Tommy Robinson is banned from facebook and Insta Watch

StriderHort
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#81
Report 2 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by ColinDent)
No I'm pointing out hypocrisy and thanks for proving me correct almost immediately.
Poor old misunderstood teddy bear Gerry Adams, just because he was a member of the IRA's war council that ordered atrocities that killed hundreds of innocents people call him worse than a guy who's been a bit of a **** and a hoolie in the past.
The far left do love a nice terrorist don't they?
I see it more as whataboutery and dismissal, you see me waving a 'I heart GA' flag? Merely pointing out i'm not aware of him actually being convicted for these things? Don't get me wrong, it seems pretty bloody obvious he was a terrorist and on the council, but was he ever convicted of it? (I honestly don't know for sure)

I get people have different opinions of TA politically, but I personally do worry how those speaking out for him on matters of censorship are so quick to totally whitewash the fact he's a total scumbag and always has been, it's like it isn't even taken into consideration.

This will vary on perspective, but when I think of 'a bit of a hoolie' I think of teenagers getting a sly carryout, smashing some windows and maybe getting a chase from the police'..when you you start getting done for attacking your partner, fraud and organised football hooliganism you're raising the bar a bit.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report 2 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by generallee)
What she said is a good deal less obnoxious than what you have said about Tommy Robinson. What is the big deal is the inconsistency, purely driven by the politics of the "victim."
All I've said thus far is that he is a violent criminal and a thug. There is plenty of evidence on which to base this standpoint. Also, I don't use Twitter.

(Original post by generallee)
No I am saying they are irrelevant to his current postings, which highlight Muslim grooming gangs, the dangers of Muslim immigration, and the bias of the BBC, and are therefore political.
His track record clearly shows that he has an anti-Muslim bias, call it racism or xenophobia or whatever you like, either way he is most definitely not a neutral source and thus his rantings on these topics are not a particularly useful source of information. This is not to say that grooming gangs, etc. are not an issue, just that Yaxley-Lennon's input is simply worthless in this context. Indeed, most of the real work to uncover and convict these gangs has been in spite of Yaxley-Lennon's effort, not because of it.

(Original post by paul514)
An organisation isn't a person and even if we classed it as such that person can still say what they like, they shouldn't have the right to stop other people saying what they want.
A person can say what they like, and other people have a right to not offer them services if they don't like what they hear. Political standpoints are not protected characteristics, this kind of discrimination is perfectly legal.

(Original post by paul514)
Its a public forum, social media is now where people discuss and talk about anything and everything.
So? It's still privately owned.

(Original post by paul514)
When you have a monopoly of this sort it is a public platform as you don't have another place to go where you can carry out these conversations.
Facebook do not have a monopoly.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#83
Report 2 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by StriderHort)
I see it more as whataboutery and dismissal, you see me waving a 'I heart GA' flag? Merely pointing out i'm not aware of him actually being convicted for these things? Don't get me wrong, it seems pretty bloody obvious he was a terrorist and on the council, but was he ever convicted of it? (I honestly don't know for sure)

I get people have different opinions of TA politically, but I personally do worry how those speaking out for him on matters of censorship are so quick to totally whitewash the fact he's a total scumbag and always has been, it's like it isn't even taken into consideration.

This will vary on perspective, but when I think of 'a bit of a hoolie' I think of teenagers getting a sly carryout, smashing some windows and maybe getting a chase from the police'..when you you start getting done for attacking your partner, fraud and organised football hooliganism you're raising the bar a bit.
But when using 2 specific cases as a direct comparison it's not about whataboutery, it's about the hypocrisy that is prevalent amongst a certain section of the political society, you are trying to turn a valid point on it's head by dismissing the original argument.
If you read my original statement I was clearly not making a point about who was worse, but more a point about having to accept freedom of speech as just that, for everyone not just for those you agree with.

By the way have any of you watched his panodrama video? or even any of his many other pieces because if not then you really should just to inform yourself, again not saying he's correct about everything but there are some uncomfortable truths in there for politicians, the media and the police.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#84
Report 2 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by Dez)
1. All I've said thus far is that he is a violent criminal and a thug.

2. His track record clearly shows that he has an anti-Muslim bias, call it racism or xenophobia or whatever you like, either way he is most definitely not a neutral source and thus his rantings on these topics are not a particularly useful source of information. This is not to say that grooming gangs, etc. are not an issue, just that Yaxley-Lennon's input is simply worthless in this context. Indeed, most of the real work to uncover and convict these gangs has been in spite of Yaxley-Lennon's effort, not because of it.

3. Facebook do not have a monopoly.
1. Is it therefore your position that only a person with moral probity (as defined by you) can self identify? If a trans person has a criminal record, or has been violent (and no doubt many have and are) then they are not actually the sex they self identify as, and don't need to be addressed as such?

2. You need to do some more research into what happened with those grooming gangs and who said what and when. As for Tommy R's views on the link between mass Muslim immigration and the rise Jihadi terror, he is right.

3. TR had over a million followers. That is not replicable on any other platform yet extant, so yes, it does have a de facto monopoly.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#85
Report 2 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by generallee)
1. Is it therefore your position that only a person with moral probity (as defined by you) can self identify? If a trans person has a criminal record, or has been violent (and no doubt many have and are) then they are not actually the sex they self identify as, and don't need to be addressed as such?
Anyone can self-identify all they want. I have no reason to address mister convicted thug Yaxley-Lennon, I wouldn't piss on the guy if he was on fire.

(Original post by generallee)
2. You need to do some more research into what happened with those grooming gangs and who said what and when. As for Tommy R's views on the link between mass Muslim immigration and the rise Jihadi terror, he is right.
In the criminal investigations into these gangs he has been more of a hindrance than a help, I gather. If you have suggestions of any unbiased sources I may find some time to read them, just don't go linking to gutter press like Guido Fawkes again please.

(Original post by generallee)
3. TR had over a million followers. That is not replicable on any other platform yet extant, so yes, it does have a de facto monopoly.
That's a pretty weird definition of a monopoly, talk about moving the goalposts. There are tons of websites other than Facebook with over a million users, you're even on one of them right now.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#86
Report 2 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by Dez)
1. Anyone can self-identify all they want. I have no reason to address mister convicted thug Yaxley-Lennon, I wouldn't piss on the guy if he was on fire.



2. In the criminal investigations into these gangs he has been more of a hindrance than a help, I gather. If you have suggestions of any unbiased sources I may find some time to read them, just don't go linking to gutter press like Guido Fawkes again please.



3. That's a pretty weird definition of a monopoly, talk about moving the goalposts. There are tons of websites other than Facebook with over a million users, you're even on one of them right now.
Good of you to allow anyone to self identify all they want. Most kind. The debate, however, is how everyone else identifies them. If gender is a social construct, someone's name certainly is.

Your side of the debate tries to use hate speech legislation to compel people to address trans people according to their self identified gender. You try and drive anyone who doesn't out of Dodge through vicious social media campaigns, and non platforming. Yet, purely on political grounds, you refuse to allow someone you don't like to self identify his name. Can you not see how absurd that makes your whole ideology appear? We all know it is boll0cks, of course, but it is obvious you do too. You are such a hypocrite.

And intellectually dishonest. You have refused to address my question as to whether a trans person with a criminal record is still a trans person, deserving of being addressed as such? And if he or she is what is the difference with Robinson?

Finally, and this is the biggest joke of all, you (well not you so much, no-one cares what you say, but the msm whose tactic you copy) are putting your finger into a dam in the hope it will stop the flow. This guy is famous all over the world as Tommy Robinson. He has global renown under his pseudonym. And it keeps on growing the more his is attacked.

The attempt to diminish him in this way (in itself an unwitting compliment to his influence) is as futile as it would be for a TSR poster of another age to endlessly call Lenin, Vladimir Ulyanov, Trotsky, Lev Bronstein, or Stalin, Iacob Jugshashvili.

2. If I thought you had the fair mindedness to consider this I would provide some links, but since I know you don't, I won't. But prove me wrong, investigate it yourself.

3. Stop being pedantic. You know exactly what is meant.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#87
Report 2 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by Dez)
That's a pretty weird definition of a monopoly, talk about moving the goalposts. There are tons of websites other than Facebook with over a million users, you're even on one of them right now.
It's because they want both a voice and an audience.
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#88
Report 2 weeks ago
#88
now if only they would ban paedos and prostitutes and gangsters and minors, then facebook and insta would really be the virtuous places they pretend to be otherwise, it just looks like more lefty virtue signalling.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#89
Report 2 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by SHallowvale)
It's because they want both a voice and an audience.
The TSR equivalent of Tommy Robinson's reach on Facebook would be of you (or Dez) talking your normal boll0cks on here and getting over a million little green thumbs up below your post, and a thousand shiny gems.

Not going to happen is it? You don't have either a voice OR an audience. Neither do I of course, but no-one wants to ban any of us.

The reason Tommy has been banned is that he does and he has.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#90
Report 2 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by generallee)
The TSR equivalent of Tommy Robinson's reach on Facebook would be of you (or Dez) talking your normal boll0cks on here and getting over a million little green thumbs up below your post, and a thousand shiny gems.

Not going to happen is it? You don't have either a voice OR an audience. Neither do I of course, but no-one wants to ban any of us.

The reason Tommy has been banned is that he does and he has.
Er, you do have a voice though?

Tommy has other sites to post his content, in fact he still does. He posts to his Youtube channel multiple times a week so he clearly has both a voice and an audience (and a large one, at that). Even if he didn't he still could post elsewhere on the internet. His audience might shrink massively but nobody's entitled to an audience.
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#91
Report 2 weeks ago
#91
Labours Tom Watson is calling for him to be banned on YouTube too..

Of course, as it’s the current year, any view to the right of Ed Miliband should and will be classed as violent hate speech. They should follow up by banning Nigel Farage. They can also ban extremist lefties like Galloway, Seumas Milne and then Corbyn and so on. Then the only political views allowed on YouTube will be the Independent Group and various Friends of Israel Associates..

As an accelerationionist, I think this is excellent news. Our phoney liberal overlords have so blatantly lost the war of ideas they are reverting to greater censorship.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#92
Report 2 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Er, you do have a voice though?

Tommy has other sites to post his content, in fact he still does. He posts to his Youtube channel multiple times a week so he clearly has both a voice and an audience (and a large one, at that). Even if he didn't he still could post elsewhere on the internet. His audience might shrink massively but nobody's entitled to an audience.
That’s like saying you support free speech but only in your bedroom.,😂

Hilarious the elaborate ways liberals try and justify western censorship. The only real difference between western and non western censorship is that liberal governments get corporations to act as middlemen to do their dirty work for them. The outcomes are the same.


People would have more respect for you if you literally just said ‘I don’t care that TR is not allowed free speech/ I think he should be denied free speech’ .
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#93
Report 2 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by Davij038)
That’s like saying you support free speech but only in your bedroom.,😂

Hilarious the elaborate ways liberals try and justify western censorship. The only real difference between western and non western censorship is that liberal governments get corporations to act as middlemen to do their dirty work for them. The outcomes are the same.

People would have more respect for you if you literally just said ‘I don’t care that TR is not allowed free speech/ I think he should be denied free speech’ .
I've already said I don't care that TR has been banned on Twitter/Facebook, these are privately owned services. I don't care if others 'respect' me for that or not.

Of course western and non-western censorship differ only by who the censor is. As we all know, a company deleting Twitter accounts is basically the same thing as mass imprisonment, mass political suppression, execution of individuals and their families, forced labour camps, etc. Plus, people with the same and/or similar opinions to TR definitely never get any exposure to the public, especially not through the media, right?
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#94
Report 2 weeks ago
#94
cool
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#95
Report 2 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by generallee)
The TSR equivalent of Tommy Robinson's reach on Facebook would be of you (or Dez) talking your normal boll0cks on here and getting over a million little green thumbs up below your post, and a thousand shiny gems.

Not going to happen is it? You don't have either a voice OR an audience. Neither do I of course, but no-one wants to ban any of us.

The reason Tommy has been banned is that he does and he has.
The reason why he was banned is because he was spouting anti-Muslim BS as part of his agenda to demonise the Muslim population based on past events done by a few radicals. I won't deny the man has some followers who are normal, ordinary people but a large chunk of his followers are also from the same political spectrum of the far-right, the EDL and all that. It's just very disgraceful that someone in the house of lords (which is a dead limb imo anyway) supports this far-right radical, the discrimination and the prejudice against innocent people they support it all. I know you will think otherwise, but the man is vile but not that vile I would say, I feel very foolish when I used to support him but now I see his true colours. Next up is a jail cell for him like I said, his audience is either being manipulated or are the same far right trash that always supported him from his early days of a convicted hooligan and fraudster.
I don't care how many followers he gets on social media, as far as I may know those followers may just be bots. It is the internet after all. Although a movie about his "revolution" will not go amiss, it depends how people interpret free speech but I assume you mean absolute free speech (Say whatever you want without consequences) then I am sorry to say but there is no such thing as free speech.
Last edited by The RAR; 2 weeks ago
2
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#96
Report 2 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Of course western and non-western censorship differ only by who the censor is. As we all know, a company deleting Twitter accounts is basically the same thing as mass imprisonment, mass political suppression, execution of individuals and their families, forced labour camps, etc. Plus, people with the same and/or similar opinions to TR definitely never get any exposure to the public, especially not through the media, right?
Censorship is censorship. If the ultimate end goal is the same (the silencing of views critical to the government) , then as unpleasant as the means are these are ultimately superficial differences (in very different countries with very different problems). Besides often the liberal mask will slide, such as the invasion of Iraq, rendition, Guantanamo etc.

As the Alt Right grows in size I expect that just like every other regime does when threatened, our liberal regime Will respond with extra judicial violence, and is indeed starting to do so already.

What do you mean exposure? People know the alt right exist but are often clueless about our actual views which are often purposefully mischaracterised or/ and framed in a negative or/and often misleading light. Which is fine. I can understand why they would do that. It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#97
Report 2 weeks ago
#97
(Original post by generallee)
Good of you to allow anyone to self identify all they want. Most kind. The debate, however, is how everyone else identifies them. If gender is a social construct, someone's name certainly is.

Your side of the debate tries to use hate speech legislation to compel people to address trans people according to their self identified gender. You try and drive anyone who doesn't out of Dodge through vicious social media campaigns, and non platforming. Yet, purely on political grounds, you refuse to allow someone you don't like to self identify his name. Can you not see how absurd that makes your whole ideology appear? We all know it is boll0cks, of course, but it is obvious you do too. You are such a hypocrite.
I believe the old adage works here: "if you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything at all".

I do not like mister Yaxley-Lennon, or Robinson or whatever you want to call him and so, as I've already alluded to, I would not give him the time of day if our paths were to ever cross (whcih I doubt, since my day-to-day life doesn't include much small talk with thugs). There's a difference between holding an opinion on someone and directly harassing someone by enforcing your opinion on them, a subtlety which seems to have eluded you on this occasion.

The most accepted definition of hate speech is speech that either (a) directly attacks/intimidates someone based on a protected characteristic, or (b) incites others to do likewise (or worse).

Calling someone a criminal thug does not fall under this category since (a) it's demonstratably true, (b) I'm not directly engaging with Robinson himself and (c) being a criminal thug is not a protected characterstic under hate crime laws.

(Original post by generallee)
And intellectually dishonest. You have refused to address my question as to whether a trans person with a criminal record is still a trans person, deserving of being addressed as such? And if he or she is what is the difference with Robinson?
It largely depends on context. A trans person guilty of multiple sex offences would likely not enjoy the same freedoms as a trans person guilty of dangeours driving.

(Original post by generallee)
Finally, and this is the biggest joke of all, you (well not you so much, no-one cares what you say, but the msm whose tactic you copy) are putting your finger into a dam in the hope it will stop the flow. This guy is famous all over the world as Tommy Robinson. He has global renown under his pseudonym. And it keeps on growing the more his is attacked.
Ignorance does indeed know no bounds.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#98
Report 2 weeks ago
#98
(Original post by Davij038)
Censorship is censorship. If the ultimate end goal is the same (the silencing of views critical to the government) , then as unpleasant as the means are these are ultimately superficial differences (in very different countries with very different problems). Besides often the liberal mask will slide, such as the invasion of Iraq, rendition, Guantanamo etc.

As the Alt Right grows in size I expect that just like every other regime does when threatened, our liberal regime Will respond with extra judicial violence, and is indeed starting to do so already.

What do you mean exposure? People know the alt right exist but are often clueless about our actual views which are often purposefully mischaracterised or/ and framed in a negative or/and often misleading light. Which is fine. I can understand why they would do that. It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand.
Censorship isn't censorship though. Censorship can exist for various different reasons, come in many different forms and have a huge range of different implications. Laws against defamation and laws which ban the publication of anti-government material, for example, have vastly different motivations and consequences.

And yes, being locked away for protesting against the government and having your Twitter account banned are two very different things. They don't even need to share the same motivation. Don't act like the alt right are being banned simply for their political views either; if this were the case no alt right supporting account would exist (which clearly isn't the case).

Tommy Robinson is a household name and the actions/beliefs of the alt right are very frequently expressed in the media. If we lived in some China/North Korea-esque censorship hell hole you wouldn't be able to even discuss these two things.


Dez Tagging you, curious to hear your thoughts on what I've written if you don't mind sharing them, good or bad. Been enjoying your conversation with Generallee, can't rep because I've given you too much lately.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#99
Report 2 weeks ago
#99
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Er, you do have a voice though?

Tommy has other sites to post his content, in fact he still does. He posts to his Youtube channel multiple times a week so he clearly has both a voice and an audience (and a large one, at that). Even if he didn't he still could post elsewhere on the internet. His audience might shrink massively but nobody's entitled to an audience.
His YouTube channel is about to be cancelled. The Deputy Leader of the free speech Labour Party, Tom Watson just wrote to YouTube threatening them with regulation in the UK if they don’t. (Labour have to form a government for that to happen, obviously).

Actually people are entitled to an audience, you know. Why are these social media behemoths any more than telephone lines? You didn’t get censored by BT landlines on political grounds. Over a million people willingly engaged with Tommy on Facebook. A million human beings, wiped out by some Facebook bureaucrat.

It is absurd.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#100
Report 2 weeks ago
#100
(Original post by generallee)
His YouTube channel is about to be cancelled. The Deputy Leader of the free speech Labour Party, Tom Watson just wrote to YouTube threatening them with regulation in the UK if they don’t. (Labour have to form a government for that to happen, obviously).

Actually people are entitled to an audience, you know. Why are these social media behemoths any more than telephone lines? You didn’t get censored by BT landlines on political grounds. Over a million people willingly engaged with Tommy on Facebook. A million human beings, wiped out by some Facebook bureaucrat.

It is absurd.
I personally doubt that Youtube is going to act on the request of a politician who isn't even a member of the government.

And people aren't, sorry. I have to right to be listened to by however many people want to listen to me. Private organisations certainly aren't required (nor should they be) to accommodate for whatever my audience is.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (90)
16.45%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (56)
10.24%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (98)
17.92%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (83)
15.17%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (54)
9.87%
How can I be the best version of myself? (166)
30.35%

Watched Threads

View All