|
By:
Anyone not agreeing with Just Checking = leftist
Ann Coulter = "right of centre" Wonder how far right this leaves JC on the political spectrum. |
|
By:
Corbyn, Robin Cook, Clare Short, Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage all have one thing in common..
They all opposed Blair's decision to go to Iraq. Categorising left and right political views is unhelpful. The true Labour supporters and true right wingers come together on many issues. Not least their opposition to an unelected, unaccountable, unaudited EU. |
|
By:
Yes, fair point Injera.
|
|
By:
That's true, the two big parties are completely in harmony over most of the major issues which affect our lives.
It's the trivial stuff they discuss in public. That's why immigration which has been the biggest issue for many people for a very long time seldom gets any attention from either of them. They both know that oversupply of labour is good for the economy but very damaging for the people. Apart from the obvious game of Labour destroying through over spending, and the Tories repairing with cuts, there's little difference between the two main parties over many things. Corbyn might put that right if he ever were elected - but I doubt it. |
|
By:
Corbyn has just won a peace prize but I didn't read it in the main stream.so why wasn't it printed?
|
|
By:
First I had heard of it Terry. Thanks.
https://evolvepolitics.com/mainstream-media-silent-as-jeremy-corbyn-wins-international-peace-prize/ . |
|
By:
It's been awarded for his lip service towards disarmament and peace.
Which doesn't mean much when the responsibility for this country's security is in the hands of someone else. |
|
By:
Another atrocity- this time in New York. A lot will be suspended on Twitter for airing their views on the religion of the perp!
|
|
By:
It is strange how such a group or organisation can gain such a grip on the discussion. The people who are opposed to almost everything that the liberal philosphy believes in are defended by those same liberals. To the extent one is shouted down as right wing or racist etc. I would highlight LGBT and feminst issues at the top.
|
|
By:
Twitter is a company. They don't want you doing something that they feel could be detrimental to their company and their profits. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You are allowed to go and say whatever you want to say, but companies (twitter in this case) just don't want to allow you to do something that could potentially cost them money.
Your ban/suspension is purely a financial decision nothing to do with freedom of speech. After all you can create your own website and say what you want on there. Try not to take it personally. |
|
By:
I don't take it personally. My objection is that I state the truth about a certain group of people and am suspended for it while others tweet horrible racist tweets about OTHER groups of people and grt away with it. The point is, this particular group of people appears to be protected in spite of the atrocities carried out!
|
|
By:
Yeah it seems like you have taken it a little personally, just because you say you haven't doesn't mean you haven't.
One person's version of truth is to another person a horrible racist tweet. It's easy to imply things just by stating facts. For example I could say since Torquemada has joined the forum the number of people being banned has increased significantly. He could turn round upset and say "F off it has nothing to do with me", but couldn't I just say why are you getting upset i am simply stating some facts, or the truth. It's not what you say it's what you are implying. If what you imply is not good for business you're not welcome. |
|
By:
I accept that. I suppose I am taking it a little personally, but that is because of the favouritism shown as I have previously mentioned. I do believe that if religion of a perpetrator is stated, that is not open to being interpreted. It is THE TRUTH. A TRUTH cannot be called racist if one is pointing it out. Anyway, as I stated in the title of the thread, the Battle is already lost, so no point in wasting any more time on it.
|
|
By:
Often, it's about context.
For example, someone might point out that there were five black players in the England football team in a particular match. That would be a fact, but depending on the context it could a racist comment, neutral or positive. |
|
By:
So if I state that yesterday in New York, a Muslim set off a bomb, that is racist is it! It is an undisputable fact!
|
|
By:
I guess I'm playing devil's advocate and I don't know what you posted on Twitter.
As UA said, they don't want to damage their brand. So if I state that yesterday in New York, a Muslim set off a bomb, that is racist is it! It is an undisputable fact! Yes, a fact and I don't see anything wrong posting such a comment. Muslims however, would say he has a perverted view of the faith. Do you think you'd get away with making the above comment in the workplace? |
|
By:
I think blowing up a station is slightly different from someone not doing his/her job efficiently.
|
|
By:
So if I state that yesterday in New York, a Muslim set off a bomb, that is racist is it! It is an undisputable fact!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I meant that if you made this comment in the workplace. Factual, as you say, but if you did, I suspect you'd be reprimanded. |
|
By:
Do you recall in Porridge when McLaren said he beat up a warder for calling him a black b*****d. Fletcher said that it was strictly true seeing as he had a dusky complexion and was of dubious parentage.
|
|
By:
Really!!!! That is astonishing. I know I am elderly and haven't worked for decades but if that is the case, I just don't know what to say about freedom of speech. I accept that if I say a follower of any religion is dirty or something along those lines, it is reprehensible, but to state a fact!!!! Well! Anyway that all my comments now. In the end the only thing one gets from bashing one's head against a brick wall is a bashed head.
|
|
By:
It's a similar principle to Twitter. An employer wants to foster good working relationships, high morale and doesn't want to damage his business.
You are held to higher (or different) standards than elsewhere. |
|
By:
Twitter is a news service and it should not be allowed to surpress or silence the truth
If it does so it should be closed down |
|
By:
Now a place of work is different , you are there to work not talk
|
|
By:
Slicer
Slicer 12 Dec 17 12:31 Joined: 10 Jan 03 | Topic/replies: 7,459 | Blogger: Slicer's blog So if I state that yesterday in New York, a Muslim set off a bomb, that is racist is it! It is an undisputable fact! no its not racist , not ever bigoted on its own, but is there any need to state the religion of any person who commits a crime? a christian had their twitter account suspended for bigotry.....any need for religion there? i dont think so |
|
By:
I think it is relevant when are followers of the same religion and shout out things along the line that God is Great in a language that is not English!
|
|
By:
The fact that it was a Muslim is important. There is little point in reporting news without this vital part of the news
|
|
By:
But anyway- there is no winning this discussion as I stated at the outset, so I'm gonna let it lie! Good luck all!(Those with grand children are going to need lots of it).
|
|
By:
In fact it is very dangerous if news agencies are allowed to surpress these facts
|
|
By:
you see I love and honour facts , as should we all
|
|
By:
facts is a good poster
who could deny that |
|
By:
Well the fact is I am quite happy to listen to anything he has to say
|
|
By:
some of which is nonsense , what's wrong with that ?
I don't know |
|
By:
Some of it may not be nonsense ,
anythings possible, I read it somewhere |
|
By:
so we don't mention the religion when it is done in the name of the religion
yeah brilliant thinking there meanwhile twitter lets Daesh advertise all over its network |
|
By:
that is you banned injera
|