Twitter Bans QAnon But Discussions on “Attraction Towards Minors” Are Permitted

submitted by scrubking from (thegatewaypundit.com)

all 70 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted]  (51 children)

[deleted]

    [–]beermeem 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    It is pretty amazing the sites that state AG’s have gone after but Twitter is (somehow) untouchable.

    [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Because money. Companies like Twitter "donate" to AG's campaigns or the campaigns of the people who appoint them.

    [–]happysmash27 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (46 children)

    The left hates pedophiles. I was banned from /r/Anarchism in large part for saying that the distribution of child pornography (but not filming) should be legal (due to my strong belief in freedom of speech, expression, and information), and have been banned from many other places for trying to discuss this belief and change it. Everyone in the LGBTQ+ community who I have heard talk about pedophilia talks about it in a bad light, and say that pedophiles are not welcome in the LGBTQ+ community. I can't even say why I was banned from /r/Anarchism on /r/Libertarian, because it supposedly violates Reddit's rules to do so. Maybe some fringe people on the left may push for pedophilia, but I can assure you that the mainstream left is heavily against it, and will try to silence you if you come even close to advocating for it.

    I cannot take such an argument that the left pushes for pedophilia seriously, when I have gotten so badly censored by the left for an opinion that doesn't even advocate for pedophilia itself, that it made me suicidal.

    [–]ekitten 24 insightful - 3 fun24 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

    The distribution of child pornography should not be legal what the fuck jesus christ

    [–]happysmash27 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    Do you also believe the distribution of violent video games should be illegal?

    If not, why do you believe that one depiction of one harmful act should be legal, but not the depiction of another?

    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Shut up you utter cretin. Violent video games do not have a victim. The distribution of child porn creates a demand, and there are paedophiles that will meet that demand by abusing children.

    [–]happysmash27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Some child pornography also does not have a victim, i.e, anything fictional that is drawn or computer rendered, rather than filmed in real life.

    Perhaps I should also add, that I do not think paying an abuser for their abuse should be legal. This includes the act of buying meat, as that indirectly causes the murder of animals who did nothing to deserve it.

    Would you find reasonable the position that the distribution of anything with a victim involved in its production should be illegal, but that depiction in fiction can be legal?

    [–]latuspod 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    What a stupid fucking comparison jesus fuckong christ. Video games hurt no one, in order for child porn to be made a child has to actually be hurt

    [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    in order for child porn to be made a child has to actually be hurt

    First of all, I already said that the filming/partaking in child pornography, where the actual harm takes place, should be illegal. I am talking about distribution only, and even then, I do not think it should be legal to pay money for footage of abuse, as that incentivises it.

    Secondly, in some cases child pornography can be made where no child is hurt, where it is drawn or animated. Although my opinion on live action is shaky, I firmly believe that one should be allowed to draw any image one wants, provided that it is fictional.

    [–][deleted] 17 insightful - 3 fun17 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

    "I have gotten so badly censored by the left......that it made me suicidal."

    Maybe don't promote pedophilia you sick fuck?

    [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

    Maybe actually say why child pornography is so bad instead of assuming everyone knows already? I had no idea it was a controversial idea at all until I received so much backlash. I always interpreted it (and still interpret it) as the same as violent video games: depicting a harmful act, but not actually harming anyone in real life. In general, sexual norms in society confuse me a lot. I have seen well-written arguments for pedophiles being more accepted (e.g, this article), but whenever anyone argues against it, they always assume the person they are arguing with already knows why, and just shame them instead of actually trying to convince them of anything. I can accept that the act itself is harmful, but I can't understand how one can simultaneously oppose the existence of media depicting acts which can't be done consensually in real life, while supporting the existence of violent video games where one is virtually killing people, which also is rarely consensual in real life.

    [–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

    any sexual act with a child is rape. CP is rape

    [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    So violent video games are murder then?

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I already said on my original comment, that the filming of child pornography should be illegal. I was talking about distribution after the fact, not the creation. And, I also believe paying for filmed child pornography should be illegal, in order to not incentives it. I do, however, believe that the creation of fictional, drawn or computer-generated child pornography should be legal, because literally nobody is harmed in that. Though, from what I understand, that is already in a legal grey area.

      I also feel that one should not be able to be charged of having naked photos of oneself, as has happened in the past.

      Imagine having no idea if the guy standing behind you at the grocery store just jacked off to images or videos of you being raped. An adult does not have the right to distribute a sexual video of another adult without express permission.

      This is why my opinion gets a whole lot weaker, as it involves an actual video of an actual person filmed non-consentually. I didn't bother to specify that initially, though, because I didn't anticipate people arguing about the opinion itself, rather than the censorship of it. I guess I must always be on guard when mentioning it.

      Here's a question though: should such a video be allowed to be distributed, if the person retroactively consents to the distribution after turning 18? I would retroactively give consent for others to view bad things that have happened to me in the past, if enough people wanted to.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I'm talking about what I think should be legal, not what is currently legal.

        And, as I already said, I still think that the sexual activity itself should not be legal. I am talking about the distribution of recordings after the fact, not partaking in and filming of them (or even paying for them), which is much more problematic.

        [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Videos of people being murdered are videos of people being murdered.

        Videos of people being raped are videos of people being raped

        straw man arguments are straw man arguments

        traps are gay, like you.

        [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        Creating CP may be rape, but the claim that downloading it is rape is not only stupid but literally benefits pedos. It is precisely this mentality that allows the elites to get away with literal child brothels while putting away "pedophiles" who did nothing more than download illegal content. If not for that kind of scapegoating more people would be asking why nothing is being done about pedophiles.

        [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        strawman argument.

        Downloading CP enables rapists, by creating a market for filth.

        Stop it

        [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Porn does not "enable" rapists. That is an illogical and incorrect claim. It also does not create a market unless you are paying for it. And if you were half awake you would have noticed that the biggest child porn busts that tracked credit cards back to the purchasers found that most of them went to the Pentagon and defense contractors; that investigation was quickly shut down. They no longer go after those people, they go after the people who share porn for free. That literally undercuts the child porn industry. The government is literally enforcing a child porn monopoly for the child porn producers.

        Stop being emotional about it and actually use your brain.

        [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        it is simple:

        Don't download, view, or distribute Child Pornography.

        use your fucking brain.

        [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        That is not relevant to anything I said.

        Downloading CP is illegal. So is raping children. One is far worse than the other. Conflating them is not only stupid, it is harmful.

        [–]cybitch 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

        due to my strong belief in freedom of speech, expression, and information

        What part of recordings of people getting fucked has anything to do with any of those 3 terms?

        [–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        In the case of minors, it's not "fucked," which implies consent, but RAPED. Please don't use the casual "having sex" or "fucking" when we're talking about RAPING BABIES.

        [–]NiceDickBro 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Yep. In the same vein it’s while I’m against the term child porn, it’s not porn, it’s sexual abuse material.

        [–]cybitch 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I know, I was approaching this from the general POV of what videos of any animal of any age having sex/being raped have to do with "free speech". Everyone is already aware that stuff goes on, noone is trying to silence the truth on it and there are already tons of other places you can go see it.

        [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

        Recordings are information, able to be expressed in numbers, usually 1s and 0s, and I do not believe that illegal numbers should exist. This is the same reason why I believe digital piracy should be legal, and I also do not believe someone should be able to go to jail just because someone else sent them illegal information.

        [–]cybitch 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        I'm sure noone would mind if you were to consume the recording in the form of a number, people wouldn't be able to tell what it is then. It's the non-number form people tend to take issue with. And overall, what is the value of allowing these recordings to not only exist, but to also be sent to others? I support free speech, but only in matters that count as the protection of someone's rights - open debate on issues of race and gender from the perspective of all sides for example. The only rights involved with these recordings are the ones being broken by them, so free speech is not an excuse to support them IMO.

        [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        It still, effectively, ends up making certain numbers and strings of characters illegal, and that is the main thing that bothers me. It also means that someone can send someone else illegal data, to get them in trouble. The current way these laws are implemented makes it far too easy to frame someone.

        People's rights are also (fictionaly) broken in any media where someone kills someone else, yet there is much less support for banning that type of media entirely. Do you also propose banning violent video games and TV?

        I also forgot to mention the way this violates freedom of expression. The way some of these laws are implemented, it is also illegal to create fictional depictions of child pornography, which I am a lot more opposed to making illegal than I am of recordings, because it shouldn't be illegal to draw certain things on a piece of paper, especially those that are feasible to draw in a short amount of time. Courts have agreed with this at times, though; fictional child pornography is currently in a legal grey area in the US, from what I understand.

        I support free speech, but only in matters that count as the protection of someone's rights

        TBH, I don't even care so much about this issue itself much anymore, but rather, just want to be able to discuss it without fear of being banned. That was the main point in my original comment, not that child pornography should be legal to distribute (which is just the opinion from a couple years ago I was banned from a lot of places for). I have no skin in the game regarding the legality of child pornography, but I do have skin in the game regarding the ability to discuss it, because unexpected censorship of it has harmed me a lot in the past.

        A slightly separate issue from this: the heavy stigma about paedophilia can harm people, including children. It also ended up harming me at age 16, despite not being a pedophile myself, because it clashed with my radical ideas about freedom of information.

        Edit: Also, I think it's somewhat ridiculous that minors can be charged for having illegal images of themselves. Is that not a bit overkill?

        Thank you for responding so high on the pyramid of debate, by the way. I am going to give you an insightful vote, just for being so much more civil than a lot of other people have been about this. Usually I would try to make it more clear that I am mainly talking about the ability to express my opinion, and not the opinion itself, but I didn't feel as much need to this time because there are little to no hidden rules preventing one from saying certain opinions on SaidIt. It seems the comments have evolved to talking about the opinion itself, though, rather than just the ability to express it.

        [–]cybitch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        There is always the possibility of people being framed for any crime by others who wish them harm, this doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law against it. Currently if you send anyone anything illegal, it's you who will be on the hook for it, not them. Sending them is considered distribution, so the person they're trying to frame should be grateful for those laws.

        As far as banning violent video games etc, I'm not sure the depiction of violence and the depiction of sex have similar effects. For one thing, violence is usually depicted as either having a reason of some sort, or being applied indiscriminately towards people of any race or sex. Sexual activity is by nature discriminatory, one gender, or age group, is being "targeted" and therefore "othered" by the person who's consuming the media. This can have a detrimental effect on how that group of people, and their rights, are viewed by the consumer as the media will only take their POV into consideration. The target group is only depicted in the context of what is pleasurable for the consumer. And, because of the nature of the male and female sex drives, even people who aren't searching specifically for the content directed at them will not come across any recordings of this nature in which they are the othered group as opposed to the consumer. This will work to essentially cut them off from ever being able to really empathize with the target of their sexual desires. Instead their biased views of the target group will be confirmed. So the analogy doesn't work - sexual activity is "directed" while violence can be applied to anyone by anyone.

        As for minors being charged for owning the nude images of themselves, yes, it's overkill, but that doesn't mean sexual behavior needs to be encouraged when it comes to this demographic. Sexual behavior has consequences, reminding teenagers of that is not a bad thing. That doesn't mean abstinence needs to be preached, but this whole modern day culture of not "kink shaming" and teenagers being put on hormone pills is not the way to go either.

        [–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

        No, the left just wants to look like they oppose pedophilia, while they try to legalize it and bring about the "do as thou wilt" 'legal system'. Also, if you think distributing child porn isn't inciting sickos to perform similar acts, I think any shrink will qualify you as being a sicko yourself.

        [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

        TBH, I think it would be more likely to stop them from performing such acts, because they would have an alternative outlet for their urges. Maybe I am wrong, though.

        [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

        Test if it works for you: stop looking at porn or touching yourself for a month or 3. Then start doing it again, and note if you get MORE the urge to indulge while abstinent or the reverse.

        [–]happysmash27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I originally started masturbating in the first place to reduce sexual desire (it was one of the suggested methods when I looked it up online), and it seems to have worked pretty well. As for porn, I rarely look at it anyways.

        [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        I'm pretty sure not masturbating is widely acknowledged to increase motivation to find a partner. My personal experience with blue balls is that I am far more pervy around hot girls when I am horny. Is that seriously not your experience?

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Have YOU done that experiment? Why take anybody else's word for it? Why do you think the word is going to shit in a bucket and fast? Because people BELIEVE what's being said. From 'sources'.

        Whatever happened to figuring stuff out for yourself, you know?

        [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        My personal experience with blue balls

        What part of that did you not understand?

        [–]dong_master 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

        This is the kind of Reddit degenerate we don't need on saidit.

        [–]happysmash27 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Most Reddit subs either ban me or remove my comment if I say anything about it. Half the reason I am on SaidIt in the first place, is that I am allowed to say this without getting banned.

        [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Anarchists are rightists of the far-extreme. That can only lead to chaos.

        Libertarian ideology, not all, but many ideologuesdo promote debauchery and degeneracy.

        [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Anarchism is right though, no?

        [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I don't even know at this point. I just wish they hadn't judged me for a single view I had, rather than my contributions as a whole.

        [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        All anarchism would do is bring despots into power eventually. It cannot be sustained.

        [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        can't advocate violence, so K stands for anything but kill. KYS

        [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        For… having a single bad opinion, when I do so much else completely unrelated to it? Seems a bit intense. It would make lots of people around me very sad, and I wouldn't be able to finish my pull request to wf-recorder, or make more 3D art, or music, or anything, as I would be dead. I wouldn't be able to push for less divisiveness of BLM/ALM, or, anything, really. But, I considered trying to anyway a couple years ago, after original ban, and after mentioning this ended up in an extremely abusive mental hospital that didn't help with anything at all, and may have made things worse. Would not recommend, -4/10.

        [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Sounds to me like that mental hospital needs another visit.

        [–]Lahontan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Wasn't stemming child abuse and human trafficking the main tenets of the EARN IT act? Or was that just the facade, and "pedophilia is really fine we just had to say that in order to track everyone across the whole Internet" ?

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        It's about tracking political dissidents, not pedos. The government wants to be able to see everything people do online so they can easily arrest or frame those who would vote against the establishment (Democrats and Republicans), like Independents and Libertarians.

        Everyone does something illegal, even if it's just a minor misdemeanor. And once they can see what you do online, they can sift through your activity and pick out every crime or maybe-crime you've ever committed and throw you in jail. Even if they can't prove that you did something illegal, there's a pretty big chance they'll be able to find reasonable suspicion to arrest and detain you (sometimes for months).

        [–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

        Matthew 7:16

        [–]bald-janitor 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

        Adl was created to defend a kike pedo

        [–]noice 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Leo Frank? I was just learning about this.

        https://www.insight-media.co/2019/11/30/anti-defamation-league-rapist-murderer-leo-frank/

        [–]galaxybrain 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Sick bastards.

        [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        What is not a violation of this policy? Discussions related to child sexual exploitation as a phenomenon or attraction towards minors are permitted, provided they don’t promote or glorify child sexual exploitation in any way.

        I don't see what the problem is with their rules. Do you propose we bury our heads in the sand and pretend these things don't exist?

        [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        Psyop. Qanon is a PsyOp banning them is too. Twitter be having fun with hedge fund owner and Zionist Paul singer who hates Trump but gave him millions for his campaign anyway.

        You censor the Controlled Ops. to set a precedent to ban the REAL TRUTH SEEKERS.

        [–]libertarian 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        They also ban the controlled oppositions to make them look credible to the "woke" ppl

        [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Yup. You get it. Steven Crowder is a good example. There's a video of him where he basically spits on the Palestinians and calls them dirt. If your talk show is big enough to have on Ted Cruz, a corporate Masonic zionist, multiple times, then your YouTube bans probably won't last long.

        I'll give you a little story. Remember that b-film Hollywood actor named Isaac Kappy (is he dead? Who really knows) that said Tom Hanks was a pedophile and molested children? Well Kappy provided zero proof for these accusations which is libel. But, somehow, this story was picked up by national news, as I believe it was designed to!

        The hilarious thing is none of Kappy's videos were deleted by YouTube censors but when they went to purge all these supposed videos which they deemed libels because of this Kappy precedent they merely banned videos EXPOSING KAPPY of being a shill. They also banned real truth seeking, well researched videos on 9/11, Israeli terrorism, and plenty of other stuff.l on corporations. I saw it with my own eyes. These people are brilliant at staging PsyOps and using them to garner support foe a cause.

        [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        These people are brilliant at staging PsyOps and using them to garner support foe a cause.

        It's called a false flag. They aren't nearly as brilliant as it may seem if you only consider how successful they are at it. The reality is that many people see through it but can't do anything about it. You occasionally get someone who gets through the noise and censorship to make that point, but there are tens of thousands who try and you don't ever even hear them. The key to their success is domination of media. That's it. They have the power to get away with it even though it is pretty transparent what they are doing.

        [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        They are brilliant at culling the masses. But that could simply be a rip at massive cognitive dissonance, ignorance, denial or apathy. You're right, I agree here.

        [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        The key to their success is domination of media. That's it.

        I agree here. Not many people can see theough this. All it takes it an hour of research to see who owns the media. Then take into account how many people have a TV (a portal to an anti-human Realm) and how many watch either Fox or CNN or Msnbc or whatever every night and you have a tremendous brainwashing apparatus that few care to know about or care to even discover its omnipotence for their own sanity.

        Walking through a neighborhood at night, it is scary seeing every neighbor sitting their watching the TV.

        But it's their choice. Throw out your TV and they have no power over you!

        If everyone did that, game over.

        [–]hennaojichan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Twitter should be taken down but how?

        [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        By leaving it as is and finding something better

        [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Gab was better and they shut it down. I don't think you have as much ability to circumvent their control as you think.

        [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Gab = Gab.ai or Gabbai = doing deeds for the synagouge in Hebrew.

        [–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        'I was born this way'!=OK

        'I think a certain way'=not OK

        [–]Edge_Finder 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Of course, it's ran by Jews and Muslims

        [–]libertarian 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Please. QAnon is controlled opposition. Wake up

        [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Good. That is free speech! Would rather them censor even more people's political opinions? Because I, personally, feel that any censorship of political speech is a loss, regardless of what the views are.

        Although, full disclosure, I may be somewhat biased on this one, as one of the worst experiences of my life started with being censored by the left for extending my beliefs in freedom of speech, information, and expression (including in the context of piracy) to the distribution of child pornography, something that may fall under this type of discussion. Also, I was even censored for trying to change those views, in many other places on Reddit too. So, although I would still probably disagree with censoring such discussion either way, the fact that censoring such discussions has also resulted in me being censored many times (which indirectly led to suicidal thoughts and, uh, this, which I don't really want to talk about), makes me especially not amiable to pushing for more censorship of it.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        maybe they want to keep that on twitter so pedos talk about it and then the FBI can easily catch them

        [–]bagano1 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Can't that get them shut down?