Twitter allows hate speech against Jews, but bans facts about Sharia law.

https://www.lauraloomer.us/blog/why-i-was-banned

"My name is Laura Loomer. As many of you may have heard, I was permanently banned from Twitter for life on November 21, 2018, and then I was banned for 30 days from Facebook less than 24 hours later, in another example of collusion by tech giants to censor conservative voices.

What was my offense?

Did I spew hateful, violent rhetoric towards anyone as we frequently see leftist celebrities and politicians do online?

Nope.

Did I post racist comments or call for genocide against a group of people?

Nope.

Did I incite a riot or call for the President to be assassinated, like Leftists often do on Twitter?

Nope.

I merely shared a fact. Yes, the truth can now get you banned for life from the Internet, in America, the land of the free, and the only country with a First Amendment right.

The tweet that Twitter decided to ban me for was a tweet full of facts about Sharia law. It was a tweet directed at Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Congresswoman, a politician, a public figure, which pointed out that her support of Sharia law does not make her an ally for gay people, women, or Jews, as Twitter would like you to believe.

This is the tweet that earned me a lifetime ban. Is this “hateful conduct,” as Twitter accused me of practicing?..."

The social media giants are begging for an alternative competitor to emerge. Laura Loomer probably won't trigger it, but at some point they will overreach and lose half their market. They aren't stupid enough to ban Trump (then again from the enclosed confines of a Silicon Valley groupthink someone may think it is a good idea), but what happens when he makes someone like Laura Loomer a martyr and walks away from Twitter to communicate on another platform?

That is pretty ironic considering a judge ruled that the ban on female genital mutilation is unconstitutional, about the same day she was banned.

(11-28-2018 08:55 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The social media giants are begging for an alternative competitor to emerge. Laura Loomer probably won't trigger it, but at some point they will overreach and lose half their market. They aren't stupid enough to ban Trump (then again from the enclosed confines of a Silicon Valley groupthink someone may think it is a good idea), but what happens when he makes someone like Laura Loomer a martyr and walks away from Twitter to communicate on another platform?

Gab is trying, but then the Tech Giants friends, the media, went on a campaign to get it wiped off the internet. Gab lost their hosting, lost the financial transaction service, lost their registrar, and almost lost the right to their own domain.

We're quickly reaching as point where it's not possible to 'start your own alternative' because the anchor points that you need to establish yourself and exist on the internet are subject to pressure from the 'social justice religious left'.

I am truly glad every freakin day I have never and will never give either of these the pleasure of my presence.
Meanwhile they allow crazy, racist hater Louis Farrakhan and others to continue their hate without pause.
Maybe they are simply scared of muslims. It is the lefts answer to real enemies, “just don’t make them mad. They may come shoot us.”

(11-28-2018 09:14 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  I am truly glad every freakin day I have never and will never give either of these the pleasure of my presence.
Meanwhile they allow crazy, racist hater Louis Farrakhan and others to continue their hate without pause.
Maybe they are simply scared of muslims. It is the lefts answer to real enemies, “just don’t make them mad. They may come shoot us.”

Muslims are a "protected" class. They are granted a special protection not available to Jews or Christians by MSM and Tech social media.

(11-28-2018 08:55 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The social media giants are begging for an alternative competitor to emerge. Laura Loomer probably won't trigger it, but at some point they will overreach and lose half their market. They aren't stupid enough to ban Trump (then again from the enclosed confines of a Silicon Valley groupthink someone may think it is a good idea), but what happens when he makes someone like Laura Loomer a martyr and walks away from Twitter to communicate on another platform?

USAlife is being formed for this very reason, go to the website for info.

I quit FB several months ago and have not or ever will be on Twitter, Instagram, or any other lib based social media.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

I think that association with James O'Keefe's disinformation game pretty much gets her in the 'we don't want her on our site, spreading stilted stuff and calling it reporting'.

Was she really criticizing those that are members of religions that oppress homosexuals, or just criticizing Muslims for doing it?

Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.

(11-28-2018 12:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.

So, you admit they're a publisher? Section 230 immunity no longer applies, and they should be sued out of existence.

(11-28-2018 12:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

I think that association with James O'Keefe's disinformation game pretty much gets her in the 'we don't want her on our site, spreading stilted stuff and calling it reporting'.

Was she really criticizing those that are members of religions that oppress homosexuals, or just criticizing Muslims for doing it?

Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.

Just how was O’Keefe’s work disinformation? Also, as far as I know Muslims are the only ones throwing homosexuals off high buildings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-28-2018 12:30 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

I think that association with James O'Keefe's disinformation game pretty much gets her in the 'we don't want her on our site, spreading stilted stuff and calling it reporting'.

Was she really criticizing those that are members of religions that oppress homosexuals, or just criticizing Muslims for doing it?

Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.

Just how was O’Keefe’s work disinformation? Also, as far as I know Muslims are the only ones throwing homosexuals off high buildings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is there really a difference between being killed by being thrown off a building by a Muslim and being lynched by a Christian mob in Cameroon? Look, if you want to go after those that seek to imprison or execute persons simply because they are Gay, then I'm all in. But I'm not interested in being used by someone to blame all Muslims when all Muslims, and specifically not Congresswoman elect Omar, don't support or do what they are being accused of doing. Especially from people that appear to not really care about Gays being persecuted when it doesn't fit their own political narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

Take your pick about O'Keefe. He doesn't report on the news, but seeks to create it, where it doesn't exist.

(11-28-2018 12:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:30 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

I think that association with James O'Keefe's disinformation game pretty much gets her in the 'we don't want her on our site, spreading stilted stuff and calling it reporting'.

Was she really criticizing those that are members of religions that oppress homosexuals, or just criticizing Muslims for doing it?

Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.

Just how was O’Keefe’s work disinformation? Also, as far as I know Muslims are the only ones throwing homosexuals off high buildings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is there really a difference between being killed by being thrown off a building by a Muslim and being lynched by a Christian mob in Cameroon? Look, if you want to go after those that seek to imprison or execute persons simply because they are Gay, then I'm all in. But I'm not interested in being used by someone to blame all Muslims when all Muslims, and specifically not Congresswoman elect Omar, don't support or do what they are being accused of doing. Especially from people that appear to not really care about Gays being persecuted when it doesn't fit their own political narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

Take your pick about O'Keefe. He doesn't report on the news, but seeks to create it, where it doesn't exist.

Why are you bringing up other countries? You know dam well Loomer is reporting on pro Sharia Law Muslims elected into public office in the USA.

Loomer was banned because she is damn good at what she does. Not only is she a great investigative journalist, but she also does these confrontation videos of high-profile figures, and gets them to look dumb on camera. CPL, maxine, chelsea clinton, alyssa milano immediately come to mind. She actually got milano to disavow the women's march and it's anti-Semite co-chairs linda sarsar and tamika mallory.

At this point, twitter might as well be ran by think progress, and it's only going to keep getting worse. Ben Shapiro's "facts don't care about your feelings" shtick on transgenderism can actually now be considered a ban worthy offense. If you acknowledge the fact that caitlin won a gold medal as bruce, that's ban worthy. I think they call it "dead naming".

I actually want him to get banned, because I think that would be a red line crossed. That would finally get the establishment conservabros mad enough to stop laughing at Alex Jones and Milo, and join the fight. And it would be an quick and easy fight, Jesse Kelly already got his account back because he had the right Senators lobbying for him.

(11-28-2018 12:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

I think that association with James O'Keefe's disinformation game pretty much gets her in the 'we don't want her on our site, spreading stilted stuff and calling it reporting'.

Was she really criticizing those that are members of religions that oppress homosexuals, or just criticizing Muslims for doing it?

Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.

Which other religion is actively murdering gays by throwing them off of buildings?

(11-28-2018 12:57 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Loomer was banned because she is damn good at what she does. Not only is she a great investigative journalist, but she also does these confrontation videos of high-profile figures, and gets them to look dumb on camera. CPL, maxine, chelsea clinton, alyssa milano immediately come to mind. She actually got milano to disavow the women's march and it's anti-Semite co-chairs linda sarsar and tamika mallory.

At this point, twitter might as well be ran by think progress, and it's only going to keep getting worse. Ben Shapiro's "facts don't care about your feelings" shtick on transgenderism can actually now be considered a ban worthy offense. If you acknowledge the fact that caitlin won a gold medal as bruce, that's ban worthy. I think they call it "dead naming".

I actually want him to get banned, because I think that would be a red line crossed. That would finally get the establishment conservabros mad enough to stop laughing at Alex Jones and Milo, and join the fight. And it would be an quick and easy fight, Jesse Kelly already got his account back because he had the right Senators lobbying for him.

She was the only reporter who did anything investigative about the Vegas shooting, which we still have no motive. You would think that others would have done some deep digging on a epic mass shooting like this. The entire Vegas investigation stinks to high heaven.

(11-28-2018 12:52 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:30 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

I think that association with James O'Keefe's disinformation game pretty much gets her in the 'we don't want her on our site, spreading stilted stuff and calling it reporting'.

Was she really criticizing those that are members of religions that oppress homosexuals, or just criticizing Muslims for doing it?

Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.

Just how was O’Keefe’s work disinformation? Also, as far as I know Muslims are the only ones throwing homosexuals off high buildings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is there really a difference between being killed by being thrown off a building by a Muslim and being lynched by a Christian mob in Cameroon? Look, if you want to go after those that seek to imprison or execute persons simply because they are Gay, then I'm all in. But I'm not interested in being used by someone to blame all Muslims when all Muslims, and specifically not Congresswoman elect Omar, don't support or do what they are being accused of doing. Especially from people that appear to not really care about Gays being persecuted when it doesn't fit their own political narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

Take your pick about O'Keefe. He doesn't report on the news, but seeks to create it, where it doesn't exist.

Why are you bringing up other countries? You know dam well Loomer is reporting on pro Sharia Law Muslims elected into public office in the USA.

I figured she couldn't be referring to the USA, where every single Muslim elected official, including the subject of her post, has a 100% liberal voting record on LGBT issues.

I'd love for someone to square Rep.elect Omar's positions with the charges she was accused of.

Just because she wears a headscarf....does NOT mean that she supports Sharia law being applied to those who do not consent to it. Or Sharia Law period.

(11-28-2018 12:58 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

I think that association with James O'Keefe's disinformation game pretty much gets her in the 'we don't want her on our site, spreading stilted stuff and calling it reporting'.

Was she really criticizing those that are members of religions that oppress homosexuals, or just criticizing Muslims for doing it?

Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.

Which other religion is actively murdering gays by throwing them off of buildings?

I still don't get your fetish about being killed by being thrown off a building, as if that is somehow worse than amping up people to hate Gays using the New Testament, and then watching while Gays get lynched.

And I still don't see how you can credibly accuse Rep. Ilhan Omar of supporting it either.

While the subject of LGBT persons being oppressed is salient here, as it was the subject of the tweet that got her banned, I think if you'd like to start a thread on the issue of oppression of LGBT persons, the motivations behind that oppression, the groups and actors involved in that, and what we can do (or for some of you IF we should do) about it, then I'm game for it.

Failing that, I'll just say, I'll vote and work to get Ilhan Omar elected anyday of the week. And I'm not particularly interested in blaming her for that which she doesn't support or endorse, especially by those that appear to be not supportive of condemning the same action when taken by a non-Muslim.

(11-28-2018 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:52 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:30 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

I think that association with James O'Keefe's disinformation game pretty much gets her in the 'we don't want her on our site, spreading stilted stuff and calling it reporting'.

Was she really criticizing those that are members of religions that oppress homosexuals, or just criticizing Muslims for doing it?

Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.

Just how was O’Keefe’s work disinformation? Also, as far as I know Muslims are the only ones throwing homosexuals off high buildings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is there really a difference between being killed by being thrown off a building by a Muslim and being lynched by a Christian mob in Cameroon? Look, if you want to go after those that seek to imprison or execute persons simply because they are Gay, then I'm all in. But I'm not interested in being used by someone to blame all Muslims when all Muslims, and specifically not Congresswoman elect Omar, don't support or do what they are being accused of doing. Especially from people that appear to not really care about Gays being persecuted when it doesn't fit their own political narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

Take your pick about O'Keefe. He doesn't report on the news, but seeks to create it, where it doesn't exist.

Why are you bringing up other countries? You know dam well Loomer is reporting on pro Sharia Law Muslims elected into public office in the USA.

I figured she couldn't be referring to the USA, where every single Muslim elected official, including the subject of her post, has a 100% liberal voting record on LGBT issues.

I'd love for someone to square Rep.elect Omar's positions with the charges she was accused of.

Just because she wears a headscarf....does NOT mean that she supports Sharia law being applied to those who do not consent to it. Or Sharia Law period.

I am guessing you are not a Muslim, why do you think that is such a great religion, as opposed to Christianity and others?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Loomer's criticism of omar was about her support for female genital multilation, which is a fact.

Quote:Minnesota bill against female genital mutilation raises opposition

Franson’s bill makes it a felony for parents to subject their daughters to the procedure and calls for loss of custody and prison terms from five to 20 years, depending on the extent of the injuries. It also increases penalties for those who perform the procedure, which has been illegal since pioneering Minnesota legislation in the 1990s.

The bill won support from all but four of the 128 House members who voted, including Rep. Ilhan Omar, the country’s first Somali-American legislator.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-bil...423070383/

And for being an anti-Semite, which is a fact.