Apparently The New Litmus Test For Trump's FCC: Do You Promise To Police Speech Online
from the snowflake-central dept
Last month we wrote about how President Trump withdrew the renomination of FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly just days after O'Rielly dared to [checks notes] reiterate his support for the 1st Amendment in a way that hinted at the fact that he knew Trump's executive order was blatantly unconstitutional. Some people argued the renomination was pulled for other reasons, but lots of people in DC said it was 100% about his unwillingness to turn the FCC into a speech police for the internet.
While it seems quite unlikely that Trump can get someone new through the nomination process before the election, apparently they're thinking of nominating someone who appears eager to do the exact opposite: Nathan Simington, who wants the FCC to be the internet speech police so bad that he helped draft the obviously unconstitutional executive order in response to the President's freak-out at being fact checked.
Three sources close to the matter say Nathan Simington, a senior advisor at the NTIA within the commerce department, has emerged as a leading candidate to take over Republican Commissioner Mike O’Rielly’s seat at the FCC.
Simington is said to have helped draft the administration’s social media executive order, and his nomination would be a victory for Republicans who want to see the FCC take a larger role in regulating social networks.
You can see the Trumpian logic here: "O'Rielly gently pushed back the tiniest bit on our plan to ignore the 1st Amendment and compel social media companies to host the propaganda and disinformation we spew, so let's replace him with someone who supports that singularly stupid argument. How about the guy who drafted the executive order!"
The idea that "will you support the FCC being the speech police" is now the Republican litmus test for being an FCC Commissioner is a freakish 180 from the history of Republican FCC Commissioners who have spent decades arguing against that on the things they actually have authority over (with the notable exception of obscenity, which GOP Commissioners have, at times, wanted to police). Either way, this seems like yet another example of the Republican party not having any core principles other than punishing the companies and people that Trump doesn't like.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bias, fcc, michael o'rielly, nathan simington, ntia, section 230, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nice of them to drop the pretense
Trump's GOP: We only care about the constitution when it serves our interests, a 'small government' only to the extent that it allows us and our 'donors' to do what we/they want with no interference, and the free market only when it's doing what we want it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice of them to drop the pretense
We take great comfort in the realization that nobody in Trump's GOP is greedy, lest things get really messy.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nice of them to drop the pretense
...ah, so that's why so many of Trump's "only the best people" are doing hard time now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice pretense
all Presidents prior to deviltrump were faithful to solid core principles and the public good.
No previous Presidents played power politics with their office authorities, nor punished political foes, nor rewarded political supporters.
The White House has always been a temple of purity until 20 January 2017.
FCC has a similar long record of sacred apolitical goodness to the American people.
Relax, Saint JosephB will purify DC of dirty politics come this January.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nice bullshit
Please explain how past transgressions make present transgressions more palatable.
Didn't your parents explain the logic flaw in such rationalizations?
If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nice pretense
It would be nice if some people took as much effort in making honest arguments as you do in erecting strawmen,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
honest historical perspective takes exceptional effort and is important in dealing with current problems.
nothing is new in politics, but each new generation thinks their contemporary experiences are unique
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
In the history of the USA when has the government caused, thru dereliction of duty, the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people due to a preventable disease that was allowed to become a pandemic ... potentially for political gain?
When did that happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
Have you ever heard of a DNA targeted bioweapon? Ironically, the strain of the virus that was released in China, Italy and Iran , had symptoms almost if not, identical to the " vaping sickness" that happened in the US, prior to the outbreak of the virus. Another interesting fact is that the EU has many more vapers then the US, yet no vaping sickness.
The very next day…
300 US military personnel arrived in Wuhan for the Military World Games on October 19.
The first coronavirus case appeared two weeks later, on November 2.
Keep in mind that the Coronavirus incubation period is 14 days. So, fourteen days later…
The first occurrences in December appeared.
https://www.unz.com/article/was-the-2020-wuhan-coronavirus-an-engineered-biological-attack -on-china-by-america-for-geopolitical-advantage/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"Have you ever heard of a DNA targeted bioweapon? "
No, I have not. What does that have to do with this story or my comment(s)?
wtf ... this is some grade A bullshit right here folks.
The Unz Review has been criticized for promoting anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and white supremacist material.[2][3] In addition to Unz's own writings, the site has hosted pieces by white supremacist Jared Taylor, among others.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Unz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
An honest historical perspective indicates that, yes, there is a history of malfeasance by politicians.
I therefore hold none of them blameless ; and the ones who are currently in power, and are currently perpetrating said malfeasance, are the ones that need ouster in the immediate sense. That Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan all had malfeasance under their administration means only that we have a history of it to battle against.
In no way does it invalidate the current criticism of the Trump administration's choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
Why stop there?
Let's not forget Nixon, or how about Andrew Jackson ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or Thomas “I raped one of the women I enslaved and forced her to bear my children” Jefferson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
and how about Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, BushJr -- responsible for the needless deaths of tens of millions.
You do not apply the same ethical standards to all American presidents and politicians, but give a broad pass to those who share your ideological biases. You lack an 'honest' perspective on history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
: how about Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, BushJr -- responsible for the needless deaths of tens of millions.:
Am I to believe that war is the same as a preventable disease?
Who is not applying similar standards?
Interesting that you consider a desire for rational thought to be an ideological bias.
Who is being dishonest here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nice pretense
The dead body counts in needless US wars are factual history.
You use imagined dead body counts caused by supposed government "dereliction of duty" {whatever that means in your mind?) to slam the current Administration. You have no hard evidence whatsoever for your assertion -- but if you wanna play the needless dead body count game you must deal with much relevant US history.
You are perhaps not as rational and unbiased as you might believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other than Donald Trump admitting, in his own voice and of his own free will, to downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 in public speeches — and his blatant refusal to treat the virus with any real seriousness until he finally figured out that he couldn’t scare it off or pray it away — yeah, no evidence whatsoever that the United States federal government was derelict in its duty to protect public health while a highly infectious disease tore through the country~. None at all~.
…curious, do you believe in QAnon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"You have no hard evidence whatsoever for your assertion"
Well, apart from basic facts and figures, and Trump's recorded admission that he was deliberately pretending that the pandemic wasn't real even though in private he was aware of the dangers?
"You are perhaps not as rational and unbiased as you might believe."
Whereas you are apparently willing to overlook objective reality if it means you can ignore the blood on Trump's hands - and his actions haven't stopped killing US citizens yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"The dead body counts in needless US wars are factual history."
Yes ... yes they are. Were those wars preventable? I suppose, maybe. But that does not mean the dead from those those wars are comparable to the present day deaths from the very easily preventable covid-19 disease.
You whole point is silly to begin with, attempting to rationalize present day dereliction with past history of potential dereliction(s) ... is a bit juvenile isn't it? We've always done it this way .. is a very bad excuse used by children.
What is an imagined dead body count? You dispute the numbers? That's your argument? If the current administration is not responsible, then who is?
No hard evidence ... that you will believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"You use imagined dead body counts caused by supposed government "dereliction of duty" {whatever that means in your mind?) to slam the current Administration."
200,000 dead americans, imagined?
Yeah, you know, similar to the holocaust deniers, you're running afoul of the fact that dead bodies on that scale are hard to just invent. You've just argued that the US as a whole is run by a conspiracy theory which, by now, includes the official sources from the white house as well.
"You are perhaps not as rational and unbiased as you might believe."
That's some pretty ripe bullshit from someone who presents two impossibilities in his comment and pulls a conclusion based on those false premises from his ass.
Pro tip, bro? When your nation, specifically has a quarter of the global death toll to your 4% of the global population then that means as a nation as a whole you dun goofed. And the goof who gave all the wrong instructions* di so on open camera so we don't even have to wonder who to lynch over it.
Trump has proven one of two things. Ineptitude if he can say he honestly didn't realize the actual experts might know better than he did, or factual malice if he knew that and did not care.
So it's either "dereliction of duty" or "deliberately letting more americans die needlessly than the US lost in world war one."
You get to pick either. A third option is not on the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"200,000 dead americans, imagined?"
Oh, believe me you don't want to venture into the dark recesses of some of the holes these people are getting their information from. The tales they spin to each other to pretend just that...
"dead bodies on that scale are hard to just invent"
The most tasteful version of the story is that every death from any cause is being classed as a COVID death no matter what, with doctors being specifically paid to lie about them, while any excess deaths explained away by the "deep state" faking the numbers.
There's some stories that are way less tasteful, but it does to some degree explain the idiots who refuse to wear masks and follow common sense medical advice. That doesn't excuse them, but if you've been brainwashed to believe that thousands of dead are being lied about for political gain, it's not too hard to see the leap from there to the entire pandemic being a lie. What a shame so many innocent people have to suffer for their idiocy, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"The most tasteful version of the story is that every death from any cause is being classed as a COVID death no matter what, with doctors being specifically paid to lie about them..."
Which then has a massive and inexplicable spike in deaths begging for an explanation while thousands of doctors all in one go accept bribes about what appears to be state-sanctioned genocide.
Yeah, I've seen that story and what's really amusing is that if there was ANY truth to it then Trump, sitting in the white house with the feds at his disposal and the DOJ a willing puppet, would have one the next election half a year ago on walk-over.
But I guess that's what happens when the zeal to exculpate and defend the president hits religious levels of hysteria - even when the conspiracy, to be true, needs for their precious president himself to be a blind moron.
"...if you've been brainwashed to believe that thousands of dead are being lied about for political gain..."
Yeah, but it's not thousands of dead. It's hundreds of thousands dead. The brainwash must have been performed in the boil wash program with a generous helping of bleach - because to conjure away 200000 dead you're not talking about a deep state anymore. You'd be talking about 90% of the US population being in on the conspiracy.
"What a shame so many innocent people have to suffer for their idiocy, though."
Honestly, I think the US is all out of good options, or a way forward. One way or another they'll either have to rid themselves completely of the idiocracy - or just give up on the failed american experiment and leave for saner shores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"Which then has a massive and inexplicable spike in deaths begging for an explanation"
Hence the second part of the sentence I quoted. Remember, these are the people who have started buying into QAnon weirdo conspiracies, you don't have to come up with real world explanations when you believe that "globalist paedophile pizza dungeons run by the deep state" is an acceptable political theory to apply to your opponents.
"Yeah, but it's not thousands of dead. It's hundreds of thousands dead"
Only if you believe that fake numbers put out by the deep state to try and block Trump's re-election, which includes all the other countries reporting figures. The real figures are just a few thousand, and most of those people really died from heart attacks, but the globalists need to force everyone to wear masks to stop them being able to spot the children being led away to sex dungeons pleading for help.
Yes, some of them believe that. I wish I was kidding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"...you don't have to come up with real world explanations when you believe that "globalist paedophile pizza dungeons run by the deep state" is an acceptable political theory to apply to your opponents."
...to be fair you only have to go back in time a few hundred years - to find the equivalent of paedophile pizza dungeons. What is surprising is more the time and place these benighted morons think they're living in, and their very casual connection with factual reality today.
"Yes, some of them believe that. I wish I was kidding."
...i wish you were kidding, too. Because what we're both looking at here is a significant proportion of a G20 nations population being utterly and completely deranged.
The more I see the more convinced I am that the US isn't salvageable any longer. I see nothing but a continuing slide towards total collapse and the only options on the table being the choice of which angle the slope tilts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
How exactly could anyone have prevented WuHan ?? Trump doesn't control China, in fact the previous administrator provided money that lab.
Tell me oh wondrous one - how would have reacted different. No one went without ventilators despite the whines of Cumo & Newsome. Trump didn't stuff patients into Nursing Homes then block investigations of it. Tell what you would have done different - since you are the beneficiary of 20/20 hindsight.
If Trump had run around like Chicken Little telling us we are all going to die, he would have been attacked for that. TDS reigns ... As it was he was attacked for limiting (not banning) Chinese travel and Nancy P. wanted a party in China town and Joe said he was a xenophobe. Face it, he no path that would have changed anything. No one went with out essential medial equipment. The responses that Trump did weren't used. Hospital ships not uses, field hospitals never getting any patients, etc..
Who is being dishonest here? -- you are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
Next time could you start with 'TDS', saves people time if they know from the outset that you don't need to be taken seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prevent it? No. Stop it from getting into the country, or watching it ravage millions of people, kill hundreds of thousands of American citizens, and basically wrecking the economy in such a way that it will take probably a decade to fully recover? Yeah, that could’ve happened if the U.S. federal government had given enough of a shit to, oh I’unno, follow the actual plan they once had for a pandemic (but tossed out because a Black man’s administration put it together and Trump hates the idea that a Black man is better than him in any way). COVID would likely still have made it to the U.S. — that much, I can grant — but it wouldn’t be nearly the kind of public health disaster that it is right now if Trump hadn’t basically told the people who know about pandemics to fuck all the way off.
Well, only if you ignore the reports of hospitals having to decide which patients get to use ventilators and which ones get to die, or the reports of hospitals having to immediately reuse ventilators without proper cleaning and disinfecting because they were being overrun with COVID cases. But sure, ignore all that, and your alternative facts are true~.
But he did bungle the initial response to COVID by saying “oh it’ll go away, no need to worry, hey look at Sleepy Joe the Leftist Antifa Communist”. The nursing home cases may not have gotten so bad if Trump hadn’t let COVID come into the country and run rampant for a couple of months.
I wouldn’t have tossed out the plan for dealing with a public health pandemic well before the pandemic hit. I wouldn’t have lied about how dangerous the disease was and acted like it could be prayed away or scared into hiding. I would’ve followed recommendations from actual scientists instead of sycophant cocksuckers whose only qualification for speaking out about a pandemic is that they parrot the president word-for-word. I would’ve asked state governments to shut down sooner, and for longer periods, to help slow the spread of COVID. I would’ve done basically anything else other than what Trump did, because I can guarantee that it would’ve resulted in thousands of fewer deaths and millions of fewer infections. (Even one death is unacceptable. But the equivalent of a 9/11 every day is flat-out fucking ridiculous, and it could’ve been avoided by a competent president.)
“Nothing to see here, move along” and “we’re all gonna fucking die” are not the only two responses to a pandemic. A better presi—no, a better man could’ve easily found a way to level with the American people about the seriousness of the situation without ranting as if the apocalypse were going to happen the next day.
That’s because Trump is a fucking idiot who can’t see anything past his own fucking nose in terms of caring about other people. Even if he got the best possible advice from people who knew enough to tell him what to do down to every word to say in public speeches, he would’ve ignored it anyway because those people didn’t suck his dick (literally or metaphorically).
Except hospital workers who had to reuse PPE and craft makeshift PPE out of whatever supplies they had on hand. But sure, ignore that, and…well, I already did this gag once, and I feel like sarcasm is wasted on you.
A number of hospital ships were used for non-COVID patients. At least one of the field hospitals was run by an anti-queer Christian zealot whose agreement for working (and possibly for being treated) at said field hospital required people to denounce homosexuality as a sin. The responses were used; you’re ignoring that they weren’t used in a way that fits your biased-toward-Trump narrative because that doesn’t help your argument at all.
Donald Trump and his ass-kissing brigade of crooks, liars, con men, and Republican lawmakers. (Whoops, tautology!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Nothing to see here, move along” and “we’re all gonna fucking die” are not the only two responses to a pandemic. A better presi—no, a better man could’ve easily found a way to level with the American people about the seriousness of the situation without ranting as if the apocalypse were going to happen the next day.
What I find particularly 'funny' about the 'Trump lied about the deadly pandemic because he didn't want to cause a panic' excuse both he and his cultists have used in an attempt to defend those lies is that it would quite possibly be the first time in his entire presidency that he wasn't engaged in fearmongering.
'Fear the rapist mexicans, fear antifa, fear the democrats, they're going to come after your guns/religion/freedom', Trump has spend literally years fearmongering in an attempt to manipulate the gullible(all too successfully sadly) yet when it comes to something with an actual body-count attached people are supposed to believe he lied because he didn't want to cause panic?
As excuses go it would be downright hilarious if there weren't people gullible/stupid enough to believe it, and who will give him a pass for it, despite the fact that of all his lies it is quite possibly the most deadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"people are supposed to believe he lied because he didn't want to cause panic?"
Actually, in a weird way I kind of believe him. Most of those other things are directly related to his election or to scapegoat people for things that he's doing himself. "Panic because there's a caravan of brown people 1,000 miles away" was to get people to vote for his people in the 2018 election. "Fear antifa" is to deflect from the fascist policies that are being protested, and so on.
In this case, Trump was suffering because of impeachment and numerous other things, and he saw the economy as being the thing that he could run on. Racism and bigotry only gets him so far, but if he could say "the DOW is at its highest ever" in the run up to the election then he could have got an easy win.
But, people "panicking" (i.e. taking the whole thing seriously and acting accordingly) would cause the economy to shrink. So, he opted to gamble everything by downplaying the virus and hoping the worst of the pandemic bypassed the US. He lost the bet, at the cost of 200k lives and rising, to say nothing of long term health issues among the survivors and a destroyed economy regardless. But, I sort of believe him when he says he was trying to stop people panicking.
The problem is, even this excuse falls flat, because no matter what the public face he was putting on looked like, a competent administration would still have been working to assume the worst privately, and been in a position to face the problem head on when it was clear action was needed. Instead, he acted as if nothing was happening until it was too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hmm, fair points, I suppose my objection then would be that anyone would be foolish enough to think that he did it to help the public, as though it was him making a tough decision for the better of the public rather than a gamble for personal gain that blew up in his face and left hundreds of thousand dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I suppose my objection then would be that anyone would be foolish enough to think that he did it to help the public"
There, we agree, although sadly there do appear to be a fair number of foolish people out there with voting rights. Then, the people who defend him are the sane ones, the rest are the ones rejecting the recordings of his saying what he said as "fake news", and the ones trying to blame the pandemic on Biden who are the most worrying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trump lied to give him time to finish robbing the treasury .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He lied because he knows nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"How exactly could anyone have prevented WuHan ??"
Oh ffs .... just put on the damned mask!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice pretense
"How exactly could anyone have prevented WuHan"
The disease itself? Nothing. The outcomes of an uncontrolled spread? Well, there's many ways. The question you need to ask yourself is why, even after having a head start on the issue compared to China, Italy, Spain, etc., you still failed so badly. You have less than 4% of the world's population. Yet, you have 23% of the world's infections and 21% of the deaths.
There's no question that you have failed, and failed badly. You could have done more, as shown by most other countries not having such disproportionate effects. But, Trump was too interested in lying about the disease to gullible morons such as yourself in a failed attempt to prop up the economy for his re-election, and so the blood is on his hands.
The fact that you elected an incompetent con artist is not China's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He can't fire them all... we think...
The larger irony is undeniable: an Administration with a single-minded goal of removing all regulations and restrictions is seeking... to add regulations and restrictions. But one voice has been conspicuously absent in all this -- the Commish himself, Ajit Pai. He may be many dastardly things (as we all have noted, almost gleefully), but something seems to have him stopping short of trashing the First Amendment. Is it his law degree? His oath? Some inherent-but-invisible sense of honor? No real matter; but this is one bandwagon he won't jump on, despite multiple invitations, and it remains to be seen if he'll get called out for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He can't fire them all... we think...
Keep in mind that his major loyalty is still to the telecom companies, and while some of them (AT&T) have made noise about supporting this, I don't think it's really in any of their best interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He can't fire them all... we think...
I suspect that it's cowardice. As his actions have more than made clear Pai doesn't give a damn about the public and he has no problem screwing them over, so if he's staying silent it's likely simply because he doesn't want to face the backlash from Trump and his cult for standing up for the constitution and has decided to just keep his head down and let others face the heat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please don't introduce Trump to Harry Potter
I can just imagine Trump watching Harry Potter and coming up with a new oath of office; "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is exactly how editorializing is achieved. Any speech with which the big tech companies don't approve is labelled propaganda or disinformation, and then censored. Disagreement is not a valid reason for censorship. And it is not good faith moderation, which is why section 230 ought not apply. Section 230 reform is needed now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Point to the paragraph of the first amendment that says any service has to carry your speech. You can't, but because you want to preach to those who do not share your political views, you pretend that the moderation is censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Er, no. On one hand you have a government power (currently one which is utterly full of shit), and on the other, you have private companies. You know, those things you love so much as long as they are doing anything other than moderating their own platforms. Could be spewing poison into our neighborhoods or whatever, that's cool though.
Now, those private entities can do whatever the hell they want on their services, which is entirely correct, whether or not you agree with their moderation (whether for real reasons, or for the imaginary ones to which you solely and constantly cling). Don't like it? Go elsewhere. 230 protects everyone, including you and your repeatedly incorrect arglebargle. Changing 230 will never help your cause. But you'd rather piss in the pool if you can't have all the toys, and the enforced attention of everyone else in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have One Simple Question for you.
Yes or no: Should a service such as Twitter be forced by law to host speech such as, say, COVID disinformation without being able to either delete it or add context to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is exactly how editorializing is achieved
Which is allowed under the 1st Amendment. You have a problem with that?
Any speech with which the big tech companies don't approve is labelled propaganda or disinformation, and then censored.
BULLSHIT. Trump and his idiot fans (and I include you in this) say all KINDS of insane bullshit all the fucking time and nothing happens to it. It's only once every so often that you idiots say something SO far gone and so ATROCIOUS that there needs to be some mild pushback on it (in Trump's case a fact checking note). And you little snowflakes flop to the ground and whine about how censored you are. Grow the fuck up.
Disagreement is not a valid reason for censorship.
No one's being "censored" and if they were it's not for "disagreement".
And it is not good faith moderation, which is why section 230 ought not apply.
First of all, yes it absolutely is good faith moderation and second, good faith moderation only applies to (c)(2) not (c)(1) which protects these moderation choices and, finally, courts determining what is and what is not "good faith" would violate the 1st Amendment as an intrusion on editorial discretion anyway.
Let's apply you insanely stupid standards to Fox News or Breitbart. They don't publish stuff that runs against the propagandist in chief. According to YOUR STANDARDS that shouldn't be allowed. They're "censoring" anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering how he continually refuses to answer, one way or the other, the One Simple Question about whether he thinks the law should or shouldn’t force web services to host all legally protected speech? I have to assume he does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Considering how he continually refuses to answer"
He does have a problem with returning to thread where he's been shot down many times, but no problem repeating the same debunked lies next thread. I'm beginning to suspect that this Koby character is a lying asshole...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I'm beginning to suspect that this Koby character is a lying asshole..."
...and in other news it has been revealed that the Pope does, in fact, wear a funny hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Any speech with which the big tech companies don't approve is labelled propaganda or disinformation, and then censored."
...which is their right.
"Disagreement is not a valid reason for censorship"
By government, not by private entities. Which is why Breitbart and Stormfront are Nazi echo chambers - sane people get banned instantly.
"And it is not good faith moderation, which is why section 230 ought not apply"
Cite the part of section 230 that requires good faith on the part of private citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians of both parties are short sighted idiots.
So now the Republicans want to restrict speech to what they approve of. Then the Democrats will get in power and they will be in charge of regulating speech and the Republicans will cry a river. Then the Democrats will do something similar and when the shoe is on the other foot they will be crying in their beer about how the world is so unfair.
Obama "rules with his pen" Democrats rejoice and Republicans scream. Trump does the same and Democrats scream and Republicans rejoice.
Not that this is a new thing but it does seem to be accelerating quite a bit the last few decades.
None of them seem to be able to look more than a couple of years ahead and do not seem to care even a little bit about the constitution. Meanwhile both parties slowly (or maybe not so slowly any longer) kill the constitution and the rule of law in this country as we slide from a Republic to ( take your best guess). Probably a dictatorship of sorts with a veneer of Democracy.
My guess is that both parties are thinking that they will be in charge when the game of musical chairs that is the end of the Republic ends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians of both parties are short sighted idiots.
*jackoff motion*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians of both parties are short sighted idiots.
What .. more both sides bullshit?
Rational extracted from your backside?
Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You feel good after all that jerkin’ off to your own bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you honestly believe that Democrats don't engage in the same bullshit as Republicans? Have you been watching the 230 debates/arm-flailing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you believe Republicans are actually the same as Democrats, given how one party supports a man with dreams of becoming president for the rest of his life (damn the Constitution) and the other was willing (after some handwringing from “upper management”, as it were) to impeach that bastard?
Do you believe Republicans, who gerrymander districts and enable voting ID laws and do everything they can to suppress votes because they know they would lose a lot of elections if they were fair, are actually the same as Democrats, who try to expand the franchise to as many people as possible no matter what their political affiliation?
One party continues to fight against same-sex marriage, civil rights for trans people, measures to help mitigate systemic racial inequality, and higher taxes for the rich. The other party accepts queer people, fights (however halfheartedly) for racial justice, and…okay so they don’t want higher taxes for the rich unless their voting base pushes hard for it, but still.
The point: Democrats are not the same as Republicans, and you damn well know it. To act like they are is to ignore reality for the sake of a “but both sides” argument. The Democrats/DNC have issues, that I can admit. But they’re not the ones whose ostensible party leader is denying the science on COVID-19 in public while saying “yeah, this virus is gonna kill people” in private. And for whatever problems the Democrats have, they’re not actively trying to court violent militias, conspiracy theorists, religious fascists intent on enacting “Christian sharia” in the United States, and people who think “all these scientists should shut the fuck up and let us go back to normal” into becoming their voting base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: support democrats
You mean the party that said "If you don't vote for me you ain't black" or the one who's candidate found against body cams in California, or one who's candidate that voted against busing, or the one who's candidate gave all the value in GM to the UAW and destroyed the 401k's of retirees and investors by splitting the company into a surviving half with all the valuable parts (went to UAW) and left other bankrupt part to the rest of the investors.
Or do you mean the supporters who said old white men are ruining the country and cops are evil, but nominated a 77 year old white guy and a attorney general/prosecutor?
Or do you mean the party that's run many major cities for 50 years or more and still have problems with the police -- so they are the supporters the BLM & Other protesters want to represent them, The party that runs a city that has an app the tracks human feces on the street because they can't address the homeless issue, even when they control the richest city in the us with highest real estate prices and rents?
I don't support democrats or republicans - I support people who will address serious problems with serious people -- the democrats and republicans today don't fit that bill. But it's the only game in town. It's the hypocrisy I can't stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like you support Republicans, what with the way you come off like a right-winger who will more than happily criticize Democrats while refusing to criticize “their guys”. Of course, if you’re willing to run down a shit list of issues you have with Democrats, and you say “I don’t support either party” and “I have an issue with hypocrisy from both parties”, surely you have an equally long shit list of issues you have with Republicans that you can run down.
I’ll wait.
(For the record: I’m willing to admit that Democrats are a less-than-ideal party in terms of governance. But I’d still prefer they be at the wheel as opposed to the party that wants to dismantle Social Security, wants to push the healthcare system back two decades to before Obamacare, fights against a woman’s right to do with her body as she wishes yet rails against mandates about facemasks, tries to rig elections and voting districts in their favor, and still fights to prevent queer people from having equal rights under the law. I don’t have to like voting for Democrats — I only have to despise it less than the alternative.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: support democrats
TLDR : I have examples of things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: support democrats
Yes, he means the party where, even if you spin what some people in the party have said or done to look as bad as possible, they're still paragons of virtue compared to the current activity from their opponents, which requires no such spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nice bullshit
Which party is ok with causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths? Would that be the pro-life party?
To which party says it is ok to ingest chlorine?
Show me how these two parties are the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nice bullshit
So long as you can see a reason to cling to the party of your choice, you will do nothing about both parties being beholden to large donors rather than the electorate. In that both parties are corrupt, and neither do what they say on the tin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice bullshit
And who's the party with a President in the White House right now, fucking up the virus situation because he's got a man-crush on Kim and Putin?
Why the fuck can we not criticize the party in charge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice bullshit
I am not clinging as you suggest, but do continue because false dichotomies are interesting.
Will voting third party magically force both parties to realize their short comings? Perhaps a review of past elections would shed some light upon this topic you bring up.
Your attempt has failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I cling to the Democrats — and believe me, that choice is more a pragmatic form of tribalism than an emotional bond with the party in general — I cling to them because they’re at least capable of being dragged slightly leftward. Republicans would sooner hand the country over to Trump and let him destroy everything than they would, say, enact anything close to resembling Medicare For All.
Both parties are conservative. But Democrats are closer to the center than Republicans will ever be. For that, I put my pragmatic trust in Democrats. If and when a better candidate from a different party comes along and has a viable chance of winning an election — the fact that they often can’t is why we need voting reforms that include the enacting of a ranked voting system, by the way — I will vote for that person. Until then, pragmatic thinking wins the day, and I’d rather have in the White House a Democrat who listens to outside expertise, accepts science, and can be convinced to enact progressive reforms rather than a Republican who provably governs by doing only what he feels is best for his personal gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I will vote for a a main party until somebody else has a chance of winning ensures that nobody else will stand a chance of winning, as they will never get enough votes to encourage them to try again. You will not get voting reform until elections are more than a two horse race, as a two horse race suites the etablished parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We may need something like ranked voting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until a viable third political party exists in the U.S. — a party with a viable path to the White House via wins in local, state, and congressional elections — the presidential race will always look like a two-horse race. Voting third party in November won’t change a damned thing in that regard.
We need reforms that, for starters, make easier the ability of a non-frontrunner candidate to enter and stay in the presidential race; some degree of public funding for all presidential campaigns would be a nice start. A ranked choice or or range voting system would also help, since that would give lesser-known candidates an even playing field with big-name candidates. And yes, most politicians in office today wouldn’t like those kinds of reforms. They have a vested interest in keeping their office, after all. That said: I still believe in those reforms, and I would love to seem them enacted.
But until that day arrives, I must vote with logical pragmatism instead of emotional optimism. A vote for a third party in the presidential election will not help that third party win — but it will, more likely than not, help the incumbent president stay in office. My conscience will not allow me to do anything that helps him on even a tangential level. So I won’t give my vote to someone who can’t win when I can use that vote in a way that I know can help unseat Donald Trump.
If you can give me a better reason to vote third party beyond “the douche and the turd both suck”, feel free to swing at that fastball, Mighty Casey. But don’t blame me if you strike out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you and many others apply that logic to all elections at all levels, you are creating yourselves a catch22, because without votes a third party will never look viable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
:you are creating yourselves a catch22:
Did you read the book or watch the movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nice bullshit
"Would that be the pro-life party?"
This is well established - pro life means they are going to protect you until the moment you are born. After that, you're at best fodder for the next cannon, and the "pro life" people will happily destroy any aid your parents have at keeping you alive after you are spawned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caring about life right until it's born
Which makes the 'pro-life' label rather inaccurate, as they aren't pro-life so much as pro-birth, and should be labeled as such.
They're all for a life right up until it's born, decrying abortion as the 'murder of helpless babies', but the second birth happens then those 'helpless babies' had best hope that their parent(s) can support them entirely unaided, because safety nets are for corporations, not humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice bullshit
"...pro life means they are going to protect you until the moment you are born. After that, you're at best fodder for the next cannon, and the "pro life" people will happily destroy any aid your parents have at keeping you alive after you are spawned."
Oh, it all makes sense. The cult scripture usually followed by the "pro-life" adherents also hold suffering in life as sanctification.
In other words if you are born into misery of yourself and your mother then spend a brief life in hellish suffering, it's good. Here, have your free pass past the pearly gates as soon as the training wheels come off by you shuffling off your mortal coil in a final burst of despair.
I wish is could say there's a /s in there but this is actually what all too many christian evangelical death and torture cults believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Do you honestly believe that Democrats don't engage in the same bullshit as Republicans?"
I do. At least the Ds pay lip service to things like human rights, equality and international relations. Even if they don't mean it, that is a nice change from the outright "fear everything and pay us money to kill people" platform of the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians of both parties are short sighted idiots.
Yes, if you're stupid enough to apply false equivalence then things will get worse...
Did you think of addressing reality at any point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians of both parties are short sighted idiots.
"Obama "rules with his pen" Democrats rejoice and Republicans scream. Trump does the same and Democrats scream and Republicans rejoice. "
True as far as it goes. politics in general would seriously benefit from more honesty. However, the "two sides" argument that assumption always tends to seague into doesn't cover the likes of Nixon, GWB or Trump - approximates of whom simply aren't found among democrat presidents in modern times.
"Not that this is a new thing but it does seem to be accelerating quite a bit the last few decades. "
Because the US leadership has been see-sawing between a gang of corrupt self-serving nonentities and a gang of bigoted and racist religious hysterics and crackpots - for long enough that all systems of government have begun to fall apart. Ironically Eisenhower - a republican - was the first to spot and warn about many of these issues, but Reagan - another republican - was the one to escalate and finalize the process. Everything since then has just been the tower slowly tipping over.
"My guess is that both parties are thinking that they will be in charge when the game of musical chairs that is the end of the Republic ends."
That might be the case. The democrats appear to have woken up and noticed what's at the end of the slope they're sliding down. But are unable to bring themselves to advocate the radical changes the US desperately needs to start climbing out. Because that'll be painful.
The republicans, otoh, are going down that slope Major Kong-style.
I'm not sure how many more swings the political pendulum has to time to make in terms of presidencies before it all crashes to the ground, but it's pretty clear that there is no fixing the US back into a civilized society this side of a complete rebuild.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Politicians of both parties are short sighted idiots.
"True as far as it goes."
Only if you listen to a small part of the story. Obama had to eventually resort to doing that because Mitch McConnell stated that he would be doing everything to try and stop Obama achieving anything no matter what good it did for the country, and did everything up to and including shutting down the government to hold the people hostage to their demands. When Obama was cheered for that, it was not because it was the preferred way of doing things, but because he was left with a hard choice and opted to do what was right.
With Trump, he's largely doing it even though he has support of his party and at times would not have any problem passing it, but he wants to avoid any discussion that might sanitise the bills or lead to real debate over whether his executive orders are actually positive for the country.
That is somewhat oversimplified and discussion of individual orders would lead to some different conclusions at times, but it's only hypocrisy if you take a simplistic party overview and not look into why things were done that way.
"Ironically Eisenhower - a republican - was the first to spot and warn about many of these issues, but Reagan - another republican - was the one to escalate and finalize the process."
There's zero irony there. Eisenhower was in office before the southern strategy flipped the ideals of the two parties, Reagan was elected after that happened, and was elected on party before country ideals driven by the Evangelical right. That they happened to have the same letter next to their name on the ballot is little more than coincidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Politicians of both parties are short sighted idiots
"There's zero irony there. Eisenhower was in office before the southern strategy flipped the ideals of the two parties, Reagan was elected after that happened, and was elected on party before country ideals driven by the Evangelical right."
It isn't ironic when you consider the New Deal and the republican/democrat flip-flop no.
But it sure as hell is ironic that the very same party which housed Eisenhower still hangs on to all the same trappings, the same heroes, the same symbols...despite the fact that today Lincoln's first words would probably be "Damn, the confederates are all republican now?"
The US civil war never actually finished - the "winners" just agreed to let the core issues fester in perpetuity.
And now the result is that the least objectionable option is still a party you'd expect to see impartial law enforcement gut like a fish, because 150 years ago at the armistice the entire US tacitly agreed that inhuman malicious racism and bigotry was to be considered a valid political point of view and compared to that there's no real limit on what shady behavior you can "normalize".
The real reason the democrats can't come up with a visionary candidate who hasn't been bought more often than veteran hookers is because the bar's so low any sane american always just holds their nose and voted for the non-insane choice.
And it's not new either. Goldwater vs LBJ. GWB vs Kerry. And every time the republican candidate is a such a yarn-ball of malice sane people vote the other way. Over time the democrats just keep lowering the standard.
At some point even sane americans will find it too tough to keep holding their noses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Politicians of both parties are short sighted id
Addendum; Yeah, the "both sides are bad" argument is the main hammer often used by the pro-republican side. But it wouldn't be so damn effective if there wasn't a grain of truth in it.
No, You can't compare how bad GWB was to how bad Obama was. You can't compare Obama with Trump.
What you can say, however, is that Biden - and numerous other democrat candidates in later times - would never even be considered if the opposition wasn't so incredibly malicious literally ANYONE looks like a better choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Politicians of both parties are short sighte
"What you can say, however, is that Biden - and numerous other democrat candidates in later times - would never even be considered if the opposition wasn't so incredibly malicious literally ANYONE looks like a better choice."
Yes, and that is a problem. But, here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Politicians of both parties are short sighted id
"The US civil war never actually finished - the "winners" just agreed to let the core issues fester in perpetuity."
Yes, hindsight is a major benefit here. It was thought to be right not to punish the insurrection too severely and try to get the losers to conform peacefully, but now we know that they should have been more severely reprimanded. It's kind of the reverse of the outcome of WWI, where the punishments were so severe that a flag waving evil was allowed to lead Germany when the population because desperate enough.
"GWB vs Kerry"
I'm not sure why you think that race belongs in the discussion about people holding their nose. The race was close, but the vote was severely hampered by the swiftboating lies more than anything Kerry was saying or doing. The problem was that the Republicans had no issue spreading anti-military misinformation when the military guy wasn't on their team, in direct contradiction to their supposed platform.
The result was horrible, and many people thought that the US was idiotic for making that choice, but the way the Democrats campaigned or picked their candidate was not the problem.
"Over time the democrats just keep lowering the standard."
That is a problem, and the mistake they make is trying to appeal to Republican voters rather than the undecided who sit on the fence unless someone actually insane is running. Obama won by motivating voters who were previously uninterested to vote, not because McCain was necessarily a bad choice based on his record (though his pick of Palin as VP indicated that it might well have been a disastrous administration).
Overall, the trend is disturbing, but there are certain races that don't fit the pattern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see a lot of people throw around phrases like "policing speech" -- usually because someone told them not to be an asshole.
The thing about police is, they have power that you and I and even Mark Zuckerberg don't have. They're agents of the state. They can use force, they can fine you, they can imprison you.
This, right here? This is what policing speech actually looks like. The headline is correct; this is an example of actual policing of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you imagine actually having Speech Police?
I recall the fear based political propaganda of the cold war era and this was one of the things that the really bad people were going to do to us. Now that we supposedly won, lets do it to ourselves! Because .... why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking for something obscene to police? ...look no further than the White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the wht hse is looking for police to be obscene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curious how you guys come up with this...
I don't care for Trump and you are pretty much dead on with him trying to moderate/censor speech on his part -- but then again how is what the left wants to do with the "WOKE" culture, don't cover trump, fire folks who tweet the wrong thing, etc.. any different? Explain that to me and maybe you get my agreement.
Basically I am against hypocrisy -- which is exactly what I see here. I won't list all the news articles on the woke/cancel/mob rule culture of the progressive side, there is plenty on the conservative side too .... That and there is no reason any private service has to allow all speech, it's a private service. The FCC of the left or right would both love to censor speech to just their version of the truth. Think about what you would say if AT&T or Verizon limit what you can talk about with your friends on your cell.. best you would bitch about that on either side. But social media is not a communications utility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Curious how you guys come up with this...
What does this nebulous left want to do again? Is there a list they keep somewhere or is that your list you keep of things you think they want to do?
How would the left accomplish these supposedly nefarious things if they do not have a majority in both houses in addition to holding the white house?
They had this and still were unable to enact the terrible things you fear they want to do to you. What gives? Are you lying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Curious how you guys come up with this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Curious how you guys come up with this...
I admit mistakes - my fault picked the wrong message, see my name now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Curious how you guys come up with this...
Nope you anonymous - but anyway how does trump do all this then -- he doesn't have a majority either and has been blocked by courts in many cases. Sounds like the checks and balances will keep the executive and legislative branches in check. So what you are you worried about?
Me I pray the progressive side doesn't get full control. I see a packed supreme court with 10-15 judges so they can appoint them (just FDR did in the 1930's), other things I mentioned. You just don't see it as bad if you side is doing it. I see it as bad if either side does it. Trust me, the water in the pot is just being turned up -- for frogs like those on the progressive side, that can't see the danger. I believe if there is a majority to either the progressive or conservative side, we have reason to worry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Curious how you guys come up with this...
Answer a question with a question - sweet.
You read way too much into things. I simply do not wish to live in a police state, it really is that simple ... the problem is complex.
Many people would like things to operate as advertised. It really is that simple ... the problems are complex.
Am I asking too much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you call “cancel culture” is what most people would call “consequences”. Too many people got too damn comfortable with saying bigoted bullshit and not getting popped in the mouth for it (metaphorically or physically). Now that they’re facing consequences, they want to blame everyone else for enacting those consequences rather than accepting how they brought those consequences on themselves and learning from their mistakes.
Consequences don’t censor speech. Anyone who gets fired from their job for saying the N-word can still legally say the N-word. Their (former) employer has simply told them “you can’t do that here” in a more, shall we say, forceful way. If “cancel culture” were truly about censorship, as you imply that it is, it would try to criminalize such language. But it doesn’t, and it won’t.
Don’t act surprised if you say something racist and your employer decides you’re not worth associating with any more. Accept your metaphorical punch in the mouth, apologize for what you did (not for how other people felt about it), learn from the mistake, and move on with your life. And don’t worry about getting hired somewhere again — plenty of careers and businesses accept racists. I mean, the police are always looking for a few good men…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who decides what bigoted and racist? Doesn't matter the color of you skin, the god you worship, you gender -- Riots preventing someone from speaking to people who wish to hear them -- that is censorship. Students asking to remove a department chair because he said a students opinion might not be shared by others, marching into a restaurant intimidating diners so they put their arms up and support the intimidating group.(sound very Russian 50's-70's to me) Removing a well liked/respect Dorm head because his law firm represents someone the students don't like. That is censorship, it is the consequences of letting mobs believe they are arbiters of what is ok to say/write/think.
I don't have a problem with an employer firing someone for violating rules, it's a private company and it's their right. But how it painting over a BLM mural a hate crime, but tearing down a statue of an abolitionist not a hate crime. Who decides? You can't have freedom unless everyone is free, you nor I do not have a right not to be annoyed at someone.
How can a 68% minority race town have a police force who is almost all white(who is this case are a minority)? Don't they vote? They get the government they elected... (Ferguson)..
ever read MalcomX:
Malcolm X said: “The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every individual gets to decide that for themselves. Whether their opinion matters is another story. In the employer/employee relationship, the opinion of the employer opinion matters more than that of the employee.
I tend to agree, unless you’re referring to non-violent demonstrations against controversial speakers as “riots”. That won’t help your case.
Students have every right to make that demand. But they’re not entitled to get what they want.
…what the fuck are you talking about
Again: what the fuck are you talking about
A “mob” can’t take away someone’s legal right to free speech. If someone says the N-word and ends up being fired/protested against, that doesn’t stop said someone from saying the N-word again. They can choose to say it any time they want, anywhere they want, and in any context they want. But choosing not to say it again so the “mob” doesn’t get pissed off at them again is discretion, not censorship.
Context. Painting over a mural that proclaims “Black Lives Matter” can be seen as (and practically always is) an act with racist intent — an attempt to nullify the message, regardless of whatever replaces it. The tearing down of a statue of, say, a Confederate soldier or a known racist/slaveowner can be seen as an act with racist intent…if you’re a racist White asshole. Otherwise, it’s an act with the intent to stop both the whitewashing of history and the celebratory nature of statues and monuments dedicated to people who fought for the cause of slavery. If you still can’t see (or willingly refuse to see) the difference between the two, nothing else I could say will change that.
I’ve seen the quote, yes. And I happen to agree with it: White people won’t ever solve the problems of Black people vis-á-vis systemic racial inequality because those problems were made by, are perpetuated by, and will always be caused by White people. But that doesn’t mean I don’t get to have an opinion on the matter or express that opinion. Seems to me that you’re quoting Malcom X to make people like me shut up. Ain’t that the kind of “cancel culture” about which you’re afraid of seeing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have to watch something besides Instagram
https://wjla.com/news/local/protesters-heckle-dc-woman-restaurant
https://www.youtube.com/wat ch?v=ujJm8Hn5sIc
A lawyer who was set to defend Harvey Weinstein in his upcoming rape trial has been dropped as a faculty dean at Harvard Law School.
Ronald Sullivan Jr., a veteran professor of law at the Ivy League school, will not be returning as faculty dean when his term runs out June 30, according to an emailed letter to students Saturday from Rakesh Khurana, dean of Harvard College. In the letter, Khurana cited student opposition to Sullivan’s defense of the disgraced Hollywood producer.
“Over the last few weeks, students and staff have continued to communicate concerns about the climate in Winthrop House to the college,” Khurana wrote. “The concerns expressed have been serious and numerous. … I have concluded that the situation … is untenable.”
Sullivan’s wife Stephanie Robinson is also being released from her duties as faculty dean at the end of June. The couple were the school’s first African-Americans to hold that position.
So if you aren't popular you don't get a lawyer - they are trying to force and intimidate you based on threaten your job if your do you job.. Better yet he had already withdrawn from the defense team.. so he & his wife were punished for what his firm did. Not what he did.
During chaos at the Wisconsin State Capitol Tuesday night, protesters tore down two statues that have stood in front of the statehouse for decades — including one memorializing a Wisconsin abolitionist who died trying to end slavery during the Civil War. Too stupid to know who they are hating.
You don't think Mob's can stifle free speech with intimidation?? Isn't that supposedly what Antifa & BLM are about - for change thru intimidation? Why else protest and riot -- why assault others, why burn down their own neighborhoods.
Better yet - 2013 - .77 lives per 100k blacks killed by whites, 53.9 lives per 100k blacks killed by blacks. Yet riots and destruction of black owned properties is the norm.. god help those who disagree.
Tupac said it well:
I've been Trapped since birth, cautious, 'cause I'm cursed
And fantasies of my family, in a hearse
And they say it's the white man I should fear
But, it's my own kind doin' all the killin' here
I can't lie, ain't no love for the other side
It's all about power and intimidation - the democratic/progressive left is out of power, the want it back. They don't care who they walk on to get it. The fanatic right is the same way but don't riot in mass.. Different tactics - same desire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the two stories you talked about:
They weren’t entitled to get their demands, and protesting on private property makes them subject to getting kicked off that property. I don’t agree with their methods; if the underlying message was about racial justice, they chose a poor way to express it.
They can. But that doesn’t mean they always succeed in trying, or that they always attempt to stifle speech through intimidation.
Three things.
“Antifa” is shorthand for “antifascism” or “antifascist”; there is no organized “antifa” group, which is to say there is no organized group that tries to control or claims to represent the messaging and the actions of all antifascists within the United States.
“Black Lives Matter” is a movement dedicated to racial justice by way of reforms in police and government; while there is a “Black Lives Matter” organization, it does not speak for all people who consider themselves part of the movement, and the movement as a whole is not seeking “revenge” or “vengeance” or whatever other boogeyman you have dreamed up in your head.
People protest because something in society has marked a breaking point for enough people to protest in favor of changing that something. In the case of the current ongoing protests for racial justice, that was the murder of George Floyd (an unarmed Black man) at the hands of the police. The broader goal of the protests is to enact reforms within police departments that focus on both racial justice and funding other social systems that are better equipped to handle certain situations (e.g., mental health facilities).
As far as riots are concerned, I’ll flip the script on your little “I’mma quote Black people in front of this dumbass White boy and watch him squirm” trick with a quote from MLK: “Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.”
The “Black-on-Black crime” argument is a racist deflection; shame on you for using it.
Democrats are not “progressive”, at least not as a party. Hell, the party isn’t even left-of-center; it’s closer to the center than the GOP, but it sure as hell isn’t to the left of anything.
And of course Democrats want power. The key difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in this regard is who they (claim to) want to help with that power. Both sides are going to help rich people stay rich/get richer; let’s get that out of the way. But Democrats at least pay lip service to the idea that their party wants racial justice, equality under the law for all people, and improving the social safety net. Republicans cater near-exclusively to White people (especially Christian evangelicals), oppose equal rights for queer people, and have tried to dismantle one of the cornerstones of the American social safety net (i.e., Social Security).
And as for the methods used to obtain power? Well, I don’t see Democrats vaguely supporting (or at least outright refusing to denounce) right-wing militias, or gerrymandering districts to keep power in state governments, or doing everything possible to disenfranchise as many people as possible (especially Black people) as a way of tipping power toward certain groups of voters. That shit is all on Republicans. I mean, not once did Obama say he had no faith in mail-in voting, nor did he encourage people to try voting twice, nor did he ever cast doubt upon the results of either of the elections he won before the election even happened. Compare that to what Trump has done in the past few months on that front — and note the lack of pushback from the GOP at large — then tell me the “tactics” of the Democrats are intended to keep Republicans from ever achieving, let alone retaining, power at any level of government in the United States.
If you’re trying to convince me that Democrats are evil leftist anarchist communist bastard-coated sons of bitches who want to destroy the country by getting rid of religion or legalizing riots or whatever other ridiculous-ass QAnon-level collective delusion bullshit you want to throw in my face, you’re not doing a good job of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You have to watch something besides Instagram
Why are you so bothered that some people have realized they have morals 'n stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You have to watch something besides Instagram
Got tonnes of moral, I am polite, I judge people based on what they do, not what look like. I volunteer, I raised kids who are contributing members of society.
No one "realizes" they have morals, morals are taught by you parents and family. They are things in this world that are right and wrong. Threatening people w/violence to get your way is wrong. Stealing and destroying property of people who have done nothing to you is wrong. Intimidating people who are eating dinner because you don't like the color of their skin is wrong. I am curious how you can justify racism by those protesters?
Now BLM has stated they want segregated communities, reparations, etc.. So bascially they want to be able to discriminate - hence Hawk Newsome in NYC said:
In it he said that if BLM protesters didn’t get what they wanted, “They will burn down the system.”
“We don’t want white people here,” Newsome told The Post, still fired up as he walked near Yankee Stadium, gesturing at the majestic pre-war apartments on the Grand Concourse and a brilliant sunset.
Basically throwing away all the work of the 60's civil rights leaders and trying to take us back 70 years...
All the actions of the current protesers are pretty stupid. I have to admit I never saw the right wing so called White Supremacists rioting or burning down cities, stealing property, etc. That does not make them right either but it is the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roll back the clock about a hundred years. The only reason you don’t see them doing it now is because they know they could actually be arrested for it instead of being given an “attaboy” from the local cops.
You seem to think that all the protests in the wake of George Floyd have turned violent (they have not). You seem to suffer from the belief that one person, or a small group of people, speaks for all people who consider themselves part of the Movement for Black Lives (they do not). And you seem greatly ignorant of the history of race relations in the United States if you’re willing to ignore the existence of the Klan — the largest and longest-lasting domestic terror organization in the history of the United States — and the history of lynchings and other racialized violence against Black people because “I didn’t personally see it so it didn’t happen”. Maybe consider that your complaints about riots and racist comments by a handful of people may be justified, but turning that into a condemnation of all peaceful protests and everyone involved with (or supportive of) the Movement for Black Lives is not.
Also: If you’re going to complain about peaceful protests, I have to wonder how you feel about those gun-carrying ratlickers in Michigan who stormed the state capitol to intimidate lawmakers by being in their presence with weapons that could inflict mass injury and death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
95% of all stories in the media were anti-trump, if the main stream media saw white supremacist riots - we would have seen something about them.
Joe Biden praised Robert Byrd as his mentor -- he was a Klan Member. But the Democrats voted him their candidate, Ms. Harris was a black women who couldn't win the nomination - obviously democrats don't support minority women. Yet to things that are central theme of the current protests - don't seem to matter a long you can rail against the current government.
Many protests were non-violent, I have no problem with them. But then you assume all people who don't agree with you are racist or KKK or some other thre letter acronym. But white supremacists are small minority - why do you assume the they talk for everyone? You say we need to not say anything about small minority of violent protesters - why doesn't the same rule apply to you. Hypocrisy rears it's ugly head again.
As to folks who came up to Lansing, MI and carried weapons legally -- if all them were so dangerous -- how come no one got shot? How come there was no violence, no cops injured, no one hurt. Didn't see a single Molotov cocktail, fireworks, bottles thrown, etc.. "PEACEFUL" protests. No teargas used, no rubber bullets or pepper spray.
In fact the ones the news cried about, and Whitmer complained about, in the Capital Rotunda in Michigan - they all checked in legally with the State Police on guard, had their temperatures checked, and were totally respectful of the security. How 'bout the black gun owners who showed up the following week to protest the lock down, the were peaceful too. Where is the good behavior in left protests. Not single dead body in a non-violent protest by conservatives over the lockdown. Guess they are not the threat you talk about right? Can Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle, Atlanta, etc.. say that. NO they can't.
I've know I can not persuade you, but it was a fun exercise while I did my 19hr job today. You didn't resort to any real name calling, I am impressed some. If we could get more peaceful intelligent discourse we could probably solve a lot of problems, but unfortunately that is unlikely in the current environment of echo chamber mob rule politics. The end result is going to be the destruction of country that has provided you and almost all others with a good life, great quality of life and a chance to get ahead. We are all created equal, but some of work harder, some have to work even harder because they have more impediments to success. The trouble is they don't understand how much effective you can be if work instead of complain. Make good decisions. It's got nothing to do with the color of your skin or what hangs/doesn't hang between your legs. It's got to your socio-economic status and trying to play the victim so someone will "lift you up" .. the current lower class has been looking the the liberal democrats for that for 75 years, it's go them baltimore, chicago, NYC, rochester, etc.. you would think you would all figure out to keep repeating the same mistakes will only give the same results. You can wait for someone to do it for you, but violence is not the answer because you leave only violence as response. Making enemies of the cops will only get you greater violence in return. If the current local governments had an interest in fixing things, they would have 50 years ago. They take the vote for granted ... just like Joe B. said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Tell that you your cops, who are expert at starting violence when protests are otherwise peaceful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hit someone long enough and eventually they'll hit back
And who are now dealing with protests/riots that are a direct result of violence perpetrated by the police along with a system that has made it crystal clear that they see nothing wrong with police violence.
If police didn't want a violent response then they should've have made it their go-to tactic and the legal system shouldn't have aided and covered for them doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re not worth further conversation if you believe socioeconmic status isn’t affected in any way by race or sex/gender. Come back to me when you look up the history of racist systems like redlining, then tell me race has nothing to do with why Black people have a much harder time of, as you would probably put it, “lifting themselves up by their bootstraps”¹.
¹ — FYI, the original meaning of that metaphor was to point out an impossible task by comparing an act to literally lifting one’s self up by a pair of bootstraps. Go look up why that’s an impossibility and you’ll understand why the common meaning of the phrase is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"95% of all stories in the media were anti-trump, "
What do you expect from the media when 99% of what trump does is anti-trump?
Certainly you are not including FoxNews in your statistic, what do you consider to be the media?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"95% of all stories in the media were anti-trump"
Yes, because Trump is both doing things that are actively getting thousands of people killed and doing dumb shit like boasting to the guy who took Nixon down about how he's lying to the public about them. Maybe if Trump would stop killing people and keep his pie hold shut for 2 seconds, other things would become the most important in the news cycle?
"if the main stream media saw white supremacist riots - we would have seen something about them."
Yes, and we do see things about BLM "riots" as well. The fact that people not in your particular cult have a different reaction to them, or understand them in a different way, does not mean they're not being covered.
"I've know I can not persuade you, but it was a fun exercise while I did my 19hr job today."
You must be really desperate if you need to work that many hours to earn a liveable wage. What a shame that you choose to spend your minimal free time posting such nonsense as you have here. Here's hoping your situation improves and your life becomes more meaningful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now the little kids come out, but I can play in that world too ..
Yep some us start dirt poor, get an education working every day they are in school so they have no debt, then work there way up -- even though we don't know about essential oils -- build their own business and have customers trusting them to do complex tasks and stick with it no matter how long it takes. We build a solid life and very solid income. Then we get attacked for what we do from folks who can't do or unwilling to do something that gets them ahead. So go back to your "do you want fries with that" job (if you have one) and let the productive members of society actually build something for you to leach off of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You obviously didn’t pass English with high marks, but enough about your inability to spell “leech” and use “their” instead of “there”.
You think those jobs are meaningless? Motherfucker, who do you think has been serving you food that you didn’t make at home? It’s those same fry cooks and cashiers that you want to shit on from atop that high horse of yours. I’d bet good money that your job isn’t nearly as “essential” as theirs, or as a grocery store worker’s, or any other “essential” job that was deemed necessary to stay open during the worst public health crisis in a century.
And maybe those jobs wouldn’t be so shit if you weren’t so willing to look down on those people and treat them as contemptuous slime that doesn’t deserve to breathe the same air as you. (Tip them extra next time you have the chance, you dick.)
You wouldn’t last a month without the help of the same people you want to label “unproductive”. So shove your classist (and possibly racist) bullshit back up your ass, pal — it isn’t welcome here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Now the little kids come out, but I can play in that world too .."
From what I'm reading you've never left the playground.
"even though we don't know about essential oils"
Erm, "we", as in adults, do know about essential oils. Sounds like you've been conned about them, or are so pig ignorant about science you think it belongs in the discussion about the current pandemic. Either way, educate yourself from real sources, and no Gwyneth Paltrow is not a real source.
"So go back to your "do you want fries with that" job (if you have one)"
You mean, the professional IT position I have that, because I live in country that doesn't think that 40 hours a week with paid holidays equals low productivity, I can still maintain some freelance side gigs and have enough time and freedom to lead a decent quality life? I will.
Now, how about you join the real world instead of making up fictions to excuse your own failures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Then we get attacked for what we do from folks who can't do or unwilling to do something that gets them ahead. "
You got a little white privilege guilt there mister?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds more like he's either a "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple" type of guy, or the kind of person who doesn't realise that his business is failing because he's an asshole to the people around him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The end result is going to be the destruction of country that has provided you and almost all others with a good life, great quality of life and a chance to get ahead. "
Except if you are a black man in which case you'll have to fight ten times as hard to get anywhere and the bedtime story you get to hear growing up will include The Talk.
When proportionally you are twice as likely to die outright to police brutality as you would if your skin was white then there's just no way around it - you are, as a nation, a racist country which pays lip service at best to notions of equality.
"If we could get more peaceful intelligent discourse we could probably solve a lot of problems..."
Black people have attempted that "peaceful discourse" for 400 years and are still being murdered by the very people tasked to uphold justice.
Fixing that shit isn't up to some nebulous entity in washington, it's up to anyone who pays the wages of the misbehaving officers. And that probably means you in particular.
For peaceful discourse to exist at all requires good faith. This you and yours are unable to bring to the table and so with the social contract in tatters the nation remains torn.
"Make good decisions. It's got nothing to do with the color of your skin or what hangs/doesn't hang between your legs."
I realize you may believe that - or want to believe that so hard it hurts. Studies have, however, shown differently. Every study made for years on government demand has come up with the same answer - racism and misogyny are ubiquitous in the US. The "good" decision seems to be to change your gender or bleach your skin - or face the fact that working twice as hard as anyone else you will still remain disadvantaged.
"You can wait for someone to do it for you, but violence is not the answer because you leave only violence as response. Making enemies of the cops will only get you greater violence in return."
Have you looked at the statistics lately? George Floyd wasn't violent. Most of the BLM protests weren't violent. The ones to provoke and perpetuate violence has, in the overwhelming number of cases, been no one but law enforcers.
I really have no skin in this game save for humanitarian reasons, not living in the US...but if I can look from without and see the massive toxic rift you've got right in the middle of your demographic census then there's no excuse for americans to shut their eyes to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Roll back the clock about a hundred years. The only reason you don’t see them doing it now is because they know they could actually be arrested for it instead of being given an “attaboy” from the local cops.
Well, not the only reason, a bigger one I'd say is that there's no need. People engage in mass protests that might flare up into riots when the situation has reached a breaking point, when things are so bad that a particular group can think of no other option than making it extremely visible how upset they are, and last I checked other than being called assholes and getting booted far too rarely from social media the racists and other bigots have it pretty good in the US and as such don't have a reason to protest/riot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You have to watch something besides Instagram
"No one "realizes" they have morals, morals are taught by you parents and family."
No one ever changes?
" They are things in this world that are right and wrong."
Depending upon whom you ask, for example, some think it is ok for the police to murder innocent people so long as they are not white.
You think people are upset because they just want to make trouble?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]