REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Why did a private social media company do the bidding of the Biden White House and punish someone for telling the truth?
- Thread starter grapedrink
- Start date
^^^^ See this? ^^^^
Immediately believes without searching for facts.
Alex Berenson wrote it on his blog = true.
Confirmation bias is hella drug.
hey, @grapedrink , you see this?
alexberenson.substack.com
can't wait to see that unfold!
If you’re wondering if I plan to sue the Biden Administration for violating my First Amendment rights by pressing Twitter to ban me…
That would be yes. More to come soon.
alexberenson.substack.com
can't wait to see that unfold!
@hal9000 Convince Sharia Blue to pay you for getting banned from Truth Social. Post something about how many people in the ICU during Delta were unvaccinated vs vaccinated.
Once you get banned, please vag-leak on the erBB about a private social media company doing the bidding of the Trump White House and punishing you for telling the truth.
Thanks in advance!
Once you get banned, please vag-leak on the erBB about a private social media company doing the bidding of the Trump White House and punishing you for telling the truth.
Thanks in advance!
better yet, if berenson wins his case, and the above actually happened
SUE THE FUCK OUT THAT PIECE OF sh!t CORPORATION!!!
The glamour shot of the tranny at HHS Berenson gets as a settlement will be worth even less than the Wolf Blitzer yoga pants Sandmann got.
BERENSON10 for 10% off colloidal silver at checkout.
BERENSON10 for 10% off colloidal silver at checkout.
People get worked up because it is highly influential and dictates how institutions operate. That’s why it’s relevant, even if it’s not relevant to you.
Revert to whtaboutism when your team gets called out!
Should the white hOuse be “asking” social media to dictate narratives for them?
You still believe in Ivermectin, your take is less than worthless
No.
This is definitely the 41923741274390821764982316748931062478903124783261478237649th most important injustice I've heard of today.
this. all. day. long. this.
but judging by how the "discussion" has progressed, i don't think people understand why this is so important.
I posted a WSJ link as well, maybe you missed it?Link, other than Berenson's own website?
Either way the truth will come out, like it has with everything COVID related that often proves that the CDC and politicians were wrong the entire time.
Here's a perfect example of your circular reasoning, and you are more guilty of this than anyone here:
The left wants Joe Rogan shut down.
He endorsed Gabbard actually. Of course you're ignoring the other 7362439 reasons that make him not a liberal. Such as? :unsure: His key positions on hot button topics that actually drive votes put him more to the left than the right.
forum.surfer.com
Such as?
In summary: Despite how both of them feel about hot button issues that account for 98% of voting behavior and tilt them heavily into the Left camp, your proof for Gabbard being a Republican is that she goes on Rogan, and your proof that Rogan is a Republican is because he endorses and hosts Gabbard. Even though Gabbard even though she is a member of the Democratic party. Makes perfect sense.
You posted a link to a paywalled op-ed in a Murdoch paper. I'm old enough to remember when they thought the 10 year old girl who got raped in Ohio was a fake news story.I posted a WSJ link as well, maybe you missed it?
Paul Gigot is a right wing Fox News shill.
It would not surprise me one bit if this allegation were true. I don't care if it is. But I'm skeptical an Editorial in the WSJ had any reporting in it vs opining. YMMV
You bought every bit of Covid misinfo on Rogans show, you are the perfect mark for Rightwing griftersI posted a WSJ link as well, maybe you missed it?
Either way the truth will come out, like it has with everything COVID related that often proves that the CDC and politicians were wrong the entire time.
Here's a perfect example of your circular reasoning, and you are more guilty of this than anyone here:
The left wants Joe Rogan shut down.
He endorsed Gabbard actually. Of course you're ignoring the other 7362439 reasons that make him not a liberal. Such as? :unsure: His key positions on hot button topics that actually drive votes put him more to the left than the right.
In summary: Despite how both of them feel about hot button issues that account for 98% of voting behavior and tilt them heavily into the Left camp, your proof for Gabbard being a Republican is that she goes on Rogan, and your proof that Rogan is a Republican is because he endorses and hosts Gabbard. Even though Gabbard even though she is a member of the Democratic party. Makes perfect sense.
View attachment 136253
WSJ regurgitated Berenson's claim without any evidence and so did Fox news.I posted a WSJ link as well, maybe you missed it?
Either way the truth will come out, like it has with everything COVID related that often proves that the CDC and politicians were wrong the entire time.
This is all it takes for you to believe something.
Confirmation bias is hella drug.
The "truth" you speak of changes constantly, because the virus changes and so does science.
To say that the vaccine is "ineffective" is a lie.
That's why you didn't answer my earlier post.
I don't even know what were you blabbering about in the rest of your post.
WSJ is a relatively good source compared to a lot of what gets posted here. I can't help that it's paywalled. Fox is far from perfect but they are roughly in the same camp as MSN or CNN in terms of overall accuracy. Everything is biased.
Plus you have to be honest about what media outlets are willing to cover when it doesn't fit the narrative that they've been pushing. When that happens, the media outlet that is counter to your beliefs is what's going to cover the story while their preferred sources will only touch it once they can no longer ignore it. It makes for an awfully convenient "attack the source" argument
