Shippou said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Shippou said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Being "woke" is probably the worst diagnosis you could get these days. It means that you have let feelings & emotions over rule every last ounce of logic & reason.

I give you the latest example of "woke" culture. The new SI Swimsuit edition:

Yumi Nu 'shaking' over SI Swimsuit cover reveal https://t.co/g1yXu8NKhX pic.twitter.com/CQC3ELLW2F

— New York Post (@nypost) May 16, 2022

What fresh circle of Hell is this, and how did we get here?

---

First, I'm proud to be woke. If woke means being awake to racism, sexism, homophobia, social injustice, and the like, why not?

---

Woke is not about being awake to any of those things any more than Antifa are actually anti-fascists. "Woke" is about creating a narrative concerning all things claiming that racism, sexism, homophobia, social injustice and the like are ever present in every situation. It's about pushing a victim narrative. It's pure ignorance masquerading as virtue.

---

Interesting definition. Can you be a "victim" of "woke" culture? Do you see yourself as a victim of this new culture?

---

Most any white Christian htero male has been

---

No you're not and you never have been you deluded ****.

---

Huh?

---

He is just an angry communist. He is fun to observe though. Kind of like the monkeys at the zoo.

---

And you're a caricature of the average American, stupid af and deluded into thinking the world revolves around you when it doesn't. The only reason I even pop into this cesspool of a forum is to see what boogie man conservatives have come up with now about why the world is changing and they're "victims" of change because you wish things would the exact same because you don't move forward with time, you stagnant *****.

---

He mad bro

Shippou said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Shippou said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Shippou said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Being "woke" is probably the worst diagnosis you could get these days. It means that you have let feelings & emotions over rule every last ounce of logic & reason.

I give you the latest example of "woke" culture. The new SI Swimsuit edition:

Yumi Nu 'shaking' over SI Swimsuit cover reveal https://t.co/g1yXu8NKhX pic.twitter.com/CQC3ELLW2F

— New York Post (@nypost) May 16, 2022

What fresh circle of Hell is this, and how did we get here?

---

First, I'm proud to be woke. If woke means being awake to racism, sexism, homophobia, social injustice, and the like, why not?

---

Woke is not about being awake to any of those things any more than Antifa are actually anti-fascists. "Woke" is about creating a narrative concerning all things claiming that racism, sexism, homophobia, social injustice and the like are ever present in every situation. It's about pushing a victim narrative. It's pure ignorance masquerading as virtue.

---

Interesting definition. Can you be a "victim" of "woke" culture? Do you see yourself as a victim of this new culture?

---

Most any white Christian htero male has been

---

No you're not and you never have been you deluded ****.

---

Huh?

---

He is just an angry communist. He is fun to observe though. Kind of like the monkeys at the zoo.

---

And you're a caricature of the average American, stupid af and deluded into thinking the world revolves around you when it doesn't. The only reason I even pop into this cesspool of a forum is to see what boogie man conservatives have come up with now about why the world is changing and they're "victims" of change because you wish things would the exact same because you don't move forward with time, you stagnant *****.

---

Look, Monkey Boy is playing with his poop again.

---

Lol waking up with the casual racism today by comparing a person of African descent with a monkey, love this board.

---

Enjoy. But I never called you a monkey, I called you Monkey Boy.

That is not now or ever has been a racial term.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Shippou said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Shippou said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Being "woke" is probably the worst diagnosis you could get these days. It means that you have let feelings & emotions over rule every last ounce of logic & reason.

I give you the latest example of "woke" culture. The new SI Swimsuit edition:

Yumi Nu 'shaking' over SI Swimsuit cover reveal https://t.co/g1yXu8NKhX pic.twitter.com/CQC3ELLW2F

— New York Post (@nypost) May 16, 2022

What fresh circle of Hell is this, and how did we get here?

---

First, I'm proud to be woke. If woke means being awake to racism, sexism, homophobia, social injustice, and the like, why not?

---

Woke is not about being awake to any of those things any more than Antifa are actually anti-fascists. "Woke" is about creating a narrative concerning all things claiming that racism, sexism, homophobia, social injustice and the like are ever present in every situation. It's about pushing a victim narrative. It's pure ignorance masquerading as virtue.

---

Interesting definition. Can you be a "victim" of "woke" culture? Do you see yourself as a victim of this new culture?

---

Most any white Christian htero male has been

---

No you're not and you never have been you deluded ****.

---

Huh?

---

He is just an angry communist. He is fun to observe though. Kind of like the monkeys at the zoo.

---

And you're a caricature of the average American, stupid af and deluded into thinking the world revolves around you when it doesn't. The only reason I even pop into this cesspool of a forum is to see what boogie man conservatives have come up with now about why the world is changing and they're "victims" of change because you wish things would the exact same because you don't move forward with time, you stagnant *****.

---

He mad bro

---

He thinks he's better than us. Because of his lefty politics. And that's the essence of the problem with Critical Theory worldview. ANYTHING to the right of you is, at best, an enabler of tyranny.

whiterock said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Shippou said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Shippou said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Being "woke" is probably the worst diagnosis you could get these days. It means that you have let feelings & emotions over rule every last ounce of logic & reason.

I give you the latest example of "woke" culture. The new SI Swimsuit edition:

Yumi Nu 'shaking' over SI Swimsuit cover reveal https://t.co/g1yXu8NKhX pic.twitter.com/CQC3ELLW2F

— New York Post (@nypost) May 16, 2022

What fresh circle of Hell is this, and how did we get here?

---

First, I'm proud to be woke. If woke means being awake to racism, sexism, homophobia, social injustice, and the like, why not?

---

Woke is not about being awake to any of those things any more than Antifa are actually anti-fascists. "Woke" is about creating a narrative concerning all things claiming that racism, sexism, homophobia, social injustice and the like are ever present in every situation. It's about pushing a victim narrative. It's pure ignorance masquerading as virtue.

---

Interesting definition. Can you be a "victim" of "woke" culture? Do you see yourself as a victim of this new culture?

---

Most any white Christian htero male has been

---

No you're not and you never have been you deluded ****.

---

Huh?

---

He is just an angry communist. He is fun to observe though. Kind of like the monkeys at the zoo.

---

And you're a caricature of the average American, stupid af and deluded into thinking the world revolves around you when it doesn't. The only reason I even pop into this cesspool of a forum is to see what boogie man conservatives have come up with now about why the world is changing and they're "victims" of change because you wish things would the exact same because you don't move forward with time, you stagnant *****.

---

He mad bro

---

He thinks he's better than us. Because of his lefty politics. And that's the essence of the problem with Critical Theory worldview. ANYTHING to the right of you is, at best, an enabler of tyranny.

---

Funny. Yeah that's a path to life long despair and underachievement.

But the justification of the silent coup in response makes it worth it I guess.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Some people are not happy just controlling themselves.

---

Where were you when Twitter was canceling people who expressed a conservative viewpoint? I don't remember these type of comments from you. In fact, if I recall, you instead defended twitter and claimed they can do what they want and get over it.

I guess it's cool when Twitter tries to cancel those who have conservative opinions but damn anyone who complains about the cover of SI. How dare they try to "control" anyone (whatever the hell that means).

Sadly, you don't even recognize your hypocrisy.

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Some people are not happy just controlling themselves.

---

Where were you when Twitter was canceling people who expressed a conservative viewpoint? I don't remember these type of comments from you. In fact, if I recall, you instead defended twitter and claimed they can do what they want and get over it.

I guess it's cool when Twitter tries to cancel those who have conservative opinions but damn anyone who complains about the cover of SI. How dare they try to "control" anyone (whatever the hell that means).

Sadly, you don't even recognize your hypocrisy.

---

It's a private company! Or something like that

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

I'm not catholic but I can spot The hypocrisy in those who are that also support abortion. Same with a magazine that claimed to promote athletes publishing tubs. That chunk is no athlete.

Wangchung said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

I'm not catholic but I can spot The hypocrisy in those who are that also support abortion. Same with a magazine that claimed to promote athletes publishing tubs. That chunk is no athlete.

---

Wait, you thought the swimsuit edition was about athletes?

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

I'm not catholic but I can spot The hypocrisy in those who are that also support abortion. Same with a magazine that claimed to promote athletes publishing tubs. That chunk is no athlete.

---

Wait, you thought the swimsuit edition was about athletes?

---

for the longest time, i thought it was a special edition of athletes in swimwear..

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

I'm not catholic but I can spot The hypocrisy in those who are that also support abortion. Same with a magazine that claimed to promote athletes publishing tubs. That chunk is no athlete.

---

Wait, you thought the swimsuit edition was about athletes?

---

Swimsuit models are definitely athletic. Well, they used to be before every chub deserved a trophy simply for breathing. Runway models? No, most of them do not appear athletic.

4th and Inches said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

I'm not catholic but I can spot The hypocrisy in those who are that also support abortion. Same with a magazine that claimed to promote athletes publishing tubs. That chunk is no athlete.

---

Wait, you thought the swimsuit edition was about athletes?

---

for the longest time, i thought it was a special edition of athletes in swimwear..

---

I mean, Kate Upton rode horses in high school, but I doubt she was chosen for her equestrian prowess.

The swimsuit edition has always been an extraneous non athletic appeal to the male dominated audience of SI. That's why I'm not quite getting the worry over an overweight model. If you're mad they took away the hotter ones, then ok. I'll happily take a plus size woman over the t-ranny pics any day. So be careful what you gripe about.

ATL Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

I'm not catholic but I can spot The hypocrisy in those who are that also support abortion. Same with a magazine that claimed to promote athletes publishing tubs. That chunk is no athlete.

---

Wait, you thought the swimsuit edition was about athletes?

---

for the longest time, i thought it was a special edition of athletes in swimwear..

---

I mean, Kate Upton rode horses in high school, but I doubt she was chosen for her equestrian prowess.

The swimsuit edition has always been an extraneous non athletic appeal to the male dominated audience of SI. That's why I'm not quite getting the worry over an overweight model. If you're mad they took away the hotter ones, then ok. I'll happily take a plus size woman over the t-ranny pics any day. So be careful what you gripe about.

---

i havent looked at a swimsuit edition in over 20 years.. i find all those women attractive in their own way but they and any others will always be a distant second to the one who became one with me. My definition of beauty changes with the aging of my spouse. Today is the day I love and cherish her most, until tomorrow comes..

4th and Inches said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

I'm not catholic but I can spot The hypocrisy in those who are that also support abortion. Same with a magazine that claimed to promote athletes publishing tubs. That chunk is no athlete.

---

Wait, you thought the swimsuit edition was about athletes?

---

for the longest time, i thought it was a special edition of athletes in swimwear..

---

I mean, Kate Upton rode horses in high school, but I doubt she was chosen for her equestrian prowess.

The swimsuit edition has always been an extraneous non athletic appeal to the male dominated audience of SI. That's why I'm not quite getting the worry over an overweight model. If you're mad they took away the hotter ones, then ok. I'll happily take a plus size woman over the t-ranny pics any day. So be careful what you gripe about.

---

i havent looked at a swimsuit edition in over 20 years.. i find all those women attractive in their own way but they and any others will always be a distant second to the one who became one with me. My definition of beauty changes with the aging of my spouse. Today is the day I love and cherish her most, until tomorrow comes..

---

Amen and ditto! Recently hit 27 years with my Baylor sweetheart.

ATL Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

I'm not catholic but I can spot The hypocrisy in those who are that also support abortion. Same with a magazine that claimed to promote athletes publishing tubs. That chunk is no athlete.

---

Wait, you thought the swimsuit edition was about athletes?

---

for the longest time, i thought it was a special edition of athletes in swimwear..

---

. If you're mad they took away the hotter ones, then ok. I'll happily take a plus size woman over the t-ranny pics any day. So be careful what you gripe about.

---

It's come to this...

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

You've completely missed the point. It's not a matter of whether twitter has a right to do what it does, just as it's not a matter of whether shooter has a right to express his opinion. I think we would both agree that twitter as a private company can cancel conservative opinions if it so desires. I think we would also both agree that shooter (or anyone else, for that matter) has the right to opine on an internet message board that he's unhappy that SI put an obese woman on its cover.

However, your odd critique of shooter is that by expressing that opinion, he's trying to "control" people, whatever you mean by that. And yet, by canceling conservative opinions, twitter is doing the exact same thing that you have accused shooter (and others) of doing (and on a much larger scale), a fact which you seem to be blind to. Yet, ironically, you defend twitter's right to try and control others, but are critical of shooter's. That's the hypocrisy, redneck.

Look, I get it. You're cool with canceling opinions you disagree with, and will defend the party's right to do so. I just find it odd than an educated man can't see the blatant and obvious hypocrisy in those two positions.

Finally, once again, I am the poster who said I've never bought an SI swimsuit issue. I am curious, how is my having an opinion that SI is virtue signaling by putting a fat woman on its cover hypocritical? It's hypocritical to feel as I do because I've never bought a swimsuit edition???

What fresh circle of Hell is this, and how did we get here?
ShooterTX

What fresh circle of Hell is this, and how did we get here?
ShooterTX

Its his opinion. Pretty dramatic.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

What fresh circle of Hell is this, and how did we get here?
ShooterTX

Its his opinion. Pretty dramatic.

---

Yea you've quoted him several times now. I'm not sure how you believe that's in any way responsive to my point.

Jack Bauer said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

I'm not catholic but I can spot The hypocrisy in those who are that also support abortion. Same with a magazine that claimed to promote athletes publishing tubs. That chunk is no athlete.

---

Wait, you thought the swimsuit edition was about athletes?

---

for the longest time, i thought it was a special edition of athletes in swimwear..

---

. If you're mad they took away the hotter ones, then ok. I'll happily take a plus size woman over the t-ranny pics any day. So be careful what you gripe about.

---

It's come to this...

---

You have a point.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

Just don't bake any damn cakes *****es

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

You've completely missed the point. It's not a matter of whether twitter has a right to do what it does, just as it's not a matter of whether shooter has a right to express his opinion. I think we would both agree that twitter as a private company can cancel conservative opinions if it so desires. I think we would also both agree that shooter (or anyone else, for that matter) has the right to opine on an internet message board that he's unhappy that SI put an obese woman on its cover.

However, your odd critique of shooter is that by expressing that opinion, he's trying to "control" people, whatever you mean by that. And yet, by canceling conservative opinions, twitter is doing the exact same thing that you have accused shooter (and others) of doing (and on a much larger scale), a fact which you seem to be blind to. Yet, ironically, you defend twitter's right to try and control others, but are critical of shooter's. That's the hypocrisy, redneck.

Look, I get it. You're cool with canceling opinions you disagree with, and will defend the party's right to do so. I just find it odd than an educated man can't see the blatant and obvious hypocrisy in those two positions.

Finally, once again, I am the poster who said I've never bought an SI swimsuit issue. I am curious, how is my having an opinion that SI is virtue signaling by putting a fat woman on its cover hypocritical? It's hypocritical to feel as I do because I've never bought a swimsuit edition???

---

Yes. We agree that a private company has right to take any editorial position it wishes.

What it does not have the right to do is say that it is a platform rather than publisher in order to get Section 230 protections, then tacitly adopt clear editorial positions on partisan political matters and attempt to disguise it as countering disinformation or indecency.

They are part of a political coalition and are clearly pursuing political aims. Fine. Both are legal, as long as disclosed and reported as campaign activity/contributions. But they are not doing that. They are posing as a public company. It's fraud, plain & simple.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

You've completely missed the point. It's not a matter of whether twitter has a right to do what it does, just as it's not a matter of whether shooter has a right to express his opinion. I think we would both agree that twitter as a private company can cancel conservative opinions if it so desires. I think we would also both agree that shooter (or anyone else, for that matter) has the right to opine on an internet message board that he's unhappy that SI put an obese woman on its cover.

However, your odd critique of shooter is that by expressing that opinion, he's trying to "control" people, whatever you mean by that. And yet, by canceling conservative opinions, twitter is doing the exact same thing that you have accused shooter (and others) of doing (and on a much larger scale), a fact which you seem to be blind to. Yet, ironically, you defend twitter's right to try and control others, but are critical of shooter's. That's the hypocrisy, redneck.

Look, I get it. You're cool with canceling opinions you disagree with, and will defend the party's right to do so. I just find it odd than an educated man can't see the blatant and obvious hypocrisy in those two positions.

Finally, once again, I am the poster who said I've never bought an SI swimsuit issue. I am curious, how is my having an opinion that SI is virtue signaling by putting a fat woman on its cover hypocritical? It's hypocritical to feel as I do because I've never bought a swimsuit edition???

---

Yes. We agree that a private company has right to take any editorial position it wishes.

What it does not have the right to do is say that it is a platform rather than publisher in order to get Section 230 protections, then tacitly adopt clear editorial positions on partisan political matters and attempt to disguise it as countering disinformation or indecency.

They are part of a political coalition and are clearly pursuing political aims. Fine. Both are legal, as long as disclosed and reported as campaign activity/contributions. But they are not doing that. They are posing as a public company. It's fraud, plain & simple.

---

Agreed.

Twitter is a public company.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Twitter is a public company.

---

That's not what that means. Don't try to weaken this weapon of the Socialist Left

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

You've completely missed the point. It's not a matter of whether twitter has a right to do what it does, just as it's not a matter of whether shooter has a right to express his opinion. I think we would both agree that twitter as a private company can cancel conservative opinions if it so desires. I think we would also both agree that shooter (or anyone else, for that matter) has the right to opine on an internet message board that he's unhappy that SI put an obese woman on its cover.

However, your odd critique of shooter is that by expressing that opinion, he's trying to "control" people, whatever you mean by that. And yet, by canceling conservative opinions, twitter is doing the exact same thing that you have accused shooter (and others) of doing (and on a much larger scale), a fact which you seem to be blind to. Yet, ironically, you defend twitter's right to try and control others, but are critical of shooter's. That's the hypocrisy, redneck.

Look, I get it. You're cool with canceling opinions you disagree with, and will defend the party's right to do so. I just find it odd than an educated man can't see the blatant and obvious hypocrisy in those two positions.

Finally, once again, I am the poster who said I've never bought an SI swimsuit issue. I am curious, how is my having an opinion that SI is virtue signaling by putting a fat woman on its cover hypocritical? It's hypocritical to feel as I do because I've never bought a swimsuit edition???

---

What it does not have the right to do is say that it is a platform rather than publisher in order to get Section 230 protections, then tacitly adopt clear editorial positions on partisan political matters and attempt to disguise it as countering disinformation or indecency.

---

They don't have the right to claim the protections and adopt clear editorial positions. They do have the right to take the protections and engage in non-partisan moderation, which probably includes countering indecency and disinformation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

You've completely missed the point. It's not a matter of whether twitter has a right to do what it does, just as it's not a matter of whether shooter has a right to express his opinion. I think we would both agree that twitter as a private company can cancel conservative opinions if it so desires. I think we would also both agree that shooter (or anyone else, for that matter) has the right to opine on an internet message board that he's unhappy that SI put an obese woman on its cover.

However, your odd critique of shooter is that by expressing that opinion, he's trying to "control" people, whatever you mean by that. And yet, by canceling conservative opinions, twitter is doing the exact same thing that you have accused shooter (and others) of doing (and on a much larger scale), a fact which you seem to be blind to. Yet, ironically, you defend twitter's right to try and control others, but are critical of shooter's. That's the hypocrisy, redneck.

Look, I get it. You're cool with canceling opinions you disagree with, and will defend the party's right to do so. I just find it odd than an educated man can't see the blatant and obvious hypocrisy in those two positions.

Finally, once again, I am the poster who said I've never bought an SI swimsuit issue. I am curious, how is my having an opinion that SI is virtue signaling by putting a fat woman on its cover hypocritical? It's hypocritical to feel as I do because I've never bought a swimsuit edition???

---

What it does not have the right to do is say that it is a platform rather than publisher in order to get Section 230 protections, then tacitly adopt clear editorial positions on partisan political matters and attempt to disguise it as countering disinformation or indecency.

---

They don't have the right to claim the protections and adopt clear editorial positions. They do have the right to take the protections and engage in non-partisan moderation, which probably includes countering indecency and disinformation.

---

Then it all boils down to their discretion on what constitutes indecency and disinformation. History tells us they do not wield such discretion with any integrity.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

You've completely missed the point. It's not a matter of whether twitter has a right to do what it does, just as it's not a matter of whether shooter has a right to express his opinion. I think we would both agree that twitter as a private company can cancel conservative opinions if it so desires. I think we would also both agree that shooter (or anyone else, for that matter) has the right to opine on an internet message board that he's unhappy that SI put an obese woman on its cover.

However, your odd critique of shooter is that by expressing that opinion, he's trying to "control" people, whatever you mean by that. And yet, by canceling conservative opinions, twitter is doing the exact same thing that you have accused shooter (and others) of doing (and on a much larger scale), a fact which you seem to be blind to. Yet, ironically, you defend twitter's right to try and control others, but are critical of shooter's. That's the hypocrisy, redneck.

Look, I get it. You're cool with canceling opinions you disagree with, and will defend the party's right to do so. I just find it odd than an educated man can't see the blatant and obvious hypocrisy in those two positions.

Finally, once again, I am the poster who said I've never bought an SI swimsuit issue. I am curious, how is my having an opinion that SI is virtue signaling by putting a fat woman on its cover hypocritical? It's hypocritical to feel as I do because I've never bought a swimsuit edition???

---

What it does not have the right to do is say that it is a platform rather than publisher in order to get Section 230 protections, then tacitly adopt clear editorial positions on partisan political matters and attempt to disguise it as countering disinformation or indecency.

---

They don't have the right to claim the protections and adopt clear editorial positions. They do have the right to take the protections and engage in non-partisan moderation, which probably includes countering indecency and disinformation.

---

Then it all boils down to their discretion on what constitutes indecency and disinformation. History tells us they do not wield such discretion with any integrity.

---

moderation must be even-handed, and Twitter is clearly not. To the extent that biased moderation is intentional, it becomes fraud. And what we have heard directly from Twitter employees shows the biased moderation is clearly, manifestly intentional. The algorithms, once subpoena'd and analyzed, will be the nail in the coffin. Half of Joe Biden's followers are bots, and Trump gets banned for disinformation?

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

You are correct. No one is obligated to provide service. SI is free to put whatever it wants on its cover. You can choose to buy it or not. I heard someone say they had never bought an SI ss edition complaining. Now thats hypocrisy.

---

You've completely missed the point. It's not a matter of whether twitter has a right to do what it does, just as it's not a matter of whether shooter has a right to express his opinion. I think we would both agree that twitter as a private company can cancel conservative opinions if it so desires. I think we would also both agree that shooter (or anyone else, for that matter) has the right to opine on an internet message board that he's unhappy that SI put an obese woman on its cover.

However, your odd critique of shooter is that by expressing that opinion, he's trying to "control" people, whatever you mean by that. And yet, by canceling conservative opinions, twitter is doing the exact same thing that you have accused shooter (and others) of doing (and on a much larger scale), a fact which you seem to be blind to. Yet, ironically, you defend twitter's right to try and control others, but are critical of shooter's. That's the hypocrisy, redneck.

Look, I get it. You're cool with canceling opinions you disagree with, and will defend the party's right to do so. I just find it odd than an educated man can't see the blatant and obvious hypocrisy in those two positions.

Finally, once again, I am the poster who said I've never bought an SI swimsuit issue. I am curious, how is my having an opinion that SI is virtue signaling by putting a fat woman on its cover hypocritical? It's hypocritical to feel as I do because I've never bought a swimsuit edition???

---

What it does not have the right to do is say that it is a platform rather than publisher in order to get Section 230 protections, then tacitly adopt clear editorial positions on partisan political matters and attempt to disguise it as countering disinformation or indecency.

---

They don't have the right to claim the protections and adopt clear editorial positions. They do have the right to take the protections and engage in non-partisan moderation, which probably includes countering indecency and disinformation.

---

Then it all boils down to their discretion on what constitutes indecency and disinformation. History tells us they do not wield such discretion with any integrity.

---

Yup. The hunter Biden laptop story is a perfect example. A legitimate news item that was censored for political purposes.

Sam likes the thought police as long as they censor the thoughts he disagrees with.