The SearchVoat Forum

T-bitty wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:59 pm Because on Poal he did not say such things, as far as I know, I only remembered to double check his account as my third account got deleted so I missed out on most of it.

He did. When confronted by the screenshot of this post, on Voat.xyz, he did not deny making it. He just downplayed it as legal speech and hence not a call to violence, which is fallacious reasoning.

chrimony wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:39 pm

T-bitty wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:59 pm Because on Poal he did not say such things, as far as I know, I only remembered to double check his account as my third account got deleted so I missed out on most of it.

He did. When confronted by the screenshot of this post, on Voat.xyz, he did not deny making it. He just downplayed it as legal speech and hence not a call to violence, which is fallacious reasoning.

Must have missed it then, although I will note he denies what he said was a call to violence from what you linked. Watts v US would define what he said as a political hyperbole and not a call to violence. However sites like these don't get the luxury of the law so if that were the only reason he was banned that'd be understandable, but the other reason was total bull shit making it all seem like bull shit. So as stated before, he walks the line, however it seems that wasn't why he was banned.

T-bitty wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:06 pm Watts v US would define what he said as a political hyperbole and not a call to violence.

"Kill every X. Kill every Y.", is not in the same category as, "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."

I don't see any hyperbole in the statement by Tallest. He constantly bemoans the lack of "action". It's obvious what he wants. Tallest is relying on the Brandenburg defense of free speech that sets the threshold of "imminent lawless action". His statement may be legal under that standard, but it sure as hell is still a violent call to action. Just not necessarily imminent. A jury or judge might decide otherwise if it came up in court.

So as stated before, he walks the line, however it seems that wasn't why he was banned.

AOU include alts as a reason to ban him, but it was explicitly the "Kill all X. Kill all Y." post that triggered the ban.

chrimony wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:07 pm

T-bitty wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:06 pm Watts v US would define what he said as a political hyperbole and not a call to violence.

"Kill every X. Kill every Y.", is not in the same category as, "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."

I don't see any hyperbole in the statement by Tallest. He constantly bemoans the lack of "action". It's obvious what he wants. Tallest is relying on the Brandenburg defense of free speech that sets the threshold of "imminent lawless action". His statement may be legal under that standard, but it sure as hell is still a violent call to action. Just not necessarily imminent. A jury or judge might decide otherwise if it came up in court.

So as stated before, he walks the line, however it seems that wasn't why he was banned.

AOU include alts as a reason to ban him, but it was explicitly the "Kill all X. Kill all Y." post that triggered the ban.

That's definitely in the same category. In fact this one would be even more so as the LBJ one included "if I get a gun" or something like that. Seeing as he states he doesn't believe whites will ever defend themselves the context would add to it being political hyperbole. I imagine his view is since both he and US law classes it as such it wouldn't be a call to violence, which I'm inclined to agree. Judges might rule differently because they're gay, so it would be logical if that was why he was banned. However AOU banned him purely because AOU is a fag, all other reasons are him trying to justify his homosexuality to others. If that weren't the case he wouldn't have also included a made up reason or banned others who broke no rules.

T-bitty wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:31 pm That's definitely in the same category. In fact this one would be even more so as the LBJ one included "if I get a gun" or something like that. Seeing as he states he doesn't believe whites will ever defend themselves the context would add to it being political hyperbole. I imagine his view is since both he and US law classes it as such it wouldn't be a call to violence, which I'm inclined to agree.

Your initial defense of Tallest was, "Because on Poal he did not say such things". But now that you know he did, you moved the goalposts, and are now going out of your way to say it's not really a call to violence. "Kill every X. Kill every Y." Not a call to violence. An unconditional command to kill, versus a hypothetical claim that some guy is going to shoot the sitting President if he's forced into war.

Okay dude.

chrimony wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:48 pm

T-bitty wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:31 pm That's definitely in the same category. In fact this one would be even more so as the LBJ one included "if I get a gun" or something like that. Seeing as he states he doesn't believe whites will ever defend themselves the context would add to it being political hyperbole. I imagine his view is since both he and US law classes it as such it wouldn't be a call to violence, which I'm inclined to agree.

Your initial defense of Tallest was, "Because on Poal he did not say such things". But now that you know he did, you moved the goalposts, and are now going out of your way to say it's not really a call to violence. "Kill every X. Kill every Y." Not a call to violence. An unconditional command to kill, versus a hypothetical claim that some guy is going to shoot the sitting President if he's forced into war.

Okay dude.

That was half the defense which still stands as Watt vs US would define that as crude political hyperbole (from someone who doesn't believe people will ever do anything) and not a call to violence. Also hypothetical claim of a draftee. I don't know that bringing up how US law would define what he said would be moving the goalpost.

chrimony wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:39 pmHe just downplayed it as legal speech and hence not a call to violence, which is fallacious reasoning.

You really need to learn what a fallacy is, sockpuppet.

1. There was no call to violence in any legal or TOS violating way.
2. There was no imminent action called for in that or any other post.
3. No one will ever fight back. This is a statement of truth. You can only refute me by fighting back, meaning you acting violently, meaning giving me everything I ever wanted anyway.

Funny how it works when you just spam libel about me, isn’t it? I wind up winning no matter what. Because I post nothing but truth.

Scream for me.

chrimony wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:07 pmHe constantly bemoans the lack of "action". It's obvious what he wants.

The only thing obvious is that I want you to stop with the libel.

Tallest is relying on the Brandenburg defense of free speech that sets the threshold of "imminent lawless action”.

I don’t care about it at all. The Founders would have grabbed their guns a century ago. They wouldn’t bother with “legal limits” on speech regarding their existential survival. They’d say whatever they damn well pleased.

His statement may be legal under that standard, but it sure as hell is still a violent call to action.

Same question as on Voat: show a single faggot or tranny being killed since the post was made.

Just not necessarily imminent.

And therefore your point is utterly moot. Thanks for admitting it.

A jury or judge might decide otherwise if it came up in court.

Except you already admitted that precedent proves it won’t happen, and I have years of proof that I don’t believe anyone will fight to back up my knowledge that the posts are meaningless.

CognitiveDissident5 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:36 pm

Gothamgirl wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:36 pm You are nuts he is a stalking idiot who tells people to kill themselves constantly. Glad he got the boot!

You mean the same way your meth head boyfriend used to do?

Wow what an imagination you have He didn't stalk anyone! Besides not my boyfriend, neither of them, or you, are my problem.

Tallest_Skil wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:27 pm You really need to learn what a fallacy is, sockpuppet.
...
The only thing obvious is that I want you to stop with the libel.

Cries about "libel", but calls me a sockpuppet, despite the fact that my account is verified here as being an original Voat account. You're a hypocrite douchebag. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your shit post, as I've already done so on Voat.xzy under the thread that was already linked here.

chrimony wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:18 am Cries about "libel", but calls me a sockpuppet, despite the fact that my account is verified here as being an original Voat account. You're a hypocrite douchebag.

Cry harder about being called out for what you are.