Comments by "" (@NinjaKittyBonks) on "Elon Musk REVEALS His New Plan To Purchase Twitter \u0026 Jack Dorsey Seems To Be On Board!" video.

  1. I sure as hell hope Elon can pull this off. Twitter going a TRUE FULL 1a would be a Godsend for us all.
    450
  2. ​ @capedcrustacean6575  ... Yes, I completely agree. Of course, even if they DID enforce their rules in an un-biased manner, many are written for only ONE side of a position. It is not conservatives who are concerned with pronouns and dead naming, so these rules are specifically written to in such a way that conservatives will ALWAYS be the ones getting punished by them. There are 2 fundamental issues that surround the idea of censorship: 1. Who gets to say what is and is not acceptable speech? 2. ... and this is VASTLY more important: Who gets to decide WHO gets to decide? This is something the leftist objectively fails to grasp in all of this. They currently have very nearly 100% of the power centers that not only moderate / facilitate discourse on this globe, but have 100% complete support by 95% of media, the loudest portion of Gen Z, academia K~12 and into college & universities including our own fed govt. They take for complete granted that this will remain unchanged for the remainder of all time, so there is zero consideration that THEY may be on the other side at some point. This level of arrogance is most certainly going to be their downfall here, it is just a matter of when / how the tables turn... because they WILL ! . This is why I use the term "true full 1a" as it is the ONLY way to enforce rules that are equal across the board. So long as we have these broad strokes of rule that only effect one political view, 1a remains under attack :(
    2
  3. @SpaceTrooper ... I have never been on Twitter and never heard the term "race swapping". However, if ANYTHING pisses of the leftist cult, I am ALL about it :)
    1
  4.  @stryker0ae  ... Remember when you and I grew up, as well as many, many generations prior... the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". We have the "Leftist Who Cries Racist" at LITERALLY every possible opportunity, whether there is even the most microscopic relevancy or not. I have been called a white supremacist or racist more time than I can count and I offer my congratulations each time :) I picture this little punk kid, who is a total sheet-disturber at grade school and when he gets called out, hides behind the principle and continues with the same BS. Not even enough self reflection to grasp how totally pathetic it is to be himself and never learns a damned thing from the experience... lol
    1
  5.  @thelastword4616  .. I would have ZERO issue with YT getting knocked off the top of the heap, but I just don't see that happening. I do see Twitter back on its heals here, as they have not taken action to remove / ban / or otherwise intimidate Libs. Their is certainly no justifiable reason to do so, but since when has the Twitter cult needed an ACTUAL ToS violation to silence a voice? Were it not for what Elon is doing, they would have invented a reason to pile on Libs, but times are a changing. Conservatives are FINALLY starting to find not just their voice, but a freakin' back bone! Look at what DeSantis is doing about Disney's vile existence and we can see that this WILL embolden others to go on the offensive... FINALLY! :)
    1
  6. ​ @Likexner  ... Why not? Democrats & the ACLU fought tooth and nail for literal white supremacist skin-head Nazi organizations to have the right to protest down Main Street USA not so long ago. America was literally founded upon the idea of free speech and to have discourse in the resolution of its political and societal issues. There is no other nation or country on the entire globe, that has 1a as a natural right and we must continue to fight for it at ALL costs. For without 1a, it is simply not possible to address the most contentious issues of our time. . We MUST make free speech main stream again!
    1
  7. ​ @Likexner  .... 1a was put into writing, so that it could be shown AS a natural right for all time. I am a free speech absolutist, but that does not mean I am for LITERALLY any / all speech to be all OK at all times. There must and will always be some things that we are not free to say, due to the consequences of saying them. We are not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, that is not on fire. . To the above extent, this country does have a guaranteed natural right of free speech. However, when we have all Western World values under attack from big tech and a federal government that not only is just fine with it, but OPENLY calls on private business to censor US citizens, we have a MASSIVE problem. The Overton Window has been driven so insanely far to the left, what was once a bunch of common values shared by the Democratic and conservative parties, is just no longer the case. Regressives are 100% responsible for all the division we see and they will eventually be driven out of power. Whether it be by the electoral process or we end up forced to settle this 1860's style, the idea of 1a will again be restored to its rightful place of respect among this nation. Currently, free speech does NOT exist, as a practical measure, but only in the minds of those who understand that the problem does not simply be "who gets to decide" what is free speech, but "WHO... gets to decide who gets to decide" what is free speech. . If this does not happen and Biden continues to use The Constitution and Bill of Rights as a roll of soft paper, stored near each and every toilet in the White House and American people don't have the balls to stop him... then we deserve EXACTLY what we will get!
    1
  8.  @Likexner  ... Really...? You are going to straw-man me like that? I have made myself exceptionally clear, yet you will not engage in a good faith discussion. I no longer have use for discussion with you. Take care, Johnny
    1
  9. ​ @Likexner  . Dude.... the term "Free Speech" in THIS context, refers to what is specified in 1a. When I say "free speech absolutist" in the present context, it means what is outlined within 1a. Were that not clear enough, I went on to give the most consistently cited example of when one does NOT have "free speech" and is one of several examples that free speech has consequences and that I agree with this limitation. There are other examples, such as inciting a riot, but I used this one as it is most common and would draw a very clear line between "absolute" as it is defined in a dictionary and "absolutist" as it relates to the application of The First Amendment. . Far as I can tell, there is at least one fundamental difference between each of our goals, as it pertains to this conversation. While I am seeking to find out not ONLY what you think, but why you think it. I am interested in intellectually honest discourse on any topic one can name and your thoughts specifically on the topic of 1a and free speech. You, on the other hand, are seeking to "win" an argument. Again, I have made myself exceptionally clear on the topic we had discussed thus far, but you are not interested to have and intellectually honest exchange, therefore I will no longer engage in it with you. . Reply if you like, but I will not be back to respond to whatever it is you have to say. So if the last word does it for you... have at it :) . PS> A straw man is not quoting something someone didn't say (that is not possible, BTW) , it is quoting what someone said, but not what they meant . It is the stripping of context and done by those who seek a "gotcha" moment, rather than rebut the claim / statement via a sound argument of their own opposing view / position. It is done by those who will take the least generous interpretation of what someone has said or done, and then manipulate the details to put that person into a negative or unfavorable light to others. I feel sorry for those who take such action and chalk it up as a win... truly sad :(
    1