11
wuhan_2020_tour 11 points ago +12 / -1

Gettr censored Nick Fuentes and then suppressed Elijah Schaffer when he questioned it. They're not even close to a free-speech platform. They also "import" Twitter followers in a way that implies they're also on Gettr, which is what upset Joe Rogan. Most of the other accusations are weak sauce.

Rumble is far better on free speech. Yes their ToS forbids "hate speech", etc., but they host many controversial figures and aren't using a 2022 woke definition of hate speech (and "racism" and so on). As of now, they've mostly avoided deplatforming with these policies and are walking a fine line, unlike Gab which struggles to even have a bank account.

15
wuhan_2020_tour 15 points ago +15 / -0

This isn't news, and why 8chan was created. That said, 8chan has been relegated to the barely trafficked https://8kun.top/ after suffering hosting denial, search engine delisting, and other suppression.

2
wuhan_2020_tour 2 points ago +2 / -0

They've been going after him all along. Their case was hopeless, especially after Rittenhouse's acquittal, so they offered Dominic Black a deal where he pleas no contest to a county ordinance violation (not a crime) and pays $2000.

This is a almost the best outcome for Black, short only of Binger doing the right thing and dropping the case completely.

9
wuhan_2020_tour 9 points ago +9 / -0

Wow, someone actually wrote that unironically.

7
wuhan_2020_tour 7 points ago +7 / -0

This cheapens my own selection as 2006 Person of the Year.

9
wuhan_2020_tour 9 points ago +9 / -0

Rowling is not "based". She's a horrible liberal and feminist, who is anti-tranny for the wrong reasons, namely that she only cares about women. But it's still a good thing that someone with her platform is disrupting the narrative.

-1
wuhan_2020_tour -1 points ago +4 / -5

There have been dozen of fake Kyle Rittenhouse Twitter accounts. Is there any proof this one is real?

For all we know, he disabled his own Instagram account after getting an avalanche of hate. Or it was not his account in the first place.

14
wuhan_2020_tour 14 points ago +16 / -2

This screenshot is fake and he never tweeted this. This thread should be marked as fake news.

Edit: Someone below claims it's real but he deleted it quickly. This is possible but there is no archive to verify it.

18
wuhan_2020_tour 18 points ago +20 / -2

This tweet screenshot looks fake. It is not among his visible tweets, nor is there an archive of it. Rogen's views are definitely extreme, but that doesn't make it real.

7
wuhan_2020_tour 7 points ago +7 / -0

A similar story out of Virginia, reporting a 60% drop from last year.

They blame the pandemic, but I seem to recall that was also happening last year.

To be sure, we don't know it's because of their anti-whiteness, but no other plausible explanation is provided.

2
wuhan_2020_tour 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree GG probably believes that Floyd was killed, since, as of now, I generally trust him to say what he really thinks. But he didn't have to write it here. It's not important to his thesis, and he must know it's controversial in some quarters, yet he consciously decided to phrase it this way in this piece.

So, my speculation was that this was a signal to other liberals that he's still one of them. Otherwise (GG thinks) they might dismiss him as far-right.

30
wuhan_2020_tour 30 points ago +30 / -0

He has nothing to lose by appealing. He might at least get a charge thrown out, as Mohamed Noor did. And he has numerous grounds to ask for a new trial. Just as one example, an activist lied to get on the jury.

Appeal judges are always reluctant to grant a new trial, but when you're facing long years in prison, it's worth a shot.

3
wuhan_2020_tour 3 points ago +3 / -0

I suppose this article is aimed at his fellow non-woke liberals. To those on the right or media critics, this is very old news, and all it offers is some recent (admittedly appalling) examples of media smears.

Perhaps this explains why he refers to "the George Floyd killing" (he wasn't killed) and warns that the overuse of labels will harm the stigmatization and ostracization of "actual racists", as though actual racists are a real problem. It would be as if it were common to label political opponents "cannibals". Isn't the important part that the accusation is untrue, not that it might cause the tiny number of actual cannibals to escape notice?

view more: Next ›