Laura Loomer banned from Twitter after criticizing Ilhan Omar

I don't think that action should've been taken against Loomer, but I think that action SHOULD have been taken against the piece of human waste Farrakhan. However, if Twitter want to consider Loomers tweet as hateful, then they have no choice but to consider Farrakhan's hateful too. If Twitter actually believed that Loomers tweet was hateful and Farrakhan's wasn't, then they acted correctly according to what they believed. However, no OBJECTIVE person with half a brain could come to that conclusion. And given that apparently, no single objective person works in Twitter's department responsible for actioning suspensions and bans, they decided to ban Loomer after they gave the piece of human waste Farrakhan a free pass some months earlier. This shows Twitters GROSS double standard!

The majority of terrorists are Muslim which means that a connection can be made between Islam and terrorism. What exactly is the connection between Jews and termites?

You left out this section from my last reply to you: Twitter bans speech which attacks on the basis of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. Which of those tweets do you think fits that criteria?

 

That’s your opinion, others clearly have different ones. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that you’re not just accusing Twitter of being wrong, you’re accusing them of being actively politically biased. I’m not necessarily saying they’re actions were correct, only that you’ve failed to provide any evidence of political bias.

I don’t know and neither do you. Hence my point about the intent and meaning of that tweet being unclear. Banning Farrakhan from the site based on his wider behaviour could well be legitimate, banning someone on the basis of that tweet alone without gathering any further context (and apparently this is wider context, I’ve just no interest in digging in to it) wouldn’t be.

And again, you’re still working on the unsupported assumption that Loomer was outright banned on the basis of that single tweet alone.

Loomer definitely – she made negative assumptions about an individual on the basis of her religion. Farrakhan’s probably but only based on what else I (now) know about him.

 

Just exactly what would you need to see in order to see political bias?

Is it your understanding that there is a widely recognised connection between Jews and termites?

Forgetting about the fact that we don't know if Twitter based their decision on Loomer's recent tweet alone, would you say that it would be "legitimate" to ban her on that tweet alone?

Did she even mention her religion?

 

Documented evidence of a discriminatory policy or some kind of confession. Motive is often very difficult to prove.

Still no. How many different ways can I say that I don’t understand the meaning behind that statement?

Not a permanent ban if it’s a first offence. Again, I’m not claiming that Twitters actions were necessarily correct in either case.

I think the “pro-Sharia” made it fairly clear. She wouldn’t make the same statements about a non-Muslim in the same circumstances.

 

Many, yes. So many ways.

People are bigots; it's a people thing.

 

I have no idea what forum you are speaking of

but it could be a major one like FaceBook or Twitter

 

Name ONE SINGLE way, if you are even remotely capable of doing so.

 

Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

 

So very wrong. You think its actually free? You pay with your time and personal data. Your participation gives them the foundation for making money through selling your information. And worst of all, it allows them to manipulate elections and manipulate people.

 

Battle3, that does not give the government the right to regulate social media.

 

Social media which is part of the NPS MUST be open to free speech.

 

Twitter is not a public square, it's a private club.

It exists to make money for its owners through advertising and has no other purpose.

If you want to make a Twitter-like service that grants free speech to everyone, feel....uh...free. but the first time you permit someone to come on saying we should all support the North American Man Boy Love Association (Sex Before Eight or It's Too Late) with our taxes you're going to lose all your advertisers and then you won't be giving free anything to anyone because you'll be out of business.

Social media are businesses, not public services. Unless you have one that's publicly supported they can't really exist any other way because they won't be able to make enough to pay for their cost.

If you object to Twitter's policies, tell them, and tell them you won't buy from their sponsors and you will urge all your friends not to either.

I don't know if Twitter will allow you to organize a boycott of Twitter on Twitter, but it would be interesting to find out

 

The funny thing is there is nothing to stop any of the very wealthy right wing republicans from setting up a service to compete with Twitter if they are not happy with Twitter management.

In any case, Twitter can do what the hell they care to do including following or not following their own public rules at their whims.

 

There is no N P S to be regulated.

 

Dude... he can't just due to the civil rights act. Get with the program.

 

Loomer said why she what lines got her banned.
And you proved yourself you do not know enough to participate on this topic.

 

This is nothing new...only whites get punished for this sort of thing anymore..im still shocked cnn fired that anti jew blk guy

 

Obviously so, taking my previous post into account.

You can sum up all the negative stereotypes that Jews have. Tell a Jew it has them characteristics, without saying it's because of it's ethnicity ... and than claim you're not violating the terms of agreement of twitter in a childish tantrum.

It seems they aint falling for it.
Weird

It is less explicit than Trump saying immigrants are an infestation.

Yup. And than you surely you can not be serious that Twitter could kick out black people for being black, and it doesn't fall under US law that you simply can't deny service whenever.

 

The bottom line is that free speech in the NPS MUST be protected.

It's deeply chilling to see so many liberals refuse to grasp this, as with their opposition to other foundational constitutional freedoms.

 

Did you post in English? Read your post again. Doesn't make any sense. Of course if it did it probably still wouldn't make sense.

 

In essence,... you refuse to look up what Loomer did but still want to participate in this debate.
You're making yourself impossible. I aint gonna help you out when you're too lazy.

 

Nonsense as we are not talking about a landlord such as Trump not renting to someone due to race or religion we are talking about his right not to deal with a reporter asking questions once he is a private citizen an demanding the reporter to leave his property.

Note the whitehouse is not Trump private property an his interaction with reporters as head of the executive branch of the US government is not the same as a private person.

 

In essence you posted a sentence that totally sucked that doesn't make any sense. Before that you said that they didn't ban or suspend her account for ideology. I asked you why they banned her if it was not for ideology and you still haven't answered the question. I can't answer my question for you. I suspect you don't have a good answer or you wouldn't be playing ring around the rosey with your nonsense posts.

 

In what part of Loomer's tweet did she mention Ethiopia?

Okay, but again, what do you suppose Farrakhan was saying there? Try to answer this time.

Are you under the impression that every single service in the country is considered to be a public accommodation? You might want to look up what 'public accommodations' are considered to be before you embarrass yourself any further!

 

You said "money" didn't you? Here is your post:

Are you saying that they successfully manipulated the 2016 election?