65

And now, even Simon and Schuster is participating in the cancel culture by dropping the publishing of Senator Hawley’s book, “The Tyranny of Big Tech”, in which he argues “… big tech companies, such as Facebook and Google, represent the gravest threat to American liberty since the monopolies of the Gilded Age.”

This is the same kind of crap that happens in communist/socialist countries like China, Venezuela and Cuba.

As much as I disagree with the politics of e.g., Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, and Biden, I would never support suppressing them from expressing their un-American communist/socialist views using the same vehicles open to their rivals.

Having said that, I still am unable to track down evidence of the alleged violations of the WalkAway campain on Facebook.

First the President is cut off, then Sen. Hawley’s book is cancelled, then the WalkAway Facebook page is taken down. . . do you not see a dangerous and un-American pattern developing to cancel conservative speech?

JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel

1 Like
67

They dropped him because he was encouraging and inciting violence.

Simon and Schuster done want to represent that type of person.

68

But being black and burning down buildings is cool.

1 Like
69

You didn’t answer the question

Is it “conservative speak” to openly plan attacks on the US government?

I don’t understand why peaceful conservatives are so quick to associate their brand of conservatism with the brand that openly plans attacks on the US government

70

Of course it’s not.

Is it unfair to associate the riots, looting, destruction, and arson with the BLM movement?

71

Nol. It’s socialist/communists speaking:

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

72

Yes, which is why I am wondering why some conservatives are associating their brand with the people who rioted at the Capitol.

73

Why is it unfair to make that association but ok to associate all conservatives with what happened the other day?

1 Like
74

Then why are you associating your brand of conservatism with the brand that rioted at the capitol? With the brand that openly plans attacks on the US government?

75

I didn’t make that association. John did. You did.

You keep saying “conservatives” are being banned from Twitter or Facebook. Banning Parler is an attack on “us”

No it isn’t, especially if you want to differentiate yourself from the craziness at the Capitol. They made this happen and they are paying the price for it. You and other sensible conservatives are still on Twitter and Facebook.

1 Like
76

I’ve said they shouldn’t have stormed the Capitol. Yet I’m still being lumped in.

Yet it’s unfair to associate the entire BLM movement with arson and destruction?

I don’t get it.

1 Like
77

We all know that won’t last. This is only the beginning, and I’ve been consistent that political violence for ANY cause is unacceptable. I don’t see that stance from the left.

2 Likes
78

You keep lumping yourself in.

YOU aren’t being banned from Twitter or Facebook. YOU aren’t the reason Parler got deplatformed.

But yet you keep saying (paraphrase) “they are attacking us”

Not they are not. They are banning the crazies

1 Like
79

There’s plenty of left-wing incitement that’s still on Twitter, but that violence is acceptable.

1 Like
80

Then report it…

How much of it is done by someone with 88 million followers?

81

Are they? Under 230?

82

That’s kind of silly.

83

Get back to me when the Portland Youth Liberation Front is deplatformed.

2 Likes
84

Silly to report violence on Twitter?

85

Shouldn’t they have an algorithm that detects it? Or only if it targets a protected group?

2 Likes