This link has pictures of the shooter https://nypost.com/2024/12/09/us-news/person-of-interest-in-fatal-shooting-of-unitedhealthcare-boss-brian-thompson-idd-as-luigi-mangione-an-ex-ivy-league-student/

I don’t think so. If you were on the other side politically you would probably prefer that they no longer exist at all. If they were smart over there they would change things so that they were perceived to be right in the middle between what they currently are and Fox. That’s a big sweet spot that is just waiting for someone to move into. I still remember the early days when Liberals, Conservatives, and middle of the road people watched MSNBC and no one felt that they were slanted one way or the other politically

I don’t have “opponents”. I think for myself. Sometimes people disagree with me and present facts that prove me wrong. I don’t call them names. I say, I see your facts and I was wrong. You have created in your mind a fantasy image of me. I am not pushing any narrative. You seem to think that I am on the “team” opposed to your “team”. I’m not on any team. On social media platforms some people on the left have condemned me. Some people on the right have condemned me. I can’t think of better evidence that I think for myself and am not aligned with any political party. Previously I had given my opinion on “X” . It’s an opinion. Are we at the point of attacking others simply because we disagree with their opinions? In the big picture of life I frankly don’t give a fuck about X or any other social media platform. I’m too busy enjoying my life.

Any type of censorship that is CLEARLY a prosecutionable CRIME should be censored. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone knew that death threats, bomb scares and other bullshit like that was not only censorable but that we would all agree that the government should arrest and prosecute assholes that post that stuff.

CSAM

OF COURSE IT SHOULD. Only mental deviates abuse kids. And as I recall those who engage in that disgusting practice and post shit like that on the internet are prosecuted

> In general, I don’t agree with the idea that someone needs to “police” online spaces, removing all the misinformation posts before they contaminate everyone’s fragile minds

Well that’s a good sign. In general you disagreed with the nazi and soviet regimes.

My only “hand” is common sense. Not a hard concept to understand wanting to hear both sides. Though I do understand those who find it offensive that those who disagree with them are able to state what they believe and why. The logical approach is not to censor but welcome dissenting views and then with undeniable facts prove them wrong

I never said that. Please reread my response

I am against governments that do any type of censorship. I don’t need to go down the long list of repressive regimes that have done it and those who still do it today. As I mentioned before a government needs only to restate the claim and then let them PROVE that it is wrong.

Your comment shows exactly what we are discussing. You took the time to look further into the issue. Regarding “which sides” are more truthful, I would suggest you consider which news sources told us things over the past few years as definitely true that were subsequently proven false.

I take the effort to examine all sources. And did you notice the recent study showing that “X” is now split 50/50 with liberal and conservative opinions. That’s what free speech offers us all. You get to hear both sides. I may not agree with someone’s opinion but that doesn’t mean I censor them out.

You are combining things said about private individuals vs a public figure or a government policy. There is a big difference. A public figure or a government has the resources to restate your claim and prove it wrong. So, NO I am against all personal attacks of private individuals

This is why we all should be afraid of governments censoring media. If it’s not true then restate the claim and PROVE that the claim is wrong. But to tell people to just not pay attention to it is more about government protecting themselves from public scrutiny

I never disregard a source because I don’t like what they are saying. I want to hear what all sides are saying and then check it out for myself. When someone tells me “don’t read this or don’t watch that” media source, the first thing I think of is what are they afraid of.

There is a difference between something that is undeniably false vs something that you don’t agree with

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator