5 types of Oklahomans who should be banned from social media

We’re coming off of one helluva week. Y’all saw the news, no need to recap one of the most bonkers things that happened in our lifetimes.

One of the funniest (and most overdue) developments was seeing our sitting president get banned from half of the internet. Trump has been lobbing dog-whistle grenades for years and finally is seeing punishment. The rest of his term will probably be a trainwreck of anger and revenge, but it’s nice to see social media finally do the right thing.

This made me think about Oklahoma social media and who needs to be banished. Here’s my list:

Mayor Holt Simps

These are the worst for me. The mayor will tweet something like “We have 3,700+ active cases today and 90 deaths. Wear a mask and wash your hands!” Basically, ‘Thoughts & Prayers!’ style posts, but the replies treat him like he’s a god. ‘BEST MAYOR EVER!’ because he takes selfies, tweets about the Thunder, and drops mics.

Bad Yelpers

Yelp is one of the worst thing to happen to restaurants. All of a sudden, everyone from Edmond who works in real estate is a ‘foodie’ and has taken on the persona of a food writer. Just because you’ve been to Dallas and a resort in Mexico does not make you a food expert and someone who should have the power to ruin the reputation of a restaurant because your appetizer did not come out immediately.

College Football Complainers

This may be a bias cuz I’m not really into football at all, but all the old white dudes with dogs as their avatars complaining about college football on Twitter need to GO. Why are you so mad about people who play sports for free and live in cheap apartments, maybe trying to get a degree, maybe trying to get shipped off to a professional league that will chew them up and spit them out? It’s okay if ya wanna watch OU, but you’re a grown ass man. Chill.

Nextdoor Karens

I stay off of that app cuz I do NOT need that energy in my life, but I still hear about it. ‘DID ANYONE ELSE JUST HEAR GUNSHOTS IN THE PASEO? WE NEED TO CLEAN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD UP!’ Karen, that was probably just a car backfiring, you’re clearly okay. ‘I SAW A BLACK MAN IN A HOODIE ON THE SIDEWALK, BE VIGILANT.’ Nah, you’re just racist. GTFOH.

Local News Media Facebook Boomers

Facebook is garbage for many reasons, but mostly because of the old people replying to KFOR, Oklahoman, etc stories. KOCO or FOX25 posts something ‘Local man accused of robbing a gas station’ and you will see the most nasty, racist bullshit on your screen. I got no patience in the world for that action.

Which Oklahoma social media types would you want to block?

Support Local Media

Help keep The Lost Ogle in business. Join the TLO Membership Club today for only $5 a month!

More The Lost Ogle News

58 Responses

  1. Another soy-boy raging for censorship. Imagine that!

    1. Satire: noun
      the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

      I mean, obviously, no one should be banned from social media except under the most extreme circumstances, or unless violating written and followed rules and guidelines, but c’mon now.

      1. Tlo quit being a satirical blog when trump became president.

        1. You can be satirical and still be political. Unless you think he’s being literal in wanting to ban bad yelp reviewers, then it is, by definition, satire.

          1. Is this satire? Be honest. “One of the funniest (and most overdue) developments was seeing our sitting president get banned from half of the internet. Trump has been lobbing dog-whistle grenades for years and finally is seeing punishment. The rest of his term will probably be a trainwreck of anger and revenge, but it’s nice to see social media finally do the right thing.”

            1. No, that part is genuine. You’re right on that.

              Do I like the idea of banning political figures for speech? Of course not. I think we should absolutely have a free exchange of ideas, no matter whether I agree with them or not.

              And if Trump just kept complaining about the election and baselessly calling it rigged, then I don’t believe he would have been banned, just like he wasn’t banned for birtherism or his continued attack on the central park 5 after they were exonerated. Trump wouldn’t have been banned if he hadn’t filled the proverbial powder kegs, set them in a grassy field, lit a match on a windy day, tossed it in the field, then flew away to safety to call congressman to ask them to overturn a legal election while the riots occurred. He probably wouldn’t have been banned if he had condemned the protests when people asked him to instead of waiting for hours and telling the insurrectionists that he loved them when he finally did ask it to stop. He probably wouldn’t have been banned if he hadn’t praised violent attacks on media members from police and his supporters in the past https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/22/trump-says-police-violence-against-journalists-is-actually-a-beautiful-sight/?sh=60f2da6b57d6).

              He probably wouldn’t have been banned if his team hadn’t kept using increasingly violent rhetoric (like Rudy Guiliani calling for a “trial by combat” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/watch-giuliani-demand-trial-by-combat-to-settle-election.html) or he had condemned that speech from the start.

              But they have rules against inciting violence, and I guess Trump’s plausible deniability ran out when a group of his supporters, freshly hyped up on claims of fraud and encouraged to show their strength against weak congressman who wouldn’t overturn an election, bludgeoned a police officer to death while raiding the capitol. Did he say to peacefully make their voices heard? Sure. Once, in the middle of a speech designed to anger and rile a base that has already praised and dreamed of violence against those they disagree with. How could anyone think anything other that what happened would happen?

              Do I agree in principle with banning him? Not really. At least not permanently. Do I understand why? Yeah, I do. Those riots are the only possible end result of his last 4 years of fairly baseless attacks on anyone that disagreed with him, his praising of violence against his enemies, his pushing of baseless conspiracies and lies, and his propping himself up as the lone savior of his country. Without that, he just would have been a president pushing crappy fiscal policy and trying to mimic a strongarm dictator while the rest of the world rolled his eyes at him, and he definitely wouldn’t have been banned from Twitter.

            2. Are you sure you got the right people doing the “baseless attacks” for the last for years? As far as I’m concerned, it was the left and their media doing exactly what you’re describing. From the Russian collusion delusion to the impeachment (even this new one).

            3. No, I got it right. You seem to be misinformed about how either of those things happened, or what the media has done. Considering you’re backing a guy cheering violence against media members, that’s not surprising though.

            4. How am I misinformed? Are you saying move of what I said happened? Nice deflection to some irrelevant thing trump said.

            5. Well…

              The Mueller report did show that Russian interference benefitting Trump was rampant and organized, but that certain communications were redacted limiting them from fully stating that Trump himself was seeking it out.

              The Mueller report stated that obstruction very likely occurred, but that sitting presidents were immune from criminal prosecution so he did not want to preempt impeachment by accusing him of a crime, which of course Trump and his time used to act like Trump was fully exonerated by the report after releasing a heavily redacted version. However, he wasn’t exonerated, Mueller just didn’t want to be the judge.

              Given how many arrests (and eventual pardons) resulted from the Mueller investigation, it’s very fair to say that it cannot in any way be classified as the witch hunt that Trump claims it was.

              Not being removed by impeachment at that time was pretty much a party line thing, more than an actual investigation of any facts.

            6. And I do apologize that you find the actual words of someone praising violence as irrelevant to whether or not he actually promoted violence. I don’t know what to tell you other than that you seem to be really into the concept of plausible deniability.

            7. Not one arrest had anything to do with the actual theme of investigation. They got those people on other stuff. Got anything else?

            8. It’s not that hard. Donald Trump Jr. flat out admitted that a meeting in Trump Tower was made with Russian agents to try to get information that would be damaging to Clinton’s election campaign.

              The Mueller report showed a lot of links between the Trump campaign and Russia that all political pundits agree wouldn’t be part of a typical presidential election. Because of the obstruction, which has been largely, redacted, the investigation wasn’t able to meet the legal standard.

              16 Russians were indicted by Mueller for their role in the meddling.

              The only advantage for Trump was that Mueller is conservative in his role and wouldn’t bring up any direct indictments for the meddling aspects and said Trump was immune from criminal prosecutions.

              A delusion was, say, the Benghazi investigation, or pizzagate, or the idea that this election was stolen and rigged. The Mueller report was really very successful in comparison. Not as much as Democrats wanted it to be, but very much so in showing that there was a concerted pro-Trump effort coming out of Russia and that there was a lot of obstruction going on to try to hide that information.

            9. Again, only circumstantial stuff. Trump was so pro-russian that he was harder on them than Obama… Riddle me that one. I guess Obama did tell medvedev to tell vlad that he’s going to be “more flexible” after the election. Bet you forgot that one. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev/obama-tells-russias-medvedev-more-flexibility-after-election-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326

        2. This is true. I think that they stopped being satirical and went-bore into liberal political articles when Trump was elected.

          I get that pandering to your base (readers) gets views and clicks and that those translate to dollars. I don’t fault them for it, but they just seem so unhappy that they live in Oklahoma that I am not sure why they do not up and leave.

          Probably has something to do with not having the financial resources available to do it.

          1. Would gladly trade some Cali bums for them. Cardboard would be about the only housing they’d be able to afford there, anyway.

    2. Your a funny guy.

    3. Your still a funny guy.

    4. You are still.a.funny guy, like Mao.

  2. If you use any of the social media platforms that Lucas mentioned, don’t complain about finding these horrible types there. These types are the very lifeblood of “antisocial media.” It’s their business model! What were you expecting – intelligent conversation? You are 10x more likely to find misinformation and disinformation there.

    I dipped my toe into Facebook several years ago to see what all the fuss was about, and promptly closed my account. Same with Twitter. Same with Nextdoor. It’s all either inane or downright toxic.

    Twitter’s stock fell at this morning’s opening, now that it has cut off the metaphorical thumbs of its most abusive lying liar. He was undoubtedly good for their business.

    Social media platforms are protected by “Sec. 230” from liability for the lies, stupidity, sedition, and incitements of insurrection that get posted there. So isn’t it ironic that Twitter and other platforms was shielded from liability for what the Thumbless One and his minions posted there, while the Thumbless One was insisting on Sec. 230’s repeal?

  3. It’s a darn shame that so many Americans are completely ignorant of what expression is protected by the First Amendment, and from whom it is protected.

    No one has a Constitutional right to post on Twitter, Facebook, or even on The Lost Ogle. Under the doctrine of private property rights, the owners and publishers of media have the absolute right to decide what does and does not appear in their platforms. You can whine about “censorship” if your offensive and whiny posts are deleted. You can whine if you get banned because you repeatedly violate the site owner’s rules, or if he simply finds you to be an an annoying troll who adds nothing to the discussion. You can even cry bitter tears if your favorite Tweeter is rendered thumbless. But when these things happen, no one’s constitutional rights have been violated.

    The key words in the First Amendment are: ” Congress** shall make no law… ” Read it. Learn it. Understand it.

    **(This also applies to state and local governments under later Constitutional amendments and interpretations.)

    1. It has to go both ways, you dimwit.

      1. Watch the personal attacks, Dearie. That could get you banned.

        1. Chill your nuts, Adolph.

      2. What has to go both ways? Twitter and other private social media apps are nothing more than an electronic version of a magazine/newspaper/club they are not constitutional guaranteed access to each and every citizen. They can ban whomever they want, whenever they want.

        Think of it this way, Twitter is a certain bakery and Trump is a gay wedding cake.

        Also how can you even begin to question this when Fox News had staff openly campaign and participate in rallies with Trump-then they question the coverage by other news outlets.

        Lastly Trump has a studio feet from his office/house and he could press conferences 24/7 if he wanted to, but then he might have to answer questions, have facts and not have spell check. Ha ha ha ha. Plus I heard it was fake news he was banned from Twitter.

    2. Well, I must admit that I have a hard time understanding
      the First Amendment at times, in that so often it doesn’t
      make common sense in the overall interest of the Common
      By that I mean, why have the Anarchist’s Cookbook at public
      libraries? What use is it other than for murder and destruction?

      Several years ago a KKK rally was scheduled at a location not
      very far from my house. I could easily imagine the violence that
      would erupt.
      In some cases permits can’t be obtained unless the group pays
      for public security and that can curtail it. But as it happened, a
      bad ice storm moved in and the rally was called off.

      Look at the Phelps group out of Kansas. How the hell they are
      able to carry on with their crap seems unbelievable.
      As the saying goes … “Should be a law against it!”

      But anyway, the First Amendment can be hard to understand.
      What’s more important … law and order or freedom of hate speech?

      1. The First Amendment is very easy to understand, even when you wish that some expression COULD be suppressed by the government. “No law…”

        “Law and order”? Whose version of it? Bull Connor? Lafayette Square? Different kinds of “order” for BLM than for the minions of the Thumbless One?

        Sorry, Mark. You offer a false choice. Too often “law and order” is a dog whistle for suppression of legitimate grievances. I prefer “Equal justice under law.”

        It has often been said that the remedy for expression you don’t like… is more expression. That is the genius of freedom. KKK rallies are usually met by larger and peaceful anti-KKK rallies. Same when the Phelps scum shows up. All these are protected from government by the First Amendment.

      2. According to the First Amendment, Congress can’t pass laws that punish speech based on content, unless some serious extenuating circumstances are met, such as national security.

        So a rally can be about almost anything and it’s protected speech. A KKK rally has just as much a right to use a road as a Christmas Day Parade.

    3. That’s as a succinct and accurate description of the First Amendment (speech and press) as we’re likely to find. The inability (or outraged refusal) to comprehend this demonstrates the futility of trying to have a conversation with trolls. Feeding trolls accomplishes nothing except to keep the corrector from looking and moving forward. Leave them to argue with tree stumps — who, of course, are better grounded.

      1. You are the tree stumps of tlo.

    4. My brother, here’s how I see it. You don’t need this little parable, but perhaps some of our other friends may find it enlightening (but—probably not. Still. Let us proceed.)

      Let’s say I have a house with a balcony on the second floor.

      And a man says, “Your house overlooks this busy street. I would like to stand on your balcony and say things to the people walking past on the street. May I?”

      I would ask him: “What kind of stuff are you interested in saying? Because if it’s hateful, stupid bullshit, you ain’t using my balcony for that. Find another balcony.”

      And if he said, “But THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!”

      I would say, “My house. I decide who comes in, and who gets kicked out if they act stupid. Doesn’t mean you can’t talk…you just ain’t doing it here.”

      This concludes our special report. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, in progress since 1776. All rights reserved. Void where inhibited. No Trumps were harmed in the making of this motion picture.

      1. Brevity. Learn it.

        1. ‘K

      2. Well said, Skiff!

  4. Can’t remember how I came across them, but recently
    I caught myself being pretty stunned from watching
    several ‘Flash Mob Robberies’. It’s where young people
    organize on social media to all go to a certain store at a
    specific time, then help themselves to the merchandise.

    YouTube has many of the incidents since the stores have
    security cameras that film it.
    It’s been going on for quite a while, like 10 years or so, but
    I wasn’t aware that it’s as common as it is. I had heard of
    flash mobs where they meet and do goofy stuff like standing
    motionless, breaking out in song or whatever, but never
    organized shoplifting.

    Mob mentality is something else. The cameras catch the smirks
    on their faces as they carry the stuff out the exit doors.
    Some were just convenience stores where they get beer and snacks.
    Others were where they grabbed armfuls of expensive jackets
    and other clothing.

    It made me wonder what sort of steps could be taken to prevent
    it from happening if it gets more widespread.

    1. Some larger metros basically decriminalized shoplifting, and as you’ve seen during the riots and looting, there was zero accountability and punishment for those that destroyed business.

      1. Proof? I’ve heard that before and have never been able to find evidence of it. The most I could find is that prosecutors have to prove someone intended to steal something to prove petty theft.

  5. As graychin stated- social media is toxic. It literally destroys the fabric of society and promotes hate-filed discourse. It is the very nature of the thing.
    I’d hate to be a teenager nowadays with this cancer that has infiltrated and destroyed so many lives.
    I have Instagram to see pics of grandkids out of state. That’s it.
    I don’t care to read others’ opinions on facebook or Twitter and I’m not arrogant to presume others want to read mine. I talk to important people in my life in person or on the phone.
    Oh I’ll comment on here some because it’s fun to stir the turd and see the response of people who take theirselves too seriously but I won’t be doing that very much in 2021. Too much negativity here and I don’t need it.

    And I don’t give a rats ass about celebrities, athletes or politicians or what they think.
    How about we just ban social media outright? Too much money involved and too much political power for that to ever happen but it would be so nice….

    1. I think the most toxic thing about social media is
      how addicting it can be, not just for teenagers but
      for all ages.
      Here I’m making a third post when I have more
      productive things I could be doing.

      What’s kind of weird, is how we have so much these
      days in the way of time-saving devices of all sorts but
      yet people generally feel less relaxed and are prone to
      There’s so much instant information about everything
      that we’re being overtaxed with it and people become
      neurotic as a result.

      Way back when, kids would assemble models and do
      tedious crafts with their hands while listening to the radio.
      It helped them become skilled craftsman later in life.
      Once TV became popular that sort of stuff lost popularity
      because their eyes were glued to the screen instead of some

      Nowadays you drive by a bus stop or go to gas station and
      everyone’s glued to their smart phones instead of having a
      real life conversation with each other.
      I suppose they feel like they have a sense of community among
      their cyber buddies, but all the while the real world gets tossed
      by the wayside.

      But also, looking at the brighter side, maybe they’re being
      trained to cope in their future careers of pushing buttons
      while robots and AI do the actual work.

      1. I concur in that it appears the desire/need/addiction of the social media is overrunning real life. I’m shocked/disgusted by the amount of time/effort/emotion so many people put into “presenting their best life” without realizing that 99% of the other people are doing it as well. I get so mad at my wife when driving places how she misses so many “real things” because she is constantly checking her phone and/or posting pics.

        I hate what it does to some young people’s mental image of themselves/confidence-especially when it’s not even real.

  6. What is satire when covering anything Trump says? Was he joking when he (didn’t) made fun of a handicapped person? Was he joking about (not) making fun of a POW hero? Was he joking about inciting violence? Was he joking about massive fraud that was laughed out of every court? Was he joking about shooting a man without repercussions? Was he joking about (not) paying off porn stars?

    1. As an example, Stephen Colbert has done a good job making satire out of what T**** says. Even when you know T**** can’t be kidding.

  7. Trump should comment here. It’s one of the few online spaces where he hasn’t been banned.

  8. Ain’t nothing hard about the First Amendment. You can pretty much say anything, so long as it’s not threaten a crime or disclosing the secret Coca Cola recipe and you’re safe from the government doing squat. But just ONE time joke around about how ugly the boss’s daughter is on Instagram and BOOM you get canned from busted down cardboard boxes at the Big Box store. IT WAS JUST A JOKE MONTY!!!

  9. I like how twitter is a platform world wide, along with the internet, yet Americans’ think it’s theirs. Twitter is a guest on the internet, like thelostogle or parlor, not the land lord. this shit won’t fly in other countries, and i think twitter might not be around by the middle of the decade. it’s crazy that bougie neo liberal white guys from burning man have as much power as they do, and people like OP will simp over them because orange man bad but with only days left of his presidency i think orange man will be living rent free in the minds of low IQ people for quite some time.

    1. I love how twitter still lets actual murderous dictators to have a platform, while banning Trump for something not even tlo dwellers have proof of.

      1. There’s also cheese pizza on twitter too, and i thought it was a dumb pizza gate conspiracy like wayfayer selling children but it makes a lot more sense. also apps like tender which underage kids can get on, and have are still ready to download, along with grindr which i downloaded 5 years ago and I got so many DMs from guys asking me if i wanted to hangout with them & tina, and if you don’t know what that means try looking it up on urban dictionary.

        white upper class neo liberals arn’t the brightest so it isn’t crazy to see them cheer on Black Lives Matter and not know who Susan Rosenberg is. She actually did a better job than most Q anon baby boomer did on Wednesday. It’s almost like a ruling class of people are using a right v. left dichotomy to keep us divided, crazy!!!

        1. I wondered why that name sounded familiar. Did not disappoint.

          1. You are just on a Lib owning role. Awesome job, dude. I can’t wait to develop that level of patriotism where I can blindly follow a demigod off a cliff. Maybe I won’t though and just will stick to not being a weirdo.

  10. People still use Yelp?

  11. Freedom of speech just covers that you won’t be persecuted by the government for your words with certain criminal exceptions.

    It does not cover you from being sued or fired, even by your government employer.

  12. These tech companies may be acting legally when banning users but when they do it arbitrarily and capriciously, that’s when everyone should be concerned. Because eventually, it could be you. I agree with many here that social media has generally not been good for civil discourse.

    1. Why should anyone be “concerned” or let their day be spoiled if a website bans them from commenting?

      Get a life, like the one you might have had before there was Facebook and Twitter.

      1. Well that’s what happens when you assume things Grayskin, because I don’t have a social media presence, unless you consider this comment section as such. And you are proof that even this medium can be toxic.

  13. Man this comment section is only reinforcing the article and the stereotype that Oklahomans are stupid! Just saying!

  14. Holt went after Lankford in a website called thebullwark.com. He is the only establishment insider pol in the state who called the election fraud conspiracy conspiracy for what it is, and called-out the conniving cowardice of Lankford.

  15. While “low class” ( his words) traitors were ripping down Old Glory, replacing it with flags for prez Sore Loser, his son in law was coming back from a meeting with foreign kings to arrange $$ to buy up failed covid businesses at fire sale prices.
    Y’all got played by a con man bully slum lord from NEW YORK CITY.
    He could have took his loss LIKE A MAN, lived to fight another day. (Y’all fools know you get to vote again in 3 3/4 years, right?) But, no, he incited a riot, happy to hear the chants “hang mike pence!!1!”
    When I was in basic training with the US Army, we had a drill sergeant who repeatedly reminded us that the only people who get what they want all the time are little babies.
    Being kicked off of twitter is too good for him.

  16. Thehypothetical post from Nextdoor Karens is totally unrealistic. There are no misspelled words in the post.

Comments are closed.

We encourage engaging with our content, however we ask that you follow our Comment Policy. Learn more.

Join the Club.

Become a Member

Help keep The Lost Ogle in business. Join the TLO Membership Club today for only $5 a month!

You may also like...