There are benefits to Elon's acquisition of Twitter even for the trans community
(media.greatawakening.win)
SELF-DELETE, GROOMER! 🏳️⚧️
Comments (59)
sorted by:
On a side note, the trannies have compiled a blocklist you can use to find based peeps. Kek.
https://www.theblockbot.com/show-blocks/XpbppP2pPG8FFhbeApYs5hxPegJbrz37qRzZoW2O
Hey! How come I'm not on the list? I got suspended from Twatter and I'm not even on the stupid list? LAME.
If you weren’t suspended or shadow banned on Twitter then you probably weren’t on the FBI’s white supremicist/domestic terrorist watchlist.....and that’s pretty sad. If you want to join the club simply follow me at Truth Social (@GitmoORbust) and you will immediately receive all the benefits of club membership and instantly become a FPOC and all your other immediate friends can then be spied on too as a Secondary Point of Contact (SPOC).
I was at J6 and still no list for me. What a gyp!
What’s your Truth handle I need some more insurrectionists on my following list 🤣
This is a great reply and why I love this community.
Or to say, "lesser homosexuals being preyed upon by more opportunistic homosexuals". "Community".
This shows how delusional they are.
Create an echo chamber.for themselves, then tell everyone they themselves excluded, that they have to listen and belive what they do in said echo chamber.
It’s almost like you’re describing people unhappy in their own skin. 🤔
Reddit trans sub….
Ohhh, so you went to Reddit?
Yep. I see no point in NOT inviting in mentally ill people who have been gaslit into insanity and unreality by the media. We need them to come in. For them AND for us.
AWESOME. Self-deleting is just in their makeup, isn't it
Enter the new: "L'Oreal Self-Deleting Face Mask!"
They do have startlingly high suicide rates.
Yeah not even the Jews in Auschwitz ever reached this level. It's so out of this world compared to all other demographics that its seemingly impossible to explain.
An ideology so sound you have to block anyone that questions it....
But actually, this is the way how true fee speech on a social media plattform can actually work:
Give the users the ability to block those they don‘t want to hear.
But don‘t do the blocking (aka censorship) for them.
I want to be able to chose who I‘m listening to.
This allows for a civil discourse - or a rough one, if you decide to stick to real free speech - that truly might be considered some kind of „universal“ consciousness of shared ideas.
TL; DR: blocking users isn‘t a bad feature.
Yeah, this is fine.
But also still laugh at them for how precious their safe space is for their mental health.
They can't handle any challenge or adversity.
Dude, I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but...
Isn't GAW the epitome of blocking people? Not only do people get banned for criticizing President Trump, but if you're not a 100% hopium addict 24/7 you're classified as suspect.
I find it hypocritical that people can be so Gung ho for 100% free speech 100% of the time for other sites but then start deporting people here left and right for not being optimistic enough.
🤦♀️
I'm pretty sure that the people that have banned were banned for far more than you are stating. It sounds convincing, but without the details of who was banned and why, I find your statement suspect. The people that I have flagged (very very few, maybe one or two) were way outta bounds and were obviously here to disrupt the nature of the discussions here.
Ok
OK. I'm gonna explain this again.
You are using a false.
Purpose is the core of every existence. Without purpose, nothing can exist. Who defines purpose? The creator. I create a watch, I define its purpose.
GAW has a purpose. That purpose is to provide a venue for the discussion and support of the Q work, which includes supporting and discussing DJT. The purpose is NOT to debate whether Q is good or bad, or whether DJT is good or bad. There are venues created for that purpose, and it's fine to use them for that purpose. People are free to choose.
What part of this do you not understand? If your purpose or intent here is NOT pro-Q, you are violating the very purpose of this community. At a minimum, you can be neutral, asking questions, in order to try to find out and reach your own conclusions. But if someone is acting directly in contradiction to the purpose of the forum, then they are actually helping to destroy the forum, and erase its purpose.
Pedophiles abuse the purpose of childhood, rapists violate the purpose of sex, thieves violate the purpose of personal possession. Sodomites violate the purpose of the anus.
If someone wants to violate the purpose of this forum, should he or she be welcomed? Embraced? Tolerated?
In fact, that is the logic that the cultural marxists of the Frankfurt School promoted and advanced in our society. Their view is that all views that oppose the cultural marxist revolution must not be tolerated, and any that promote it must. Thus, LGBTQI views must be tolerated, but Christian views must not. THe real problem is, that for decades now, institutions, governments, and corporations have been adopting this perspective, but NOT being open about it. They only say the first part, they do not say the second part, and they hide their real purpose.
Twitter lied. They purported themselves to be a non-biased, open forum whose purpose is public discourse without prejudice. If they had promoted Twitter like this: "We will shut down accounts that talk about topics we do not like, that do not support Globalism, Cultural Marxism or Leftism." how many people would have joined? None. Ergo, they were deceptive. Their real purpose was not the purpose they offered to people.
There is a critical difference between "Free Speech" which means primarily that government does NOT impose restrictions on the free speech of citizens, and Private Purpose.
Any company, organization or group has the right to define their own purpose as long as it is lawful. People are not free to violate the purpose of something they themselves did not create or own.
A creator of something has every right to define the purpose of what they create. However, when someone creates a thing for others, the people using the thing collectively define the purpose. This is the case with a huge list of things. You have an extravagant way of defending hypocrisy. Openly saying you do not tolerate opinions intentionally held to oppose your own does not make you better than those who hide it. People are free to do as they please as long as it does not harm others.
Only if the originally created purpose contains that intent. If so, then certainly.
Maybe not. But it does make you honest. And it does allow others to make informed decisions as to whether they want to participate or not. Don't you think that's a good thing? Is deceiving someone in order to manipulate them is OK?
But what do you mean by tolerate?
Or what do you mean by intolerance? Is disagreeing with someone's opinion intolerance? The cultural marxists say so, if that disagreement is with their opinion.
To say, "I do not want you in my house to discuss your view of the benefits of pedophilia", is this intolerance?
You are really twisting the concept of tolerance. So, I guess you are promoting the idea that Christian schools founded on Christian ethics are hypocrites if they do not want teachers in their school who teach that there are 120+ genders and that men can be pregnant?
Exactly, and that means people are free to create forums for discussing specific ideas and concepts, and not for discussing others.
Are you OK with someone coming into your home and seducing your wife (or husband) and educating your kids in debauchery? If you object to that, aren't you being intolerant and hypocritical?
In regards to copyright law, yes. In general use, no.
I think words alone are not harmful. In public spaces, all words are acceptable. This is a public space, so all words should be allowed in my opinion. Even the ones I do not like.
Deceit is not good. Intolerance for speech is also not good. The point I was making is that intolerance for speech is not made any better by being honest about it.
No.
Yes it is intolerance.
That is intolerance, but not hypocrisy.
Yes, people are free to do that. Making fun of people who are intolerant of certain words on said forum is still hypocrisy, though.
I would assume there is no consent in this hypothetical scenario, so the answer would be no.
I would like to clarify something. I do not have an issue with intolerance. I am intolerant of many things. I dread the idea of my child being tainted by these crazy ideologies people have going on. However crazy I may find them, they have the right to say whatever they want. My issue is with hypocrisy.
Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed response.
Ok.
Regarding intolerance, I am strongly inclined to agree that intolerance in and of itself is not a bad thing.
I think we might disagree, as I think it is perfectly acceptable and legitimate for a group of people to create a venue where they can discuss specific things, and that it is not hypocrisy to restrict certain forms of discussion that do not align with the purpose.
I don't see anyone on this forum saying crazy people do not have a right to say what they think or express their opinions. What I see is (the forum creators) saying, they do not have a right to do that here.
I don't agree that this is a public space. It is public, in the sense that it is open to the public, but this does not mean that the public have the right to define the purpose or rules here.
It's a private space, open to the public.
That's very different to a public space that is open to the public.
In my view.
I missed where you explained this the first time.
I'm using a false what?
Do you really not think that it's even a little hypocritical to mock others for their need of a "safe space" while commenting on a board that goes to great lengths to provide a "safe space"?
You have people in this very thread pointing out that this is, indeed, a safe space. But for some reason they think they're proving me wrong, so...🤷♀️.
Um, yeah. Oops. Statement used for rhetorical effect. These same arguments have been discussed in other threads, a few times.
Yep. Sorry. Editing mistake. Originally: "using a false logic".
Hmmm... I'm not really a big fan of mocking others. Especially, a lot of cultural marxist dupes who have succumbed to a lying agenda. It's sad, imo. But some like to heap scorn and mockery. In the case of hypocrisy, I think mockery is fine, tho.
But to your question, I personally think there is a huge difference between the so called "safe space" - a creation of the cultural marxists keen to restrict the voice of others in public spaces - and a forum or venue with as specific purpose for discussion.
In these cases, both purpose and motivation are key factors. And, I would highlight again my primary assertion/response to you: understanding what purpose is and what role it plays in things is a critical key capacity for any mature or honest mind.
The same could be said for motivation.
There is a massive difference between a man who knocks out a home intruder weilding a knife who is potentially or actually threatening his family, and a man who knocks out a home protector weilding a knife to defend himself or his family against an intruder.
The action (which is the external expression of an invisible and internal motive) is the same: knocking out a man with a knife, using force. The motivation, and purpose, is completely different, if not opposite.
The so called "safe spaces' were created in public areas, like Universities, etc., in order to provide a place where certain ideas could not be challenged, but the motive and purpose has been to destroy any objections to marxist and culturally martist social justice agendas and ideology. Ostensibly to protect the FEELINGS of the 'victims' of evil patriarchy, or evil Christian 'bigots', whose words are (apparently) violence. But the real and ultimate purpose is to destroy any opposition to the overall Agenda, which is ultimately to destroy the family, breakdown Christian values and freedoms which those values protected and ushered in.
This room is a 'safe space'. >> Now, this whole campus is a 'safe space'. >> Now, this whole corporation is a 'safe space'. >> We must make sure that all of society is a 'safe space'.
To those who pay attention not just to external form, or action, but to motive, purpose and intent, the problems with this are as clear as a bell.
In the case of GAW, the purpose of this forum is to provide a space where the pro-Q content can be discussed and developed, where others who wish to learn about these things can come, in a productive, constructive environment.
You are asserting that both motives are the same, and therefor hypocritical. But that is a morally relativistic view, that fails to take into account motive, purpose and direction of action.
The pro-Q movement has the purpose and intent of securing freedom for all people by exposing corruption and lies. The LGBTQI movement has the (actual) purpose (being driven by those activists and ideologues who infiltrate those communities and movements, by the way) of destroying Christian civilization, destroying the natural family, and ultimately enslaving all people to a tyrannical system where all are victims and all society is continually divided and divided and divided based on ever increasing hierarchies of victimhood.
If there are people in this thread who consider GAW a "safe space" then personally, I would say they too are getting caught up in the moral relativism culture and don't really understand the issues clearly.
But it sounds to me like a) you think that LGBTQI 'need' 'safe spaces' (do you, or not?) and b) you think that defining a purpose for a venue inherently means it must therefore be a 'safe space', and c) that you are fundamentally ignoring what the 'safe spaces' are, their purpose, intent and origin.
For increased understanding on these issues, I strongly recommend viewing this:
The architects of Western Decline
https://rumble.com/vhlbrt-the-roots-of-cultural-marxism-the-architects-of-western-decline.html
It discusses and reveals the origins of the cultural marxist roots of the many aspects or branches of this movement that we see today: 'social justice', Critical Race Theory, the militant LGBTQP movement, political correctness, radical feminism, etc.
If you think that the Q movement and these movements are in fact morally equivalent, then I think you are really in the wrong place. Or maybe the right one.
Have a great day.
Not going to blast you, but GAW (and Patriots) are a direct response to not being allowed to post on the so-called "non-biased" sites.
When you are removed from these so-called "free speech" platforms, you create platforms and disallow the trolls from the platforms you were removed from.
These communities have clear rules that don't pretend to be non-biased and also are not to the same level of digital town square that Twitter has become.
So you go ahead and perfectly proved ImaSueDeNym's point... brilliant.
Reddit has subreddits, moderated communities with specific rules.
Reddit banned /r/the_donald, /r/greatawakening, and other sites. The owners of the .win community sites provided this site as a replacement for https://old.reddit.com/r/greatawakening after it was banned.
If this site claimed to be an anything goes platform and banned people without telling them why, neither of which is the case, I'd agree with you.
Who owns this .win? Do you know? Without knowing who owns and actually runs this place, how can you be so certain that censorship and abuse won't ever become a concern, if it hasn't to some degree already?
This site indeed has rules, though not many and far from overbearing or overly specific. And yet, some are broken without anything being done, depending on the offender. Then in other cases, accounts are immediately labeled shills and banned despite having not explicitly violated any rules. Consider the rule "be respectful"... who defines what is and isn't respectful? Consider the rule "only Q support"... who defines what is and isn't supportive of "Q"? Ultimately, subjective mods... which brings me back to the first few questions asked above...
No, because they're two different situations. We are not an impartial platform, and we do not pretend to be. Twitter does.
A partial platform, runs contrary to free speech. So you don't support free speech then? 🤔
You've missed, or rather twisted his argument which is rather simple and accurate: it's utterly hypocritical to simultaneously condemn other outlets like Reddit, Twitter, etc for suppressing free speech, while at the same time sitting in GAW and railing about those who QuEsTioN tHe PLaN, downvote those who perhaps might not see exactly eye to eye about Trump et al, and mod(s) flippantly bragging about instabaning people for discussing evidence and theories which might not be universally agreed upon within this community.
Yes, this is a refuge for those who were censored by other platforms... or at least it's supposed to be a refuge... and yet far too often it isn't. That's his point. It's valid and easily proved simply by the fact that crayon eaters have down voted him for merely making an accurate observation.
Ok
true. being a pussy is a choice.
Only 294,000???? We need to pump those numbers up!
How do I get on the list? It'd be sweet to be pre-blocked by these retards.
Wait, I have never used Twitter... Are you telling me that they can block people that they don't want to see? What the hell was all the banned accounts for then? If people don't want to hear something, they can block them? That makes the bans a thousand times worse! Banning people for an unpopular opinion that people that don't want to see can block.
Yup -- "they" don't want ANYONE to see, hear or read that which "they" deem "bad" so "they" take away personal choice/freedom via bans.
Yup -- "they" don't want ANYONE to see, hear or read that which "they" deem "bad" so "they" take away personal choice/freedom via bans.
Yes, Twitter always let you block people if you weren't President Trump. Kek.
It's worth noting Twitter's changes blocked this mass blocker tool as well.
It appears Twitter rolled back their code to a previous version and removed a lot of the censorship algorithms, which is why it works again.
why do we care so much for <1% of the population whoare so toxic to the rest? These people have always existed, but Barack Obama closed the asylums and loosed them onto the rest of us.
I have some old accounts that have been inactive for years that aren't blocked. Don't tempt me further. I need them to post the red pill flood soon.
There's a list?! Can I subscribe? That's one I definitely want to be on
Psychos run the asylum
2-4%... The rest of the normies are about to get a crash course in reality.
You could create a list of them with this tool if you wanted to.
Oh, goody.....