David Duke banned from Twitter

Probably banned him for retweeting Trump.


I want to know the important stuff: what’s going on with his face, and why does it look so uncanny valley: Is he wearing a toupee? Is his face the result of multiple facelifts?


I give it about a week. If he isn’t restored, he’ll have a burner account. Probably has several already.

HIS people know how to find him.


Yes. From what I’ve read about him, he thinks he’ll have a better ability to sell his bigotry to a new generation if he looks younger. It obviously went hilariously wrong for him.


Jeezuz, every time I see him he looks more and more like some kind of reanimated corpse or poorly camoflauged reptilian.

(Not that I’m a supermodel, mind you, but it looks like he’s had bad plastic surgery, or is using “skin lightener” to make himself even more white.)


Though I did like Topher Grace’s version of him in The Black Klansman. Just the right level of clueless, self absorbed, banality of evil.

The actor has really started to carve out a niche for himself as wimpy evil types.


All too many things.

1 Like

Is it just me or are we numbed to the fact that Twitter is a money making enterprise and not a legitimate public forum. Yes I know Donald Fucknuts uses it to amplify his messages/narcissism but why do the rest of the world have to be so profoundly impacted by this institution!

1 Like

What would a legitimate public forum look like in the US? Would anything maintained by the government be better? I can imagine what it would be like if the Trump administration had the keys and the banhammer…

It’s the flesh colored sclera.

Seriously, those are the weirdest eyes (other than shooped Corinthian mouth eyes…).

That would actually be a real nice experience. Just announce that, as long as he is POTUS, they are not going to ban him, but everyone who is retweeting his shit.

Happily including everyone quoting, paraphrasing, image-tweeting or even subtweeting his stuff.

The abyss would open up nicely.


I think we all understand it’s not a public forum. Anytime someone claims a first amendment violation on social media (always butthurt nazis) they get ratioed to Mars with people explaining private vs public platforms.

That said, social media has also proven to be a gray area in many ways. If the platforms are truly private, then they are responsible for all content on it, like a radio station. If they are public, then they are not, but have to uphold the constitution. Currently the social media companies are trying to have it both ways, claiming to be “just private software companies” but also “not responsible for anything”. They’re also working very hard not to be seen as “broadcasting” because then the FCC knocks on their door.

Basically it’s a big gray area mess right now and a lot of SCOTUS rulings will be needed to sort it out.


Thanks, I appreciate your responses. I get exactly what you’re saying without any “buts…”. Just felt that this is a safe place for an outsider to express some exasperation!

Thanks again for your time

It is! I was genuinely curious. I have no idea how a “freedom of speech” protected public forum on a national scale could be done in the 21st century. It would be a really interesting project to dream up something that would be possible.

I was just on another forum chatting about the corporate interest in music copyright, Universal, Warner. Sony et. al. And in an age where Black Lives Matter is a welcome response this was good. That Black music has been stolen and regulated since Elvis and before makes me angrier. Music is a base line for all peoples cultures and the loss of speech is the next thing to go.

I guess this is where we have to think and act both socially and politically. Choose our fights.

1 Like

It kind of ties with the previous point, as well. Music is produced and played in the private sector through business, but the demand is such that even opinions that the mainstream find difficult are able to find expression. Maybe “art” is about as close to a protected public forum as we can get, so long as it sneaks its message in enough to be popular.

Reminds me of all the conservatives suddenly outraged at the lyrics to Rage Against the Machine songs they have been listening to for almost 30 years…

I think this is the thing that concerns me most is that music is the one human base line that is only seen in an economic sense abstracted from it’s social/human currency. Maybe it’s like considering the dollar to the lira, what can it buy you and where? And can you play anything musically worthwhile with a dollar note or a coin? Maybe but I would rather beg borrow or steal an instrument!

1 Like

But happily, like most art, even though it is traded and profited from by a few, it remains with the whole of us, and enriches everyone.

“i don’t know what I like but I know what art is” is a motto handed down by a friend and a mentor. As soon as one has an idea of what ‘art is’ then nothing good will come. Knowing that you don’t know what ‘art’ is opens the ability to see art in everything… if you take the economics out of art it doesn’t exist.

1 Like

What about the other David Dukes?