Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Disagreeing With Twitter’s Politics is ‘Inappropriate Content’

By

All part of the transformation of “inappropriate content” from non-family friendly material to ideological disagreement.

Twitter has taken another whack at free speech by labeling disagreement with its left-wing green political views, declaring that ads that, “contradict the scientific consensus on climate change are prohibited, in line with our inappropriate content policy.”

“We recognize that misleading information about climate change can undermine efforts to protect the planet,” Twitter declared.

Only censorship, as usual, can save the human race.

Twitter joins other Big Tech platforms, including Google’s YouTube and Facebook, in making moves to censor views on economics and the weather that disagree with their green lefty politics. While Twitter is targeting ads for now, you can bet that it won’t stay that way.

Comments

  1. Having zero interesting politics of any colour I am nonetheless disappointed that this essential and valuable site is staffed by climate change deniers.
    Yes you are entitled to your opinions but this one makes all of you look absolutely stupid in your refusal to accept the science.
    Please stop it because your credibility is decreasing and will soon reach zero.

    • One can have a debate about Global Warming Climate Change w/o censoring the Climate Change ‘deniers’, as you call us. Hosting the debate doesn’t necessarily imply that RS is on one side or the other: it just allows both sides to present their views. What is well known is that the earth’s climate has always changed and will always change: what is debated is whether human activity alters the change that would otherwise have happened. And that is about as unknowable as God

      Also, your side should be the last people talking about science. It’s not just that mammograms don’t indicate evidence of life or that vaccines are not needed for people w/ healthy immune systems. Your side can’t even agree that men and women are not interchangable, and that one can at will be male or female depending on one’s mood

      On one hand, Meteorology, which has some 40+ variables that can affect it and is therefore highly unpredictable beyond a certain period of time, is an exact science, while Biology – particularly something as basic as gender – is not. You Climate uber alles types need to drop ‘the science’ claim b’cos it’s beyond laughable

      • Infidel,
        That one agrees with the science that human activity is affecting the planet adversely neither makes that person a leftist nor can you ascribe any opinion to them in any other area. It is pure ignorance to attempt to do so.

        • No, even that is not ‘the’ Science: there are meteorologists arguing for either side on this, and it’s not been conclusively proven one way or the other. It’s just that one side has been handed a giant megaphone by college academics who have to predict a dire future for their funding to continue, the media who can’t run a night’s news w/ “Today everything was perfect” and politicians whose only skill is…. politics

          Normally, this should not be a political issue, except that it gives the Left a pretext to engage in a property grab and overwhelming overreach that they could no longer do under the pretext of socialism, since we all saw how that played out. By arguing that the way we live affects the climate, they then get to control every aspect of our lives, giving them power that the former commissars in Leningrad could only have wet dreams about

      • Yes, Rarely, it is laughable to claim we have the “correct model” for climate change when we can’t predict the weather much beyond 5 days before the chaos of excluded and unknown variables changes the predictions.

      • Censoring? I was at pains to point out that you were entitled to your opinions.

        Deniers? Yes you are! What is referring to greeny leftist… Other than denial?

        God and religion is a worse bunch of crap than politics even. God is not needed to know for a fact that human activity is what is changing global climate.

        Another old chestnut- “Earth’s climate has always changed” yes it has and the process almost always takes thousands or millions of years, unless caused by catastrophic events like volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts.

        Denial of science is even worse but it appears quite prevalent here. God explains absolutely nothing.

        As to the rest of your post quite what connection it has to me or my comments is a complete mystery.
        Mammograms? Gender? Immune systems? Vaccines?

        Rejecting science is ridiculous- we all live by the fruits of science every day of our lives.
        The only exact science is mathematics by the way. Would you obviously don’t know as you don’t know much about anything at all!

        • The article by Daniel Greenfield was about censorship of opinion that disagreed w/ the ‘consensus’ on ‘Climate Change’, and your post attacked him for ‘refusing to accept ‘the science”, which he never did. All he wrote about was Twitter censoring one side of this debate

          For somebody who’s high on the invective, reading comprehension isn’t your strong point

          Since you mentioned volcanic eruptions and meteoric impacts, do you have any plans to prevent this accelarated climate change due to them? If not, why bellyache over fossil fuels?

          Also my statement about God was an agnostic assertion: just like it’s impossible to verify/prove that God exists, similarly it’s impossible to verify/prove that what we do on a daily basis causes climate change

        • Your side meaning the side that believes that what we do on a daily basis causes climate change. I neither said nor implied anything about any of your other beliefs, which are irrelevant to the topic being argued here

    • From what I have read,nobody denies the climate is changing,the disagreement is the cause:

      I think the change is due to natural,cyclical events that have happened many times.

      However, POLLUTION on a mass scale of the ocean,for example, is killing life there. But pollution is Not the Same as Climate Change.

      • Pollution does indeed add to climate change. Carbon dioxide is in relation to climate a pollutant as are many other chemicals.

        • No it’s not: it’s a nutrient for anything that does photosynthesis. Otherwise we might as well extinguish all life in the animal kingdom, so that only plants are left to do respiration during the day and photosynthesis at night

      • NO! change as rapid as we now observe cannot be caused by natural cyclical processes.
        200 years is a comparative millisecond in geological time, something do those ignorant of geology don’t understand.

    • …refusal to accept the science.

      Considering that at any given moment the collection of hypotheses being compared to imperial history of reliable quantity and interpretation is unfixed, the use of the unitary article is premature.

      Postulations that are impossible to test do not quality as proven, even tentatively.

      • Empirical. Another android™ rewrite.

        Weird how the O/S alters the text of closed sentences. And there exists not edit feature. Our shortcomings are preserved like insects within amber.

        • True. One has to proofread the text before sending; there should be an edit feature but I too sometimes hit the send button too soon!

    • Gosh Jim, is it , “Global Warming”, or, “Climate Change”? Climate changes all the time.

      “Global Warming” is happening, no doubt, as has, “Global Cooling”, over the life of the planet. That the warming has increased its rate during the development of the industrial revolution is a correlation, not a proof of cause.

      Go visit Glacier National Park and explain why there were no glaciers left before the Industrial Revolution. The earth’s average temperature has never been stable – change is built into all dynamic systems from the quantum level upward. Even you are changing(aging) toward the day of your demise and are powerless to stop it.

      All the models used for Global Warming have been fudged to fit the data in an attempt to say it is caused by humans and suggest a fantasy – that humans can and will stop it.

      First, if it is nature’s trend, we cannot stop it, and second, it would require cooperation from the big polluting nations like China, which will not happen anytime soon. What would you suggest, a Nuclear Winter, from nuclear war with China, to, “save the planet”?

      If you have a degree in a STEM discipline, I am disappointed that you haven’t taken the effort to look into how the calculations were made upon assumptions and reject the panic of the herd.

      Here is a most reasonable view of “climate change” from Bjorn Lomborg;

      https://unherd.com/thepost/bjorn-lomborg-7-myths-about-climate-change/

      • Reasonable? Come off it!

        Lomborg’s views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community;[6][7][8] he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over The Skeptical Environmentalist, and the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that “one couldn’t prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited.”[9]

        • Fools often quote a completely discredited source to support their confirmation bias.
          Draw your own conclusion.

        • You can always tell when someone is cadging from Wikipedia–at least you can when they are too lazy to remove the citation numbers.

    • It looks as though JimJFox is saying that if you question the narrative on Climate Change–whatever that may be this week, global warming, global cooling–that this means that opposing the horrors of Jihad terror has ‘zero credibility’. Can he explain the logic of this? Will he even try?

      • I didn’t say that please read again. I suggest this site stick to its original purpose- exposing jihad terror and stay well clear of other issues about which you know not very much.

        • This is what you said:

          Please stop it because your credibility is decreasing and will soon reach zero.

          So her question is right: how is this site’s credibility about islam in any way affected by its opposition to silencing one side of the debate on climate change, not even on whether ‘climate change’ itself is real? Even if Greenfield is 100% wrong on the former, how does it affect how right he is on islam?

        • True, Infidel.

          Besides, the claim that Jihad Watch has no right to comment on issues other than Jihad has always been absurd.

          But it makes even less sense now. This site is now RobertSpencer.org, and is made up of Jihad Watch and the Left Column. This story is on the latter feed.

          Then, the idea that if you are concerned about the threat of Jihad that freedom of speech is ergo beyond your purview makes no sense at all. In fact, Anti-Jihadists are regularly silenced. Are they supposed to pretend that this isn’t happening?

    • So, which science should we accept? Should we accept to one from a while ago that claimed that the world was entering a new ice age? How about the claim that acid rain was killing all the lakes. Remember the ozone layer disappearing? Should we believe what Kerry claimed about sea levels rising awhile back? Enquiring minds want to know!

    • And just what irrefutable evidence do you have that (a) climate change hasn’t been going on since the dawn of the Creation; (b) that climate change is somehow — bad — for US; (c) that climate change is caused by human activity just since, say, the 1700s; (d) that there are real causes to the changing climate over very extensive periods of time that do not involve human activity — such as changing solar activity, etc.; (e) that there is anything we can do to stop these changes which seem to cause you so much ideological distress; (f) that censorship is really the path toward ‘the science’?

    • LOL, Elon bought Twitter so now this displaced humble bragger has to come here to act out his childish shitposting addiction. Newsflash, nobody asked you to judge their intelligence or opinions. You did that because you’re insecure and don’t have any real people to talk to. The same reason you feel the need to pledge your allegiance to a ‘Big Tent’ agenda, just to feel part of something. You have our sympathy. Thanks for visiting!

  2. The lefties say that censorship is essential to save democracy so why not use it to save the planet as well? Although I’m not sure I’ll be able to recognize when both have been saved sufficiently in order to announce they have been saved.

  3. Let’s see what happens to Twitter once Elon Musk has gained control. News reports say he has reached agreement with Twitter to purchase it, thus completing a successful hostile takeover.

    • I expect the first thing he will do is fire the Board Of Directors, then dig into the censorship algorithms and find out who’s been playing “God”.

      Musk doesn’t care about your university pedigree, he wants competency. It’s going to be interesting to see little programmer feifdoms get broken up.

  4. There is a Russian journalist who lived in Spain for 10 years but is now in the Donbass and Mariupol region(since at least 3 weeks ) ,LIUSIVAYA and she has stated a few days ago that

    it is a lie that they don’t let American and European journalists in the area ( BBC, Al-Jazeera,Reuters,etc).

    They do: she has been with them in the buses that go to the area,they all go together in the same bus.

    a. Patrick Lancaster ( US ) ,Chrystelle (France )of Donbass Insider,

    Anne-Laure Bonnel (France ) ,Eva Bartlett ( Canada) and now Liusivaya,

    have interviewed the people there and they All Say the Azov group has been guilty of shooting at their own people all the time.Not letting them leave the war zone,using them as human shields.

    b. They have videos where the people say it in their own words.

    c. MSM says those are ACTORS,it is Fake.

    d. If that is so, why doesn’t the BBC,Al-Jazeera,Reuters show videos of people there saying the Russian soldiers have been raping, torturing,looting.

    They have undeniably asked around and the people they have interviewed told them what they did NOT want to hear,so they never show interviews of people of the area.

    • More from Doomer, who is increasingly using Jihad Watch as a platform to tout the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

      And increasingly he uses Jihadists to do so.

      Note his pretending that Al-Jazeera,Reuters, is a Western company. In reality, it is run by Qatar. It doesn’t even have “Al Jazeera America” as a fig leaf any more.

      And BBC has indeed pulled its reporters out of Russia, since they can face jail time for saying anything that conflicts with Putin’s official narrative. But they are indeed reporting from Ukraine. Reuters is also reporting from Ukraine. It may be too dangerous to operate in Donbass, though–this area is under almost complete Russian control.

      Then, he has flogged the idea many times that the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine is peaceful and that it is Ukrainians who are actually murdering their own people to make Putin look bad. Utterly implausible.

      Anne-Laure Bonnel has demanded that the French and the rest of the West hand Ukraine over to Russia lest things escalate (that Ukraine might have other ideas is not something she addresses). She has described this bowing to Russian aggression as her “dream”.

      Eva Bartlett works for Russian-state sponsored RT. She is also a big apologist for *North Korea*.

      Liu Sivaya has claimed that the “Z” on invading Russian tanks stands for “demilitarization”. Needless to say, claiming that invading tanks are all about demilitarization is utterly Orwellian.

      Doomer is too busy lauding this savagery–and Jihad sympathy–to actually oppose Jihad. Troubling.

    • One thing more–a question I have asked previously, which Doomer has never answered.

      What is his end game?

      I can clearly state mine: I would like to see Jihad end, see greater freedom of speech in the West and all over the world, would like to see Russia withdraw from Ukraine and leave her and other former Iron Curtain countries in peace, would like to see China, Turkey, and Iran stop threatening their neighbors. I would also like to see places like Russia, China, and North Korea bloodlessly become more free, but so long as they are not threatening others this would be gravy. I will, to whatever extent I am able, work to see these things happen.

      But what does Doomer want? From his posts it seems he wants to see Russia conquer Ukraine, see China take disputed islands and democratic Taiwan, see Turkey take the Greek islands, and is at least fine with Israel being destroyed, even if he does not specifically seek it.

      He has said some things against Jihad from time to time–although not for a while now–yet now seems to laud commentators who mostly support Jihad terror.

      So what would Doomer’s ideal world look like? And would any decent person want to live in it?

  5. A sceptic might suspect that deception, as an art, has matured into an industry.

    A growth industry.

  6. Disagreeing With Twitter’s Politics is ‘Inappropriate Content’
    ………….

    It looks as though Elon Musk will be purchasing Twitter. Will it become more a platform for freedom of speech now? Time will tell.

    • I am actually not a major fan of Musk (remember his theatrics when that Thailand soccer team was trapped in a cave before the last soccer world cup in 2017?), but on this particular issue, he does seem to have credibility. I left Twitter in 2016 after being suspended following a post about muslim ‘rapefugees’ in Europe, and seeing most of my Twitter followers/followees banned. Although I have accounts on Gab and Parler, I haven’t touched them much, so don’t think I’ll be returning to Twitter either, no matter what Musk does

  7. Environmentalist here, yup, but . guess what? Yeah, climate change is a hoax, and anyone who believes in it has either been brainwashed and zombified or ignores the fact that there’s no agreement on the subject and no science can prove any of it!
    Pollution is a problem, the poisoning of our waters, lands, (fracking, fir example, to mention only one,) is a huge problem, but climate change? Nope! Yes, the weather changes, the planet warns up and cools down in cycles, yes, but the climate change agenda (21) is just part of the greatest hoax ever, of wich the China virus covid 19(84) is also part. “The” science as you call it is nothing but… or Gore’s predictions (flawed as always,) would mean we would be living in a dystopian Water World by now, and have grown gills behind our ears (I’d love that!) I don’t care if you are a leftist, a rightist, male, female, shemale, or believe you can will yourself into becoming a threatened species, just don’t impose your inanity on the rest of us.

  8. If Leftists are so worried about climate change, why does ‘climate czar’ John Kerry own a multimillion dollar beachfront home on Martha’s Vineyard???

    Doesn’t he heed warnings from AOC about catastrophic rising sea levels???

    Willhttps://dailyangle.com/articles/biden-s-climate-czar-john-kerry-owns-an-11-million-beachfront-home-on-martha-s-vineyard will will

  9. Having read all your drivel, I’m now even more convinced that you are a bunch of non-thinking buffoons.

    Every objection you have raised has been thoroughly rebutted; you just cannot bear to have your egos challenged.

    Intellectual dinosaurs that you are, you deserve the same fate as them.

    • So why don’t you do a “twit” thing and stop coming to read the comments written by people for whom you have absolutely no respect? Except that you are making feeble attempts to bolster your ego and that is your *reason* for reading and then slamming all as “buffoons” and ignorant.

    • Why is JimJFox posting here? He seldom says anything against Jihad, and has proven here that he doesn’t much care about freedom of speech. “Climate change”, whether one believes in it or not, is not the main point here, as this poster surely understands.

      It has been a very long time since JimJFox said anything critical of Jihad here. He has mostly spent his time castigating and sneering at Anti-Jihadists. Quite disturbing.

  10. People who run twitter and google and the fake government, are all making strong attempts to silence anyone who might disagree with whatever they may claim at any moment.

    However, they are saying these things about ‘climate’ and ‘health’ and ‘gender’ in order to gain greater control over the masses. Climate: make us all walk everywhere. Health: kill off as many as possible in the shortest amount of time with harmful substances and by denial of proper care. Gender: to take everyone’s little kids and make them like the fools who pretend to something they are not and engage in perversion.

    The main ones howling about “climate change”…used to be “an ice age” is coming, then “global warming” and now, “climate change,” are some of the worst offenders at the things they claim are hurting the planet and destroying all life upon it.
    They have the biggest gas guzzlers, fly multiple aircraft, have huge homes in various places and party hardy, but tell the rest of us we are all ***doomed**** if we don’t all begin to ride bikes or walk everywhere, eat soy and pretend meat, keep our houses cold in the winter and steaming in summer. It’s all a scam.

    Climate: if one actually looks up climate for any given place, it will state the highs and lows of temp in the different seasons, the amount of rainfall during each month and other somewhat interesting info. And, these can change from one year to the next. The average rainfall can increase or decrease and not because some humans water their lawn more or drive more miles or have better a/c and use it more often. These things don’t change the climate, either.

    And those who believe that driving cars and running a/c for heating and cooling is changing the “climate” can call me whatever they please. That won’t change anything, either.

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Skip to content