Well, that’s where you lost me.
To suggest that some 40% of the voting public needs deprogramming is, in my opinion, dangerous rhetoric. I shouldn’t be surprised though, considering the shutdown of conservative ideas on social media is in full swing.
Prepare to be assimilated
Convincing 50 million Americans that the POTUS was stolen was very dangerous. The POTUS election is a really big deal to us. Many would say it’s worth killing and dying for. But that’s where we are.
What do you think? Is it just no big deal that 50 million people think that black is white? Do you simply think it’s not possible for 50 million people to need deprogramming?
Which conservative ideas in particular are being shut down? Most of my social media consumption is on GoActuary.
I think it’s dangerous to suggest that 50M people need deprogramming, even if they think black is white. It’s important to educate people, show them that black is, in fact, black. There will still be some that refuse to change their mind, but that is their right. The thousands that showed up in DC a couple weeks ago to protest had the right to do so as well. Those few hundred who stormed the Capitol took it too far, and should be arrested and prosecuted. But we should not look to take 50M+ people and lock them up in de-programming camps…
I’ll let you do your own research on that one…
Looking at the OP again - the thread was started talking about education, not camps. The particular word was probably chosen mostly for click bait.
Cop outs are annoying. If you have nothing, just admit it.
Look it up. It’s all over the place. Just not on any MSM because they are funded by Soros and the global elite.
This. Well more because “deprogramming” is a better known term than “exit-counselling”.
Ahh, I hadn’t realized “deprogramming” had quite so violent connotations. I would certainly not kidnap them or lock them in re-education camps. I agree that’s crazy. I wouldn’t do that with cultists either for that matter.
Anyway, I really don’t know what the answer is. I can and do try to educate people a lot, but education doesn’t work very well against people who have been specifically primed against it.
OK, that’s good. I’ve certainly heard that suggested on main stream media. Probably coming from more extreme voices, for sure, but still echoed by plenty of others.
Did you hear someone say this on mainstream media or did you hear someone say someone said it on mainstream media?
[quote=“soyleche, post:68, topic:1834, full:true”]
Do you live in a cave, or are you just being deliberately obtuse? I’ll give you 2:
This always seems like a silly example. The WSJ entertained running the story and ended up refusing after all the evidence was bogus. That’s why it was in the post and not a more reputable source.
Probably the latter. I don’t listen to a lot of mainstream media, unless SportsCenter counts.
How does that make it not censorship? There’s plenty of bogus $h!t all over Facebook.
Thank you. That’s all I’m asking - a little defense when a claim is made.
We’ll probably devolve into a debate of semantics. What Facebook/Twitter does isn’t that interesting because you have no first amendment rights against what Facebook might do so what do you even mean by censorship? Newspapers face libel suits if they make shit up, which is why the good ones make sure they’re not making shit up.
If you walk into my house and I kick you out because of stuff you said I censored you, but so what? It only matters if it’s the government doing it.
Amen. That’ll preach!