Twitter, by its very nature, is not conducive to rational discussion of nuanced viewpoints, which is probably why I'll lose my appeal of my Twitter ban and be forced to delete my Tweet. (Which I might've done anyway since there's a misspelling and no edit button.)
For the record, all tweets in this post will be screenshots and links, because I can't use Twitter's embed functionality when banned.
It should be really obvious that some methods of death are preferable to others. Getting burned alive or drowning are both pretty terrible. Getting dismembered while you're conscious sounds pretty darn bad too.
There's the old joke that "I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my father…not screaming in terror as we careen off a cliff like the passengers in the bus he was driving."
So, with this basic truth in mind, we come to this Twitter thread last night by National Review's Alexandra DeSanctis in response to the Senate confirmation of the odious Xavier Becerra to be head of the Department of Health and Human Services.
"Waddabout Dem" was the target of my snark, and likely the snowflake whose complaint resulted in my ban.
Unfortunately, my current Android Twitter App, Albatross, does the double-tagging thing periodically (and automatically), which is why @enp777 is listed twice. And you also see the unfortunate typo, which should read: "your limbs" rather than "yourimbs," but the meaning is clear. Clear enough for the banhammer.
Taken alone, this could easily be seen as a threat. I fully understand this.
Taken in the context of a discussion of partial-birth abortion and as a refutation to the contention one method of abortion is no different than any other because the end result is the same, it obviously is not.
This is a truth we all know. The more depraved a murder, the more gratuitous the violence that led to the victim's death, the greater the likelihood of a long prison sentence or the death penalty.
The idea that it doesn't matter how a fetus is killed because it's going to die anyway is odious, but a necessary defense for those in our society who applaud the process and deny the humanity of the unborn child.
Late this afternoon I received the predictable response that my appeal was denied. No surprise there. Nuance and context don't matter. Of course, there's plenty of stuff much more vile—and no amount of context that can make it less vile—that remains up on the site even after a tsunami of complaints and takedown requests.
Twitter continues to be a sewer, but my Tweet is no longer contributing to the sea of sludge.
>Twitter, by its very nature, is not conducive to rational discussion of nuanced viewpoints
The nature of it being not conducive is irrelevant. Please stop giving it content, and allow it to go bankrupt for its flawed business model,
Post where your views and analysis are welcome and rational discussion is encouraged.