Oooooh, that sounds pretty right wing, according to some who have no clue what right wing means
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Apple for Info on Alleged Free Speech Suppression
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m Jewish, and your hate speech is offensive; under hate speech laws, you should be imprisoned for trying to normalise Naziism
How delightfully fascistic, and you included a fallaciously facile double implication against the US, while favouring Canada. How boring
“Free speech” from the party of book banning.
people should be upset at the gov't for wasting the tax payer money. they wasted a ton on the russian and ukrainian collusion investigations when there was nothing there.
Except nobody ever said that. Or anything remotely like it. You and your ilk need to accept that reality just doesn’t match your fever dream, no matter how badly you want it.
No! That’s COMPLETELY different!
That’s… Because … I mean… ehm.. oh screw it! That’s just so cruel of you to bring that argument into the debate.
My man, you're all over the place with this horrible take.
While I certainly wouldn't have phrased it "rolling with the punches," I'm assuming you're trying to say that science learns as it goes, and that means not blindly holding on tight to whatever one would prefer, as opposed to what is. So in that spirit, let's examine your comment.
"In the beginning, masks were bad and you shouldn't wear them."
Masks were never bad, but at first they were deemed unnecessary for the public. This was partly because we didn't understand COVID"s transmissibility, and also because there were a lack of protective materials for health care workers who were going to be sustained close contact with people who were sick. Around April of 2020, when it became more clear that COVID could spread simply by talking or breathing, and especially by those who were asymptomatic, they were recommended for people. Cloth masks were recommended as protective materials for health care workers were still in short supply, and I don't think anyone ever made the claim that a cloth mask was all that likely to protect you from getting sick, as much as it was to protect others, by blocking larger droplets being expelled by a person. It wasn't perfect, but it was something. This is I believe you would call "rolling with the punches."
"Now, evidence suggests that wearing them didn't actually help."
I'd love to see that evidence. Unless you're specifically talking about cloth masks. Go to any hospital in the country right now and you'll find doctors and nurses and hospital staff all wearing masks. Most of those hospitals will also require visitors/patients to wear masks also, and in many cases, they will require you to wear the mask that the hospitals provide (something of higher quality than a cloth mask). I was going to ask you why medical professionals would continue to wear masks if new evidence suggests that wearing them didn't actually help, but your wording of that statement tells anyone all they need to know.
"New evidence SUGGESTS." This is the problem we've been dealing with since 2020. "New evidence suggests" sounds like a personal opinion more than anything else, and doesn't in any way sound like something that's been peer reviewed or proven.
"Unfortunately, the scientific community has a habit of vilifying anyone who suggests science that goes against the prevailing theories"
No, the scientific community remains open to theories being disproven in favor of new theories, because people who actually value science want to understand the truth, as opposed to needing something to be true. If a person wants to suggest that evidence has arisen to disprove something, then they need to actually prove that, and have their data peer reviewed. If you're some yahoo MMA podcast host and you found a video on YouTube telling you that COVID can be cured by taking horse dewormer, I mean, bully for you, but if you want to be taken seriously by the scientific community, then you need to conduct the proper studies, make data publicly available for peer review and see what comes of it. If you're unwilling to do that, that doesn't mean the scientific community is vilifying you. You aren't a victim because you refused to actually engage in science.
Last edited:
Of all things this is not tin-foil hat. It's the opposite of that. It's clearly written (as clearly as anything) into federal law and there are multiple reported precedents.
I'm not claiming anyone did it to Twitter but you seem to think it's impossible, which it's not.
Could say the same about your ill-informed comment but I guess that would also be equally as boring. It wasn’t fallacious, these are facts friend, which your replies seem to be lacking 😊
Last edited:
The truth does not depend on any reputable organization, because they all color the truth to some extent.
yet it makes an obvious point to the false argument the republicans have...which is even sadder that it can be reduced to explanation by a comic
He told them that after 2 hours of rioting and only after everybody around him begged him to. Also, he intentionally created the environment that made it happen. He knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted them to overturn an election he knew full well that he lost.
None of this is true. The only thing Twitter took down was nude pics which went against the terms of service anyway. They would have done it for anyone. The only people banned were people breaking the terms of service by posting covid misinformation, hate speech, or inciting an insurrection.
There was plenty there, in both cases. Have you read the Mueller report? I'm assuming not, because if you had, you'd realize how damning it was, and how many crimes it uncovered. Some of those who committed crimes, got pardoned by Trump before he left office simply because they were his friends. Here's a excerpt from Ted Liu questioning Mueller about obstruction of justice:
"I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked.
"That is correct," Mueller replied.
Considering the above, here's what Bill Barr said in his letter to congress:
“the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
In the case of Trump's impeachment, what he did was illegal and self serving, and he deserved to be impeached for it. He deserved to be convicted by the Senate also, but Republicans favor party over country, and chose not to even hold a hearing, which is deeply disappointing.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle need to realize that they are not kings, that there are rules, and that they are not above the law. They are elected officials who serve the public.
This tells me all I need to know about your objectivity, integrity, and opinions. Fortunately, others more objective have presented the evidence that Trump set out to incite an insurrection with his lies and speeches, by encouraging hate groups to come to the capital, by suggesting people with guns be allowed to his rally before the capital, and then when they did march on to the capital, he sat there for hours doing nothing. nothing. it wasn't because of ignorance, he had people begging him to speak up, he waited until it was clear his tactic was not going to work. Then and only then did he do the right thing and tell people to go home, but only after thanking them.
To the uninformed here, hate speech can be very well and smartly concealed.
When US official says something like "We are an exceptional and indispensable nation", this alone makes "Mein Kampf" look very pale and innocent.
And that's because books are an easy target. They go after books because they can't do anything about tech other than create failed, competing social media platforms.
What I find really embarassing on behalf of the GOP here is.. Intentionally siding with disinfo, like.. if "surpressing conservative thought" means supressing objectively false, dangerous information, its a bit of a red flag. Yes you should be free to be as wrong as you like but no company should be forced to spread the wrongness for you. The fact they're considering supression of info Re: covid19 particularly is hilarious considering various R states supressed and continue to supress information to make themselves look better. There's a reason y'all are getting hit harder, and dying in greater numbers; because they actually *reached* their base with the FUD. 
Having people angry is apparently more important than having them healthy and/or alive to these people.
Having people angry is apparently more important than having them healthy and/or alive to these people.