As you read this story, please keep the title question in mind. What would the penalty be if this was conducted by a private company? What accountability would you demand? Walter Ogrod was just set free after spending 3 decades on death row. The reason he was there in the first place underscores everything that is wrong with the justice system. In July of 1988, a 4 year old girl named Barbara Jean went missing in Philadelphia. Her body was found wrapped in a garbage bag inside of a TV box, about 1000 feet from her home. 4 years later, Philadelphia police arrested one of her neighbors, Walter, charged him with sexual assault and murder, and forced him to confess. While he was in jail awaiting trial, they enticed jailhouse informants to fabricate statements against him in exchange for immunity from charge for their upcoming cases. Let me repeat that: the police got people in jail to lie about an innocent man, in exchange for letting them free from things they were possibly guilty of doing. Walter's "confession" was riddled with errors that didn't line up with the facts of the case. For one thing, his "confession" was that he beat her to death, but she died from asphyxiation. During the trial, prosecutors withheld exonerating evidence from the defense, which at this point is something we've all become used to hearing, even though it's illegal. There was, of course, zero physical evidence. The prosecution's case was so terrible that Walter's first trial ended in a mistrial. Even still, they were able to successfully convict him in 1996, and he was sentenced to death. The Philadelphia DA and police were more concerned about pinning Barbara's death on someone, anyone, than they were about doing the harder work of actually finding the person who raped and murdered her. Let's recap: the people in charge of protecting the people of Philadelphia focused their efforts on framing an innocent man, and even setting other suspects free in exchange for lying about him, rather than trying to find a rapist and murderer who may still be walking the streets today. Thankfully, even though it took nearly 30 years, a Philadelphia judge finally set Walter free, and the DA's office is filing to refuse to retry him. Unfortunately, many other people have been executed despite similarly terrible cases against them, including Nathaniel Woods earlier this year (link to my post about Nate's case in the comments). Jo Jorgensen and I are staunchly opposed to the death penalty. We believe that when government is given power, they often use it in the most cynical, abusive and inequitable ways. The death penalty gives government the power to decide if any of us are allowed to live or die, and we see often what giving them that power leads to. Thankfully for Walter, after losing over half of his life on death row, he is home with his loved ones. Thanks for Spike Cohen for posting about this atrocity. The Libertarian Party of Texas opposes the Death Penalty as a form of punishment by the state, as well as any other unnecessary use of force by state agents in response to criminal action. MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
0 Comments
For 15 jurisdictions, today is your first chance to cast a vote in the 2020 presidential election. Of course, it’s not quite that easy if you are not supporting one of the two old parties. For Libertarians in these 14 states and American Samoa, the rules are not all the same. For some, participating in the primary will disqualify them from participating in their Libertarian convention process (heads up Texas, DO NOT VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES if you want to vote in your Libertarian convention). For other states, the convention process is done, and you can sit back today. (We’re talking about you Arkansas, Alabama, and Tennessee). Other states still have conventions coming up (so make sure you know the details, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Utah, Vermont and Virginia). Finally, some states do include Libertarians in the primaries and you can get out and vote today (hopefully you already knew this, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Oklahoma).
Whether you are voting today, waiting for your state convention, or still trying to decide what to do, we’re here to help. In honor of the 15 different groups of voters trying to figure out what to do today, here are…
1. The Libertarian Party is the only anti-war party.
You cannot count on Democrats to end the wars — they have been every bit to blame as the Republicans. While in the midst of trying to impeach President Trump, a bi-partisan Congress approved a military budget of over $700 billion. Neither old party has any intention to ease up or end our military interactions. If you are ready for an America at Peace, it’s time to vote Libertarian. 2. The Libertarian Party is the only party committed to eliminating the national debt. Republicans have long been considered the anti-debt party, but that can only be laughed at now. After eight years of calling out President Obama’s reckless spending and increased deficits, they have been silent and/or outright supportive of Trump’s explosive spending that has taken our national debt from $19 trillion to $23 trillion in three years. If an annual deficit of $1 trillion dollars is unacceptable to you, your best move is to vote Libertarian. 3. The only way to stop more government overreach is to vote for the Libertarian Party. Increased taxation for “free” college is promised by the Democrats; tariffs (which are taxes) and bailouts are executed by Republicans. Both old parties are inching or running toward single-payer healthcare, more gun control and granting the executive branch more and more power. The only choice for those who care about personal and economic liberty, separate from the boot of big government, is the Libertarian party. 4. The only way to send a message to the ruling old parties is to vote for the Libertarian candidate. Once again, the only alternative party that will be on every ballot in the 2020 general election is the Libertarian Party. A vote for Trump sends the message that nothing needs to change. A vote for any of the Democratic candidates likely to get the nomination is a message that nothing they do needs to change either. We currently have more people choosing not to vote for anyone than to pick one of the options the Rs or Ds serve up, and that does nothing to wake up these power-hungry politicians. If your hope is to see better candidates coming from any party, the only way to send that message is to scare those who rule over us by voting Libertarian. 5. Libertarian policies benefit everyone, and they get adopted the more voters show support for such things. It seems hard to believe that the Democratic party was officially still against same-sex marriage less than a decade ago. The Libertarian Party has supported equal rights (and removing the government from marriage) since its founding in 1971. Both parties are still waffling on if people who chose to use cannabis for medical or recreational purposes should go to prison. Many states have changed their laws, while federally some lawmakers are looking to add vaping as a crime. The Libertarian party has supported individual liberty (and no victim, no crime) since its founding in 1971. The liberty movement does affect the public view of issues and eventually leads to better policies. If you want to see more Libertarian policies adopted by old party representatives, you show them that by voting Libertarian. 6. You don’t want to have to spend the next four years explaining why the dumpster fire you supported was not as bad as the dumpster fire someone else supported. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still attaching your name to something evil. It sucks. Don’t do it. Vote Libertarian. 7. Because you “Support the Troops”. Democrats and Republicans both like to act like they are moral patriots who value nothing more than the brave men and women who serve their county. Truth is, they are lying. If they really cared about the troops, they would never flippantly start a new war, they wouldn’t refuse to do their job to vote on military action, and they would certainly spend much more time talking about the 22 veterans a day who commit suicide. War is a failure on every level, and we fail our service men and women once they return home. Do you support the troops, really? So does the Libertarian Party. 8. Consistent Principles only exist in the Libertarian Party. We already mentioned the Democrats’ evolution on rights for gay people only when it became politically beneficial to them. Republicans say they support your Second Amendment rights, until Trump says we need to limit that a bit. Both old parties jump around on which personal decisions they will allow and which they will criminalize. In their histories, the ruling parties have changed their principles drastically. The Libertarian Party platform has held consistent values of individual liberty since it was first written in 1971. Do you want to know that the party you support is going to hold to the values you supported them for? Your party is the Libertarian Party. 9. The Libertarian Party supports ending harmful election laws and opening up the ballot for other parties too. Perhaps you feel that another party best represents your views, but they do not have ballot access. Republicans and Democrats write the very laws that keep alternative parties off the ballot or using all of their resources to get on the ballot. Libertarians believe the duopoly has to be defeated if we will ever see real and meaningful changes in this country. A vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for allowing more candidates and more parties of future ballots, and an end to the ruling parties ability to force you to choose between two terrible candidates. 10. The Libertarian Party is the most welcoming to immigrants and refugees. If you believe children should never, ever be separated from their parents and held in government custody for crossing a political border, you can be sure that the Libertarian Party agrees with you. Democrats and Republicans will continue to argue over miniscule changes - the Libertarian Party will end this insane and dysfunction humanitarian crisis by legalizing the free movement of peaceful people. 11. Because you do not want to live in a {insert religion here} theocracy. Libertarians believe that everyone should be able to hold faith and religion as important or irrelevant to their life as each chooses and that the government should never propose policies or laws based on the support or opposition of any religion. 12. To get money out of politics. It’s funny how often you hear Democrats talk about getting money out of politics, while they promise to pay for college, healthcare, retirement, childcare, and on and on. That is every bit “money in politics” as corporations and lobbyists writing huge checks. Libertarians want to return the executive branch to the limits our Founders intended — that means removing the authority to make such false promises, either to special interest groups or the general public. 13. You support Free Speech — for everyone. Both old parties will talk about their commitment to the First Amendment, but in practice, both have proven willingness to limit free speech that they do not appreciate or agree with. Libertarians believe that if you don’t support free speech for everyone then you don’t support free speech. 14. Reject Nationalism and Socialism with one vote. There are two broken ideologies threatening liberty in our nation today, and they are coming from both major parties. Reject the inhumanities we know come from these authoritarian philosophies, and support liberty instead. 15. Libertarians do not seek power - they seek a world set free. Republicans and Democrats continue to fight over which one best knows how you should live your life. Libertarians know that they best thing for individual humans is to be free to live their life without the approval of any political party. Can you think of anymore? No matter which one of these reasons rings the truest for you, remember that when you go to vote. Even if you are not voting today, you can still cast a vote for liberty, fiscal responsibility, human rights, and integrity by supporting the party of principle. We are proud and honored to be the voice for freedom in America today. Donate to the Libertarian Party Today! "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Today’s new video reveals how an ABC Good Morning America Breaking News Anchor, and 20/20 Co-Anchor had significant information regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes years ago but was told by her superiors that the network would not run the story.
Some of the key findings of today’s video: · Amy Robach Describes How a Witness Came Forward Years Ago With Material Against Epstein: “She Had Pictures, She Had Everything. She Was in Hiding for Twelve Years. We Convinced Her to Come Out. We Convinced Her to Talk to Us. Um, it Was Unbelievable What We Had.” Robach: “We Had Her Whole Allegations About Prince Andrew…” “I Got a Little Concerned About Why I Couldn't Get On.” Robach Details ABC’s Initial Response to Her Acquiring This Material: “Um, First of All, I Was Told, Who's Jeffrey Epstein? No One Knows Who That is. This is a Stupid Story.” Robach: “…It Was Unbelievable What We Had - Clinton, We Had Everything. I Tried for Three Years to Get it on to No Avail. And Now it's All Coming Out and it's like These New Revelations and I Freaking Had All of it” Robach Discards the Possibility of Epstein’s Cause of Death as Suicide in Prison: “…So Do I Think He Was Killed? 100% Yes” Robach Repeats a Statement from Attorney Brad Edwards on Camera,” …There Will Come a Day When We Will Realize Jeffrey Epstein Was the Most Prolific Pedophile This Country Has Ever Known,” Adding, “I Had It All Three Years Ago.” Support Project Veritas here. MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Start at EXPOSE CNN Part One here.
Some of the key findings of today’s video: • Rick Saleeby, Senior Producer of The Lead with Jake Tapper, States Steve Brusk, CNN Politics Supervising Producer, Made ‘Advances’ on Female Employees During ‘Social Gatherings’ and Would “Put His Arm Around Them, Try and Touch Their Leg.” • Saleeby Believes That Steve Brusk is “Protected by Certain People…Like Other Higher Ups” Within CNN. • Rick Saleeby Recalls Incident with a Young Female Colleague: “She Had a Skirt on. I Could See the Hand. I Like Grab Her. It Looked Like I Was Being the Assaulter Because I Grabbed Her So Aggressively…to Keep Her from Him.” • Saleeby: “He Had Already Been Accused of the Things Prior… Which I Found Out…” • Saleeby Acknowledges the Gravity of the Situation: “I’ll Tell You This, In the Climate That’s Going Now, He Definitely Would Have Been Fired.” • Nick Neville, Media Coordinator at CNN, Says It is “Open Knowledge” That a Female Colleague Got a Job Working with Steve Brusk That “Appeared Out of Nowhere,” “…It Was Never Posted Online…” • Neville Refers to Allegedly Untoward Behavior from Brusk With the Young Female Employee: “…I Mean, He Emails All of Us, But He Would Email and Was Very Friendly to Her. And Then She Just Like Got a Job Like Working on His Team and She Was Like, Oh, It’s Hush-Hush. The Job Was Never Posted Anywhere.” • Neville: “…I Just Thought It Was a Little Strange.” • Christian Sierra, Media Coordinator at CNN, Continues: “That’s Unethical…That’s Unethical.” • Steve Brusk Tells Project Veritas Journalists to Speak with CNN’s PR Team About Sexual Misconduct Allegations; When Approached in DC, Refuses to Watch Footage. • Rick Saleeby and Jake Tapper Refuse to Speak with Project Veritas Journalists in DC When Approached for Comment. • Project Veritas Calls CNN President Jeff Zucker’s Office for Comment on Last Week’s Multiple Releases Regarding Anti-Trump Bias in the Network; Zucker’s Administrative Assistant Replies: “We Don’t Have Any Comment, Thanks for Calling.” Support the whistleblower here. Support Project Veritas here. How much longer will CNN’s parent company, AT&T, allow Zucker, and CNN, to refrain from commenting on what has been uncovered? The public has a right to know AT&T’s official position. Will you demand a response from AT&T and CNN? Here is how: AT&T Phone Number: (210) 821-4105 Warner Media/CNN Phone Number: (404)827-1700 Without CNN Insider Cary Poarch, the American people wouldn’t have known about any of this information. MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Start at EXPOSE CNN Part One here.
Some of the key findings of today’s video:
Support the whistleblower here. Support Project Veritas here. How much longer will CNN’s parent company, AT&T, allow Zucker, and CNN, to refrain from commenting on what has been uncovered? The public has a right to know AT&T’s official position. Will you demand a response from AT&T and CNN? Here is how: AT&T Phone Number: (210) 821-4105 Warner Media/CNN Phone Number: (404)827-1700 Without CNN Insider Cary Poarch, the American people wouldn’t have known about any of this information.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Some of the key findings of today’s Project Veritas video:
Support the whistleblower here. Support Project Veritas here. How much longer will CNN’s parent company, AT&T, allow Zucker, and CNN, to refrain from commenting on what has been uncovered? The public has a right to know AT&T’s official position. Will you demand a response from AT&T and CNN? Here is how: AT&T Phone Number: (210) 821-4105 Warner Media/CNN Phone Number: (404)827-1700 Without CNN Insider Cary Poarch, the American people wouldn’t have known about any of this information. MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
The question Ted Cruz just asked Mark Zuckerberg is the one question I want to know the answer to....
Does Zuckerberg know, or care about, the political leanings "of the 15-20,000 Facebook employees dedicated to content review"? Because the thing is, that skew matters. I have no doubt that Zuckerberg and Facebook don't ask people what their political views are in the hiring process. That's not normally how hiring works. When I applied to work at the CATO Institute i had zero questions about my political leanings. Zero. But that's not necessary for bias to emerge.
What actually happens is that people self-select into particular industries and companies for a host of reasons, the corporate values and tone of the working environment weeds out a lot, hiring managers tend to hire people generally like themselves so even if they don't ask any particular questions, they're looking for people they can work with so obviously finding points of agreement around interests and values help people get jobs in the first place.
And Facebook is located in the Bay Area in California, which has its own skew. The problem, though, is that if 18,000 of their 20,000 content reviewers all lean a certain way, then the content they flag and the content they review will too. And that means they're putting more scrutiny on (in this case) conservatives, libertarians, or just non-leftist types, and flagging more right-leaning posts as inappropriate, banning more of those pages.
I see this already in terms of the fact checking system Facebook has implemented.
And the irony of this is that if Facebook does more of the same, the result will be even MORE polarization, which is the very thing they claim they want to prevent. I'm fine with Mark Zuckerberg ONLY hiring militant leftists, if that's what he wants to do. I just want there to be transparency. Don't said that you're unbiased, if you're not. Be clear that Facebook is what it is- a great platform that has a bias and if you don't align with that bias, you can get kicked from the platform with no recourse. Zuckerberg said that he believed for the first 10-12 years of running Facebook that their role as a company was to build tools for people to use to connect with each other. Now he believes the company should have a new mission: To police the user-base and make sure those tools are being used "for good". Little does he know, he's headed down an authoritarian path. Did he not take Dystopian Lit at Harvard? What are your thoughts on how this can turn? Are you already off Facebook completely? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
The video below is making the rounds on social media and claims that...
"Russian meddling is the biggest attack on our democracy since 9-11. Here's how it works and what we can do about it." The problem with over-simplified videos like this is that they are able to embed a lot of spin when they apply broad-stroke simplification to a complex issue. The listener doesn't have the time to evaluate each simplified declaration as true or false before moving on to the next talking point. This video is no different. If you’ve ever gotten into a heated argument in the comments section of Facebook, chances are you’ve come across a paid Russian troll. Really? Half my Facebook friends are Russian trolls since we get in heated arguments all the time?
In reality, Facebook has been extremely cooperative in the handing over of data to prosecute the ‘Russian trolls’. If Russian trolls were the problem, do not doubt that Facebook would have provided extensive, accurate data that would support this claim. The media would kill for confirmation of that narrative, yet no supporting data has surfaced.
Instead, the larger picture could never be more clear. The goalposts surrounding the Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative Have Moved Again
Looking at the 2016 election, it's interesting to note that their main goal wasn't exactly to help Donald Trump win the Presidency. Russia's bigger goal has always been to create chaos and distrust within American society. Wait what? See below for an inextensive, quick first few pages of Google results pushing the narrative of Collusion, Collusion, Collusion before the Mueller Indictment and the VP for Facebook Ad destroyed that narrative!
It also, doesn't stop them from lathering their base with hopes of collusion which could still occur. Why hasn't the collusion message dissipated?
Why isn't this widely reported as a scarlet letter of failure on mainstream media outlets that pushed the narrative so hard for so long? First off, it's a complex story and can't be discussed perfectly in 3 minute soundbites that steer cable TV news segments.
While there are allegations that it was actually the Democrats who colluded with the Russians, there is no concise and perfectly packaged smoking gun that proves so. Hillary didn't directly write a check to the Russians for dirt on Trump. Instead:
Without a direct smoking gun, the only outlets that will push the narrative of direct Democratic collusion with the Russians turns out to be Fox News and Alex Jones. The real crime isn't discussed by any Media outlets, though.
A dossier which was paid for by one political party was being used by the government to spy on that candidate's opponent*. This precedent is dangerous especially as we see many within the FBI organization were acting in a blatantly partisan manner while on the taxpayer's dime.
If I was Carter Page, I'd be looking into a civil suit against the government's wrongful intrusion into my 4th Amendment Rights by politically motivated federal law enforcement officials within the FBI. Who has influenced the public more? The Russians or the Media pushing a fake narrative?
I have to re-stress this point, there's not yet any evidence to prove any 'collusion' narrative. Indeed, after more than 18 months, the Comey-Mueller FBI investigations of alleged Trump collusion with Russia have come up bone dry. I stand by my previous remarks:
If evidence exists of collusion between Russia and Trump to rig or hack the election, let's get the proof out there and hang him for it. Instead, the readily apparent media goal is to pack television shows, social media timelines and article titles with half-truth reporting in order to muddy the picture. If you don't really take the time to look into the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative, you'll likely just assume it true based on the volume of reporting thrown in your face daily. What's increasingly apparent is that the Robert Mueller investigation, which was kickstarted in 2016 by the Trump Dossier, has turned into a continuation of the Democrats' failed 2016 political campaign against Trump, with vague insinuations of misconduct or outright criminality but never any proof. Now that the goalposts have shifted, I urge you to take every opportunity to point out that we were lied to and the media should have zero credibility going forward. How do we go back and tell every person who read the previous list of articles, or quickly scrolled past them in their social media timeline that they were patently false and created with an agenda in mind? We can't. Those people went on living their lives unable to hold an adult conversation on the topic because they've been effectively influenced. We're never able to right the wrong that has taken place. This is the real crime. Hundreds of millions of Americans read headlines or quickly browsed articles and walked away from that interaction knowing that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
You speak to them around the water fountain and they can't explain why, they've seen no evidence, but it must be true. They are naive to believe the media is pure in it's intentions. They are ignorant to the fact that the media could be complicit in pushing a narrative.
For more, go read Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator by by Ryan Holiday marketed as 'the cult classic that predicted the rise of fake news—revised and updated for the post-Trump, post-Gawker age.' You'll quickly understand that the media is no longer the unofficial fourth branch of government which attempts to check government power with truth. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot Second federal judge blocks move to end DACA; Judicial Activism against an Unconstitutional Law2/14/2018 Only in America could the mainstream media call those who want strengthened borders "Racists" and "Xenophobes" while those who are here illegally are referred to as "Dreamers". If you aren't real sure why the courts keep blocking the Trump Administration's attempts to shut down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, let me catch you up. The entire DACA debate in a nutshell - It's not that the courts believe the Trump Administration can'tend the program. The courts believe the administration does have this right, this ability. The courts just want to make sure there's a good reason behind it. As if, the executive branch has to all-of-a-sudden provide justification in form of a White Paper, hand-deliver this to the judicial branch and wait around for permission to be given. Just as the Framer's intended. No, this is not one of those 'checks and balances' we learned about in 5th grade Civics class. "Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program," Garaufis wrote, referring to the Trump administration. "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so." The judge goes on to cite a "recurring, redundant drumbeat of anti-Latino commentary". To be fair, Trump definitely capitalized on the drug problem, the gang problem and national headlines of illegals killing Americans (after being deported many times). This is politics. This is a candidate firing up a base. Now, if you read a lot of CNN, you might think that "We're getting a lot of drug dealers and gang members from Mexico; They're not sending us their best and brightest" is anti-Latino. It's not. "Today's ruling shows that courts across the country agree that Trump's termination of DACA was not just immoral, but unlawful as well," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center. So the Justice System is also the Morality Police, now? Oh yeah, Federalist Papers Essay #82 regarding the authority of the judicial systems. I'll have to refresh myself up on the morality section. When you have judges who legislate morality from the bench, your judicial system is screwed. They are supposed to be partial only to the Constitution. The Justice Department said it maintains that the administration acted "within its lawful authority" in deciding to end DACA and will "vigorously defend this position." Just to recap, the government has very few purposes in our life. It's purpose is to defend Life, Liberty, and Property. If the President decides that droves of foreign nationals, who don't share our western ideals of liberty and freedom, are a threat to "Life, Liberty, and Property", then it's incumbent upon his oath of office to make that decision. This week the Supreme Court is set to meet behind closed doors to discuss whether to take up the Trump administration's appeal of the related case. Spoiler Alert: They Won't. The Supreme Court is very selective on which cases it takes. And when it does take a case of national importance, you will be sure that the legal argument examined will be some tiny nuance within the case, not the hallmark of the case itself. With obstructionist judges who act upon partisan lines, the future is bleak for the Trump Administration. If you feel very passionate about DACA, let's rally support and create the law, legally. Troll Attacks Sarah Silverman On Twitter, And Her Unexpected Response Turns Man’s Life Upside Down1/28/2018
I'm no fan of Sarah Silverman (politically) and tend to think her humor as a standup comedian relies too heavily on being blunt and crass. But when people do great things, you encourage it and spread that message.
Someone on Twitter responded to her in a way that was crude and, unfortunately, too expected these days on social media.
Instead of blocking the guy or retorting with some online snark along the lines of "Nice Twitter Account you have there, must be nice to have 14 followers" or "Typical White cis-male response, yo!", Silverman looked into the guys timeline and responded with empathy. The back and forth looks like this:
Side note: I'm from San Antonio and San Antonio is AWESOME.
I know it's hard on social media. If you've ever read the book Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator then you understand how dangerously rampant humanity is to default to a snarky, dismissive comment. This is how we should treat each other, just like this. Almost makes me forget the time Sarah Silverman called for amilitary coup to overthrow Trump. She apologized though. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
|
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |