Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Rico1304]

On 26/10/2021 at 14:42, Bjornebye said:

Looks like it's been reinstated. 

 

 

Now lets hope YouTube look for media outlets that have been found guilty on multiple occasions of actual lies. 

 

They’ve got loads of jobs going.  Check out the wages. 

[Bjornebye]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Are you trying to make a point here? 

[Strontium]

5 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Are you trying to make a point here? 

 

I thought it was funny. That's my point most of the time.

[Arniepie]

51 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Are you trying to make a point here? 

That pointing out the Saudis may not be a great bunch of lads is reprehensible?

[Strontium]

14 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

That pointing out the Saudis may not be a great bunch of lads is reprehensible?

 

Are you retarded? Read the reply to it.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Is it a year already?

 

 

[Arniepie]

Mad isnt it?

Raynor calls the Tories scum and is roundly condemned in the media.

Corbyn never resort to insults and is even goaded in parliament by that cunt,and is hammered in tue media.

 

It's almost like they are not completely impartial.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 26/10/2021 at 13:32, Strontium Dog™ said:

Oh my

 

 

 

Their hypocrisy and stunning lack of self-awareness aside, Novara should be reinstated, it was one of the best comedy channels on Youtube. 

It's a great Centrist and right-wing hobby to put two dissimilar things together together and pretend there's some sort of hypocrisy going on.

Weirdos.

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's a great Centrist and right-wing hobby to put two dissimilar things together together and pretend there's some sort of hypocrisy going on.

Weirdos.

 

How are they dissimilar? In the first he's arguing that tech companies are well within their rights to delete you from social media. In the second he's arguing - totally coincidentally when it's his outlet on the receiving end - that it shouldn't be the whim of tech companies to delete you from social media. 

[sir roger]

Why don'rt we sort out all of the worst issues of the British press by paying off the twelve people who read Novara Media , and bribing the Guardian to cancel Owen Jones'  fortnightly pieces.

[Gnasher]

12 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I thought i was funny. That's the point of me most of the time.

 

[Gnasher]

11 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Are you retarded? Read the reply to it.

Nice. You were one of the warriors demanding an end to online abuse after the Amess murder, wanted Twitter cleaned up even, even with no knowledge of the perpetrator even holding a twitter account.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

14 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

How are they dissimilar? In the first he's arguing that tech companies are well within their rights to delete you from social media. In the second he's arguing - totally coincidentally when it's his outlet on the receiving end - that it shouldn't be the whim of tech companies to delete you from social media. 

If you sign up to a platform, you do so on condition you stick to their terms & conditions. If (like me and some of the right-wing hate-flingers) you break those Ts & Cs, you get booted. That's the deal you sign up for.

 

If you get booted when you haven't broken the terms and conditions, then you're entitled to be irked.

 

See? Dissimilar.

[Bjornebye]

16 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I thought it was funny. That's my point most of the time.

To be fair you have made me laugh a few times over the years (More so at you but yeah you do have it in you to be quite funny when you're not being a wanker) although on this occasion, it wasn't funny. 

15 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Are you retarded? Read the reply to it.

Your lack of self awareness is astounding. 

[Bjornebye]

4 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Nice. You were one of the warriors demanding an end to online abuse after the Amess murder, wanted Twitter cleaned up even, even with no knowledge of the perpetrator even holding a twitter account.

Sssshhh he'll get his lawyer involved. 

 

 

[Strontium]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

If you sign up to a platform, you do so on condition you stick to their terms & conditions. If (like me and some of the right-wing hate-flingers) you break those Ts & Cs, you get booted. That's the deal you sign up for.

 

If you get booted when you haven't broken the terms and conditions, then you're entitled to be irked.

 

See? Dissimilar.

 

There's nothing in either of his tweets about breaking terms and conditions. In his first tweet he's saying companies can deny a platform to whoever they like and that it's not censorship if they remove you. In the second he's saying it shouldn't be up to the whim of companies to remove you. He should make up his mind one way or the other.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Looks like hypocrisy to me unless he means the lack of explanation. Personally I don't believe anybody should be banned maybe fact checked at least. 

[Bjornebye]

Fact check is a problem for liars. 

[Captain Howdy]

4 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

There's nothing in either of his tweets about breaking terms and conditions. In his first tweet he's saying companies can deny a platform to whoever they like and that it's not censorship if they remove you. In the second he's saying it shouldn't be up to the whim of companies to remove you. He should make up his mind one way or the other.

Seriously put the black is white arguing morally gymnastic hypocritical Clown on ignore, you won’t regret it.

[Bjornebye]

11 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

Seriously put the black is white arguing morally gymnastic hypocritical Clown on ignore, you won’t regret it.

Who are you on about there 

[Captain Howdy]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Who are you on about there 

AoT

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Regarding the alleged (non) hypocrisy from the Novara video bloke, he might not explicitly mention it in his tweets, but I think you can infer from his words in both of the posted tweets that he's talking about two different situations. The first being the faux cries of "censorship" from the far right and fake libertarians whenever they are kicked off a social media network for breaching the terms of use. The second being where a social media network has kicked somebody off their site for no reason, as evidenced by the fact that they quickly realised their error and reinstated the account in question. 

 

It's also worth noting that Novara blokes first tweet is dated 20 June 2020. And that this happened the day before, which may add context to his first tweet and may be further evidence to suggest that he's talking about two entirely different situations, that there's no hypocrisy and that it's another piss poor attempt at a left targeted "gotcha."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/19/katie-hopkins-permanently-removed-from-twitter

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Regarding the alleged (non) hypocrisy from the Novara video bloke, he might not explicitly mention it in his tweets, but I think you can infer from his words in both of the posted tweets that he's talking about two different situations. The first being the faux cries of "censorship" from the far right and fake libertarians whenever they are kicked off a social media network for breaching the terms of use. The second being where a social media network has kicked somebody off their site for no reason, as evidenced by the fact that they quickly realised their error and reinstated the account in question. 

 

It's also worth noting that Novara blokes first tweet is dated 20 June 2020. And that this happened the day before, which may add context to his first tweet and may be further evidence to suggest that he's talking about two entirely different situations, that there's no hypocrisy and that it's another piss poor attempt at a left targeted "gotcha."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/19/katie-hopkins-permanently-removed-from-twitter

I’m just surprised they still give bastani a job.  After his islamaphobia episode in particular.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

There's nothing in either of his tweets about breaking terms and conditions. In his first tweet he's saying companies can deny a platform to whoever they like and that it's not censorship if they remove you. In the second he's saying it shouldn't be up to the whim of companies to remove you. He should make up his mind one way or the other.

Right, so your problem isn't any suggestion of hypocrisy, it's that in the 280 characters available to him he left out bits of context that he assumed any halfway intelligent person would understand.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

Seriously put the black is white arguing morally gymnastic hypocritical Clown on ignore, you won’t regret it.

Someone tell this ridiculous lying shit to grow up.