Jump to content

cr47t

Elite Members
  • Content Count

    1,512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

cr47t last won the day on April 18 2019

cr47t had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

283 Great

About cr47t

  • Rank
    heyyy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

24,151 profile views
  1. a) no, i do not work at twitter. i do browse it a lot. i will not disclose my handle here. but i don't have a job there if that is what you're asking. but you know what, i've realized something. what does any of this sheet about bias against conservative views on internet platforms have anything to do with the merits (or, some would argue, the lack thereof) of having a wall on the southern border or busing illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities? the thing about your arguments lately, i've noticed, is that you bring up something irrelevant to the topic the thread is roughly about, then demand or otherwise encourage an answer to it. your only point in the quoted section was about the conservatives-kicked-off-platforms thing. we could argue all day about whether that's really happening or not, but if we're going to do that, we should make a separate thread specifically for that kind of thing. now, to give credit where credit is due, i did ask for sources on your claim so i do share some responsibility in this derailing. but let's get back on track now.
  2. Haven't you also claimed that social media organizations are biased against certain political views? You can't have it both ways Winter
  3. now that I have time to respond, let's get back into this. personally, i have no problem with people speaking out against sanctuary policy, so if you're using the "the platforms have an agenda against us" line as an attack on me personally, i would like you to stop. furthermore i have seen no evidence of twitter discriminating against consevrative viewpoints, if you have an argument proporting evidence of this, please provide it instead of the standalone claim so we can debate it. as it is, we can't, because an un falsifiable argument cannot sustain itself in a field of political debate. you say the state reps who support sanctuary policies have been fighting trump on immigration. but in your post thats all you wrote. have you considered why they have been fighting him? it's completely possible it's not just a push for open borders. maybe they disagree with the methods that are being used? or the ideological approach behind it? (not in terms of open borders vs border security but in terms of "identity of the contry at risk vs human dignity of the immigrants at risk" or something along those lines?) your second-paragraph argument, which says "The states who majority support them can take them if they want them" is not the argument that the trump administration is using, which is "the left loves the illegals they can take them if they want them". yours is more nuanced, and theirs is a pigeonhole, and i don't understand what you're trying to do here. if you're trying to rationalize without siding with their explanation, that's understandable. if you're trying to speak for the WH, you're not doing a very good job at it.
  4. I'm not sure about all the arguments in favor since I don't know all of them nor do I have the time or the patience to duscuss them all so I'll focus on the one(s) you put out. you can point to the actions of sanctuary cities and say "this is bad for the states that are doing this and the people living in it" or "this is bad for the country as a whole" but is this really the best way possible to go about it? i'm sure if we got the best minds in the country together we could come up with a more practical and less divisive solution. and when you reduce it to "these states/cities want the illegals and those states dont" you ignore the fact that states and even cities are made up with people of differing opinions. some vote in favor of the people who implement sanctuary laws, some vote against those people, some have an opinion but dont vote at all, and some dont have an opinion at all. simplistic reductions like this don't help the situation nor solve the problem. in many ways they are part of the problem.
  5. It's the term I try to use for the portion of the left that you see speak out, rather than the left as a whole. It's not representative of all liberals in existence, just the liberals whose political opinions you observe being espoused. A lot of people have a habit of acting as if "what you see is what there is" even though that isn't the case, and when people reduce groups of millions down to a word or a few words used in a sweeping manner but worded to not quite indicate that (examples include "muslims" or "the Left", but "all muslims" or "the entire Left" aren't included) that's an example. "vocal left" is meant to distinguish from that. Maybe there are better solutions than just scrapping the protectional system entirely? When that's happened people's lives (not just journalist's lives and their familie's, but the lives of their audience) have been put in danger, because important information that could make a crucial difference that would otherwise get to them did not because the powers that control the flow of information are no longer the editors and publishers themselves, but often an government authority or some other major power. I don't think you're the kind of person who'd want monopolized state press in the United States of all places, given how often power switches hands between parties and how much you'd (at least seem to) despise such power in the hands of Democrats. What other alternatives would you propose?
  6. Ayfkm enough with "the left love this the left is that" bullshit. i called you out on it in the russia/WH thread and i'll do it here. you'd be hollering at the top of you're lungs if roxas said such a thing about the right and you know it and if roxas has done it you probably have so spare me this skullduggery. as for the "they can have them" part - i'm assuming you're referring to the proposal to bus illegals to sanctuary cities? that whole policy is "i'm going to punish my political enemies by sending people i think are dangerous to their constitiuent's hometowns". when you break it down that's the logic behind it - or at least what stephen miller thought when he proposed it since he's the one credited for introducing it to the administration. it's meant to punish the many for the actions of the few. think about it, even trump supporters would be unhappy by this if they happen to live in a sanctuary city. there's so many angles of wrong to this policy but i dont have the time or patience to dive into them now, and most of them are obvious enough to be observed on their own.
  7. Of course not. I was talking about you. I thought you would infer that since I quoted your post in my own but I guess that basic methods of communication are just norms to be broken now rather than things vital to discussion. I try to urge all peoples to avoid pigeonholing but the extent you do it is disproportionate to Roxas from what I've seen. why do you not support freedom of the press?
  8. hold it right there. you're going off again taking the actions of the vocal left (or in this case, a small section of the vocal left, which is even worse), twisting it, and slapping it onto the entire left. there's a difference. this pigeonholing by you has to funking stop because it does nothing to further or improve political discourse but instead it only detrioriates it 100% of the time. if i didn't know better i'd say that's why you're doing it and the way i'll know that's what's going on is if you keep using it as the taking point and punchline you use it as now. we need to stop labeling people with -isms as negative smears (in your case, an indirect "liberalism" smear ("the left")) in an attempt to boost our own -isms and start seeing them as human beings first. if we want to solve problems, such as the crisis facing freedom of the press, we need to start with de-toxicizing the poltiical discussion. it's too hostile to get anything done the way it is now and attitudes like the one you're exhibiting don't help one tiny bit. on the rest i agree with roxas, but that's besides my point.
  9. cr47t

    Corrupt a wish

    Title says all, corrupt a wish of the above user then provide your own wish. Example: User 1: "I wish to be in a Batman movie" User 2: "Granted, but it's Batman and Robin." I'll start: I wish to be a admin on YCM.
×
×
  • Create New...