Why is nobody talking about this?? Conservatives are anti-freedom, anti-liberty, religious dogmatic fanatics that have...

using it as a fucking example because the "conservative" aspect about it hasn't changed.

>muh democrats instituted Jim Crow
conservative democrats instituted and held up Jim Crow

Democrats have tried to ban half the things on this list

CONSERVATIVE democrats

The left also didn't oppose slavery. Don't forget that. Thats one of their more admirable deeds

In the USA you can scarcely find one that isn't
Obama
Clinton
Gore
All conservatives

Say it with me: Conservatism is cancer

Attached: COuRgp6UcAAzqob.jpg (640x960, 211K)

This is a lame thread. Theres no such thing as a conservative Democrat anymore. You're so far left Obama is now a conservative Democrat. In fact every previous Democrat is now a moderate in comparison.

So you need to drop that "conservative" modifier if you wanna troll this way.

Wrong.
Liberal Americans did oppose slavery because it was against the liberal idea.

Free blacks made up a considerable portion of many leftist communities back in the day, as did other ethnic minorities who demanded proper representation.

It's that poster's "No True Scotsman"
If you give examples of why the poster is wrong they'll surely all just be dismissed

Wrong. Pretend I typed the opposite of what you said. Acknowledge I provided the same amount of supporting evidence.

Sage. Shit. I'm out.

that is all true

is there no shame in the fear mongering the left does?

Leftists do censor people and push for more censorship

Whataboutisms don't change that

Last 3 digits of your post are your IQ.

This is now a get thread.

Conservatism is cancer
Leftism is AIDS

Same

Shit. Still higher than a subsaharan African tho

This is such a stupid thread and OP is obviously a leftist troll

I'm not trolling.

So far, if there's anything history has told us, is that conservative ideology is what holds us back as a society. You can use your "obama is a conservative democrat" but he's more or less a moderate. If you wanna play the red herring game, at least Obama understands the importance of not allowing prayer in public schools or why hecklers at campaign rallies shouldn't be lynched or why it's important to at the very least TRY to make standardized, accessible healthcare a thing for all Americans if we're to compete with the global economy. I'm not dick riding Obama one bit, the way he tried to justify the Snowden leaks as well as a few other things, concerned me deeply. But my original point stands.

I wonder if OP even realizes the irony that it was feminists or women's suffragists groups who were the primary proponents of prohibition of alcohol

>breaking up Big Tech monopolies who're responsible for censoring half the country is censorship now
My sides. If you guys don't shut up with your lying kikery pretty soon, RWDSs will be the least of your worries.

Attached: 1518064418019.jpg (1058x705, 117K)

give me some examples, please.

you can censor deez nutz

They support the persecution of whistle blowers, support tech censorship, push for hate speech laws, campus speech restrictions, the PMRC, the FCC, laws restricting video games, and too many even condone violence over people saying words they don't like

>tried
Looks like they need to try harder and they are, thank god.

It's not about breaking up tech monopolies, it's about their inability to have a platform for themselves, which they're too stupid/lazy to do.

Side note: Net neutrality would actually have helped prevent this since it would have prevented ISPs and tier 2 service providers from censoring speech on ideological grounds. So not only are conservatives inept, they're also incompetent in the realm of tech.

FEMINIST Democrats actually

Notice how OP ran away and didn't address any of this

Not sure if you're being disingenuous or you're just ill-informed on social media's immunity. Either way you're still wrong because the immunities afforded to social media by congress aren't touched by net neutrality. A lot of conservatives are using mainstream social media less and trying to switch platforms, it still runs into the same issue though if the transparency isn't there and immunities are in place.

>You're so far left

Attached: and-then-i-9f0f14b748.jpg (600x405, 172K)

>whistleblowers
Wrong. That's a conservative action that dates back to Nixon.
>tech censorship
Wrong, conservative thing. It was a conservative republican who originally proposed we institute a system in the US which allows the government to force ISPs to block websites with pornographic or violent imagery. But those laws have been deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS for being fucking censorship.
>hate speech laws
I've never actually seen that be proposed by anyone, let alone passed. I've seen laws from conservatives be proposed and actually passed on the local and state level for blasphemy, though. But those have been overturned for violating our pesky First Amendment.
>FCC
Was actually a bipartisan thing meant to help control and regulate radio frequencies. They overstepped their bounds when they began censoring primetime TV, which was a conservative thing.
>laws restricting video games
Again, conservative thing. Conservatives can be both republican and democrat.
>condone violence
It's not a crime to condone violence, like.. say you're simply in favor of it. It's when you go out of your way to use your words to try to initiate or cause it in some direct way that is criminal. I've seen this be done by both sides, with conservatives saying that gays and blacks should be hanged or shot on sight and liberals saying that about Nazis. However, it is not the liberal way to inflict harm on someone or their rights simply for having an opinion. We're above that.

Holy fucking denialism

This poster will just say everyone is a conservative

Antifa, feminists and leftists are all conservatives now

You know, actually all the Republicans and Democrats doing all the bullshit mentioned are all leftists.
(just had to turn what you've been doing here back around on you)

I'm in favour of this shit

He thinks if he sprinkles acronyms like ISP and large words into his post, he'll sound like he knows what he's talking about.

>feminism
modern day feminism, in my opinion, isn't feminism. You're not a feminist unless you're in favor of ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, which was killed off by extensive lobbying from CONSERVATIVE women's groups in the twentieth century because they felt that completely eliminating gender bias under the Constitution would basically kill off the traditional roles women had as homemakers, wives, and mothers rather than individuals with the right to pursue their own interests. This modern day feminist bullshit comes off as a radicalized flavor of that since they're so drastically in favor of directly altering culture in such a hamfisted way.

>antifa
Antifa and black bloc domestic extremism are two similar, yet different things.

>leftists
huh?

>devolved to attacking big words and acronyms
It's a shame people like you are allowed to vote. I hope you're not American.

>attacking

Attached: 137848154948.jpg (500x418, 21K)

>blasphemy
>profanity
>pornography
>violent movies
>rap music
>pop music
>the teaching of evolution in ANY school
>gay bars
>gay sex
>gay porn
>gay marriage
as if banning any of these is a bad thing

Here's the thing.. If they actually gave a shit about big tech monopolies then why wait until fucking Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro are deplatformed to actually say something about it? Why turn the other cheek and allow companies like Google to become the behemoths that they are and not until some GOP cunt's granddaughter googles the word "idiot" and finds an image of Trump? I'm not saying it's right to do so even if 'big tech' isn't exercising their right as a privately-owned entity to regulate their platform as they see fit, but to claim you give a shit about free market capitalism and not speak out until you're somehow affected just reeks of cronyism.

>b-but by that logic, all American politicians are cronies
no shit Sherlock you want a medal?

Most of these were at least a bad decisions at least. For example why niggers should vote and have welfare for free?

Nice try stupid ass monkey. They are looking to stop big tech from running wild. No more facebook or Twitter shadow bans. No more google working with the Chinese and yet attack americans. No more google trying to say who will be our president. Yeah thats a great thing. Fuck all big tech. You are correct.

Alex Jones isn't even a worry, he was bound to get deplatformed for harassment as it were and is just riding the bandwagon to claim he was censored. The only reason something is being done now versus before is due to people losing their position and being replaced with others who will pursue it. This isn't about left or right in the first place, it's about control.

And yeah, we know that. But to deny the effect Net Neutrality would have had on ensuring an even playing field for "Cuck-Cast News Outlet" to have over say.. CNN or MSNBC would be denying logic itself.

But then again, money talks so what the fuck would I know?

You faggots are kidding yourselves if you think either side listens to your sorry asses.

pic related; it's what I think of your two party system faggots

Attached: metafag.png (578x96, 6K)

>we know that
>we
You mean YOU know that. You admit you're wrong and then double down anyways? Kek. Last reply.

>supports regulating how privately owned social media platforms are allowed to conduct themselves
>yet supports censoring and banning things he doesn't like

You're either a troll or a shortsighted idiot. Do you know where you are? If conservatives had it their way you'd be arrested for posting on an anonymous imageboard used by weebs, furfags, scat fetishists, lolicons, pedophiles, radical idealists, and mere degeneracy. You'd be locked away for literal thought crimes and the jury wouldn't even be allowed to consider basic logic when determining your guilt.

You're a danger to your own self interests, the worst kind of threat.

I was talking about the third-party immunity provisions in the CDA. But it still doesn't change what I said in . But forgive me for assuming you know what I'm talking about.

I see no downside to this.

>2008

>banking regulation

like in 2008? uh-huh

Attached: net-neutrality-comic.png (625x605, 57K)

It's being done now because there's evidence that Big Tech tried to sway an election in a foreign power's favor. He's right and was talking about the same thing, you're a confirmed dumbass.

you cant censor the internet
people will just go on tor or vpn

ICANN owns the rights. They choose what gets on the net now.

sensor the internet ? are you retreaded

it going to fix social media fucking censoring conservatives

Attached: 1517341486151.jpg (960x834, 87K)

They dont want to censorthe net it, they want clearer rules so social media cant kick off conservatives anymore. This is a potential win.

Sugar in food
GMO's
Plastic Bags
Bottled Water
Pets, and owning animals
Property rights
Limit access to National Parks
Guns....Hurrr Durrr
The internet
Public monuments of disliked historical figures / religious iconography
The pledge of allegiance
Speech they don't like e.g. 'hate speech'
National borders

>telling privately owned platforms how to handle themselves
>"you don't understand, it's US that's being censored!"

Except that's a load of bullshit. If conservatives cared about free speech then they wouldn't have appointed a literal shill for Verizon to head the FCC and terminate Net Neutrality. They don't care about free speech, they care about THEIR speech!

Net Neutrality would have actually made it easier for conservative news outlets and communities to maintain relevancy and existence, but nooo. All they care about is sticking it to da libs and not having a bipartisan conversation with representatives from the industry like grown adults committed to both understanding and solving their transgressions. But alas.. like I previously said, conservatives are both inept and incompetent. And that will be their ultimate downfall. But hey, they wanted a one-party state, right?

Were you dropped on your head as a child? The executive order is intended to PREVENT tech companies from censoring their users. It literally does the opposite of what you're saying you fucking mongoloid.

Attached: dd149f8fa058df3db7766c025357c76a.jpg (235x188, 9K)

ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

>privately owned platforms that cry they're a public outlet of free speech
>Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Hate Speech is a form of Free Speech
>Censors people for it anyways
You can't weasel your way out of this, Chaim.

Attached: 1539750126151.jpg (239x182, 17K)

It's what we deserve because of all the hate speech and bullying. At least It will still be there

You're grasp of history is non-existent. To be so uneducated.

Fuck it. Ban it all. I don't even mad bro

>sugar in food
Bipartisan.
Not a good one, but still a legitimate interest if you look at children's health. Thankfully quashed in the public arena.

>GMOs
Bipartisan. Conservatives and conspiracy theories were against it on religious grounds and gub'mint paranoia. Also liberals didn't care for it on the grounds that the science behind it wasn't all there yet (from their perspective) and didn't want to mess with something they didn't know too much about.

>plastic bags
Waste disposal concerns. Also plastic is notoriously difficult to recycle without burning it.

>bottled water
See plastic bags.

>pets, owning animals
Bipartisan and varies depending on where you are. Public officials have a variety of reasons to be concerned, albeit the majority of them are either overly exaggerated or simply unreasonable. But it's mostly to do with maintaining their local ecosystem and preventing things like foreign diseases from spreading.

>property rights
Bipartisan issue from what I've heard, and that varies from state to state. Certain things like "property values" in high income neighborhoods are usually invoked by rich boomers to keep niggers and white trash out.

>limited access to national parks
That's always been a thing and it's bipartisan.

>Internet
Conservative issue. Liberals want to see it flourish whereas conservatives want it to be "decent" and conformist to a deluded idea of moral absolutism.

>public statues and religious iconography
Because they're funded by taxpayer dollars and certain things don't belong in a town square to be revered by the townspeople. Confederate monuments, 10 Commandments statues, crosses, all don't belong on public land. They belong in museums or on private property.

>the pledge of allegiance
Remove "under god". We're a secular nation, not a Christian nation.

>hate speech
Conservative thing, actually. See laws prohibiting blasphemy for broader context.

>national borders
Now you're just not being serious.

I dont often see a well thought out and intelligent comment on the fucking chans but when I do it's a liberal. Makes me wonder how many of the posters here are real people.

Its not his grasp of history, its your blinders to current events. At one time the left was more likely to produce people who would agree with "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Now its the left that directly assaults the 1st when it comes to anything they don't want to hear.

>public outlet for speech
That was never a thing acknowledged by law. You're more than welcome to form your own platform like Gabb, who are hypocrites already.

Except that's not a legitimate interest the government should be concerned about. Tell me, should Club Penguin NOT be allowed to ban users for saying nigger? I personally think they shouldn't because I find it funny, but my personal opinions don't come before the rights of platforms to dictate how their shit can be used. This executive order that they're going to try will fail on its face because it is already overstepping its permitted effects under both the CDA and the Constitution.

You're all misreading this like it's a good thing, which I personally agree with most of you that something needs to be done about the rampant censorship online. However, that shouldn't include taking away a websites ability to moderate itself.

Why don't you understand the First Amendment? It's really not that hard. These private entities can censor and allow whatever they want. That is elementary in First Amendment jurisprudence. This isn't an insult, but you really just don't know what you're talking about. If you're interested in the truth rather than trying to be right, there are plenty of great books covering the First Amendment. It will become apparent why you're incorrect.

Lmfao most of what you wrote are right wing supported things and the rest is bullshit

Then why not address that issue for what it is, as batshit authoritarianism? Conservatism and authoritarianism are one and the same, and I see it poking its dirty head under various different labels, but it always links back to conservative ideology and moral absolutism.

It was and is, otherwise this would've been swept under the rug before it started.

They could but they're attempting to don a guise of neutrality publicly in a court of law because admitting a bias means that immunities provided by the CDA no longer apply. Basically it's like admitting you're using your business to push propaganda and engaging in pay-for-play.

>it was and still is
Umm. no. It's not. It's collective pearl clutching being done by pissed off conservatives who can't handle facts and logic.

>acting as if it has happened
Source, nigger?

But what you're not understanding is that it's fucking irrelevant because the protections of the CDA apply regardless of speech bias. If you're talking about the proposed amendment by US Sen. Josh Hawley (R, MO) then you're especially retarded because that shit is never gonna pass the House due to it being fucking dumb.

>the protections of the CDA apply regardless of speech bias
It's as if you haven't even read it. Why am I not surprised? You can call someone dumb all day but this is bigger than just censorship claims.

bullshit,they will seize it for a week,during execution of 100k plus sealed federal warrants
you democrats run hollywood silicone valley,all the newspapers,run the colleges,universities,non profits,sports,,all serve as running backs for democrats,,,,,eos under obama sikked every federal agency on & against religious groups,,lois lerner & IRS on their tax exempt status ,obama weaponized ( further) cia fbi against reasonable opposition & dissenters by eavesdropping on private comms,,,,,,
along came trump you boys never considered you would lose,,nbc poll geniuses had you locked in a million to zip,,buzzerrr....you lost,
kiss yer hemorrhoids good bye boys
the table has flipped,nsa cia fbi are mostly cleaned out of your guerillas,,career govt democrat gumshoes,
one smart thing 45 did,,was call hillary about the top ten thing he had to deal with,and names of those she considered most experienced ( careerists in Gment),,she gave him ten names, whom trump promptly canned,
10k unvetted non citizens obama boys let enter the military,all departments,,gone.
your boys at cloudfare took out 8 chan.
payback time arriveth,at a time uncertaineth,
wait for it, epstein dead?,stay tuned.

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN FLAGGED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): not being politically correct

Attached: image.jpg (1200x1200, 273K)

/thread

>Conservatives are anti-freedom, anti-liberty
Man, it's like the 2000s all over again, back when it was the Rs fucking with free speech.

Daily reminder that leftists are responsible for the deaths of illegal immigrants trying to cross the border and people in the United States killed by illegal immigrants.

>How is this any different from what went on during prohibition?
>implying religion had anything to do with prohibition
Alright, what I want you to do is research how long Christianity has been around. Then research when women got involved in American politics. Then look again at when prohibition occured

So you don't consider modern feminism to be leftism, but closer to conservatism?

I would agree that it eerily has a lot in common with conservatism, but has it come so full circle that modern day feminism is now conservatism?

The point wasn't that the right doesn't support it but that the left is on board as well

Tech giants have entered the realm of public utility. They openly and obviously promote a certain political party and censor the other. Their ability to sway elections is dangerous. All you leftist fags hate giant corporations but you back the largest corporations with the most power. Why is that? It’s become a danger to democracy for these companies to sway elections.

>censorship is actually good cause people will use bikes more

the president is going to have all memes, fake news, and derogatory cartoons about him removed.

Everything you just said is wrong. Learn to comprehend information.

No. That's not how utilities work. Internet service providers are public utilities, in the same way that electric, gas, and phone companies are public utilities. Websites and platforms are not public utilities, no matter how big they become.

erm, you have porn, pop music, violent movies and evolution in that list, fucking magatard monkey

tldr but bump

go to sleep, comrade

OP, you're completely missing the point.

Open communication is how the opposition gains strength. Now that Trump feels confident the AltRight can consolidate its power base and survive the next election (and it will), it has to quash the freedom of the Internet.
8Ch (can't even spell that out and get past the filters on Yea Forums) was but a precedent. It was a site that could be censured and censored by both parties with little argument. Now that the precedent for Internet control is established, Trump Co will start moving towards shutting down any sites it deems contrary to their progress towards dictatorship.

Putin must be having wet dreams about now.

Attached: TrumpLikePutin.jpg (690x960, 81K)