complete submission to leftist ideals is frustrating ok.
As always you vastly exaggerate what actually happened.
But, even if you were right - NONE of that stuff had anything to do with GOVERNMENT action.
There is a huge difference between corp boards being bowing to public cultural pressure, and bowing to threats from the government.
Cue up your statement that it doesn’t matter as long as leftists are crushed. We know.
just as many of you never cared when folks were cancelled during the George Floyd era just for not posting a black IG page
Cancelled by their audience/customers (aka free speech), or canceled by their network/studio at the behest of the sitting president of the United States?
The distinction is somewhat important.
Jimmy Kimmel suspended do I think he should have been ? Nope. Do I care not at all just as many of you never cared when folks were cancelled during the George Floyd era just for not posting a black IG page Late night TV way way in the Carson days was not about politics now it is . Trump is a baby but the networks are bigger ones. They should have said go ahead and pull our lice
Ah yes, I remember when the government threatened individuals with lawsuits, investigations, and harassment for not posting a black screen. Really glad I dodged that.
Seriously- what are your examples of people “cancelled” for this? Extra bonus points if they didn’t eventually end up ahead by making a big scene out of their victimization.
Ah yes, I remember when the government threatened individuals with lawsuits, investigations, and harassment for not posting a black screen. Really glad I dodged that.
Seriously- what are your examples of people “cancelled” for this? Extra bonus points if they didn’t eventually end up ahead by making a big scene out of their victimization.
Greg Glassman at the time owner of Crossfit is one
Lets not forget everyone that lost their YouTube Channels and Facebook pages for having a different opinion than others on Covid. This was directed by the Joe Biden government
Here in Canada were we do not have free speech Jordan Peterson on the pronoun issue
There was a time when the ACLU defended all free speech as well now only speech they like
Trump and his cronies are wrong and the ABC is spineless .
As always you vastly exaggerate what actually happened.
But, even if you were right - NONE of that stuff had anything to do with GOVERNMENT action.
There is a huge difference between corp boards being bowing to public cultural pressure, and bowing to threats from the government.
Cue up your statement that it doesn’t matter as long as leftists are crushed. We know.
Sure the civil right act and disparate impact had no bearing on the behaviour of major corporations for decades to make them fulfill leftist dreams of inclusion and equality.
Every time a corporation anywhere didn't fire a woman or a member of a minority because they feared legal repercussions because they could risk a lawsuit for discrimination, that's corporations acting under government duress to fulfill leftist political goals.
Every time a corporation anywhere had internal quotas for minorities and women to reduce/eliminate the risk of disparate impact prosecutions, that's corporations acting under government duress to fulfill leftist political goals.
Every time a financial institution had to lend more to minorities under internal pressure from the legal department to reduce/eliminate the risk of disparate impact prosecutions, that's financial institutions acting under government duress to fulfill leftist political goals.
But sure no threat from the government , no government action pushed corporations to behave in alignment to leftist goals other than actual laws that explicitly mandated them to do so right.
Are the women here in the photo sending a clear message to Ukraine, or am i seeing things that aren't there?
Sure the civil right act and disparate impact had no bearing on the behaviour of major corporations for decades to make them fulfill leftist dreams of inclusion and equality.Every time a corporation anywhere didn't fire a woman or a member of a minority because they feared legal repercussions because they could risk a lawsuit for discrimination, that's corporations acting under
So you agree no actual government action then? Great.
sending the doj to prosecute disparate impact cases is government action in it's purest form
What does that have to do with speech?
It sucks the gov is threatening people for saying stuff they don’t like.
well what about GEORGE FLOYD.
That wasn’t the government.
The government is beholden to lefty interests.
Again, that was not the government.
The government sues companies for unfair hiring practices.
Ok….
What does that have to do with speech?
It sucks the gov is threatening people for saying stuff they don’t like.
well what about GEORGE FLOYD.
That wasn’t the government.
The government is beholden to lefty interests.
Again, that was not the government.
The government sues companies for unfair hiring practices.
Ok….
The biden admin threatened social media companies if they didn't censor "antivaxxers" and the like during covid. According to SCOTUS (6-3, with the 3 centrists voting with the liberals) that's not a violation of the 1a because the threats were vague enough.
Biden went on TV to claim "social media was killing people" by allowing people to write claims about vaccines different from the CDC claims.
The FBI had regular contacts with social media moderation teams and gave them lists of people to censor.
But that wasn't a violation of the 1a because those companies did it "themselves", and also had censored some antivaxxers before the gvmnt asked them to censor 100x more, and there was no explicit direct threat so it's all good.
But ofc who would even imply any threats if the FBI asks you "gently" to ban someone on facebook or twitter, you can certainly refuse with no repercussions from the executive am i right?
/
Now back to BLM that happened under the Trump admin. So yes ofc it wasn't direct government pressure toward them. But OF COURSE they did it to ingratiate themselves with democrats who they had good reasons to think were very close to get back all the power (which they did the same year).
When the system works well enough (as it was with the left for decades) you don't even need to ask as the government. They comply pre-emptively because "they know the rules of the game". But of course that's not a threat even if down the line you know for a certainty you miss out on gvmnt contracts, risk higher chances of IRS audits and DOJ cases against you and so on when they will be in power.
Not a threat because it's so obvious to everyone they don't even need to tell you anymore. Like the mafia in rural Sicily. That's not violent threat because you yourself go give them the money of their cut before they ask and they don't need to ever threaten you in any way to achieve that.
It's fair to ask and i think the answer (or the first attempt to answer that) will come when the gvmnt will start doing something aboud them (it's about time).
The government has already been attacking antifa in Portland this year, as they did in 2020.
so when half or more of corporate american went with a full black screen on social media during actual riots in 30+ american cities, that wasn't scary or frustrating, but institutions doing 1/100th of that to align a bit with the right after decades of complete submission to leftist ideals is frustrating ok.
You found a black screen (for a day?) voluntarily posted to be scary?
And you think all the examples given above are 1/100 of the black screen?
Jimmy Kimmel suspended do I think he should have been ? Nope. Do I care not at all just as many of you never cared when folks were cancelled during the George Floyd era just for not posting a black IG page Late night TV way way in the Carson days was not about politics now it is . Trump is a baby but the networks are bigger ones. They should have said go ahead and pull our lice
Who got canceled for not posting a blank screen?
Sure the civil right act and disparate impact had no bearing on the behaviour of major corporations for decades to make them fulfill leftist dreams of inclusion and equality.Every time a corporation anywhere didn't fire a woman or a member of a minority because they feared legal repercussions because they could risk a lawsuit for discrimination, that's corporations acting under
Yes, laws passed by congress regulating hiring are far different from direct threats from the executive branch to punish protected speech.
9/16 - Roccoco questions the safety of continuing to post on 2+2 Politics.
Seriously though, it’s so frustrating as a “normie” to see all these big and powerful institutions just roll over one at a time like dominoes. 1%ers with less spine than the random minimum wage Joe who holds a sign up on the street for a day.
I guess that’s why’s pitchfork uprising always comes from random minimum wage Joe huh .
The biden admin threatened social media companies if they didn't censor "antivaxxers" and the like during covid. According to SCOTUS (6-3, with the 3 centrists voting with the liberals) that's not a violation of the 1a because the threats were vague enough.Biden went on TV to claim "social media was killing people" by allowing people to write claims about vaccines different fro
The Covid related censorship was obviously wrong. That doesn't make what is happening now any less wrong.
The Covid related censorship is over. The current government attacks on free speech are ongoing, and increasing.
Whattaboutism doesn't suit you.
Sure the civil right act and disparate impact had no bearing on the behaviour of major corporations for decades to make them fulfill leftist dreams of inclusion and equality.Every time a corporation anywhere didn't fire a woman or a member of a minority because they feared legal repercussions because they could risk a lawsuit for discrimination, that's corporations acting under
So u agree racism is a right thing huh and it’s a good thing ….
private racism (as defined by the left) as long as it's about not wanting to interact with people of races you dislike is a fundamental unalienable right yes.
It's beyond incredible that you can be FORCED to hire someone you dislike for ANY reason, it's truly utterly incredible people think this is compatible with any notion of freedom. Mandating ANY relationship with anyone is one of the most heinous things a state can do. Being free to decide who you interact with in your private life is a very basic fundamental freedom, and you should never have to justify your preferences to anyone.
Of course for me and for normal people, disliking some group of people because of race isn't racism. Racism is only the willingness to actively damage members of other races.
If you refuse to date a black woman because you don't like black women you aren't racist in any way for normal people. Your TASTE can never be "wrong" morally definitionally, for normal people.
And the same applies if you have to hire someone or to rent your own property to someone or to take a customer for your business.
If you refuse to date a black woman because you don't like black women you aren't racist in any way for normal people. Your TASTE can never be "wrong" morally definitionally, for normal people.
And the same applies if you have to hire someone or to rent your own property to someone or to take a customer for your business.
LOOOOOOOL
did they investigate all financial donors as terrorist financing? because that's the big difference. Being able to complete destroy the life of anyone donating to them directly or indirectly.
I don't think these people are being financed by outsiders to any significant extent. They are definitely not the "paid protestors" made up by Republicans.
They just dress in black, carry signs, and walk around yelling, occasionally breaking things. How much money could be needed for that? Certainly not any more than the resources held by the typical American middle class person in their 20s (many of whom are likely still at least partially supported by their parents).
