All Things Biden: Is It Over Yet?

[Tero]

[Cunt]

...it is 'left of' the republicans, so it is on the left, by everyone's understanding.

Like water is colder than steam, so it is ice by everyone's understanding?

If you are really interested, Dark Horse podcast is where they mentioned it, and you can hunt it down a bit before the election.

No, Daggles. You alleged that "The Unity Party, which was created by scientists in 2020, was quickly banned by social media." It is up to you to to back it up with evidence. It is not up to me to hunt it down.

I know what happened, if you wanted to, you could, too.

Like your attempts to change the wording around US left and right wing, it's a distraction. Doesn't change anything.

Name lefty's who would vote Turnip over Bidet.

[JimC]

Name lefty's who would vote Turnip over Bidet.

Well, you are quoted as being a bit of a lefty...

So, I suppose you!

[Cunt]

Look, Hermit, that's shitty of me, I'm having a tough time, so I'll try to make my point again.

This party, which has EVERYTHING you would like for that time/place, had a public, decent campaign stifled by your chosen media. Personally yours, since you personally don't know anything about it. You do have an interest in politics, stifling a decent campaign would probably matter to you, but nope, it isn't anywhere handy for you to find.

Of course, if you really want me to find you a podcast where Weinstein & Heying mention it, I can, but you would need to contact facebook, twitter and others for their side of things. I would, but I think they would ignore a serious inquiry.

[Tero]

You thought Obama’s tan suit was bad? It’s been one day and Joe Biden is already the most scandal-ridden president ever
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheDailyShow ... 8486181890

[Cunt]

Name lefty's who would vote Turnip over Bidet.

Well, you are quoted as being a bit of a lefty...

So, I suppose you!

I think I am, last political compass test said so, anyway.

I would probably have chosen turnip over bidet. Only if I had to though. More my style to only vote if someone makes me want to vote FOR them (as opposed to wanting to vote against them)

[Hermit]

...it is 'left of' the republicans, so it is on the left, by everyone's understanding.

Like water is colder than steam, so it is ice by everyone's understanding?

If you are really interested, Dark Horse podcast is where they mentioned it, and you can hunt it down a bit before the election.

No, Daggles. You alleged that "The Unity Party, which was created by scientists in 2020, was quickly banned by social media." It is up to you to to back it up with evidence. It is not up to me to hunt it down.

I know what happened, if you wanted to, you could, too.

Yeah, OK. I got the message. The banning of the United Party by social media never happened. You removed the last shadow of doubt by spending more time and keystrokes on insisting that I find evidence for your claim than simply providing it, because there is none.

Like your attempts to change the wording around US left and right wing, it's a distraction. Doesn't change anything.

I'm not out to change anything. The Democrats have been centrist neoliberals since at least as long ago as Bill Clinton's presidency.

Name lefty's who would vote Turnip over Bidet.

There are none I can think of, but that doesn't make the Democrats leftists. Lefties who vote for Biden do so because he was the least worst available option. There actually exists a Communist Party of the United States of America, but lefties can't vote for their candidate because the party is so small, it can't put one up.

[Hermit]

Of course, if you really want me to find you a podcast where Weinstein & Heying mention it, I can...

Please do. A link to the relevant podcast and a timestamp where the banning claim is made would at least prove that you are not the only one who made that claim. I presume that there'll be documentary evidence (see below) shown if it is a video podcast, or links to them will be given verbally if the podcast is audio only.

...but you would need to contact facebook, twitter and others for their side of things. I would, but I think they would ignore a serious inquiry.

Pointless, and no need for it. If Facebook, Twitter and others had banned the party, screencaptures proving it would be streaming all over social media like Parler (it's been back online for three days now), Rumble, MeWe, Mind et cetera, as well as messaging apps like Signal and Telegram.

[Cunt]

No need to timestamp, it's in this text below (about facebook, anyway)
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... HQAAAAAQAg

In this 51st in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss Bret’s recent Facebook ban. What are the implications for democracy when social media platforms are in the business of deciding who gets to speak? In the second half, we discuss Eric Hoffer’s 1951 book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Are there two mass movements currently competing with one another for adherents? Can creativity provide people with the power to resist such movements? What might good leadership look like?

Like I said, my point was that you wouldn't know about this, because your sources effectively banned it for you. The fact that you are trusting some Cunt to find it for you, says much about your sources.

I just hope you hear it. It's more important than our minor disagreements.

[Cunt]

No need to timestamp, it's in this text below (about facebook, anyway)
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... HQAAAAAQAg

In this 51st in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss Bret’s recent Facebook ban. What are the implications for democracy when social media platforms are in the business of deciding who gets to speak? In the second half, we discuss Eric Hoffer’s 1951 book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Are there two mass movements currently competing with one another for adherents? Can creativity provide people with the power to resist such movements? What might good leadership look like?

Like I said, my point was that you wouldn't know about this, because your sources effectively banned it for you. The fact that you are trusting some Cunt to find it for you, says much about your sources.

I just hope you hear it. It's more important than our minor disagreements.

ETA - sorry, I meant hope you look into it. Unity2020 is over, but the sources who squashed it are still doing their thing

[Hermit]

No need to timestamp, it's in this text below (about facebook, anyway)
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... HQAAAAAQAg

In this 51st in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss Bret’s recent Facebook ban. What are the implications for democracy when social media platforms are in the business of deciding who gets to speak? In the second half, we discuss Eric Hoffer’s 1951 book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Are there two mass movements currently competing with one another for adherents? Can creativity provide people with the power to resist such movements? What might good leadership look like?

Like I said, my point was that you wouldn't know about this, because your sources effectively banned it for you. The fact that you are trusting some Cunt to find it for you, says much about your sources.

I just hope you hear it. It's more important than our minor disagreements.

OK, so your claim changed from "The Unity Party, which was created by scientists in 2020, was quickly banned by social media" to "Bret [Weinstein]’s recent Facebook ban". Would you agree that this makes a considerable difference of facts? Would you further agree that this difference would make it almost impossible to find evidence that might support your original claim? You should. I mean, you are getting very close to admitting that the Unity Party never did get banned by the social media.

Next: It took me less than two minutes to find some details concerning Weinstein's recent Facebook ban. It turned out that it was a mistake. The ban was lifted six yours later, accompanied by an apology by Liz Bourgeois, Director, Strategic Response Communications at Facebook.



I don't know if Bret mentioned that in his podcast, and I don't have the time right now to listen to the first half of the one hour 38 minutes long podcast. Perhaps you could check it out. Either way, it does not look like wilful suppression of his opinion and even less like quick bans of the Unity2020 by the big tech platform operators of the social media.

[Cunt]

I listen with my usual focus.

You can't search good though. Or maybe your sources suck ass.

VERY quick search (remember, my point wasn't that I was smart, it was that YOU were uninformed about this)

https://articlesofunity.org/2020/09/pre ... itter-ban/

Abruptly, Twitter banned links to ArticlesOfUnity.org and suspended the accounts of many Unity2020 members. This suspension included the Unity2020 Twitter handle @ArticlesOfUnity, which has 25.5k followers. We conducted a thorough internal audit and found nothing that would substantiate our suspension. To date, Twitter has offered no public explanation for these actions despite a large outcry against this apparently flagrant act of censorship. Notably, Twitter has given millions of dollars in donations to political causes and is routinely accused of censoring messages for political reasons, particularly views that challenge the political establishment.

So yeah, the fact that I had to find it FOR you, kind of firms up my point. Your news is quite blinkered, in an area important to you.

[Brian Peacock]

There are two choices. You call one of them 'right' that leaves the other as 'denying they are left'...

That's not good. To label the Dems 'left' because the opposing team is labelled 'right' is fine - like calling one up and the other down, or one bacon and the other cheese, or one Republican and the other Democrat. It's distinguishing.

But you also know that this is a political label, that 'left' and 'right' have particular political connotations, and that you're not just labelling the Dems 'left' for the convenience of telling them apart from the Repugs but in order to criticise them because they're 'left' and therefore political lefties.

This isn't surprising really. The right-wing war machine has been labelling the Dems left, left-wing, radical left, far left, extreme left, far left radical socialists, and/or communists for years for that very reason. In political terms it bankrupts the meaning of left and right in order to claim and assert that the political right is really the centre and that the far-right is really the centre-right. In fact, it's an attempt to monopolise or ring fence the terms under which political debate and decisions take place.

If someone subscribes to this sort of partisan naming convention then I can understand why they might think of themselves as being a bit of a lefty even if their actual political views are centre-right or centrist. What they might ask themselves is why they're accepting this kind of off-kilter political characterisation without question, and whether a single source or political party (like the Repugs or the Dems) should be their primary source of information about politics and any and every political, social and/or economic concern.

[Brian Peacock]

There are two choices. You call one of them 'right' that leaves the other as 'denying they are left'.

Wrong. If you have two vessels containing H2O, with one of them containing steam that does not necessarily leave the other one containing ice. It's water.

And you unsurprisingly are confused about the unity. I gave you hints, but here is an actual link. Maybe you can look into it, instead of just trying to insist I am wrong. Remember, my understanding of it might be less than perfect, but the scientist and other who started it, speak much more clearly on it.

It's amusing that you didn't find it, insisting it was never banned, by the way. Contradicting reality like that isn't usually your style lol

https://articlesofunity.org/

Not so fast. I see links to four videos totalling almost two hours in length. In which video and at what time in it is there a reference to the Unity Party being banned by social media?

The weren't banned, but they suspended their social media accounts when they decided to transition from an informal pressure group run by volunteers into a certified political party.

They're a transunity party!

[Brian Peacock]

...

I'm not here to handhold. You couldn't find them because (in large part) of this ban. If you want, you can listen to their material, and make your own assessment. If you want me to tell you something, just assume that you proved me wrong, whether or not you looked into the material on your own.

This isn't good. I'm pretty sure you understand why a person's claims and assertions don't stand unless someone else proves them wrong or false. The classic example is the person who claims that God exists and then shifts the burden by challenging others to prove to their satisfaction that God doesn't exist. People generally do this when they can't support their claim if/when they're asked to, or to save face if/when they realise they're mistaken, or to just maintain that they cannot be nor ever will be wrong. Which reason do you think might apply to you here?