Twitter alternative Parler soars as conservatives flock to new social network

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not surprised.

Parler is not going to solve the Twitter problem.

And if they got close to it, I suspect Twitter would just buy them out anyway.

Twitter should have been broken up years ago (via anti-trust laws).
 
ioannes_pius said:
40.png
Xystus:
The reason for being on twitter/facebook and the like is to spread your ideas and engage in the larger “culture wars”
Click to expand...
Kind of difficult to do when you get cancelled for doing precisely that.
Click to expand...
I agree with you there, it is difficult. I dont know that abandoning twitter for parler is the answer though. I see it as almost a “retreat”. I suppose they can exist in parallel but conservatives should continue to use platforms like twitter and facebook to reach beyond their base.
 
dscath said:
a considerable portion of those calling themselves Conservatives are self-proclaimed evangelical Christians who have as much disdain for Catholicism as they do liberals, progressives, democrats, minorities, et.al.
Click to expand...
Highly doubtful. I live in a sea of Evangelicals and very few are like that. And they’re not a political party organization like the DNC and thanks to Wikileaks, we know how anti-Catholic it is.
 
dscath said:
Nice deflection.
Click to expand...
Not a deflection. Accusing conservative Evangelicals of anti-Catholicism when the Dem party itself is the truly anti-Catholic organization, is the real deflection. It’s a pot/kettle falsehood meant to fool Catholics into thinking a religious ally is the “enemy” while defending the true anti-Catholic force.

How many actual Evangelicals do you know that are overtly anti-Catholic?
 
Thbolt said:
I was wondering where it came from because it is new. Sounds like another loaded term from the right to call liberals and moderates they disagree with and make implications they are somehow Marxist. You know, namecalling.
Click to expand...
Pejorative term. Basically the way of calling everyone a commie that doesnt agree with trump.
 
toabb said:
huh? they only have one business. what would they be broken into? Twitter for left, Twitter for right and twitter for independents?
Click to expand...
They don’t even have a monopoly on “Social Media”.
 
Here is what you said:
Thbolt said:
It is name calling, even though I believe you did not intend it as such.

And, no, I’m not insulted. Whether you continue to use it or not is up to you. The rest of us will learn about you based on your decision.
Click to expand...
Just to show how biased you are, here is a definition of “leftist” taken from the dictionary:
Left·ist

noun
  1. a person with left-wing political views.
“these values are shared by many leftists”

adjective
  1. having or relating to left-wing political views.
“leftist radicals”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Do you see how the word “leftist” is used in the above sentence for noun?

“these values are shared by many leftists”

That is the context in which I used the word, so NO, I will not stop using that word just because YOU think it’s an insult.

Quite frankly your behaviour towards me is insulting and it’s not the first time.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
dscath:
Nice deflection.
Click to expand...
Not a deflection. Accusing conservative Evangelicals of anti-Catholicism when the Dem party itself is the truly anti-Catholic organization, is the real deflection. It’s a pot/kettle falsehood meant to fool Catholics into thinking a religious ally is the “enemy” while defending the true anti-Catholic force.

How many actual Evangelicals do you know that are overtly anti-Catholic?
Click to expand...
It certainly isn’t conservative evangelicals attacking Catholics at the St. Louis statue.
It is leftists probably in league with radical Muslims, according to the link. Watch out for violence and language.

It brings up the question, however;
Neither Jesus nor the Blessed Virgin owned slaves, AFAIK, but Mohammed did. Why is the “prophet” not the target of protest and criticism?
 
PaulinVA said:
Or, more like, “When Yahoo got ahold of it, it went to being worth nothing”.

They have a lead touch.
Click to expand...
Lol.

There was an attempt to sell a search algorithm to Yahoo in 1998. The people that made it wanted to focus on their studies. Yahoo didn’t liked the algorithm because it got people to their results to quickly. They wanted people to have to search more so that more ads would be served up and they could make more money. Since the algorithm had no buyer the makers made a search service themselves, Google.com.
 
I’m not pigeonholing anyone, but thanks for insinuating that I am and that you’re not.
Left·ist

noun
  1. a person with left-wing political views.
“these values are shared by many leftists”

adjective
  1. having or relating to left-wing political views.
“leftist radicals”it’s you and others on this board
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
Neither Jesus nor the Blessed Virgin owned slaves, AFAIK, but Mohammed did. Why is the “prophet” not the target of protest and criticism?
Click to expand...
A talking point that confuses people who don’t know the difference between slavery in the ancient world and New World slavery that was presented as the romantic “peculiar institution”…but because enough people understand the difference, that could provide the answer to your question.
 
Last edited:
Happy CAF Anniversary, @ThinkingSapien

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
dscath said:
A talking point that confuses people who don’t know the difference between slavery in the ancient world and the “peculiar institution” of New World slavery…
Click to expand...
Oh, so now if you held slaves back then, it was okay. Be just has to say “New World” slavery.
How about the slavery that still goes on today, obviously not in the “New World”?
An estimated 40.3 million men, women, and children were victims of modern slavery on any given day in 2016.1 Of these, 24.9 million people were in forced labour and 15.4 million people were living in a forced marriage. Women and girls are vastly over-represented, making up 71 percent of victims. Modern slavery is most prevalent in Africa, followed by the Asia and the Pacific region.
Although these are the most reliable estimates of modern slavery to date, we know they are conservative as significant gaps in data remain. The current Global Estimates do not cover all forms of modern slavery; for example, organ trafficking, child soldiers, or child marriage that could also constitute forced marriage are not able to be adequately measured at this time. Further, at a broad regional level there is high confidence in the estimates in all but one of the five regions. Estimates of modern slavery in the Arab States are affected by substantial gaps in the available data.2 Given this is a region that hosts 17.6 million migrant workers,3 representing more than one-tenth of all migrant workers in the world and one in three workers in the Arab States, and one in which forced marriage is reportedly widespread, the current estimate is undoubtedly a significant underestimate.
Click to expand...
Bolding is mine.

https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/global-findings/
dscath said:
but because enough people understand the difference, that could provide the answer to your question.
Click to expand...
I think the answer is it is easier to attack Christians and Jews than it is Muslims.
 
Mom, Jimmy did it first and you didn’t say anything, so why is it bad if I do it!” 😒
 
It’s absolutely crazy to think that we refer to slavery as if it were something in the past while ignoring slavery in the present.

And in Africa too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top