Wait, how can they "be underground" & be able to recruit people at the same time?
-
-
Yes, but they also need to be in public to be debated. The reason they festered on Gab was that they got booted everywhere else—where they were getting contested and shafted on the daily. And yeah, opponents could've gone on Gab to debate them, but no one really bothered to.
-
DO we really need to "debate" that eugenics is bad?
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yeah, I've seen too many of them use the whole persecution complex mixed with their own conspiracies; "they're trying to silence us because a) they can't refute us, and b) they're controlled by the Jews!". It doesn't defeat them, it just removes them from the public eye.
- 4 more replies
-
-
-
Besides, in the case of the synagogue shooter, it wasn't a matter of growth, but of radicalization. You only need so many people in an echo chamber before the ideas start ramping up to violence. On Twitter, their chambers were artificial. On Gab, they were mostly real. Now?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is what I was talking about when Alex Jones was banned. These platforms have such a terrible record of censorship, that smart people will reflexively take the side against the service provider even when the bans are actually deserved.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
ISIS is an interesting one because they had a huge amount of resources to recruit even without Twitbooktube. Funded by like minded rich Muslims ariund the world and from the money they stole and made. Only when they were killed did things change.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.