The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
It was a rhetorical question. I’ve seen Twitter. A lot of knuckleheads on there.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
Crazy and or stupid is on all twitter like channels.
Trump's Truth Social is Banning the People's Truths
Examples:
My Truth Social account was just permanently suspended for talking about the January 6th Committee hearings. pic.twitter.com/MBNTSNe4Z8
— Travis Allen (@TravisAllen02) June 10, 2022
I was suspended from Truth Social for posting about the January 6th hearing last night.
Donald Trump is scared of free speech.
— Jack Cocchiarella (@JDCocchiarella) June 10, 2022
Just put out my first post on Truth social and they deleted it.
Real freedom of speech champs there.
— Joseph (@newsfromplanet0) June 10, 2022
Seeing a lot of folks getting banned from Trump's Truth Social for posting updates about the January 6 Committee hearings.
Apparently free speech has its limits even in Trumpland.
— Max Burns (@themaxburns) June 10, 2022
News Reports About This
Examples:
My Truth Social account was just permanently suspended for talking about the January 6th Committee hearings. pic.twitter.com/MBNTSNe4Z8
— Travis Allen (@TravisAllen02) June 10, 2022
I was suspended from Truth Social for posting about the January 6th hearing last night.
Donald Trump is scared of free speech.
— Jack Cocchiarella (@JDCocchiarella) June 10, 2022
Just put out my first post on Truth social and they deleted it.
Real freedom of speech champs there.
— Joseph (@newsfromplanet0) June 10, 2022
Seeing a lot of folks getting banned from Trump's Truth Social for posting updates about the January 6 Committee hearings.
Apparently free speech has its limits even in Trumpland.
— Max Burns (@themaxburns) June 10, 2022
News Reports About This
This is like the FBI using multiple “news” articles about one sourced story to obtain a FISA warrant. Could they provide exactly what he said? I’m not aware of any social media outlet that condones personal threats or similar posts.
All these claims are very vague. Without providing the specific posts that were banned, these testimonials are meaningless. In fact, we don't even know if any of these people had Truth Social accounts to begin with. But it appears they're all in good standing with Twitter.
No, this is not like the FBI using multiple news articles about one sourced story.
I'm not saying it's like anything else. I'm saying it is what it is.
What it is, is a number of individuals sharing what actually happened to them. Those experiences are then being reported in the news. The news outlets did not originate the experience. Truth Social did by banning these people.
Last edited:
The Jan 6 Committee Hearings Are Having an Effect
Source
Murdoch has seen enough: Fox News’ primetime opinion mongers may be all-in on DONALD TRUMP, but RUPERT MURDOCH’s two other major organs of the right publish withering anti-Trump editorials today in response to Thursday’s hearing:
Source
Murdoch has seen enough: Fox News’ primetime opinion mongers may be all-in on DONALD TRUMP, but RUPERT MURDOCH’s two other major organs of the right publish withering anti-Trump editorials today in response to Thursday’s hearing:
- WSJ: “Mr. Trump betrayed his supporters by conning them on Jan. 6, and he is still doing it.”
- NY Post: “...Trump has become a prisoner of his own ego. He can’t admit his tweeting and narcissism turned off millions. He won’t stop insisting that 2020 was ‘stolen’ even though he’s offered no proof that it’s true.…Meanwhile, reports that Trump was pleased that the Jan. 6 crowd chanted for Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged — a truly reprehensible sentiment — makes him unworthy for the office. Trump can’t look past 2020. Let him remain there.”
Thank you for providing a classic example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Yes, there are accounts from people, but they are not true accounts because we do not have additional information, or they are not true because we do not know if the posts mentioned are real.
The same logical fallacy is used to explain away the moon landing, the holocaust, climate change and the non-existence of God. It's called a fallacy because it defies the criteria of logic that is accepted by logic experts and most people.
Something that is claimed to be true is counterclaimed to be not true because the denier claims to have information that is more true or insists that additional information or an additional view, yet unknown to others or unseen by others, exists. And that when that truth becomes known, it will disprove the original claim.
I don't use the no true Scotsman fallacy in my political conversations because it is a fallacy. I prefer my comments to based on sound logic. As one who majored in philosophy and actually studied logic in college, I believe in the value of logic and I seek to uphold it's virtues. But if I wanted to use this fallacy to refute yours, Pilgrim, it is easy to do. It would go like this:
No it is not true that Truth Social allows freedom of speech. I know this because if it Truth Social did allow freedom of speech, it would allow pro-Jan 6 committee posts to stand. But no one has ever shown me a pro-Jan 6 committee post that was allowed to stand so it is false that Truth Social allows freedom of speech.
And even if you showed me a screen shot of such a post, it would still be false because I have no way of knowing you knowing you did not forge the screen shot. And even if you showed me a video of you making the screen shot, I have no way of knowing you did not forge the video.
And even if you could IRREFUTABLY prove your screen shot, I cannot trust it because you may be really clever, and you may have the ability to fool me with your superior technology skills.
Additionally, I do not know your motives. And even if you tell me your motives, I cannot trust that because I have no way of knowing what your true motives are ... you know, the real motives behind your motives.
See how this works? I do not know what must be known, or I know something no one else knows, so whatever you say is true is in fact not true. As the one who decides what the standard of truth is, your statement lives or dies by my decree, not by objective reality.
The beauty of this is I don't have to know a damn thing to decide what is true or not. I only have to delegitimize you to allow my truth to prevail.
A Proposed Experiment
I am not a Truth Social member and do not intend to become one. But if someone here on EO who is a member wishes to assist with an experiment, it would be an interesting test.
1. Post on Truth Social the following statement: "The Jan 6 Committee hearings are good for America. The truth must be known. I salute Liz Cheney for her courage and leadership." This statement in no way violates the rules of Truth Social and should be allowed to stand under the rules.
2. Take a screen shot of that post to prove that you are a member and you posted what you did.
3. Monitor the post and your account for 30 days to see if the post is removed or you are banned.
4. Take any screen shots showing actions taken in item 3.
5. Share the results here on EO.
Last edited:
What did he say then? All the articles that were linked mentioned the person, but didn’t bother to show what was actually posted that got him banned. I would think that is a significant part of the story. Were they too lazy to include it in the story? Did they purposely omit what he said because it was extremely over the top threatening or inflammatory? Or did the post even exist? The reader doesn’t know because it wasn’t included in all the “news” articles that were linked.
In my post above, four examples from four individuals were cited; Jack, Travis, Joseph and Max.
You are correct about the content of the posts themselves not being included in the individuals' accounts or in the news stories about their accounts. And I agree it would be helpful if this information was known. Without additional information, it falls to each of us to discern the credibility of these reports.
One way to gain additional information is to run the experiment I suggested above.
Another way would be for you, a Truth Social member, to provide screen shots from Truth Social that show pro-Jan 6 Committee posts being made and being allowed to stand.
That would be easy to do, would it not? Does Truth Social have a search function like Twitter does? Is it possible to search "Jan 6 Committee" to quickly see the posts that search would produce and then see if any pro-Committee posts exist?
I mean, some were saying that 1. Truth Social wouldn’t exist and 2. Trump hasn’t posted on his site. Both statements are now obsolete.
Now the goalpost has shifted that he doesn’t have as many followers as he had on Twitter.
Yet, anyways.
Now the goalpost has shifted that he doesn’t have as many followers as he had on Twitter.
Yet, anyways.
Umm ok, Now I have to conduct experiments because the “news” media couldn’t do their homework. Got it.
I know of no one who said Truth Social would not exist. I know of many, including myself, who said Truth Social would fail. Clearly, I was wrong about that.
It was true for a long time that Trump had only posted a single post on Truth Social. That changed when Trump became more active. I know of no one who said Trump would not become more active on Truth Social. I know of many, including myself, who thought it quite remarkable that Trump was so quiet for so long on the social media platform he originated.
Fact: Trump is active now. Trump has 3 million followers now.
You don't have to conduct an experiment of any kind. I'm simply suggesting that if you wish me to believe that Truth Social is not banning people for posting pro-Committee posts, you run the experiment to show you will not be banned for posting a pro-Committee post yourself.
Like I said before. He was waiting to post until the site was done testing and when people would be able to get on the site, which happened when they partnered with Rumble.
You can believe what you want. It doesn’t mean it is true. I would think one would want more information( like the actual post that banned him before they believe something) I personally wouldn’t like to post something on the site that wasn’t what I actually agreed with. It’s acting deceptively toward whoever is following me and that reads it.