00:00
00:00

Republicans vs. Facebook

578 Views | 29 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

First news article I found, nothing special


Apparently, a panel of Republican representatives spoke to tech companies about alleged anti-conservative bias recently.


While I think this is mostly a political PR stunt, it is interesting to watch this unfold. Social media sites have been under increasing pressure from both sides to monitor their content more carefully after the last election cycle.


Even if true, should companies like Facebook have a legal obligation to be politically unbiased? I think that requirement in itself would either eventually create censorship or be censorship in itself.


Is there bias coming from tech companies?


What are their legal responsibilities when it comes to this matter?


Do you think that people of a certain political views are just more likely to make edgy posts that violate content guidelines?


What are your thoughts?

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 05:34:38


When it comes to twitter, Facebook it's the automated algorithms designed into the bots a majority of the time. Those algorithms are still designed by people who have their internal biases. A lot of modern day rightys use trendy words and the bots identify them as trolls and auto ban their accounts.


Then the Streisand effect happens.


These company CEOs, and other working in the tech field honesty didn't believe they were guilty of censoring right leaning accounts, and are recently figuring out why the censorship was actually happening. The algorithms need reworking. But pundits are still having a hay day in the meantime.


I'm the guy with the funny name.

BBS Signature

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 12:55:14


Yeah, Conservatives are on the warpath against Social media, especially Trump and Rep. Nunes. These guys aren't victims, they bullies, who are snowflakes. And this tells you all you need to know about this.


This stuff has been going on for decades, with Conservatives having the greater platform with TV and Radio, reaching millions of people, preaching about the evils of the left and promoting negative stereotypes about minorities.


And then the internet came along, then online gaming chat like Xbox live (you had to grow some thick skin there, as you were called every racial slur, and other derogatory shit, for the fun of it), and then social media. Conservatives didn't control the top slots in these things.


They weren't used to being called out in public ways.They weren't used to being called things that they got away with before by doing the same to others, but not thinking it was wrong, but normal. Is this a form of white privilege? Is this why they are making a fuss over social media, trying to make it sound like they are victims, because they are not used to this after centuries of worse being done to the left and minorities by them? And this is now news?


Every time I go to Yahoo News, they bring up incidents about some MAGA hat being stolen, a teacher not allowing a Trump support doing a report on Trump, or a Trump supporter being harassed... Then I look at the Obama years, remembering how people were being fired if they supported him, and also being harassed. But this, in comparison to what has been done against minorities, is nothing.


For centuries minorities have been attacked and killed, and actually persecuted, that goes beyond a simple article of clothing being stolen. And the right is often behind the promotion of this. And while incidents against minorities fluctuate from decade to decade, it's currently on the rise, with people like Trump inadvertently promoting it with his identity politics and negative stereotypes against them.


The rise of far right violence has been steadily climbing over the last 40 years, becoming more and more frequent. But funnily enough, it seem like we don't hear about this as often, or it treated just as equally as a MAGA Hat being stolen. Maybe the media, especially the right, just don't want to talk about because it might send the wrong idea.


You look at the farce of a hearing in Congress over the rise of far right nationalism, and Republicans, to downplay it, invited people who were clearly not the right people to do it. One was a black Women (funny how they always find a black women to speak on behalf of a panel of white men),who was recorded praising Hitler. It's nuts.


The statistic are clear on this, minorities, are the one who bear the brunt of hate crimes, instigated by the things that Trump, and many on the right say and do. Yet, the latter is claiming to be victims of hate, and persecution, and unfairness, by the left and social media.


And social media is not the only thing that the right are going after. They also going after colleges, accusing them of drowning out conservatives voices, when campus Republicans are often inviting the most controversial people they can find, like Milo Yiannapoulo, who intentional create headline by promoting violence while playing victim.


This is the new game tactic by the right. Viciously attack the left and minorities, downplay outright violence caused by their hate speech, and bawl their eyes out to play the victim car to get public sympathy.


Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 13:50:51 (edited 2019-04-11 13:51:52)


This isn't all that recent of a development. Back before the presidential election, I was still on Facebook. I quit when I noticed any page or subject I cared about not showing in feed.


This behavior is the standard for tech/social media.


"some people who believe they're smart do nothing but talk incessantly. if they didn't, how else would they let you know how smart they are?"

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 14:21:22 (edited 2019-04-11 14:41:43)


At 4/11/19 12:55 PM, EdyKel wrote: They weren't used to being called out in public ways.They weren't used to being called things that they got away with before by doing the same to others, but not thinking it was wrong, but normal. Is this a form of white privilege? Is this why they are making a fuss over social media, trying to make it sound like they are victims, because they are not used to this after centuries of worse being done to the left and minorities by them? And this is now news?


When they say "right to free speech" they mean "right to escape criticism" or "right to be handed a megaphone". They're so used to being the default point of view on social issues that the kind of attacks they're facing feel like apocalyptic levels of oppression.


Blocking people like Milo from speaking at universities isn't oppression, the dude had zero academic credentials and already had an enormous media platform to spread his rhetoric on anyways.


This is the new game tactic by the right. Viciously attack the left and minorities, downplay outright violence caused by their hate speech, and bawl their eyes out to play the victim car to get public sympathy.


The word "snowflake" is ingenious in a way. They've convinced even nominally liberally-minded people to essentially dismiss the complaints of minorities and accept a false equivalency. The false equivalency being that criticizing right-wing ideology is just as bad as trying to convince the public that an entire minority population is dangerous, mentally ill, or inferior. Which, as you said, prompts hostility, or even serious discrimination and violence.


The word isn't just about the ridiculousness of some left-wing rhetoric. It's a slur for minorities for speak too loudly about their issues. Primarily women, but obviously others as well.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 18:34:08


At 4/11/19 02:21 PM, Entice wrote:
At 4/11/19 12:55 PM, EdyKel wrote: They weren't used to being called out in public ways.They weren't used to being called things that they got away with before by doing the same to others, but not thinking it was wrong, but normal. Is this a form of white privilege? Is this why they are making a fuss over social media, trying to make it sound like they are victims, because they are not used to this after centuries of worse being done to the left and minorities by them? And this is now news?
When they say "right to free speech" they mean "right to escape criticism" or "right to be handed a megaphone". They're so used to being the default point of view on social issues that the kind of attacks they're facing feel like apocalyptic levels of oppression.

Blocking people like Milo from speaking at universities isn't oppression, the dude had zero academic credentials and already had an enormous media platform to spread his rhetoric on anyways.


This is the new game tactic by the right. Viciously attack the left and minorities, downplay outright violence caused by their hate speech, and bawl their eyes out to play the victim car to get public sympathy.
The word "snowflake" is ingenious in a way. They've convinced even nominally liberally-minded people to essentially dismiss the complaints of minorities and accept a false equivalency. The false equivalency being that criticizing right-wing ideology is just as bad as trying to convince the public that an entire minority population is dangerous, mentally ill, or inferior. Which, as you said, prompts hostility, or even serious discrimination and violence.

The word isn't just about the ridiculousness of some left-wing rhetoric. It's a slur for minorities for speak too loudly about their issues. Primarily women, but obviously others as well.


In some ways, this is also a form of trolling. Milo knows how to use his words to grab attention, and create controversy (just like Trump), all to get more exposure to his views (and more money for speaking fees), while making the left look bad if they overreact. It's also part of a larger strategy to get the left to call them racists, or some other derogatory word, and then publicize and campaign off of it, to make people think that minorities and the left are misusing those words, to create sympathy for them - despite there clear intent to promote policies, and rhetoric, that target certain minorities groups or immigrants.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 19:52:10


You should see how fast libertarian Liberty Memes pages get zucc'd all in the name of "safety and disinformation".

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 20:54:54


At 4/11/19 06:34 PM, EdyKel wrote: In some ways, this is also a form of trolling. Milo knows how to use his words to grab attention, and create controversy (just like Trump), all to get more exposure to his views (and more money for speaking fees), while making the left look bad if they overreact. It's also part of a larger strategy to get the left to call them racists, or some other derogatory word, and then publicize and campaign off of it, to make people think that minorities and the left are misusing those words, to create sympathy for them - despite there clear intent to promote policies, and rhetoric, that target certain minorities groups or immigrants.


The reason he was successful for so long was because leftists took the bait. Once people started ignoring him, he faded into obscurity.


As for Facebook, what pisses me off is when stuff I have posted in the past that was completely within the rules then is apparently "unsafe" for the site now. I'll click to share a memory and poof, it's gone. A recent example: how the hell is this "unsafe"?

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 20:59:31 (edited 2019-04-11 21:02:13)


At 4/11/19 08:54 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: The reason he was successful for so long was because leftists took the bait. Once people started ignoring him, he faded into obscurity.


He actually faded into obscurity because he made public comments in support of pedophilia. He isn't a pagan god that disappears if you stop beliebing in him. His Conservative base would have kept him alive anyways even if he was mostly unknown to anyone else.


As for Facebook, what pisses me off is when stuff I have posted in the past that was completely within the rules then is apparently "unsafe" for the site now. I'll click to share a memory and poof, it's gone. A recent example: how the hell is this "unsafe"?


What does that have to do with their legal obligations?

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 21:46:53


At 4/11/19 08:54 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: As for Facebook, what pisses me off is when stuff I have posted in the past that was completely within the rules then is apparently "unsafe" for the site now. I'll click to share a memory and poof, it's gone. A recent example: how the hell is this "unsafe"?


I don't pretend to know how Facebook determines what is acceptable and what isn't. But I suspect this has been going on for a long time - only getting worse after the 2016 election. They may be going too far, trying to appease everyone, while appeasing no one, by trying to censure anything that may offend someone, right or left, whatever race you are, or religion, to whatever else. Or it may have something to do with copyright violations. Or it could be one of their algorithms that doesn't like certain words, glitching out, and automatically removing that content.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-04-11 22:21:20 (edited 2019-04-11 22:23:31)


At 4/11/19 09:46 PM, EdyKel wrote: I don't pretend to know how Facebook determines what is acceptable and what isn't.


Yeah, looking at that post it's full of key words that could trigger a bot. The word "fucking" and a bunch of names of groups of people?


Point is, we don't know enough about how their moderation works to jump to conclusions about who they're censoring. Bots don't understand context. For all we know a reviewer flagged it by accident. We just don't know.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-05-06 22:15:48


At 4/11/19 03:51 AM, Entice wrote: First news article I found, nothing special

Apparently, a panel of Republican representatives spoke to tech companies about alleged anti-conservative bias recently.

While I think this is mostly a political PR stunt, it is interesting to watch this unfold. Social media sites have been under increasing pressure from both sides to monitor their content more carefully after the last election cycle.

Even if true, should companies like Facebook have a legal obligation to be politically unbiased? I think that requirement in itself would either eventually create censorship or be censorship in itself.

Is there bias coming from tech companies?

What are their legal responsibilities when it comes to this matter?

Do you think that people of a certain political views are just more likely to make edgy posts that violate content guidelines?

What are your thoughts?


i'm not popular on facebook for them to notice me, but if i get banned cause i voted red last election.. then fuck em. i don't wanna be on there anyway.


Zombie: ...............

To be or not to be?

LOL! Fighto!

BBS Signature

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-06-29 23:17:24


if you show support for the US, Law Enforcement, Military, etc. , failbook will put you in FB Jail, hell they went as far as shutting down a veterans support page I belong to



BBS Signature

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-06-29 23:18:38


Outlaw Morgan said it best



BBS Signature

That's right I like guns and ponies. NO NEW GUN CONTROL.

Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense.

BBS Signature

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-09 19:20:24


At 7/9/19 06:56 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Facebook condones death threats now.

I guess this infringes on your rights to be a member of the “Dangerous Individuals” exclusive group.


As much as I don’t use Facebook, it must be easy to take a stance when you’re simply pissing in Facebook’s direction.


BBS Signature

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-09 20:45:23


At 7/9/19 06:56 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Facebook condones death threats now.


I think the problem here, just like people saying racist shit (whether they mean it, or are just trolling, or just ignorant on it), is so common, so widespread, these days, it's hard to deal with every case that constantly pops up - even though most of them are nothing more than venting anger, or to scare you off, than being anything more serious. I don't think there is any easy solution for it, because so many people do it because it's so easy to do from the comfort of your own home anonymously. This makes trying to find the more serious cases more difficult to find.


The Supreme court even weighed in on it, and they basically backed the defendant of the case who constantly made death threats to his ex-wife, reversing his convictions by lower courts. From what I understand of this case, the Supreme Court basically said it's okay to make death threats as long there is no intent to follow up on them.


Personally, I don't condone death threats, I think they are one of the worst things you can say to someone, even if they are said out of trolling. But looking at the article, and who it's from, Paul Joseph Watson, I'm not feeling any real sympathy towards him, since his livelihood is to promote hatred, persecution, and racism, against other groups, creating the very conditions for death threats again them and his critics, while whining at a fraction of what he invites from it all. His article is just one big victimization rant against FB. The hypocrisy is clearly on his end on this.


Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-11 20:12:00


Today, Trump held a free speech summit, but only invited far right sites that constantly lick his ass, because he accused the rest of the media, including social media sites, of being biased against him and conservatives. Of course, nothing about this summit sounded like it was in support of free speech, much less about being non-biased. It was just one huge SJW propaganda rant of thinned skinned, easily but hurt, individuals in the White House and in the far right media.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-11 23:23:08


Cranky old people versus cranky old people: where is the story?

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-12 18:33:54 (edited 2019-07-12 18:40:53)


The funny thing is under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Facebook Twitter and YouTube really don't have to do anything, seeing as they are service providers they cannot be treated as publisher of content. This is 2L First Amendment precedent.


 "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" 


have you guys ever wondered how Alex Jones and social media platforms get away with so much? As long as literal US laws (no one cares about the EU or UK) aren't broken you can say pretty much anything and provide service to these publishers of content as long as due diligence is done with moderation and as long as you provide enough context to get transformative information to form an opinion which is covered under freedom of expression.


if you don't believe me go to Wikipedia or google First Amendment Case Law theirs a literal crap ton!


Now this doesn't stop and mean YouTube or Facebook cant deplatform (that's a different argument) you as they are private entities and have the right to do so but I've seen articles of Google employees saying Google doesn't want to give up on these fringe guys because they bring in ad revenue and metrics like crazy I'll try and find it.


lol I posted this in the wrong thread I was on my phone.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-16 21:26:14 (edited 2019-07-16 21:40:51)


Not sure where to put this, but I found it pretty interesting about how some conspiracies are promoted - and this one had a WTF moment to it.


This particular one was over a conspiracy that the DNC hack was done by a Democrat operative, Seth Rich, who was assassinated because of it.


Basically, a lobbyists, funded a conspiracy reenactment of it, making up whatever looked and sounded good to him. To help promote it, he offered a larger reward for information leading to Rich's killer/s, even getting his Rich's parents to fly to Washington for a press conference.


Rich's Parents eventually realized it was a publicity stunt, and were angry, with the lobbyist saying "it was driven by my own animal desires for a better image".


Then it goes to hiring amateur sleuths, hiring a film crew, with a huge contradictory plot with Seth Rich calling Assange while also going to a Russian operative. It was completely chaotic, fueled by the lobbyist's imagination. The lobbyist later admitting that it was all for purely entertainment value.


He then offered a reward for any information that would show corruption from the FBI over it, and got a response to it which told him to go to a secluded parking lot. The lobbyists did this, then was shot. The shooter was later caught and identified by police as the Lobbyist's former security specialist who was hired to investigate the Seth Rich murder, which turned out to be a dispute over who owned the copyright of this project.


The lobbyist now admits that it was his blind obsession which led him to being shot, because he " I wanted to see what I wanted to see".

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-17 10:56:08


At 7/16/19 09:26 PM, EdyKel wrote: stuff


Now that's a plot I would definitely read in a book. If I were that guy I would definitely write a book about it and option it as a movie.


I'm a sucker for good story telling and narrative.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-17 14:16:10


At 7/17/19 10:56 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
At 7/16/19 09:26 PM, EdyKel wrote: stuff
Now that's a plot I would definitely read in a book. If I were that guy I would definitely write a book about it and option it as a movie.

I'm a sucker for good story telling and narrative.


I think it's a cautionary tell of those pursuing their dreams.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-17 16:37:06


At 7/9/19 06:56 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Facebook condones death threats now.


Good, let's flood Fuckerberg with them pretending to be angry Hawaiian tribal folk!

also title is somewhat wrong, it should be EVERYONE vs fæcesbook for ridiculously scummy practices in general.

Now let's set up the siege equipment and burn it all down!

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-07-22 07:01:43


At 7/17/19 04:37 PM, OpusFreiling wrote:
At 7/9/19 06:56 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Facebook condones death threats now.
Good, let's flood Fuckerberg with them pretending to be angry Hawaiian tribal folk!
also title is somewhat wrong, it should be EVERYONE vs fæcesbook for ridiculously scummy practices in general.
Now let's set up the siege equipment and burn it all down!


You're making me regret making the thread if this is the kind of garbage discussion it's going to generate.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-08-17 14:07:28


Oh no, the Mooch, former Trump White House Communications Director, twitter account was suspended because he called Trump fat. It's a conspiracy against the right by the evil leftest social sites

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-08-23 21:59:40 (edited 2019-08-23 22:02:14)


At 4/11/19 12:55 PM, EdyKel wrote: Yeah, Conservatives are on the warpath against Social media, especially Trump and Rep. Nunes. These guys aren't victims, they bullies, who are snowflakes. And this tells you all you need to know about this.

They weren't used to being called out in public ways.They weren't used to being called things that they got away with before by doing the same to others, but not thinking it was wrong, but normal. Is this a form of white privilege? Is this why they are making a fuss over social media, trying to make it sound like they are victims, because they are not used to this after centuries of worse being done to the left and minorities by them? And this is now news?

Every time I go to Yahoo News, they bring up incidents about some MAGA hat being stolen, a teacher not allowing a Trump support doing a report on Trump, or a Trump supporter being harassed... Then I look at the Obama years, remembering how people were being fired if they supported him, and also being harassed. But this, in comparison to what has been done against minorities, is nothing.

For centuries minorities have been attacked and killed, and actually persecuted, that goes beyond a simple article of clothing being stolen. And the right is often behind the promotion of this. And while incidents against minorities fluctuate from decade to decade, it's currently on the rise, with people like Trump inadvertently promoting it with his identity politics and negative stereotypes against them.

The rise of far right violence has been steadily climbing over the last 40 years, becoming more and more frequent. But funnily enough, it seem like we don't hear about this as often, or it treated just as equally as a MAGA Hat being stolen. Maybe the media, especially the right, just don't want to talk about because it might send the wrong idea.

You look at the farce of a hearing in Congress over the rise of far right nationalism, and Republicans, to downplay it, invited people who were clearly not the right people to do it. One was a black Women (funny how they always find a black women to speak on behalf of a panel of white men),who was recorded praising Hitler. It's nuts.

The statistic are clear on this, minorities, are the one who bear the brunt of hate crimes, instigated by the things that Trump, and many on the right say and do. Yet, the latter is claiming to be victims of hate, and persecution, and unfairness, by the left and social media.


You guys are still trying to steal the "snowflake" meme? Lol it's a dead meme.


Normal=/=right and just because it's normal where you are doesn't mean it's normal everywhere. Centuries of worse being done? All races have had to struggle, which is why it is called a race and also why whites are now being targeted. Brazil is a great example of where egalitarianism leads, because egalitarianism is unnatural.


As for your whines about selective reporting, it has been pointed out before that you are all for selective reporting if it is in your favor. Your only real problem is when it doesn't show your specific narrative. What minorities? The White race is a minority (including much of the US and many countries that used to be mostly White) and South Africans have been facing slaughter. Sorry but Whites get targeted too, and Whites are not magically different than other races when they do it.


You do not want to talk about statistics either, it's already been pointed out to you that blacks and other non-whites commit the majority of violent crimes.


You are the one that plays victim for non-Whites. Talking about how non-Whites have been historically oppressed when that makes no sense, every race has faced racial and interpersonal competition, slavery, and slaughter. You are just trying to put the chips on the non-Whites corner like always because you are so desperate to push this egalitarian narrative.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-08-23 22:23:20 (edited 2019-08-23 22:25:44)


At 4/11/19 02:21 PM, Entice wrote: When they say "right to free speech" they mean "right to escape criticism" or "right to be handed a megaphone". They're so used to being the default point of view on social issues that the kind of attacks they're facing feel like apocalyptic levels of oppression.

Blocking people like Milo from speaking at universities isn't oppression, the dude had zero academic credentials and already had an enormous media platform to spread his rhetoric on anyways.

The word "snowflake" is ingenious in a way. They've convinced even nominally liberally-minded people to essentially dismiss the complaints of minorities and accept a false equivalency. The false equivalency being that criticizing right-wing ideology is just as bad as trying to convince the public that an entire minority population is dangerous, mentally ill, or inferior. Which, as you said, prompts hostility, or even serious discrimination and violence.


False conflation, being allowed to speak on the megaphone already there for speakings and discussion is not the same as demanding your own megaphone. How many people are actually buying your game that because of your self-righteousness that you cannot possibly be the "oppressor?" It's really just because you hate those pointing out your hypocrisy when you whine about oppression but are just as ready to do it yourself. It is the nature of eat or be eaten and we will not fall for your lies that say (with the intent to eat) otherwise.


Which "minorites," where, and what are the complaints? Also this discussion was not of criticism but of censorship, in which you randomly switched to the word "criticism" out of your own disingenuity. It is no false equivalence for them to point out that one side is being censored, regardless of the contents or your favoritism of "minority complaints."

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-08-23 23:05:17 (edited 2019-08-23 23:12:37)


At 8/23/19 09:59 PM, DragonLimbo wrote: You guys are still trying to steal the "snowflake" meme? Lol it's a dead meme.


It seems to fit many people on the right, along with the SJW title, since they are always whining about being victims of the left because of something said about any one of them. Their whinings have nothing else to show for, certainly not actual violence, like mass shootings, or any actual persecution that affects their daily lives. It just basically comes down to being thin skin, and always crying about any criticism that is directed towards certain white groups. I call that being a snowflake, and seeking social justice against them. It's all so silly, like some superficial flame war.


Normal=/=right and just because it's normal where you are doesn't mean it's normal everywhere. Centuries of worse being done? All races have had to struggle, which is why it is called a race and also why whites are now being targeted. Brazil is a great example of where egalitarianism leads, because egalitarianism is unnatural.


Oh, true, all races have to struggle, but the dominate race, or culture, in a country, which controls the jobs, money, politics, and even laws, usually shits over other races, or cultures, in an attempt to keep things in an advantage towards itself. That's just the human nature. In a country that tilts to the right, it usually involves slaping down anything that is different. So, by that simple fact, the only whites that are being targeted are those who support racism, and persecution, and those who try to downplay it.


And Brazil is not an egalitarianism, outside gender equality, especially after they elected a Brazilian Trump for President, who words have most likely led to the burning of the largest rain forest in the word.


As for your whines about selective reporting, it has been pointed out before that you are all for selective reporting if it is in your favor. Your only real problem is when it doesn't show your specific narrative. What minorities? The White race is a minority (including much of the US and many countries that used to be mostly White) and South Africans have been facing slaughter. Sorry but Whites get targeted too, and Whites are not magically different than other races when they do it.


I couldn't agree more... To bad you don't realize it yourself that is what you are always doing. I take that into consideration all the time, but I like to rely on actual statistics and facts to come to my own conclusion on things. But I have noticed the right, especially Trump, attack anything that is critical, or undermines, their argument, by calling everything they don't like as fake news. We are also living in a time where people don't want to be political correct, especially the right, so they can live in a fantasy world of their own making where they are the good guys, and everyone else is mean and bad, based on nothing but wanting to believe that.


White make up 70% in the US, so it's not really a minority.


You do not want to talk about statistics either, it's already been pointed out to you that blacks and other non-whites commit the majority of violent crimes.


Yes, and statistics show that whites disproportionately control the most wealth by an astronomical ratio in comparison to any other group in the country, and poverty usually leads to a lot of crime - even if laws are draconic, or their is a lot of racial profiling. And the very same statistic source that you are using, also show that whites, particularly far right, white males, are more likely to be extremists, committing, or trying to commit, some huge atrocity - and they are already surpassing Muslim terrorists attacks in this country.


You are the one that plays victim for non-Whites. Talking about how non-Whites have been historically oppressed when that makes no sense, every race has faced racial and interpersonal competition, slavery, and slaughter. You are just trying to put the chips on the non-Whites corner like always because you are so desperate to push this egalitarian narrative.


I just go by statistics, while slapping down whinny arguments like yours about whites being victims - which is based mostly on you people being thin skinned about any criticism towards whites.

Response to Republicans vs. Facebook 2019-09-04 20:51:12