No one is censoring here. Nothing wrong with debating the value or lack thereof of a particular speaker, group or topic. That's literally letting everyone speak.
me? Not a fan of Stew P, and I do not give him credibility. Guests he engages may or may not have credibility, regardless of who he is, imo.
The interesting thing about some of the prominent voices who have emerged out of nowhere is that any time questions are raised about the dubious nature of these people, their followers consistently provide a toxic response thus providing further demonstration that these voices are not really part of our movement.
You're a pseud lad, I don't know Stew Peters or care to but when you frame things as "party 1 credibility means party 2 is/not credible" without any consideration to the information being transmitted then you're a mong, it's quite literally a junior high logical fallacy.
Tens of millions of people believe Joe Rogan is a fool, does that make whatever Dr happens to be on his show an automatic retard. Also "Part of our movement", who is "our" mate?
Stew Peters is the host. Credibility is based on the guest who comes on his show.
Credible hosts bring on credible guests.
It is damaging to make claims that cannot be backed up or reproduced though.
No one is censoring here. Nothing wrong with debating the value or lack thereof of a particular speaker, group or topic. That's literally letting everyone speak.
me? Not a fan of Stew P, and I do not give him credibility. Guests he engages may or may not have credibility, regardless of who he is, imo.
What a spectacularly retarded take, I take it you never did a junior years workshop on critical thinking.
The interesting thing about some of the prominent voices who have emerged out of nowhere is that any time questions are raised about the dubious nature of these people, their followers consistently provide a toxic response thus providing further demonstration that these voices are not really part of our movement.
You're a pseud lad, I don't know Stew Peters or care to but when you frame things as "party 1 credibility means party 2 is/not credible" without any consideration to the information being transmitted then you're a mong, it's quite literally a junior high logical fallacy.
Tens of millions of people believe Joe Rogan is a fool, does that make whatever Dr happens to be on his show an automatic retard. Also "Part of our movement", who is "our" mate?