simpleblend

Safe assumption.

Not an argument.

You would think that if the world is truly on the brink of devastation, it would be at least worthy of TRYING nuclear power.

This is the key. They don't want the third-world to industrialize.

"The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey")."

Wait, so how is that hate speech?

If you think that's the only piece evidence, I strongly suggest you keep looking. I'm not even a right-winger and it's obvious to me.

The FBI is notoriously subversive, regardless of the political denomination.

Right, so instead of exposing themselves legally they do an end run of telling Twitter to ban and writing smear campaigns. Which is they did to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard.

No. The FBI is prioritizing certain things and not prioritizing others. They're doing this for political reasons, which should outrage everyone.

But it doesn't outrage you because you're in agreement with the shit they're shoveling.

So Twitter needs to bad them all for you to be convinced?

Stating facts is not hate speech -- especially if you're trying to force society to go along with your unreality for political reasons.

Francis Collins and Fauci specifically targeted those two doctors.

Because leftists often use that as an example of hate speech.

Exactly

So, did you just not read the rest of my comment?

I have a really hard time believing Twitter would have reacted in similar way if an individual or company initiated the same takedowns

1. We're not talking about your company which probably had a different context. We're talking about the FBI telling Twitter to silence opinions and facts.

2. Whether you agree with the LE request has no influence on whether it's legal or not.

Good point

Exactly. Well put.

Who is saying that people should be harmed? Seriously. Whoever you have in mind, if they're actually advocating violence against people then I'm in agreement with you. That's not cool and they shouldn't be doing that.

Are you referring to calling a trans person by their biological sex?

Huh? Using the term whataboutism doesn't even make sense here.

He asked me to list political speech that was censored, which I did.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard.

You do realize that it's not the job of the FBI to police 1A speech, especially about an election, right?

It's very convenient that one side of the asile is always in a position to define what hate speech is.

Neat trick, but it doesn't work anymore.

How about prominent Stanford and Harvard doctors disagreeing with the Covid polices of the CDC?

You're not seeing the point.

The cop was telling the bouncer, "Throw that guy out."

And the bar owner did what the cop said, because the police department had threatened to shut down bar owners in the city for the last three years.

So it's your estimation that both parties were censored an equal amount?

If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them?

Or are they doing it under duress?

Of course it's the latter.

The US gov. has been threatening to take down social media companies for years. Do you think Twitter really wanted to upset them now?

So... because it's ordinary it doesn't violate 1A?