The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
from the it's-the-audience dept
A week ago, we wrote about Trump's new blog, which was designed to look vaguely tweet-like, noting that this proved that he never needed Twitter or Facebook to speak freely. He's always been able to speak on his own website. NBC News has an interesting story now, suggesting that the blog just isn't getting that much attention.
A week since the unveiling, social media data suggests things are not going well.
The ex-president’s blog has drawn a considerably smaller audience than his once-powerful social media accounts, according to engagement data compiled with BuzzSumo, a social media analytics company. The data offers a hint that while Trump remains a political force, his online footprint is still dependent on returning to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
The Desk of Donald J. Trump is limited — users can’t comment or engage with the actual posts beyond sharing them to other platforms, an action few people do, according to the data.
Some have been using this to argue that Twitter and Facebook's bans on the former president were attacks on his "free speech." But it actually demonstrates something different -- and important. Everyone complaining about the removal of Trump's account are not actually mad about the "free speech" part of it. They're really mad about the "free reach." (Hat tip to Renee DiResta for making this point years ago).
Being kicked off these platforms by the platforms (as opposed to, say, the government) is not an attack on your ability to speak. There are lots of places to do that. It is, instead, an attack on having easy access to an audience on those platforms. And, as far as I can tell, there is no right to having as large an audience as possible. Thus, in the same sense that I can't demand a million followers on any of these platforms, the former president similarly can't demand that they supply him with the audience of their users.
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: access, audience, content moderation, donald trump, free reach, free speech
Companies: facebook, twitter
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
The public square is the Internet, and twitter et al. are clubs accessed via that square. You can set up you own club off that square, or find a club that accepts what you want to say. However what you keep demanding is an ability to hijack the clubs, regardless of the wishes of the owner and complaints of the patrons..
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Analogous statistics…
I would like to see similar analogous statistics for, say
Alex Jones, and Red Candle's Games Devotion and Detention (if they can be assessed)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, yeah. It makes sense. Like, I'm not going to actually call my crazy, racist uncle. But if he happens to be in the same room as me I might listen to a story or two of his, quarterheartedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's part of it but I suspect a bigger part is that while he still has the GOP by the balls he no longer has direct and personal political power, which means that those that were only 'following' him to keep track of what heinous thing he was saying/doing/planning next no longer have reason to, leaving him stuck only with his cultists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"But if he happens to be in the same room as me I might listen to a story or two of his, quarterheartedly."
Two or three times maybe. By the 5th time around he starts railing about that time when the Satanic Cabal of Libtard Space Lizard floated him on board one of their UFO's to shove a rectal probe up his ass...you may not be in the mood to hear it any more.
Or when you're with your friends, s.o. or hot date and he looks you up to share with you his newest revelations on the goings-on in the dank basement of Killarys Pizza Parlor or on the throne of the Dark Lord, the Kenyan Muslim.
You'll end up avoiding him.
Metaphorically speaking what the GOP currently wants is to make sure the place he holes up in will be the same place you go to to meet your friends and no matter how much he rants, the proprietor can't kick him out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO beloved that even when there is just 1 place to listen to the mango messiah people aren't willing to go there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They might, if they'd ever heard of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you guys ever find it the least bit - what's the word you like to use - "problematic" that much of the criticism of Donald Trump is based on this skin color?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Knew It Was Just Political
Just as importantly, the people that subscribed to his feed were doing so voluntarily. The big tech censors don't want certain people to speak, but they also don't want people to listen. They seek to deny network usage based upon political affiliation; freedom of speech means little without access. This is why it's so important to repeal section 230, and subject social media to common carrier utility rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
For what purpose? Social media provides zero societal necessities. I can not think of a single reason why it should be a common carrier.
Please explain what part of social media is required to function in today's world that would force it to become a common carriere.
I can get by without FB, Twitter, etc, but I would find it very difficult to get by without electricity, or a phone line, or any other utility.
And where is it written that social media is required to provide an audience for everybody. My twitter account does not have 5 millions followers, to whom should I complain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
That's why many of us want section 230 reform. We want to write it down. If you build the digital version of a public square, and folks can voluntarily subscribe, then the platform shouldn't be censored. The voluntary communication should be unquestionably allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
The public square is the Internet, and twitter et al. are clubs accessed via that square. You can set up you own club off that square, or find a club that accepts what you want to say. However what you keep demanding is an ability to hijack the clubs, regardless of the wishes of the owner and complaints of the patrons..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We've had this conversation before.
Feel free to get the state to make an actual public square on the internet. But you're going to find you need moderation in a hurry.
Unless you really like penis pills, Nigerian princes and discussions of your vehicle's extended warranty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Your analogy is flawed. The internet is closer to a public road than a public square. You can walk on a public road all you want, but it does not give you the right to enter private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
We tried this with USENET, which still works.
AOL had a near-monopoly on internet speech in the mid-1990s, had very restrictive speech policies, and lost market share, as did Yahoo!, MySpace!, and many other companies that were permissive as they grew before clamping down and raising the drawbridge.
What saves free speech in the long run is the desire to bill ourselves as having a "free, open discussion." Even if no one suspects censorship, discussions which omit relevant ideas will quickly lose steam, and some company hungry for users will cater to that market.
If Twitter is banning people that's just a sign that it's the beginning of the end for Twitter, whose stock is down about 38 percent during Trump's banning. AOL lost even more. The free market actually works for free speech. The internet has done its job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How popular is USENET compared to Twitter or Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not very, and it shows that total free speech exists, just that people have voluntarily chosen moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
USENET was moderated. Many ISPs filtered out the .binaries. newsgroups that contained child porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then there was the .jokes (in some incarnations .humor) which periodically disappeared, because it was such a bandwidth hog. Who can forget the canonical list of lightbulb jokes?
And then there was .alt.rec.sex.ferrets - simply boggled my mind!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
USENET itself was not moderated, though many ISPs moderated users who connected to USENET through their interface.
Anonymous remailers ensured that literally anyone could say anything, and Altopia positioned itself as common carrier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody believes you, John Smith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"USENET was moderated. Many ISPs filtered out the .binaries."
More like USENET itself wasn't moderated but depending on your ISP or the newsgroups you used to access USENET you'd receive your feed pre-filtered. And this was often the more popular option.
So you could argue that even for USENET the market demanded moderation. Because no one wanted to have to wade through megabytes of goat porn fan fiction just to get to alt.rutabagas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For those (somehow) unfamiliar with John Smith's rhetoric, his purpose in bringing up Usenet in these discussions is twofold. One, it's based on the idea that Usenet provides him with information that he uses to populate his allegedly valuable mailing lists. Two, his belief is that "Usenet existed while Section 230 didn't, therefore Section 230 needs to die".
John Smith claiming that the free market works is not the result of some epiphany. It's part of a carefully crafted angle that he consistently tries to shoehorn into everything. Just wait a few more posts before he starts whining about Rose McGowan again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"One, it's based on the idea that Usenet provides him with information that he uses to populate his allegedly valuable mailing lists."
I somehow had an inkling we'd see the resurrection of Baghdad Bob's old line of "But mah mailing list! Pirates done stole it! Mah preciousss!"
"Two, his belief is that "Usenet existed while Section 230 didn't, therefore Section 230 needs to die"."
Which is weird because...Usenet still exists and the only difference is that social media platforms have become far more populat than usenet under section 230. I mean, I can see him making that argument. I just can't, as usual, see any functional logic in it.
"John Smith claiming that the free market works is not the result of some epiphany. It's part of a carefully crafted angle that he consistently tries to shoehorn into everything."
Except when the topic actually is about the free market at which point he always goes full commie. It's as if his understanding of the "free market" comes out of Karl Marx's definition of intermediate communist state.
"Just wait a few more posts before he starts whining about Rose McGowan again."
...or how Hansmeier and Steele, these stalwart "heroes" of the late, "great" copyright troll outfit Prenda got a raw deal in court, just because they practiced fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion, perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not that weird when you consider why he's proposing it. John's thought process is "If Usenet existed before Section 230, Usenet doesn't need Section 230, and therefore Section 230 can be killed off. Platforms dependent on Section 230 wouldn't matter because then we'd all go back to Usenet."
No, it's not a good argument, but grasping at straws is the basis of John Smith's school of argumentation.
To be fair, he eventually gave up on that by late 2013 when it turned out that Prenda was absolutely getting their ass handed to them. You can read up on Prenda articles on that era for a laugh at John Smith's "horse with no name" phase. Naw, these days John Smith's modus operandi is how women need to be protected via sketchy revenge porn laws, because according to John Smith all women are whores who sleep their way to the top...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Platforms dependent on Section 230 wouldn't matter because then we'd all go back to Usenet."
Which, of course, wouldn't be such a problem if USENET remotely resembled how people use the modern internet, or the demographics of the audience who use it. Once you start to consider the vast differences between the audiences and the fact that the internet is as vital and as baked into mainstream culture as the telephone was in the 1960s, if not more so, and there's now a generation who can't remember a time before it, then it becomes a much more difficult proposition. Which is why so many of us are opposed to letting a loudmouthed minority of bigots control the narrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
John Smith couldn't care less. As long as it drives people back to his mailing lists so he can continue charging them an arm and a leg for his merchandise he admitted was overly expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
" If you build the digital version of a public square, and folks can voluntarily subscribe, then the platform shouldn't be censored"
That's a good argument for making ISPs common carriers, not platforms.
Are you going to start with an actual argument based in reality that has something to do with your klan buddies being allowed to violently force themselves into communities that have told them to GTFO? Because, as ever, that's what you're demanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
"klan buddies" That escalated fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Come back to us the first time someone builds their platform that's a digital public square.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
It's called "the internet", and everyone is free to build their own soapbox in it.
I'd argue you could make a case the network backbone under common carrier regulation is indeed a form of public square. The private addresses in it, not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'No regulations for them! All the regulations for you!'
It would be a whole lot easier to believe that the politicians railing against social media for 'controlling speech!' and 'abusing their monopoly positions!' were doing so in good faith if more than a few of them hadn't looked the other way if not actively supported the gutting of any regulations that internet access providers were bound by.
As it stands it's the equivalent of the square itself being privately owned but the local politicians seeing nothing wrong in the owner deciding who gets to use it and at what prices, but the individual businesses on it that are also privately owned being told that they aren't allowed to show people the door because that would be unfair and infringe people's rights to free speech.
I'd agree that if anything deserves to have common carrier regulations it would be internet access providers long before the individual platforms on the internet deserve that status, but for some strange reason that never seems to come up in the ranting about how if you can't access a particular platform to speak on you can't speak at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Considering some countries in the world demand social media user credentials prior to entry, I'd say there's quite a bit that should make them common carriers. There are also some businesses that won't even look at an application without social media references. For some people FB is the cheapest means they have to communicate with others. Should they be required to pay to say what they want to family members without fear of censorship? I've personally had a class in high school where we were guaranteed a failing grade if we didn't have a known social media account linked to the class's feed. Want more?
Thanks for dating yourself. Unfortunately for you, there are many people, mostly of younger generations but there are a few boomers as well, that use FB, Twitter, etc. as their primary means of communication with others. If we were to go back a few centuries, we'd find that the concept of "common carrier" had a very different meaning than it does today. Why shouldn't society be able to expand or change the definition over time? Why should only industries you approve of be considered essential services?
Where is it written that you should be entitled to electrical service? Or telephone service? Or Education for children? Or Fire / Police / EMS service? Or Social Security / Medicaid? (That's a fun one!) Or any other utility? Society can change it's entitlements if it wants to. Complaining that you don't use it and therefore it shouldn't be up for discussion isn't a valid argument.
Well that might have something to do with you purportedly not using it..... Also, according to this site 5 "millions" followers shouldn't be able to reach you, unless what you say is on their approved list. A fact which might also explain your lack of followers...... Intentional interference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
A student could probably get an exemption if they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
In order to access FB or Twitter or any social media, one needs a smartphone or computer with internet access. You mean to tell me, that there are no other ways to communicate using a smartphone or computer other than social media? How about facetime? Or text messages? Phone calls? Skype? Or any other free communication platforms that are available online? You do realize that the Internet provides an infinite number of means to communicate?
There is no requirement that says any business needs to accept you as a customer, outside of essential utilities such as water and electric. Go into Walmart and start yelling racial slurs and see how quickly you are removed from their property. Go into any restaurant wearing nothing but your underwear, and see how quickly you are asked to leave.
Business have rules that must be followed in order to be a customer in good standing. Any they have every right to kick you out of their establishment, online or otherwise.
As to essential utilities, yes, power / gas / water companies are required to provide you service as long as you maintain good standing w.r.t paying your bills. And even then, most locales have regulations that will not allow these utilities to disconnect your service for non payment, such as the gas company during winter.
And if you think that FB, or social media in general is as essential as electricity / gas / water, I will ask you to perform one simple task. Turn off your electricity, gas and water, and try to cook yourself a meal using social media.
If you feel that you can't survive as human in today's society with social media, then you, really have a problem. As to a requirement for certain activities, job interviews, etc., that should not be a problem if you are a decent person doing normal things on social media. If you are a Nazi, anti-semite, anti-LGBQT+, racists, misogynist, or are just a normal everyday asshole that gets you banned from social social media, then the problem is you and not the social media company.
And as per dating myself, you are right, I am an old guy who first got my facebook account in college when it was a requirement to have a .edu address, and I was an adult when I went back to college. So, I have been using FB for much longer than the average person, and you want to know something really revealing, I have never once been kicked off or suspended. You want to know why? Because I am a decent normal person and generally don't act like a fucking asshole online.
So basically, your entire premise is that social media should be forced by law to accept everybody that wants to join, and the users who act like assholes on a regular basis should still be allowed to use their service, even though they ruin the experience for all the other normal people.
And as to my followers on social media, I use FB and Twitter regularly, and I still don't have 5 million followers. But you know what, I have read the 1st amendment 1000s of times in the last number of years, but nowhere is it written that I am guaranteed an audience on somebody's private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Jeebus, AC, I don't know where to begin....
OK, from the top:
You don't need to enter that country, simple as that. Required for your job? Get your employer to either obtain an exemption, or else send someone else.
The odds are that there's another business just down the street that won't have such a restriction. But more to the point, if the Internet and/or social media should be classified as a common carrier, then let's put the shoe on the other foot - why should I have to prove that I have electricity or running water at my home, just to get a job?
Those would be people who ignored what their ISP said about a free email account being included with their service. FB might not charge you for sending messages, at least not money, but they sure get their money's worth out of your communications, trust me on that one.
Do I really need to point you to the above response?
Well now we're getting somewhere. At least I am. What you suffered in high school was a lack of exposure to the law. Absolutely nowhere, at no time, has any law every been passed, nor a court case upheld the notion that a student (underage or otherwise) lose any rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country. You do NOT have to have a social media account in order to attend school, nor to gain the advantages of state-mandated schooling. Next time you hear "no account = no passing grads", tell them to go pinch a loaf and fall back in it.
That's not dating one's self, that's just good common sense. I've been online longer that you've been drawing breath, and I'm still getting along just fine with people all over the world. Whether friends, business associates, transportation facilities, or what-have-you, no one I need/want to deal with requires me to have a social media account. And yet they all still respect me for the person I am, not some shabby straw-man with a keyboard and a screen. (OK, OK, businesses only respect me for the money I spend with them, I'm sorrry.)
Well, it would be unfortunate that I have to watch my fellow man suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, but that is their prerogative. Still and all, using FB is certainly not the only way to communicate, nor is it required for communication in any sense of the word. See (yet again) my response above.
Nope. The concept is well defined, and you're correct, it does go back almost 200 years - the railroads. But as we're applying it to the internet and social media today, we're comparing it to the most recent example, our regulated electricity, water, sewer and possibly garbage collection utilities. Your idea of "changes over time" doesn't hold water because it's still a matter of government regulation over an otherwise monopolistic realm.
Oops, we're getting personal here. It's not my approval, it's society's approval with which you disagree. I didn't get a choice, but I'm living with society's choices just fine. Should the majority of society choose to elect to regulate the internet for some reason, I'd have to go along with it, regardless of my personal likes or dislikes.
All of those are written into my State's Constitution. In fact, I'm required by that very same piece of paper to attend school until I'm 16 years of age. Education is funded by taxes laid upon society in general, apportioned in some manner between the citizenry and businesses. The other utilities are required to be presented to me, but I'm not required to take them. And if I do want/take them, then I need to meet additional conditions, such as paying for what I use out of my own pocket.
No fun at all, it's required by law. In fact, because I'm subject to these "societal benefits", I happen to know that I'm not required to take advantage of them, but I certainly can choose to do so.
Where the Hell did that come from? I mean, left field bleachers isn't even close to a valid location.
Your last paragraph contains statements of fact for which no logical argument can be presented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope. Nobody needs social media for anything.
You can start a blog if you want to share your thoughts with the world. You can use email if you want to keep in touch with people. You can keep sites bookmarked if you want to keep up with the latest news in whatever interest floats your boat (including boating). Whatever you think you need Twitter or Facebook for, you don’t.
I’m pretty sure that’s what paid services such as “cellphone service” are for.
…fucking what
Question: If Twitter or Facebook decided tomorrow to shut down all their services without warning, what — if anything — would give the United States federal government any right to prevent that? Remember that Twitter and Facebook are privately owned corporations that don’t run public utilities.
Ain’t no problem with that per se. But you want to turn an inessential communications platform into a public utility because you’re butthurt about said platform banning bigots who happen to hold conservative views. Your reasons aren’t rooted in clarity of language or purpose — it’s rooted in spite.
Because anyone on this godforsaken dirtball can live their entire lives without ever once using social media. Facebook isn’t essential for living. Neither is Twitter.
For what reason should the government be able to force speech onto privately owned platforms? Please not that I’ve a long copypasta concerning the idea of public fora and private property waiting in the wings, so you may want to answer this question with something other than “because I want it that way” or the equivalent thereof.
Flag on the play: gross mischaracterization. 15 yard penalty, repeat the down.
If Trump wants 5 million followers to reach him, he can open his own social media service and let them all follow him there. Old 45 isn’t entitled to “free reach” — i.e., to have someone else give him an audience (or access to one). Nobody is entitled to that, no matter how much you might wish it otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
To what political affiliation does "big tech" seek to deny "network usage"? And even if they did, why can they not?
Do you miss the old days when everyone else had very few avenues in which to speak, and your ilk were as loud as ever they still are? So they should be even louder now, since other people are now speaking and heard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
In those days people could build a grass-roots audience in actual public squares.
If Trump ran a CONTEST, with say a $1,000 prize, I bet his audience would swell.
While SPEECH should be free, the only acceptable way to prevent "censorship" from these big sites is to BUY ADVERTISING. Any efforts to regulate "big tech" should stop the second the sponsorship stops flowing.
Trump's not censored, he's cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
In those days people could build a grass-roots audience in actual public squares.
Weirdly, people still can do that, and do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
As the internet grows more popular, it becomes more cost-effective to build an audience that way.
Buying ads also works. Trump could even start a hedge fund!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
"In those days people could build a grass-roots audience in actual public squares."
...and they still can.
I know you people only have arguments that depend on denying actual documented reality, but you should realise that people who understand the real world aren't going to fall for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
"Trump's not censored, he's broke."
FTFY.
Trump's 400 million dollars in the hole to Deutsche Bank, guaranteed by the Russian State Bank. So much for his "self-funded campaign". Putin must not have believed his luck that a few kind words and a mere 400 million gained him a US president willing to give him Syria and the Kurds.
I'm still thinking the main part as to why he's still in politics, aside from catering to his ego-trip of being important is because the very second he stops trying to be useful to Vladimir there will be creditors at the door and he's no longer in a position to cut and run as he always used to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
The dangerous and deadly affiliation of "not doing exactly what I want without even telling them" of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specific
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specific
Con: My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if people want to listen to me, they should be able to do so.
That One Guy: Oh, that one! Well of course that would be censored. I disagree with it!
Me: He who forbids, will one day find himself forbidden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif
You can listen to Donald Trump. He has his own web site where he tweets out stuff.
You can also listen to Alex Jones, who still has InfoWars.
How are those two monstrous assholes "censored" (your words, not mine) if I can still go to their web sites and access their bilious rants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif
Storming a legislative house attempting to assassinate legislators is not a "disagreement". It's terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason should they have the right to force Twitter into giving them a bullhorn? Switch out Twitter with Mastodon, Parler, Gab, Techdirt, etc. and the question remains the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif
Please be considerate to your fellow posters and make sure to clean up any excess straw after constructing your strawman. In case you haven't noticed people can listen to Trump, that's what the article is about, they just don't care to which rather guts the 'Trump has been silenced!' claim and exposes it as nothing more than 'Trump's not allowed to use someone else's private property to speak from against their wishes and that's not fair'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif
"Con: My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if people want to listen to me, they should be able to do so."
They can. They just can't co-opt the property of people who don't want to associate them to do so.
Why do your arguments always revert to demands for communist takeover of the private property of your political opponents - and why do you think anyone else will fall for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif
I’ve long believed that. Unfortunately I’ve come to respect that property rights get in the way of speech rights.
After reading 230 completely and listening to rebuttals to specific passages I pointed out: Repealing 230 won’t change that.
It’s a matter of balancing.
I’ve come to the conclusion that The solution is a public platform for politicians that guarantees freedom of complete access and freedom from all censorship. And that that platform should be extended to all registered candidates.
And that that platform should be directly accessible to any and all citizens of this country. Free from charge. As a website: as a television broadcast, and as a mandatory cable channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be sp
If that's your solution then you're not likely to find many people objecting, as the objections are based upon those that think they are owed the ability to speak on the property of others, which not only is not part of the first amendment despite some seeming to wish really hard that it was but would be a hefty violation of it.
The thing is though politicians can already do most of that. They can already set up their own sites, they can already get on tv by simply setting up an interview, and though I don't watch tv I imagine cable has more than a few channels for politics already which could serve just fine, so I'm not really seeing what problem you're trying to solve here that actually is a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? B
Right now the things you described above depend on private platforms. In order to remove the private property issues I suggest creating a federal site and media platform with total guaranteed access for all in the government m, or have gone through the proper price to run to become part of the government.
This would do two things. First it would allow direct speech to the public by any member of the government.
And secondly would allow for archival.
Trump’s use of twitter and than ban has created a bit of a problem with archival. The President’s public communication is supposed to be recorded by the National Archive. Twitter isn’t interested.
Such a situation could not happen on a government platform.
Fox doesn’t not have to host Democrats, nor CNN have to host Republicans.
It would allow national addresses to be made without political commentary. Equally without pulling away from a live address.
I single place for government to conduct it’s public communication without third-party-partisanship and without censorship.
A direct communication from the official to the public without interpretation by others.
CSPAN is the closest we have at the moment with three stations but it is privately owned AND not nationally broadcast. Now is carrying mandated. Some services don’t offer all three channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chanc
"This would do two things. First it would allow direct speech to the public by any member of the government.
And secondly would allow for archival"
So... two things that already happen...
"Trump’s use of twitter and than ban has created a bit of a problem with archival."
Trump's misuse of Twitter. That was on Trump, not Twitter, and I don't see any evidence that Twitter have blocked anything relating to archiving, only that they couldn't continue giving his free stuff.
"Such a situation could not happen on a government platform."
Trump had access to many different government platforms to use, he simply refused to use them.
Your arguments here with the evidence you provided are not that the government needs to do something, it's that Trump was incompetent. I won't argue with you there, though I suspect that's not what you intended to argue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be sp
Any politician or political party can and do set up their own sites. They can allow and moderate comments on those sites as they wish. Indeed anybody can set up their own site on the Internet and run it as they want. A conversation does not have to be threaded on a single site. However complete freedom from moderation is a guaranteed disaster, and significantly reduces or eliminates the usefulness of a site; see USENET and 8kun for example. Trying to enable conversations directly between people with opposing viewpoints usually end up with a few participants engaging in a screaming match and everybody else moving on to places where they can associate with people of similar, or at least not antagonistic viewpoints.
Stripped to their basics, the arguments for section 230 reform come down to wanting sites to cure the problems of society by controlling what people can say, or a demand that anybody can force their way into any conversation to push their usually bigoted, racist or misogynistic viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then you don’t understand the consequences of repealing 230.
230 will allow the most baseless lawsuits to go forward against platforms both big and small. The big ones — “Big Tech”, as it were — would survive because they have legal teams and shitloads of money. The small ones would die the death of a thousand cuts. The only possible ways of avoiding that fate are undermoderation (can’t be sued for not having the knowledge that shit’s on your platform), overmoderation (can’t be sued if you don’t let the shit on your platform), or complete shutdown of third-party submissions (can’t be sued if you don’t give people a platform).
Show me the balance between what we have now and the fates described above, and I’ll tell you the same thing I will keep telling you when you bring this up: A repeal of 230 will only benefit massive corporations.
Congratulations, you’ve created 8chan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some proposals would make sites responsible for user posts whether they moderate or not, and for contentious posts, ensure that they can be sued whether they leave the post up, or take it down. Even big tech is likely to cash out, rather than enrich lawyers. The only safe option will be to become a real publisher, and that is select and publish some of the submissions received.
The likes of wired would survive, by killing the comments section, but how many simultaneous cases in different courts can even the likes of FaceBook support? Offend a political party and that could be every court where a prosecutor that supports the party can start a case. The attack on Craigslist says it could happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you conflate that post with still calling for repeal?
Did I not say I’ve been persuaded to change my mind?
For more than your “fates” concerns which could easily be solved by a law or amendment stating ‘no entity shall be held liable for any other entities’ actions. Something I think we need in this court happy country anyway. But that’s a different topic I won’t discuss under this heading.
It’s the property rights that makes me reconsider my stand.
“ Congratulations, you’ve created 8chan.”
Wow; nice to see how you view each and every politician. Do you really believe the government is incapable of communication without private corporations to dictate rules?
Or did you somehow conflate my interest for sitting and potential politicians to have free, uncensored, and open access to the public as also calling for a commentary option?
I thought I was quite clear I’m seeking a direct from the source platform for government, to the people.
If you don’t like what they say write a letter, or take to twitter or gab or whatever. Or cast a vote against them.
A site for them to communicate with us, not you or I with them.
At the moment there is no way for any member of any governmental body to communicate directly with the citizens of this country without utilising private companies. Not every one has the internet, even today. A platform that would cover the internet, radio, and tv, and print that could, reasonably, reach every American.
Are you against direct access to the people, or did you somehow read something into my comment that wasn’t there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have such a law right now: Section 230.
Stop committing yourself to misunderstanding me.
If the government were to open an online public forum, it could not — by law — moderate any speech but that which has been declared unlawful (e.g., true threats of violence, CSAM). The most obscene, most objectionable, most outlandish speech possible could be posted without the government able to do anything in response aside from shutting down the forum. And since 8chan/8kun basically does that anyway, all the government would be doing is making its own version of that site.
That’s called “starting a blog”. In case you haven’t noticed, that’s what Trump did. Hasn’t worked out well for him…
So what? As long as people follow the TOS of any site they don’t own, they’ll be fine.
Good fucking luck with making one of those that isn’t prohibitively expensive and time-consuming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And there never were, as paper, printing and distribution, use of billboards, or use of radio or television also involved the use of private companies. Those are still available, and the Internet has added the possibility of social media and blogs etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Stop committing yourself to misunderstanding me.”
You compared a government run content publishing service for members of government agencies with 8chan.
It’s kind of hard to misunderstand “ Congratulations, you’ve created 8chan.”
The premise put forth was they can book on news shows. That still puts them under the control of those platforms.
Trump creating a blog is no different than any other contact site. Most senators, representatives, etc have that. Some beholden to a platform. Some privately run.
That’s not the same as creating a government platform.
And with the current spending going on for “infrastructure” and all the other things tossed into such bills, I’m sure it can be argued for such a platform to be funded.
It would eliminate any political concern for agains 230 if the government had its own platform for official communication to the people.
The big attack on 230 is coming from private companies removing content of sitting officials. A platform run by the government for the government would eliminate that issue.
It would likely reduce the drive for repealing 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it wouldn’t, but you keep thinking it would. Your naïve optimism is kind of adorable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The big attack on 230 is coming from private companies removing content of sitting officials"
No, section 230 is what allows them to do that. Their actions are in support of section 230.
The attack on section 230 is from people like you who believe that the rules of someone's house shouldn't apply if you agree with the abuser politically.
"A platform run by the government for the government would eliminate that issue."
No, it wouldn't. It actually means that such a platform will be far less useful since they would be prevented from moderating the platform based on political speech, and QAnon Trump cult trolls would roam free, destroying any useful discussion.
"It would likely reduce the drive for repealing 230."
No, it wouldn't because the whiny children who are demanding that they be allowed back on to private property whose owners don't want them are not satisfied with alternatives, as you and others have shown. You won't be happy until everyone is forced to put up with against their will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif
"Con: My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if people want to listen to me, they should be able to do so."
But that's not your argument. That's our argument. Everyone can already speak, and everyone can already listen. Stormfront, last I looked, is still in business.
"Con: My views that it shouldn't matter what I say, if I want people to listen to me, they should be forced to do so."
^THIS is your argument. Your beef is that most people choose to go to the private sites where they don't have to hear repulsive people speaking. And so you want to barge into someone elses living room because that's where all the cool kids are.
That's beyond pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specific
Yeah like thinking biological males shouldn't compete in girls' sports.
The problem with moderation is that moderators will inevitably abuse their power.
I still say give everyone an IRS page on which they can post whatever they want as long as their taxes are current. It can become known as the "free speech zone."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif
The problem with moderation is that moderators will inevitably abuse their power.
And cars can and have been used to commit crimes, that doesn't mean you ban cars. That moderation can be abused does not mean it will be in every case, there is still plenty of good moderation that keep sites from being overrun by spam and other 'problematic' content that would make for a miserable if not outright traumatic experience if users had to deal with it themselves.
I still say give everyone an IRS page on which they can post whatever they want as long as their taxes are current. It can become known as the "free speech zone."
Well, it might start being called the 'free speech zone' but I guarantee inside a very short time period it would garner much less flattering names.
Personally I'd love to see the government step up and create a 'free speech' platform where anyone can post any legal content of their choice and moderation outside of those limits was banned thanks to the first amendment, as it would show in a matter of day if not hours just how vital moderation is and why those calling for platforms being forced to host all 'legal' speech are in practice calling for every platform to become utterly unusable cesspits filled with spam and abhorrent content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try “minutes”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe we need it as a digital memoral.
I'm reminded of an explanation of Ramadan, so that Muslims remember what it's like to be famished and can empathize with those with food insecurity.
Similarly Hustler magazine served to remind us that whatever we were saying / drawing / posting, someone else was saying something raunchier, and their freedom of expression was upheld as well.
A public spam pit would serve to remind everyone why we have moderators, even when large social media sites continuously make controversial and often bad moderation decisions due to system complexities we've yet to reconcile.
Though for now, one only needs to go to 4chan/b and /pol and can get a good glimpse of what is public discourse on the conservative side. And numerous subreddits monitor the worst of Parler, GAB, TheDonald and so on.
The conservative madhouse is not only not being silenced, but is actively being monitored to see just how mad they are today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be sp
Cars don't censor people or swing public discourse.
Moderators can swing elections or pick winners and losers in business to the extent where they may easily do more harm than good, not the case with cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? B
That is not an effect of moderation, that is a larger societal problem where too many people do not have the ability to think for themselves nor do they have strong critical thinking skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? B
Ignoring for the moment that moderation does not equal censorship and conflating the two merely weakens any impact that claims of 'censorship' might have pretty sure if you run someone over you've ended their ability to engage in any sort of speech, but if that's your objection then I can easily use different examples like open communication, whether news or simply someone standing in a park holding a rally to convince people to vote a particular way.
A news show can far more easily and more effectively swing elections and/or public discourse than a moderator, and depending on how they present things they can have a definite impact on 'winners and losers' when it comes to business and yet for all that they are still allowed to speak, choosing what to say and how they say it. A person with enough people listening to them can likewise do the same, choosing what to say and how they say it and as a result shifting public discourse and potentially even elections depending on how many people are listening to them, yet again they are allowed to do so.
Talking can swing elections and public discourse yet it is still allowed even when the speakers might not have squeaky clean motivations, so even ignoring for the moment the massive good that can come from moderation like allowing platforms to not be overrun by spammers and various flavors of assholes, and ignoring that you're likely giving way more credit to moderators in how much they can influence things I'm still left wondering what the core problem is and what alternative you think would be better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To wit: Fox News.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. Fox, OANN, Newsmax, etc. have created an alternate reality that's been used to violently attempt to overthrow the government and kill dissenting voices... yet those platforms are far more censored than Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chanc
Look up the comments posted under John Smith's previous pseudonyms. Horse with no name. Whatever. Just Sayin'. MyNameHere. It's not hard to see why he's trying to use moderators as some sort of "gotcha!" moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? B
"Cars don't censor people or swing public discourse."
No, but they kill people every day.
Is your argument that you whiny bitches not having a free audience is more important than human life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
but they also don't want people to listen
What's stopping people from listening now, apart from shitty web design?
He could always move to frankspeech. That's supposed to support billions upon billions of users once they figure out how to stop the looped video.
But I guess it's easier to blame big tech and social media sites for trump's and crackhead's failures...they've got to deflect since they spent so much of their sucker's money for garbage sites that have a mid-90's, 'optimized for IE4' look to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Oh, I don't know. Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police? Or how about all of those upstream service providers who are so thin skinned that they think the words of other people on sites run by other people who use their services are somehow their own words coming straight out of their mouth. Or all of the idiots who having read that last sentence will go "HA! Got the troll!" and immediately claim that the act of using an imageboard is justification for default censorship.
Assuming that their upstream DNS or web hosting provider doesn't decide to censor the site for their butthurt.
Funny, those who cry the loudest when accusing others tend to be themselves guilty of the same accusation....
Since when did a site's design become a censurable offense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
DID YOU NOT MISS WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6TH?!?!?!? That wasn't just a disagreement, that was fucking terrorist. FOH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Sorry, "that was fucking terrorist" should be "that was fucking terrorism". My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Not sure your original wording was incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
LOL Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t like Breitbart. I think we’d all be better off if it were shut down. But if someone wants to read it, that’s out of my control.
…fucking what
While we can question whether such decisions go too far vis-á-vis moderation, for now, those service providers have the right to decide what speech (and persons) they will and won’t associate with. Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the right to make AWS host, say, Stormfront?
Trump repeatedly accused Democratic voters of committing voter fraud. Turns out, one of his voters committed voter fraud.
Now, what were you saying about accusations and confessions, again?
The design of Trump’s microblog isn’t “censurable” (whatever the fuck you think that means in this context). But it is laughable, mockable, pitiable, and — if you take the stats mentioned in the article at face value — doing nothing to keep his supporters enthralled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Boy, you seem triggered...did my comments hurt your feelings, snowflake?
Or how about all of those upstream service providers who are so thin skinned that they think the words of other people on sites run by other people who use their services are somehow their own words coming straight out of their mouth.
So how are they blocking access to trump or frankspeech or infowars? You'd think if that was such a tremendous problem, I wouldn't be able to go to their sites and mock them for their content.
Assuming that their upstream DNS or web hosting provider doesn't decide to censor the site for their butthurt.
Oh, but the pillow moron built his own using his own servers. That's pretty fucking comical in and of itself. Their problem isn't really DNS, is it? It's the lack of forethought to register for all of those similar domain-names so people don't get directed to sites that make fun of them.
Funny, those who cry the loudest when accusing others tend to be themselves guilty of the same accusation....
Yeah, real funny that. Have you ever heard the phrase 'boy you fucking morons really lack self-awareness'?
Since when did a site's design become a censurable offense?
It isn't. And the fact that I have that opinion is because (wait for it, skippy, wait for it!!!) it's not censored. Perhaps they should consider that something that looks like an eight-grader set up as a reason why they have so little traffic.
That's what I would do. Then again, I'm not an shit-flinging idiot who's getting fleeced by web developers for creating entry level garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
So how are they blocking access to trump or frankspeech or infowars? You'd think if that was such a tremendous problem, I wouldn't be able to go to their sites and mock them for their content.
As a number of people have noted for people constantly complaining about being 'silenced' they sure are loud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I call it the “I have been silenced” fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Oh, I don't know. Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police?
They are physically stopping people from going to Trump's site or listening to him whenever he makes an appearance? Holy cow that's some power right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
You're free to stop trying to police platforms' free speech any time, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
"Maybe all of the assholes who want to be the Internet PC police? "
That would be the smooth brained right-wing cultists who want to remove private property rights from people who told them they're not welcome on their property.
Everyone else is saying you're free to use any property owned. by people who do want you. Facebook and Twitter don't control what happens outside of their property, no matter what the people who want to force them to host them against their will tell you.
"Assuming that their upstream DNS or web hosting provider doesn't decide to censor the site for their butthurt."
Maybe you should associate with service that do want you then? You have literally thousands of options.
"Since when did a site's design become a censurable offense?"
Never, but you don't get to design something that nobody would want to visit then whine that the government needs to revoke private property rights to give you a free audience when nobody wants to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Trump bought Reddit or Craigslist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Only in your wet dreams, Jhon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
freedom of speech means little without access
Next you'll tell us free speech means nothing if people don't want to visit the site he created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely, why if I can't preach the good word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the local church(where everyone is) on sundays then it's no different than not being able to speak at all, and their refusal to let me have access to all those people is a direct infringement on my freedom of speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An idiot that can't determine the difference between censorship of a specific place and widespread default censorship will only make mistakes when talking about free speech.
Even more so when they use fucking religion as an example.... Do I really need to pull out all of the examples of religion being actively suppressed and censored by local authorities throughout history? Or the extent that said authorities were willing to go to in pursuit of that goal? If so, you need to go back to middle school. At the very least someone should fine your world history teacher for being an utter failure.
Here's a better question for you considering you consider that a person's personal property allows them to censor people anywhere in the world: Why should Apple allow Conservatives, aka the people you disagree with, to use Apple products at all? Surely given enough use of them Apple could determine a person's Conservative views and assign a rating to them. Then Apple could brick the device if the rating goes too high. After all, according to that EULA for iOS you are just a licensee, not an owner. Why should Apple allow Conservative views on their platform? Or Google? Or Microsoft? Or AMD? Or Intel? What? If the entire IT industry blacklisted Conservatives, Conservatives could just go make their own IT industry that blacklisted Progressives. Of course liberals would need their own IT industry too... And Socialists.... And.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A person who can’t understand the difference between moderation, discretion, and censorship will make more mistakes. COPYPASTA TIME:
Moderation is a platform/service owner or operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves “I won’t do that here”. Editorial discretion is an editor saying “we won’t print that here”, either to themselves or to a writer. Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech. Which one of those happened when Twitter gave Donald Trump the boot?
Because they’re people. For as much as I disagree with conservative views — moderate to extreme — people who hold such views deserve a spot in the public sphere as much as anyone else. That includes being able to buy products in marketplaces, digital and physical alike.
But what that doesn’t include is the right to force Twitter into hosting speech it doesn’t want to host. The right of free speech ends where Twitter’s right to free association begins.
Because they like money? Also, which views, exactly?
…fucking what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Censorship. You won't say that, and we are taking action not just to ensure we won't let anyone willing to listen to you do so, but that you can't say anything else, that we would permit otherwise, either.
Default full censorship. Not hard to figure that out. It was the entire fucking point of his ban. So much so that it was advertised as a feature of the ban on national television. Also, it wasn't just Twitter either. You had the entire set of major social media platforms making similar decisions.
Imagine if they did that to a progressive or better yet a corporate democrat president? I bet there wouldn't have been a single whisper out of the major media outlets over it. With conservatives decrying anyone against it as unAmerican.
So answer the question then: Does Apple have to be "forced" into hosting views on it's devices that it, presumably, doesn't want to host? Does Apple have to be "forced" to process speech that it, presumably, doesn't want to process?
"Hosted" is a nebulous term. At what point does a "hosted" application on an OS runtime become "the speech" of it's creator? Does it's creator have a say in what data it will and will not process based solely on their agreement with the user's personal views? Is it justifiable to deny processing based on that?
Money paved the road to hell, and is the direct cause of countless deaths, illnesses, and ecological damage the world over. Don't assume profits will always align with personal freedoms.
That is an over exaggeration of your position. The argument "Well they can just go elsewhere." makes sense when it's only one building or one site. The argument makes far less sense when you apply it to the entire world / the Internet in general. Scope is a thing when talking about the effects of censorship. As the bigger the scope the greater the chance that someone covered by that censorship will be a willing audience for the speaker. At which point, you don't have freedom of speech if the two cannot communicate because of the censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nope
And when, pray tell, did Twitter’s ability to moderate speech on Twitter extend to social interaction networks outside of Twitter, to ISPs, and to meatspace itself vis-á-vis the media?
(Trick question. It didn’t.)
The same “national television” on which Donald Trump can still be heard to this day if he so wishes?
So what.
I’d wonder what he did to violate the TOS…like, y’know, Trump did.
Once someone owns an iPhone or an iPad, it’s theirs, not Apple’s. Apple can’t be “forced” to host a person’s views on devices that said person already owns.
So is Christianity. What’s your point.
Ah, so I know the ones already, then…
And any social interaction network is free to decide what it believes is “acceptable” speech. Again: What’s your point.
That you associate those views with conservatism says more about conservatism than it does about the services that don’t want to host such views.
Context is always important. That you’re not willing to state the views you believe are being blocked unfairly — that you’re trying to divorce the act of blocking from the context of what is being blocked — says a lot about you…and none of it is good.
Twitter is one site/service. So is Facebook. That millions of people make use of those services every day doesn’t make them the entirety of the Internet.
And if someone were being censored here, you might have a point. But Donald Trump can literally call a press conference tomorrow and have plenty of news outlets ready to put his voice and face on TV. He wasn’t censored. He was told he violated the terms of service and shown the door — which isn’t censorship. It can’t be censorship unless you believe a bar owner showing belligerent assholes the door for yelling racial slurs in the bar is also censorship.
You aren’t owed a right to communicate with someone on Facebook. If you were, nobody could block you on Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm... looks like someone needs a lesson on cause and effect:
Twitter's decision prevented sites that link to it's feeds from being able to see Trump's comments or interact with him (networks outside of Twitter). ISPs can't transfer data that is HTTP 403'd. (to ISPs) The entire point of the ban was, again, to forbid communication between Trump and his supporters. (meatspace itself) An act overwhelmingly cheered on by, most of the media. With Conservative media outlets correctly calling fowl over silencing a key means of communication they had with the then current president who, again, often used said social media platforms as the primary means to interact with his supporters. (vis-á-vis the media)
Said like every authoritarian denying reality to suit their narrative ever.
Sure. One way communication, vetted because of editors, and only if he's willing to pay for it. Very different means of "communication" do not equal replacements for each other. But that's just you being disingenuous again.
So any company has the right to take away your freedoms as a citizen of the USA? Good to know you agree with that, because chances are they'll be happy to take as many as they can. *eyeroll*
Then you've misread that ToS, and EULA that you hold with such high regard. I'm certain Apple would gladly point that out if you took them to court over who they think actually owns those iDevices. Particularly over copyright / jailbreaking / repairs / DRM / the signature that they bless their will on the OS with.
Of course, you still didn't answer the question.
Don't assume money will always result in a favorable outcome. Which you implied in your response to my question.
Read it again and maybe you'll find it. Of course you won't if you continue to discard it out of hand. You won't even try to consider that others may have differing versions of "acceptable" points of conversation that shouldn't be banned in a country that purportedly believes in the freedom of speech. All of your arguments can be boiled down to "I disagree with it. If I disagree with it, I should be able to ban it regardless of who is communicating with whom." Which means you don't support freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is to allow all arguments for the sake of debate. That implies all statements as well. Banning Trump was an affront to freedom of speech because the entire point was to prevent him from communicating with his supporters. An act that as this article points out was very successful, and an egregious act that should give everyone that cares about freedom of speech pause. For fear of such tactics being used against them by less saintly regimes in the future.
So only the correct views can be spoken and debated? Gee, I wonder what views will be chosen by the Ministry of Truth?
Earth is one planet. Care to find another one if you "get evicted from the island"?
We're talking about policy here, it effects the entire internet and it's future. Trying to downplay that because you hate Trump and his policies (again, I do too.) is dangerous.
Funny given you won't acknowledge the reason why I said nothing: To let the reader fill in the blank with whatever they dislike so the statement is more relevant to them.
Personally, I disagree with Trump in this regard. But such is the plight of those who try to defend rights, they always wind up defending scoundrels.
Again, there is a difference between Facebook itself blocking someone from posting, and you blocking someone on Facebook. Then again, this is pointless, as you can't understand the difference between a 1 to Many relationship and a 1 to 1 relationship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Al Gore and John Kerry are corporate Democrats who lost elections. Yet none of them incited mobs who stormed the capitol threatening to kill legislators who were certifying elections also certified by the courts (including justices Trump appointed), state legislators, and state attorneys general (including GOP ones). Al Gore conceded when he lost Bush v. Gore, which-may I remind you-was actually a close election unlike all the battleground states Trump lost. As for Kerry, he conceded almost immediately. There were definitely irregularities in Ohio, and Barbara Boxer did indeed object to the certification of the election (not unlike Hawley and Cruz not certifying Biden's win), but it was bloodless, and that's not something Trump can claim when we transitioned to Biden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Al Gore and John Kerry are corporate Democrats who lost elections."
More to the point - Gore only lost to due a really suspicious Florida race overseen by his opponent's brother and won the popular vote, while Kerry's opposition was mostly down to outright lies about his military service.
Their supporters had way more to riot about than the supporters of the failed con artist who lost by 8 million votes after killing half a million of his constituents, yet here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If that were, as you lie, their intent, then they sure did a shit job if achieving it, as they're 0% of the way there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An idiot that can't determine the difference between censorship of a specific place and widespread default censorship will only make mistakes when talking about free speech.
Yeah, and an idiot who thinks he's being censored, but in reality is an asshole no one wants to listen to because of that might think that way.
Don't mistake being kicked off the island means you're being censored. You're just assholes. The sooner you people realize it, the sooner you'll be able to get over your bitching and complaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your statement is based on the faulty premise that moderators never abuse power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yours is based on a faulty assumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd love to hear what you think is the ratio between moderators who abuse their power versus the number of simple minded assholes that no one wants to listen to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like the ones on Parler did in support your boy Trump, John?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's based on the true premise that Facebook/Twitter moderators can't moderate anything outside of their own platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As your idiotic drivel keeps proving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Why should the existence of the Internet grant you any more access to an audience than what you has before it became popular? It is up to you to attract an audience, and failure to do so is not an excuse to force yourself in where you are not welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
The big tech censors don't want certain people to speak
Who exactly do they not want to let speak. Come on, Koby, be specific, and before you answer, note that nearly every high profile Republican remains on social media. There are a few who have been removed, but in every case for breaking the rules of the site. There is not a single shred of evidence that any platform "doesn't want certain people to speak."
That's just you acting like a whiny snowflake victim.
They seek to deny network usage based upon political affiliation;
Name ONE person banned for their "political affiliation." I still see Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Marjorie Greene and tons of other high profile Republicans on both Twitter and Facebook. No one is being banned for their political affiliation, Koby.
Stop lying.
freedom of speech means little without access
They have access. Anyone can access Trump's page. What ignorant people like you are demanding are TWITTER'S USERS. But they're not yours.
This is why it's so important to repeal section 230, and subject social media to common carrier utility rules.
This is ignorant nonsense. Repealing 230 would mean MORE bans because the idiots you have been brainwashed by would create massive liability with their lies and defamation.
And common carrier rules do not and cannot apply to social media because they don't mean any definition of a common carrier. And if they did, it would destroy those platforms value immediately.
Stop being such a whiny victim, Koby. I thought your whole schtick was about not being a victim, and believing in freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Notice and takedown protects sites from liability as with the DMCA.
Section 230 needs to be cleaned up so that individual reputations do not become collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
230 doesn’t protect against defamation. But it does put liability for defamation on the person responsible for that defamation instead of the tool used by that person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
" But it does put liability for defamation on the person responsible for that defamation instead of the tool used by that person."
So that's the tool using the tool, not the tool used by the tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…THIRD BASE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Nobody believes you have a reputation to damage, John Smith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Reputations harmed due to Section 230: 0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Free Reach. Thanks I did not know who coined the term.
I was hoping to page thru without hitting the "Blue Wall Of Death", AKA Voice in Koby's head.
Whatever that means - Fell asleep on Prophesy 4 again. (sorry)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
*"and subject social media to common carrier utility rules."
Because Bars, Restaurants, shopping malls and social media platforms are so very much like water and electricity? /s
No, seriously, Koby. We all know very well by now why you can't carry a single argument against 230 without stacking it on top of a bunch of lies. If you had your way the bar owner wouldn't be able to toss out the nazis calling out ethnic slurs and disturbing the other patrons.
And of course that's exactly what you're after here. To make sure no one can have a social circle online without the Proud Boys spamming it asunder with bigotry and racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When
This site makes a comment about certain people, why not send them a request to comment.
Talk about a way to get more users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"And, as far as I can tell, there is no right to having as large an audience as possible"
Only because we're still living in the digital stone age. There absolutely should be. Not a guaranteed audience - nobody has that; but a guaranteed potential audience, the chance to speak somewhere people are, instead of the middle of the forest where absolutely nobody else ever is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uhh, no? If a bar or club becomes the social gathering place of an area that would not strip them of the right and ability to show the door to someone for being a disruptive jackass, the same applies to digital platforms. That a particular piece of private property may be more popular than another piece does not give anyone a right to it, they are there or not there at the owner's discretion, with only a narrow set of exceptions.
As for 'where the people are' no-one's stopping people from flocking to Trump's new cesspit, if people actually wanted to listen to him his site would be where people would be congregating so if that's not the case that would seem to say plenty about just how popular he really is outside of his cult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This assumes that his site provides a place for congregation, as opposed to a sort of microblog for one cheetoh. And a pretty poor sort of blog it is, with very little ability to interact. Essentially you can sign up for e-mail or you can send money.
A normal place for congregation is one where people can interact. I fault the people who implemented the wimpy website, but frankly would not expect Mr. Trump to be able to do even what is there.
Fortunately, people need not listen to him. He has nothing new or interesting to say. The inability to congregate at his web site is therefore little loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Essentially you can sign up for e-mail or you can send money.
How very Trump, you can listen to him and/or you can give him money, but when it comes to someone else potentially speaking it's not even an option.
Personally I hope that an area for his cultists to chime in and praise their Dear Leader is implemented down the line, as it will be funny to see both how quickly they start violating the TOS and how quickly the excuses for why that's totally okay starts flying and/or why it's totally different and justified when he enforces his site's TOS even though it's nothing less than horrid censorship when other platforms do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What law gives you the right to get into the face of people, because that is known as behaviour likely to disturb the peace?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you, based PhraseExpress.
Damn, man, y’all must want me to use all my copypastas today.
[ahem]
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
" Not a guaranteed audience - nobody has that; but a guaranteed potential audience"
Everyone has that when they first log on to the internet. You have to do something for the privilege to be removed. Maybe they should stop doing that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'... eh, not wor
Imagine that, when people have to make some effort to listen to him and it's not so important to do so because he's not the gorram president only a relatively small number of people choose to do so, I wonder what ever could that mean?
While I suppose it's possible that the numbers might grow as more of his cult learn about his cesspit this did provide one very nice rebuttal in that it showcases that if he or his cultists keep insisting that he deserves back on civilized social media platforms it will not be because he can't speak but because he/they think he's owed an audience of a certain size, and he's mad that he can't use someone else's property to get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freedom of speech means little without access.
Um, we have a word for people who want guaranteed access. They're called "spammers." We have a word for people who want guaranteed access to an inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested audience. They're called "offensive spammers" (in polite company: elsewhere that already-redundant phrase would be prefaced by a sequence of the most offensive pejoratives in the speaker's vocabulary.)
What we don't have, alas, is an instant death penalty for spammers. Just utter the words "not enough people WANT to listen to me, and I don't care what they want, or who else is inconvenienced by enabling me to offend their desires", and you deserve a bullet to the liver (brain and heart probably not being vital organs.)
You want access that nobody will give you for free? Tough. Nobody owes you access, in ANY non-iniquitous and non-inequitable world. Someone will probably sell you access--if you're willing to pay for what you want--but, of course, most religious systems with a moral code would consign them to negative repurcussions.
If I thought anyone here cared, I'd say what I really thought....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny, you seem to assume that everyone in existence is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested in what others have to say. Tell me, do you stand up at Trump rallies and do everything you can to shout down and disrupt the proceedings because of your personal tastes?
That's what you are doing to the entire Internet. You assume that the entire internet doesn't want to allow certain people to speak.
Before I get hit with "say who they are" as if names are important here, Trump. Of course just saying the name is grounds for hating and disregarding everything that comes out of my mouth. Not that I've ever agreed with Trump or his policies, but I'm sure Mike will be around to claim authoritatively otherwise in a moment. I put certain people in italics because it's a relative term to the person applying it. I'm sure Mike would put Trump in that list, just as much as a Conservative would put Biden in that list. The implication is the same however: Certain people regardless of who they may be, or what views they may have, should not be allowed to speak because the entire universe is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested in what they have to say. Or at the very least, there is a sole objector in the room that is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested and therefore the speech is forbidden so as to not offend the overly sensitive.
There is a difference between not wanting to listen to someone trying to talk to you, and not wanting to overhear someone trying to talk to others. You have the right to refuse the former, but forbidding the latter is interfering with the rights of others. Banning speech on an open forum is the latter. Especially when your ban targets them (their social media account) and their willing audience (their followers) that you refuse to acknowledge.
So, for the crime of offending your personal tastes, you desire the right to execute others?
Hmm.... Where have I heard that bullshit before?..... Seems like it's the motto of White Supremacists.
Not sure why you're so keen on banning them, given you have so much in common with them.
Well, you should be careful about that. I hear there are some sites out there that will ban you for that kind of talk....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guarantee that out of the 7 billion people in this world, only a handful give a flying rat’s ass about what I have to say. Not everyone gives a fuck about what Lady Gaga says, either.
LOLno. Certain segments of the Internet doesn’t want certain speech shitting things up.
A large amount of people not wanting to hear Trump lie, lie, and lie again — all in service of the creeping fascism within the GOP — is not the same as “everyone” wanting Trump off the Internet, nor does it justify actually kicking him off the Internet entirely. He has every right to start his shitty little blog and say what he wants, and my wanting him to fuck off forever doesn’t deprive him of that right.
Not…really? If there is one, it’s negigible at best.
When did Twitter interfere with the right of Donald Trump to speak freely? Because from where I sit, Trump can still speak freely.
That’s two. One more and you get the Kavanaugh copypasta.
You’ve never heard of hyperbole, have you, Squidward?
What kind of talk are you referring to? Be specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Funny, you seem to assume that everyone in existence is inwilling, antagonistic, or uninterested in what others have to say.
Not everyone in existence, Mr. Strawman Factory, just a lot of people are uninterested in the things some people say, and more to the point, some platforms think some speakers are outright harmful either to society or their bottom line, or both. And those platforms have their own rights. Your nonexistent right to be on their platform doesn't override those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pretty sure Trump doesn't need Twitter to be heard. Nor does anyone else, for that matter.
Also, Trump didn't get banned by Twitter because he was espousing Conservative values. He got banned because Twitter determined he was inciting violence. And you know what? It's Twitter's house. If they want to kick someone out of it, they can.
If someone is in a public place, for example a restaurant or a grocery store, quietly inciting violence among their little group, they're not likely to be noticed by the site owners, and probably won't be kicked out. However, if the site owners do become aware of what they're talking about, they absolutely have the right to kick them out. It's not a question of "not wanting to overhear." It's the right of a property owner to say "You're horrible. Get out of my house."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"He got banned because Twitter determined he was inciting violence"
He got banned because he spent years spouting lies and misinformation up to and including the lies that inspired a murderous mob to try and overthrow a legal election. Then, he was given constant chances to change up until the point where they decided that people actually dying in riots and from preventable diseases was worse for their business than letting Trump continue to rile up his cult. Before and after which he's had free access to numerous national and international platforms to speak whenever he wants, including his own.
If people want to complain about effective censorship and actual bias against Republicans, Trump is probably the worst example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm actually of the opinion that the only thing that resulted in him finally getting the boot was him losing the election and with it direct political power, and that if he had won he'd still be on all the social media platforms even with everything he'd done(the insurrection would need to be shifted to some other election, perhaps a state one but even then).
They had so many chances and reasons to show him the door before that point(it's not like he only started downplaying a deadly disease in the last few weeks of his presidency, or only started trying to undermine the election at that point either), that it only occurred when he was on his way out leaves me thinking that it was only because he was about to be replaced that they finally felt they could pull that trigger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I seem to recall Twitter actually having stated at one point not long after the election that if Trump wasn't POTUS, they'd have banned him for all the TOS violations. So, I'm inclined to agree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He was basically gone once Biden was sworn in, they just sped up his removal after he inspired violent insurrection. That event gave them a clear issue to point to without having to play semantic games with people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "press"
I am glad Trump is muted, because he is a rebel who attempted to overturn Constitutional government between 2020/November 3 and 2021/January 6.
Access to Twitter is not an issue of First Amendment free "speech."
But the drafters of the First Amendment recognized, that equally important as free "speech," was the means to disseminate said speech to a mass national audience, i.e. "the press." Due to robust competition, there was no reason in the 1800s and 1900s to give speakers compulsory access to particular media outlets. (On the contrary, such compulsory access, by diluting a medium's message, would violate the First Amendment's "free press".)
But, to the extent new media giants become effective monopolies, they may deserve regulation as "public utilities" available to all. (On the other hand, US public discourse has never been flooded with so much lying and lunacy since the days of Adams vs. Hamilton vs. Jefferson. Censorship by private monopolies might be the least bad option after all.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "pr
AFAIK, back when the constitution was written, the press meant a printing press. So all freedom of the press meant that the government could not tell press owners, who were also often created and printed their own newspapers, what to print, or stop anyone from owning and operating a printing press. That is if nobody else would publish your words, you could publish them at your own expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being large ≠ being a monopoly
Twitter and Facebook compete with each other as much as they compete with YouTube, Mastodon instances, Discord, Skype, 4chan, 8chan, Gab, Parler, and any other service you could consider a communications/social media service. That Twitter and Facebook dominate do not make them a monopoly over all those over services — or each other.
But since you want to play the “public utility” card here…well, you all but asked for this copypasta.
[ahem]
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh(!) wrote the majority opinion:
(And that is the last time I plan to post that copypasta…this week.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "pr
Your argument seems to be shooting itself in the back, as if access to a platform to speak to a wide selection of people was so vital then it would have been written in that access to the newspapers of the time was part of the first amendment, yet by your own admission that would be a direction violation of the right.
The fact that the 'newspapers' in this example are digital now doesn't really chance that, the right to speak does not and never has carried with it the right to a platform to speak from, and especially not a right to a platform of your choice whether the owner wants you there or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment
To use the parlance of the previous era of news - you can write a letter to the editor any time you want. You just can't force them to print it. If they don't do so, it's not a violation of your rights if your personally printed zine doesn't get the same circulation as the NYT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "pr
"But, to the extent new media giants become effective monopolies"
Such monopolies don't really exist, unless you ignore the realities of the marketplace (for example, most people use multiple social media platforms at the same time) or redefine the terms to become so restrictive as to be meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump? Good riddance! But "reach" may be 1st Amendment "pr
I cannot bring myself to believe that any of the new media giants are effective monopolies. Twitter has Parler competing with it, I believe there are other social media entities, and they also face some sort of competition for their users' time and attention.
And regulation seems counterintuitive under the First Amendment. Twitter's message of disfavoring traitors who wage war, bringing revolt to the seat of government, would be diluted if they were required to also host the speech of the traitor. The Supreme Court has upheld such a right to control the associative messages. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bi-sexual Organization of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think Trump's blog is failing, as it was launched in early 2021.
Any 2024 Olympic blogs up yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't Trump just get a burner phone and post anonymously? If he just wants his IDEAS out he can get them out.
The one legal angle people could use is the Knight case, saying Twitter can't block replies to "official" accounts (but could block all other chat etc.). They'd have to be on a par with AT&T or the Post Office for that to happen, also Comcast and Verizon don't generally care about speech and treat themselves as a common carrier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that this doesn't happen is basically why John Smith's constant, persistent claim of "burner phones dealing reputational damage" is a terrible argument to make and frankly he should be ashamed of making it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right, it would be impossible for a terminally ill person to Google-bomb a bunch of <insert deserving target here> on his or her way out. Heck if they're terminally ill, even a "life" sentence is no deterrent, not the same for some script-kiddie eh?
Section 230 enables that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things.
No, it doesn’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The James Wood case is already a thing, in which James Wood pursued someone who made perceived insults about him. The court ruled in favor of Wood, especially since the pursued target passed away.
So... no, even the "gotcha!" case you came up with in your fevered wet dreams not only isn't common reality, it's not even the threat you want people to believe it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump's access to the soapbox
Trump doesn't need a burner phone, just an official platform where it's relatively plausible something it claims Trump said actually was said by him.
But an account used to echo Trump's statments on Twitter was shut down for serving as an ad hoc Twitter account.
But if Trump wantsnto express an idea rather than an assertion of his authority, it is very easy for anyone to say something anonymously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump's access to the soapbox
So they aren't just banning Trump, but anyone who mentions him?
Too Soviet for my taste.
If "hate speech" cannot be defined when it comes to government censorship, it can't be defined privately, either.
The Knight ruling is intriguing because Trump, as a citizen, is being blocked from participating in public debates. A court could easily rule that Twitter cannot ban this speech even if it can ban other speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop putting up strawmen; you’ll start a fire.
Re-read the key sentence of the post to which you replied: “[A]n account used to echo Trump's statments on Twitter was shut down for serving as an ad hoc Twitter account[.]”
The key word there is “echo”. The account wasn’t merely mentioning Trump — it was being used as a route-around for Old 45 to circumvent his ban.
And FYI: When he was still on Twitter, an account designed to parrot his tweets verbatim was suspended multiple times while Trump himself remained untouched.
The government can’t define “hate speech” partially because of the First Amendment. But individual people aren’t bound by those restrictions. You can define “hate speech” however the fuck you want; so can the admins of a service like Twitter.
This would be true only under two conditions:
He has a right to free reach — i.e., a spot on Twitter.
What sucks for your “argument”: Neither condition is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump's access to the soapbox
If "hate speech" cannot be defined when it comes to government censorship, it can't be defined privately, either.
Why not? You're just making up shit, and you're well aware of it.
The Knight ruling is intriguing because Trump, as a citizen, is being blocked from participating in public debates.
Yeah, and I think as a society, we're better off for it. It's not like the guy has anything of value to add. I mean, have you really ever come across someone more full of shit than Trump? He promises everything and delivers nothing. Just ask the folks sitting in jail still waiting for him to pardon them.
That asshole would stab any one of you in the back, if he had the opportunity. Why don't you let him fight his own battles and quit being a sucker? If you guys aren't convinced it was a scam after everything that's happened, it just proves what I've thought all along - Trump supporters are stupid stupid people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump's access to the soapbox
As Trump can get his words out via his own site, he is not being blocked from public debate. What you keep on demanding is a right to force your speech into others, and that is not part of public debate but rather a long step towards the re-education camps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump's access to the soapbox
Given how bruised your knees are, I find that hard to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Couldn't Trump just get a burner phone and post anonymously?"
He could, but that wouldn't stop Twitter from banning his account as soon as they realised it was him, and he likely wouldn't be able to get a sufficient audience without telling people who he was.
A better option would be to just use the platforms that want him, or simply stop being such a dangerous asshole getting people killed on a regular basis, so that Twitter would decide he's not going to keep violating their terms of service..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The thing about shitposters like Trump - it's easy to tell when it's his content. Which is why John Smith feels such a kindred bond between him and the 45th president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also not helping his case for reinstatement on the major social media platforms is implementing a function on his site that allows people to cross-post his content over there, as such a blatant attempt to bypass his bans is not really helping the case that he is at all sorry for what he's done and will follow the rules if they're stupid enough to let him back on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This thread has seen more than 90 responses to Koby and at least one AC (perhaps more than one, who can tell). The fact that we need to keep refuting his/their nonsense strongly suggests that only one facepalm just won't do the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Losing the retweet was the worst day of Donald Trump's life. People are no longer subjected to racist uncles signal boosting his every word with the click of a button, they no longer have to worry about being ruled by 3am toilet tweet, now the only people who see his decrees from his gold plated porcelain throne are people who want to go to even the most minimal level of effort there aren't that many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the Trump cult didn't exist, it would be a sadly amusing form of entertainment to see his descent into whining about competent leadership, with his pathetic attempts at reactionary ego boosting being stripped away and the country returning to some semblance of normality as the damage he did is slowly repaired.
Unfortunately, given that 72 million people apparently looked at the COVID body count, the loss of respect on the international stage, the economic collapse and the reveal of how little support the average American gets in times of crisis and said "we'll have more of that, please", it's best that he's not given a free megaphone. I'm happy with him gatecrashing weddings at Mar A Lago to rant incoherently, if only because I suspect that anyone still paying him for such a venue probably deserves to have their day ruined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Free reach?” You mean that Techdirt finally admits that these platforms are actually monopoly publishers controlling the modern, digital town square and need breaking up and their section 230 exemptions curtailed? Yep, I’m on board with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New platform
“And there never were”
And yet, there should be. Now is as good a time as any. When media companies have dug trenches and declared sides now more than ever, we need direct access for information from those in the government.
“No, it wouldn’t, but you keep thinking it would. Your naïve optimism is kind of adorable.”
I find your lack of faith in humanity very very concerning.
Maybe you should talk to an expert. It’s not healthy to wonder around thinking every one is out to get you.
The 230 assault took off, more than ever, and gained public notice, when “social” media companies blocked communication of a sitting President. An unfathomable thought prior to it happening.
That that could happen, and now his public history being at stake. Are signs that the country needs a platform for politicians to speak to the masses.
Free from censorship by private organisations of any leaning.
I don’t understand how anyone could consider the words of politicians being recorded permanently could be a cause to fight against.
No more fox or MSNBCNN misquoting people. No more out-of-context reports. It is true or false. Period. Permanent record.
Want to fact check a statement? Go to government.gov. Read the statement.
Sounds good to me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New platform
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
That's that we already have today. "Problem" solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New platform
“Hallucinates facts not in evidence”
Trump’s account on twitter was suspended when he was President.
“That's that we already have today. "Problem" solved.”
Free from what those who agree with the actions call “moderator” and those who disagree with call censorship.
Only a non-private governmental platform could supply such a situation for censorship-free communication.
And save it. If I’ve been blocked from reading it is censored.
Why the pile on here. I’ve seen many statements that this 230 thing is about the right of privet property.
I suggest an alternative that doesn’t infringe PPR. What logical reason does anyone have for bating federal employees from communication with the people outside of the left/right media bubble?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: New platform
So what, it was the least he deserved. Personally, if I have had any sway with Twitter, I would have banned is ass the first moment he broke the TOS.
No, presidents have been denied access to media before.
Is it? So for example, if someone uses a paid blogging-service and doesn't pay the bills, have they been censored when the owner of the service disables their blog?
Now extend this to any kind of lapse towards the owner of the property and the TOS. If you think it's censorship because the words of some asshole was moderated because they can't follow simple rules, it says that you think the word of an asshole is more important than the ability for others to freely associate and control their own property.
And this tells me that you don't understand what is being said.
There is only one media bubble, the right-wing one which is constantly pushing out lies to the gullible but useful idiots. Federal employees have federal sites to communicate with people, they can ask to use social media but they aren't entitled to use them.
And so far, no social media company have actually blocked any federal employee that doesn't lie and make shit up which means they can communicate with the public freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: New platform
"Trump’s account on twitter was suspended when he was President.
So what, it was the least he deserved. Personally, if I have had any sway with Twitter, I would have banned is ass the first moment he broke the TOS."
Also, Trump was suspended when he was in the "lame duck" part of his presidency. He has been voted out by a massive margin in the popular vote, all the relevant races had been certified, his claims of fraud had been kicked out of over 60 courtrooms for lack of evidence, and the final attempt to overthrow the legislative process had failed.
He was "president" only due to the technicality that the confirmed loser waits until January 20th before his replacement is sworn in. The period of time where he was "president" while not being allowed on Twitter was the period of time during which any competent administration would be deep into the process of peacefully transitioning power to the new administration. Which, he notably refused to do.
None of this is a problem, unless you believe that presidents should not be accountable for their actions or that government figures should be able to seize any private property they feel is valuable to them against the wishes of the property owner. Both of which are far more problematic than whether or not Twitter got tired of putting up with Trump's shit before he was kicked out of his position like the public requested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show me the law that says Twitter is obligated to host the speech of any person, never mind the sitting president of the United States.
I’m sure someone has archived the Twitter account of Donald Trump if you’re eager to read it. But I won’t find that for you.
I have none. But a federal employee who wants to reach out to others while on private property must play by the rules set by the owner of said property. Twitter doesn’t have to host their speech. Neither does Facebook, YouTube, Soundcloud, Mastodon, Gab, Parler, or even fucking 4chan.
Any federal employee unhappy with that can buy their own property and say whatever they want. That’s how life works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: STS
You’re not paying attention. are you. I said property rights are the reason I have changed my opinion on repealing.
“Free from what those who agree with the actions call “moderator” and those who disagree with call censorship.
Only a [b]non-private governmental platform[\b] could supply such a situation for censorship-free communication.”
Emphasis added.
How is that paragraph misconstrued to say I’m supporting forcing a private company to host speech it doesn’t want to?
Such a platform would eliminate private property concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: New platform
Cling to your lies as desperately as you want, but you'll never achieve any comprehension of the world so long as you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: New platform
The argument would have better chances if people called it what it is!
We’ve been through the this on other 230 posts here
*Censor
VERB
examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
"my mail was being censored”*
~Bing definitions
With that in mind, and further understanding of other conflicts in rights, it can be seen that it is not the act of censorship that is the problem but where one does so.
By taking it out of the internet context it quickly becomes clear that forced speech isn’t acceptable. One would not expect to find The Satanic Bible or Setian Edda at the christian book store.
When that structure is moved back to the internet such censorship becomes clearly constitutional regardless of what anyone may think of the content being censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You said you had changed your mind about Section 230, but then you wrote this…
…which sounds a hell of a lot like a complaint about “censorship” (read: moderation) of speech on private property. If a bookstore can legally refuse to stock The Satanic Bible, for what reason should the law deny Twitter the right to legally refuse hosting speech from a third party?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I’ll always complain about censorship. It’s evil.
But based on property rights it appears to me to be constitutional.
As such I withdraw any complaint about it, regarding 230. And since my only complaint….
Some minor disagreement on what good faith has to do with that perspective.
I believe it’s difficult for many of freedom of all speech people, like myself, to separate such platforms into what they are, private companies. Not public forums.
We get hung up on the act of censorship so tightly we ignore the private property aspect of it, as I did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation doesn’t involve the violation of civil rights. Censorship does.
Moderation is when Twitter kicks out someone who violated its TOS even if they used legally protected speech. Censorship is when the government acts to silence the legally protected speech of a critic.
The First Amendment doesn’t give anyone — including you — the right to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else. Twitter doesn’t have the power to violate your rights, and whatever it can do vis-á-vis moderation doesn’t violate your rights. Twitter can’t censor you. Stop thinking it can.
Every time you refer to moderation as censorship, you weaken the word “censorship”. You make it cover more and more actions that don’t violate civil rights because those actions hurt your feelings. When you do finally come across an actual instance of censorship, all that time you spent crying “wolf” (i.e., “censorship”) will bite you on the ass because people will refuse to believe you’re referring to actual censorship.
Your ignorance before may have been accidental. After this point, it will be intentional. Think about that before you post again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The First Amendment doesn’t give anyone — including you — the right to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else."
I just said that.
'But based on property rights it appears to me to be constitutional.'
"Twitter can’t censor you"
As soon as they delete a comment it's been censored. Which I now agree is legal under the understanding of private property rights.
"every time you refer to moderation as censorship, you weaken the word"
"Your ignorance before may have been accidental. After this point, it will be intentional. Think about that before you post again."
"suppress unacceptable parts"
I simply don't narrow my viewpoint to a tiny little aspect of inability to access something.
See definitions.
Kind of self explanatory. Twitter removes-by-moderation content they consider unacceptable.
I'm not ignorant. I have a broader view of what it means to censor. One more closely aligned with the definition.
Censor: VERB:
Examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
"my mail was being censored”
~Bing definitions
"also : to suppress or delete as objectionable"
~merriam-webster
a fit to what twitter does. exactly
"to ban or cut portions of (a publication, film, letter, etc)"
~ thefreedictionary
"to remove anything offensive from books, movies, etc."
~ cambridge
Not liking my broad interpretation doesn't make it incorrect.
None of those definitions mandate it be a government agency. None state exceptions in terminology for private property. It is what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, you have been moderated, and you are free to post that comment on other platforms, including your own blog. A platform deleting a post does not have have power to take any action should you post it elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more you keep stepping up with bullshit, the more commenters like I will keep smacking you down. Can’t stop, won’t stop.
No, it’s been deleted from Twitter. The same person who made that comment can post the same comment on another website — including a website they own. Twitter can’t censor anyone.
Your definition of “censorship” is unacceptable and untenable. I did not, however, try to suppress your speech. I asked you to think about going forward with that definition — one borne of ignorance, intentional or accidental — before posting again. You didn’t heed my advice, it seems.
A homeowner kicks out someone who yells obscenities. A bar owner kicking out someone who does a Nazi salute. Neither property owner has prevented anyone from speaking their mind, though — they’ve only told the offending parties to go speak their mind elsewhere.
If you believe those acts aren’t censorship, by all means: Explain the difference between those acts and Twitter moderating the speech of a third party who has no right to use Twitter.
Having a broad interpretation makes possible the classification of any attempt at moderation as “censorship”. By watering down the definition of the term to include acts that don’t violate any civil rights, you cheapen the term and make taking your claims of “censorship” all the harder to believe.
Your definition must also lead to the idea that (what you think of as) “censorship” must be stopped at all costs. That cost, under your logic, seems to include the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. For what reason should the law force Twitter to host third-party speech its owners don’t want to host?
Censorship can be carried out by people who aren’t government employees, sure. But that typically involves either the use of government resources (e.g., lawsuits) or threats/acts of violence (e.g., “print this and I’ll kill you”). Someone saying “we don’t do that here” and kicking you out if you do “that” again isn’t censorship — it’s someone telling you that you fucked up and you’re not welcome in that space any more.
You don’t have a right to use the property of others as your personal soapbox. Nobody does. And so long as the owner of that property isn’t trying to shut you up everywhere else, their kicking you out or telling you to shut the fuck up isn’t censorship. You can still believe it is, if you want. But before you say you still believe in that definition, ask yourself this: What actions would that belief justify?
If the answer involves actions that would violate the civil rights of another — like, say, trying to compel the hosting of speech — you have bigger problems than my shittalking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except he's not the one doing that. You saw the definitions he quoted, right? The idea that censorship can be performed by someone other than government is a mainstream one, no matter how much you may disagree with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I’m not here to disagree with that. But for someone not in government to censor another person, they must employ either government resources (e.g., the courts) or use threats/acts of violence. Telling someone to fuck off doesn’t censor that person, no matter how much that person (or anyone else) might believe otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By some definitions, perhaps, but not all. "to suppress or delete as objectionable." Twitter finds a tweet objectionable and deletes it. By that definition, that is censorship. No government, no threats, and no violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it isn’t — because the person whose tweet Twitter deleted can still repost the tweet verbatim outside of Twitter.
Even if I were to grant that Twitter deleting a tweet is censorship (and I don’t), it would only be censorship on Twitter. That’s the problem with such a permissive definition of “censorship”: It can apply to situations that feel like censorship but aren’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What part of the definition does it fail to meet?
"to suppress or delete as objectionable."
So for that action to not qualify, it must:
OR
Which are you claiming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m claiming Twitter moderation isn’t censorship and the interpretation of that definition is far too permissive in what qualifies as censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What do you mean, interpretation of that definition? Do you interpret it in some way that makes Twitter deleting a tweet not fit the definition? If so, how? It's only six words, after all, there doesn't seem all that much room for interpretation unless you have an unusual definition for "suppress", "delete", or "objectionable".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I interpret “censorship” in a way that led me to craft this copypasta:
It serves a simplified-yet-accurate portrayal of my beliefs about what equals censorship. To see the more drawn-out version, please read the two articles Techdirt let me write on the matter — which you can read by clicking on my profile.
Oh, and in re: the word “suppress” — that generally implies someone has prevented the speech in question from being either published or republished anywhere. Twitter deleting tweets does neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, I know what YOUR definition of censorship is. My question is why you continue to deny the existence or validity of other definitions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definitions aren’t the real issue. Interpretations of them are.
When a definition of “censorship” includes the word “suppress” (or “suppression”), ask yourself: What speech does Twitter suppress — i.e., “prevent the dissemination of” — when a moderator deletes a tweet that violates the TOS?
If you say “none”, your interpretation of “suppress” covers only censorship. Good show.
An alt-right chud who has a tweet defending Old 45’s Big Lie deleted by a moderator can still post the same speech elsewhere. Twitter can only censor/suppress speech if it can control whether that chud can repost their tweet elsewhere. Twitter can’t do that; you know that for a fact. To say otherwise — to treat censorship and moderation as one and the same — is to advance a dishonest argument. I cannot, and will not, do that.
Yelling “censorship” about anything that only feels like censorship ends up cheapening the word. (When everything is censorship, nothing is.) To avoid that issue, I define/interpret “censorship” to cover actual attempts to suppress speech and leave out acts that amount to being told “we don’t do that here”. I can’t refer to something that only “feels like” censorship as “censorship” — I have to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the act. If someone can still speak their mind after being told to fuck off from private property that they don’t own, that isn’t censorship. I would change my mind on that if someone could offer an argument capable of making me change my mind. To date, no one has done so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Suppress OR DELETE. My example was of Twitter removing - one might even say deleting - a tweet.
At the risk of a broken record impression, that is true by your definition, and not true by others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deletion is moderation in my Twitter/alt-right chud example. One company deleting speech from its platform doesn’t delete it everywhere.
Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter. But by that logic, the only way to stop censorship — i.e., moderation — by Twitter is to compel the hosting of speech. Not only does that conclusion violate the First Amendment, it violates my own morals and ethics. I have no right to force anyone into hosting my speech; neither does anyone else. I cannot, and will never, agree with or support any argument that says otherwise.
Moderation isn’t censorship. You want me to believe otherwise? You’ll have to come up with a better argument than “nuh-uh to your uh-huh”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So now you've gone from cherry picking to straw man. If you want to have a conversation based on what I've actually written let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I’ve misrepresented your logic, by all means — point out the mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See if you can find where I argued that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, lemme break this down for you:
You and Lodos seem to agree that the definition of “censorship” should be expansive enough to include moderation. I’m pretty sure you don’t see censorship as a good thing. If you view moderation as “censorship” (regardless of who does it) and you believe censorship is a bad thing (which I would hope you do!), the only logical conclusion to draw from those two ideas is that you believe “censorship” on Twitter is bad. Anyone who thinks censorship is bad generally wants to prevent/stop censorship — ergo, if you believe “censorship” on Twitter is bad, you likely want to prevent/stop Twitter from “censoring” people.
If my logic is flawed, so be it. But I’m working with what you and Lodos gave me; if my argument on this point is flawed, your logic being anything close to flawless is…unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Your argument expects me to side with the belief of “moderation is censorship”, and since censorship is bad, we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter.”
Ah, you’re making one key mistake in this.
Censorship bad. Twitter censoring bad. Twitter censoring is legal.
Twitter censoring legal. Oh well.
All I can do is point out the many bad things that can happen with censorship. My point is to point out the situation Vila, and have people think for themselves. Not for their politics.
Not that it is likely but what if Twitter was purchased by a Republican company and started selectively “moderating” anything Biden posts the Republican Party disagrees with?
Being legal doesn’t make it good.
Tumblr is a prime example. There’s enough people posting face palms over takedowns of bathing suits, bras without the people in them, etc.
When suggestion becomes a base you reached a point of stupidity!
Twitter isn’t there; yet! But they already selectively enforce their rules. That’s a major concern for those worried about censorship.
From censoring based on “community moderation” to censoring to corral and dictate. A thin line that is dangerous to cross.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You keep calling moderation censorship, where in reality is is a means of building a community. Remove it a and you get USENET, where groups keep moving to new subgroups to lose the trolls for a bit, or 8Kun, domination by trolls who then want to go to moderated sites to find people to troll.
Beside which, if you keep on referring to moderation as censorship, you make it easy for politicians to destroy the net by making moderation decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
UseNet (and today USENET) doesn’t exist today as it did at it’s height.
What is left of it is either public education servers (as it started out), or private commercial file sharing sites.
The generic onramps with cross location searching, form pulling, and multi-source compiled listings are dead.
However outside of the educational servers (and including a few of them) UseNet was rather uncensored, yet still worked quite well. Software allowed for true flagging from the 80s and users were able to show or hide posts based on those flags.
Moderation was conducted without censorship via many ramps. And many communities moderated internally not by censoring (deletion) but by moving out of context, disruptive, or out right “bad” comments to the proper place or the sandbox. In many cases using a shadow link and including a reason for the move.
There is the line I draw between censorship (based on the prevailing academic definitions) and moderation without censorship.
Hiding, moving, flagging, walking, are all forms of moderation that do not censor the item of issue. There’s also deletion. Deletion falls under censorship by the prevailing academic definition.
The commercial USENET services? I’ve only ever used one once. In the mid 2000s. I can’t make any comment on how they work since nothing actually worked in the service I tried. I obviously wasn’t the only one with issues even getting in since the service is dead now.
The problem with (some? All?) the “Chan” sites is they do no gardening at all.
Illegal materials should be removed as per law. Problematic posts can be moved, or flagged and hidden from immediate view. All of which is non-censoring-moderation.
I will note that an argument could be made that even moving is censorship. could!
Even I’m not that all or nothing. So we’ll ignore moving the cacti from column A to column B for the point of legitimate discussion.
I’m not suggesting twitter should leave everything up and alone and ignored. At no point did I EVER make that statement.
There are many ways to ‘properly’ moderate that do not involve the destruction of the data. Twitter chooses the most destructive method, which happens to be included in the definition of censorship.
Bi vary yuz defare.
Be wary of danger.
Be it “this content has been flagged by the community as:” or “by the moderator as:”
Potentially: defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, disruptive, off topic, adult, pornography, spam, advertising, disturbing, unsettling, etc etc
Or simply “this content was removed for violating (locality) law” the poster may file a counter notice if they believe this to be in error.”
I again state that moderation is not an easy task. Unless you’re moderating a blind group-think site or a utopia. Or one that chose censorship. zap zap zap. Poof gone. Sure makes it easy. But not right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And many others moderated by deleting bullshit they didn’t want to host, not even in a sandbox. That wasn’t censorship. It was moderation — the intentional curation of a community via proper consequences for violating the rules of that community. The people whose posts were deleted could repost their speech somewhere else; no suppression of speech ever occured in such situations.
And the interpretation of that definition should be narrowed to exclude deletion-as-moderation because moderation isn’t censorship. Unless Twitter is actively trying to keep a banned (ex-)user from posting somewhere else, Twitter isn’t trying to censor anyone when it bans people for violating the TOS. Unless Twitter has actively prevented someone from posting somewhere else, it has never censored anyone by preventing them from posting on Twitter. Moderation isn’t censorship.
Your arguments present two ideas: censorship is bad, and moderation is censorship. For what reason would you want to stop censorship in all its forms except one?
Also, let me draw your attention to a comment you avoided addressing directly:
I have One Simple Question for you now. Yes or no, Lodos: Do you believe the government should have an absolute and irrefutable legal right to prevent any privately owned interactive web service from deleting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
UseNet/USENET
Funny, wasn’t UseNet being used to show a lack of moderation above?
I was pointing out that consolidation access programs had a tendency to allow moderation that didn’t result in deletion. (Some ISPs fought hard to block things but with net to UseNet software, ip-2-ip programs, and direct dial software: it rarely blocked access completely.
“ Your arguments present two ideas: censorship is bad, and moderation is censorship”
Not quite. I argue that censorship is bad, and that deletion is censorship. Deletion being one form of moderation used by social media sites (and others).
That’s a small, but vitally important difference
I only consider moderation censorious when it’s deletionary.
“ do you believe…”
I’ll separate this from the current post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legality is irrelevant. Logically, if you believe censorship is bad, and you believe censorship must be stopped, you must therefore believe even “legal ‘censorship’ ” (i.e., moderation) must be stopped. I can safely assume the first two propositions are correct. For what reason is the third incorrect? (“Property rights” is not an answer.)
People would likely stop using Twitter — or at least use it less — as they search for a less nakedly partisan alternative. (And hey, all the Parler and Gab assholes could finally have Twitter back.) I already left Twitter and have an account on a Mastodon instance, so it wouldn’t really bother me…except for having to keep track of which artists I follow would be leaving and where they’d be going.
Show me a moderation team that doesn’t.
And if Twitter, Tumblr, etc. were able to “corral and dictate” on their own, you might have a point. But they can’t, so you don’t.
Now, if you want to talk about how payment processors and credit card companies use their immense power to help put the kibosh on adult content? That is either censorship or aiding censorship; it’s a damned important topic, too. But Tumblr choosing not to host porn, regardless of the reasons why? That shit ain’t censorship. Neither is Twitter deleting posts that support Old 45’s Big Lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. I am not promoting any particular definition of censorship. I am just trying to get you to understand that there are other definitions than the one you use, and content moderation fits some of those definitions. I did not expect that to be such a difficult task, but here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t support any definition (or interpretation thereof) of “censorship” that classifies moderation as censorship.
I do, however, apologize for putting words in your mouth that didn’t first come from it. I don’t like it when people do it to me, and I should be more careful about doing it to others. My bad; will do my best to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know you don't, but you do see that there are dictionaries that have such definitions in them, right?
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things.
Don’t use that “right?” rhetorical gimmick on me; I’m well aware of it and I don’t like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know this response isn’t directed at me but I have to say: I’m so totally confused 😐
There really is a systemic “right?” movement? If that’s actually the case (non-political sources please) a may well and truly cut off all my limited modern web use.
I want no part of any platform that turned legitimate questions into flame bait.
I kind of like it in my disconnected web 0.995 hole. Appears safe to me!
At least people say what they mean and mean what they say: the majority of the time.
Makes me even MORE nostalgic for the good old days when people said FU instead of I thumb my nose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Asking for confirmation of agreement is not a rhetorical gimmick. You need to up your level of textual analysis beyond keyword matching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as I’m concerned, it is. The trick to that gimmick lies in asking me to agree with a conclusion that I don’t share so you can have the upper hand in an argument. (Your aimed-below-the-belt snipe about “keyword matching” isn’t helping your case in that regard.)
I know how bullshit that trick is. That’s why I don’t use that gimmick outside of the rare case of passive-aggressive sarcastic bullshitting. I mean, that is the best use for that kind of rhetorical trickery, right~?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I was inviting you to state whether you agree or not. Nothing more. The argument is over as far as I'm concerned.
Your response indicates that it was correct. You can choose to look at the context of the conversation and determine what was meant by it, or just see "right?" and assume bad faith. You chose the latter, and are continuing to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or — and stick with me, because I know this might shock you~ — I can do both. I don’t appreciate that rhetorical gimmick, but I can route around it if the argument before it is sound. Yours wasn’t, which is why I called out your use of the gimmick: You wanted me to agree with you on a point of argument I couldn’t agree with, and using “right?” would make me seem unreasonable no matter how minor my disagreement. (“He can’t even agree to this? He must be out of his mind!”)
You wanna suckerpunch Koby or Brainy with that shit? Go right the hell ahead. But come to me with that shit and I will always be “unreasonable”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See, you're still doing it. All you had to say to my question was "no, I don't agree with that." But you didn't even try doing that, you just skipped straight to "rhetorical gimmick." And despite me trying to assure you repeatedly (I've lost count of how many times) that it was a genuine question, you're still insisting that it wasn't, and that I was laying some kind of trap for you.
Only if your disagreement was unreasonable. Next time consider assuming good faith instead of bad. Just a suggestion. I'm out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I rarely see anyone using that rhetorical trick in good faith. Experience has taught me to consider it a bad faith move regardless of who does it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You've picked weird, dumb hills to die on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ we must therefore stop censorship by Twitter. But by that logic, the only way to stop censorship — i.e., moderation — by Twitter is to compel the hosting of speech”
Ah, I see the confusion directed at us. I can’t speak for nasch:
I’ve changed my opinion, based on property rights.
I currently understand and believe that a private location can censor as it wants. And again I agree removing 230 doesn’t change the private property aspect.
Again my issue is my distaste for censorship. Being legal doesn’t make it any more palatable. It simply makes it legal.
I question using RationalWiki as a “reliable” source just as I would question using conservapedia as one. Both were set up with an intended slant to the text. Unlike Wikipedia, which claims and at least attempts some course towards neutrality, both these two site were ideologically intended to present the perception of a viewpoint.
I’ll concede a win for you though. A large organisation has a narrower definition in place.
But it is just that. Reducing the definition. Narrowing it.
My concern is what happens when people accept removing, hiding, moderating, etc… as an acceptable daily occurrence. A worthy one.
On how an intention can turn into a problem, one need only view the fall of Tumbler. First “extreme porn”. Then porn. Then erotica. Then nudity. Then suggestion. Then…
It’s a single case on a single topic but a well documented one.
Drawing the line between “moderation” and censorship is very difficult when the moderation is deletion.
For two reasons. First because the evidence has been removed.
And second because the removal is based on what a single entity states. This isn’t a concern for me on what is legal. But what is done.
Censorship is a cliff with an outledge to stand on. One that is constantly being eroded away. At the bottom of the cliff are millions of good intentions swords for the masses to die on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Those who want to view and post such material went to sites that are friendly to that community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not only acceptable, it's absolutely necessary if the space is to be a civilized one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you stand against censorship? If so, what makes “legal” censorship any more acceptable than illegal censorship — and for what reason will you not stand against both?
That is the logical issue I take with broader interpretations of censorship such as the one you hold: Ethically and morally, one cannot say they stand against censorship and still support the idea that some forms of “censorship” (e.g., moderation, editorial discretion) are acceptable.
As we should. Again: When everything is censorship, nothing is. Expanding the definition cheapens the word and eventually downplays the situations it accurately describes. To consider both a belligerent asshole getting booted from a local bar and a thin-skinned Congressman trying to silence an anonymous critic as censorship cheapens the censorial situation (the Congressman’s attempt at suppression) by conflating it with a less serious non-censorial situation (the asshole getting Jazzy Jeff’d out of a bar).
Do you want other websites to resemble 4chan (/b/ in particular) or 8kun? Do you want Twitter to become a cesspool of spam, racism, queerphobia, and other forms of bigotry where only the worst content lives because everyone else didn’t want to deal with the “Worst People” Problem? Because that’s what happens when moderation — i.e., curating a community — doesn’t happen on a daily basis.
Moderation doesn’t censor. It gives a community a chance to thrive without its worst elements and outside agitators shitting up the place. But under your logic, moderation is censorship — and under the idea that censorship is bad, moderation is also bad, so preventing those “worst people” from speaking their mind on a platform is bad. Yes or no: Is that the position you really want to take?
No, it isn’t. Moderation is about the intentional curation of a community. Censorship is about stopping someone from speaking their mind. Moderation doesn’t — can’t — censor.
But deletion can become censorship when the deletion is done to hide a message (often political) and someone attempts to prevent the republishing of that message. That is bullshit, and I stand against it. But I don’t consider that moderation.
As for the Tumblr example: I consider that a rather heavy-handed form of editorial discretion. Tumblr is legally allowed to choose what speech it will and won’t host, after all.
You know what else has “good intentions” behind it? Defining moderation as “censorship” and standing against both. At the bottom of that cliff is compelled speech and the erosion of free association rights. How willing are you to say the government should compel Tumblr to host porn because Tumblr choosing not to host porn is “censorship”? Because up to now, it seems like you’d be going in that logical direction if not for your sudden turnaround concerning property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"My concern is what happens when people accept removing, hiding, moderating, etc… as an acceptable daily occurrence"
It's been a daily occurrence since Gutenberg. The only difference today is that the moderation happens after publication instead of before, since there's no need to have an editor approve things before publication. So, you either need to argue that platforms are forced to approve things before publication, or that they be prevented from moderating afterwards. Neither of which is a positive compared to the current situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again I, personally, am using the definition as posted above. Multiple, very similar, agreeing, definitions. From multiple sources including ones any logical person would call reliable.
Being censored by Twitter doesn’t mean being censored everywhere. Twitter censoring a person on twitter is twitter censoring a person on twitter.
If a Republican asks for an interview on CNN and are refused they have been censored by cnn.
If a Democrat asks for an interview on Fox and is refused they have been censored by fox.
Equally if fox posts an op/Ed and then removes it that op Ed is censored by fox. Take it elsewhere.
Going back to films; a film cut to make an R rating has been censored. A film cut in the UK for an 18 rating has been censored. That film in whole can still be found uncensored elsewhere.
Wikipedia sums this up quite nicely
“Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies” the board of twitter sets its TOS, making the the controlling body.
Censorship doesn’t have to cross boundaries. Be it private property boundaries or political (meaning borders).
It doesn’t have to be gone everywhere to be gone anywhere, somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it isn’t. Twitter moderating speech isn’t censorship because censorship implies a violation of civil rights — either an inability to express a message or an inability to repeat an already-expressed message after it has been suppressed. Twitter banning some douchecanoe who whines about the existence of trans people hasn’t censored said douchecanoe — after all, someone getting banned from property they don’t own over speech the owners don’t want said on their property doesn’t violate anyone’s civil rights. The douchecanoe can sail on over to Parler and say the same damn thing.
No, they haven’t. They’ve been refused a spot on those networks. They don’t have an absolute right to a spot on those networks any more than they have a right to a spot on Twitter. And they can still get their message out by going to the press or posting on social media or whatever else is at their disposal.
I’d consider that editorial discretion instead of censorship. Then again…
…if Fox prevented that from happening, the act would be censorship.
If the film was published as an R-rated film, it wasn’t censored — it was editorial discretion from the studio/director. It might feel like censorship, but I wouldn’t consider that so.
If it can’t, it wasn’t censored.
And before you think to bring up “TV cuts”: That, too, is editorial discretion — albeit on behalf of Standards and Practices departments.
But it does, generally, have to infringe upon civil rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Someone who uses multiple outlets to claim they were “silenced” by one platform hasn’t been denied their right to speak freely. They can’t credibly claim to be censored.
A person isn’t censored if, out of 100 places their words are published, one of those places removes that speech. That person can still find a different place to post that speech or build their own platform to post that speech.
You continue to interpret “censorship” in a way that turns virtually anything you feel is censorship into censorship. I mean, you’ve literally said that a bar owner tossing a Nazi out of said bar is “censorship”. Can you imagine how that bar owner would feel if you called them a “censor” — a suppressor of speech? Can you even think about how ridiculous you would sound in defending, however inadvertently, a Nazi’s non-existent right to sieg heil in a bar that doesn’t want to associate with Nazis?
Ask yourself whether holding on to this belief you have — this interpretation of “censorship” — will do you more good than harm. If you answer “yes it will”, you have problems that I can’t solve for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If the film was published as an R-rated film, it wasn’t censored — it was editorial discretion from the studio/director. It might feel like censorship, but I wouldn’t consider that so."
Also, in the US, there's nothing to stop the film being shown unrated at festival or other screenings, being released digitally or physically uncut, etc. It just means that the version the mainstream multiplex chains will accept is cut for their needs. That's a business decision, not censorship, and you have to be truly ignorant not to understand the massive role that the business had in assembling the final cut of a movie.
Meanwhile, as someone who has experienced actual censorship, I can only laugh at his weak will. If your idea of censorship is that you have to wait for the uncut Blu Ray of a movie because AMC wanted a version they could play to a room of teenagers, you have no idea what it entails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: definitions or dictionaries are wrong
“Censorship “
Now it’s on you to prove your belief.
Point to a single reliable source that defines censorship with … “implies a violation of civil rights!”
The facts not in evidence tag fits nicely here. For sure.
It is well and truly now shown it is you, that have the narrower view of censorship. One so small as to be country specific.
The bill of rights only applies in America. English isn’t even a North American sourced language!
The foundational source for the word “censor” as a verb is from Gothen. Itself a derogatory term for the act of Roman Censors separating people by class as to rights.
Though the Latin term for the position of a censor is borrowed from early pre-Sicilian culture. Sensa literally means decide. The Greeks began using it four “count following the second sack of Osl. Or Athens.
By the early mid Millennium it had become a form of sort in most post-Hebrew-Aramaic languages. The Middle Ages clearly defined all verb variants as removing unholy materials from all locals. Public or private.
To box such an ancient and archaic concept into the view of the United States over the last 250 years is quite a limited world view.
This site doesn’t support the extended Unicode coding for me to take it back pre-Latin. I tried previewing but it just show squares.
If you want to ignore the history of a word, of origin over 2400 years ago, fine. I can’t change it that you accept CNNs 2020 definition.
You’re in a bubble as to what words mean.
“Bingo. So, removing section 230 won't do anything to stop it. ”
Congratulations. You can copy paste what I said. Repeal won’t solve that.
“I do find it interesting how this conversation has changed from this guy across threads, though.”
That’s because an intelligent person chose to point directly to a few things I was not considering.
Without forcing partisan language reform into the discussion.
Or did you miss the whole 1st grade level retraction?
My change of opinion was acceptance of the property based rights in law, to accept the constitutionality of allowing selective censorship by private companies.
No amount of partisan clamouring is going to modify a long internationally accepted definition outside of of the tiny group that accepts such a narrow view. One printed in both online and physical dictionaries the world over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Per RationalWiki: “Censorship usually refers to a state's engaging in activities designed to suppress certain information or ideas. … More generally, the term is also used any time people in positions of power try to prevent facts or ideas embarrassing to them from coming to light. This can be done by editorial boards of periodicals and journals, by restricting what their writers can actually research or write about, or by restricting and censoring what they do write, preventing it from being published. … This type of censorship is not (and probably should not be) illegal; to force a journal or web site to promote ideas the owners and editors find anathema would be a violation of free speech. Actual censorship, however, is usually done much more maliciously, and threats (financial, legal, or physical) can be made to prevent something going to publication.”
I’m loathe to agree fully with all of that — it’s a fine, fine line between editorial discretion and censorship — but you asked and I obliged, so there you go.
No, it isn’t. What I believe is censorship applies to situations around the world; my “expertise” and focus on the matter lies within the U.S. because I live there. To wit: A government shutdown of access to the Internet in a non-U.S. country is as much censorship as it would be if the U.S. government (tried to) shut down Internet access.
Even if I am, at least I’m not referring to acts that aren’t censoring anyone as “censorship” — like, for example, a bar owner kicking out an unruly patron.
You’re missing the forest for the trees, then. Property rights are tangential to, but don’t override the importance of, the right of free association. You’ve accepted an argument based on one but seemingly refused to acknowledge the other.
A church can choose to associate (or not) with a preacher who professes God’s love — or hatred — for queer people. A bar can choose to associate (or not) with people who denounce — or promote — fascism. And if you and I are standing in an open field not owned by anyone, I can decide to walk away from you if I don’t like what you say — or stick around and listen if I do. In all three examples, property rights are irrelevant; what matters is the right to choose the association one wants with those people and their speech. The First Amendment guarantees that right to all Americans. To deny that right is to force association — to make others listen, to force others into hosting/publishing speech, to override property rights.
Any argument in favor of repealing 230 must first overcome one specific hurdle: “Will this fuck up the freedoms of speech and association?” Property rights are tangential to the argument, but they aren’t the whole argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By republicans' false definition, not publishing a book is "censorship."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...which they'll respond to by buying every book by the author in protest, except for the ones going out of publication, thus proving the point that it was a financial decision..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: New platform
The argument would have better chances if people called it what it is!
We’ve been through the this on other 230 posts here
*Censor
VERB
examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
"my mail was being censored”*
~Bing definitions
With that in mind, and further understanding of other conflicts in rights, it can be seen that it is not the act of censorship that is the problem but where one does so.
By taking it out of the internet context it quickly becomes clear that forced speech isn’t acceptable. One would not expect to find The Satanic Bible or Setian Edda at the christian book store.
When that structure is moved back to the internet such censorship becomes clearly constitutional regardless of what anyone may think of the content being censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New platform
"One would not expect to find The Satanic Bible or Setian Edda at the christian book store."
One would not expect Nazis and plague spreaders on Facebook, yet here you are demanding they be forced to host them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New platform
Is that what Jan 6th was supposed to be, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New platform
"The 230 assault took off, more than ever, and gained public notice, when “social” media companies blocked communication of a sitting President"
Except, they really didn't. He was kicked off a couple of weeks early from a handful of services after people died at the insurrection he inspired, but it was only just before he stopped being a sitting president anyway. He still had dozens of ways to communicate if he so wished, it's just that even he realised it was time to stop lying about his loss.
You people spent a lot of time whining about his lies being fact checked, though.
"An unfathomable thought prior to it happening."
No, the unfathomable thing would be that a president would refuse to use the government apparatus supplied to him to communicate with the public, then not only misused the private property he co-opted but did so in order to amplify hatred and misinformation that led to many unnecessary deaths of his own citizens.
The owner of the private property he was using having a say in what he could do while being a guest there is the least concerning thing in that scenario.
"Want to fact check a statement? Go to government.gov. Read the statement."
So... your idea of fact checking corrupt government officials is to read their official explanation as to why they're not lying? You think this is better than having a functional fourth estate?
"Sounds good to me!"
Actually, your track record here is pretty good. If you like it, it's a sign that either you're misrepresenting the facts, or that it's something really bad for people on speaking terms with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New platform
That is available for those who want it via personal blogs, party web sites, and government agency websites etc. Also, most politicians manage not to break the terms of service of the social media platforms and continue to use them. Why should any private platform be forced to support outright fascist, racist, anti lgbtq speech, especially when many of those speakers launch direct attacks on their targets on social media platforms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New platform
Where in the comment you are replying to did I say:
“…private platform be forced to support…”
Anything?
A government platform would not be private!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forgive me if my faith in humanity is more than a little broken. As of late, humanity hasn’t exactly done a lot to earn that faith. I mean, the people who voted for Trump in 2020 didn’t think his first (and hopefully last) term was a dealbreaker.
Yes, they did — on the services those companies own and operate. They can’t moderate speech outside of those services. And by the same token, they aren’t (and shouldn’t be) obligated to carry anyone’s speech. A president and a trash collector have the exact same right to “free reach”: None.
That’s why we have the National Archives. That’s why we have C-SPAN. That’s why we have any number of ways for government officials to contact the media — “mainstream” or not — and speak their minds.
If the government wants to give politicians a way to host blogs on government property, great. But it’s not required for a politician’s voice to be heard…and it’s not going to be cheap to set up, say, over 500 individual websites for the entirety of Congress. Or to upkeep them such that they’re “reset” when someone leaves a seat and loses access to that site. Or to keep the security for those sites up-to-date so they can’t be hacked.
You seem to want it done badly enough, though. So maybe heed the words of Thanos: “Fine…I’ll do it myself.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Forgive me if my faith in humanity is more than a little broken"
It's funny, isn't it? Four years of incompetent leadership that left hundreds of thousands dead, yet despite that a shambling horde of 72 million people voting for more, then turning against democracy itself when Trump fed them a lie about the election result.
Yet, the thing that causes him doubt in humanity is people saying that Trump shouldn't be given a free platform to do more of the same.
"That’s why we have C-SPAN. That’s why we have any number of ways for government officials to contact the media"
Including, these people should be reminded, an official government Twitter account created expressly for the purpose of the president to communicate and which had been used by his predecessor without issue.
The problem wasn't the availability of access, it was the mindset of the idiot they voted for, and creating more platforms won't help if they vote for another incompetent con artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New platform
It wasn't, though. People had been discussing it for months.
Politicians are already free to post whatever they want on their web sites. They each have their own page on house.gov or senate.gov, and they're free to set up campaign web sites as well. So the problem you're trying to address has already been solved.
That's because that isn't what anyone is fighting against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On archiving: according to MSN: “ A spokesperson for the Archives confirmed to the Post that it and the tech giant are “still exploring the best way” to preserve Trump’s tweets.”
Granted it was equally unheard unprecedented for a US President to use a private media account for official business
Again, a government platform would solve this.
That the government is relying on personal or party blogs is still problematic. And private.
The government should self host.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How does that stop a government official or the president from using their private accounts for government business. In the case of the president that would require action by congress, something his own party were refusing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"On archiving: according to MSN: “ A spokesperson for the Archives confirmed to the Post that it and the tech giant are “still exploring the best way” to preserve Trump’s tweets.”"
Yes, because Trump insisted on using a private account for which no direct archiving procedure had been implemented, it takes time to agree on the correct procedure. If Trump had used the existing @POTUS account on Twitter or the numerous other communication methods available to him instead of co-opting his pre-existing private account, this would not be an issue.
That quote does not mean it won't happen, just that it's yet another mess that needs to be cleared up due to people not following established procedures.
"That the government is relying on personal or party blogs is still problematic. And private"
Yes, they shouldn't be doing that. Making up another random platform which the public might not bother using anyway would not help, if all that happens is another incompetent egotist decides the rules are too good for him to follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“Granted it was equally unheard unprecedented for a US President to use a private media account for official business
Again, a government platform would solve this.”
Point accepted.
I don’t believe the President should be using it he POTUS handle either.
Twitter should not be the sole or first source of any member of government.
It’s now clear to me now, the problem is not private companies censoring: it’s the government using private services for government communication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Twitter should not be the sole or first source of any member of government."
It should not. Creating another alternative won't make a blind bit of difference if you vote in another incompetent con artist who chooses to do that again, though.
"it’s the government using private services for government communication."
Bingo. So, removing section 230 won't do anything to stop it. Removing the property rights of private platforms won't stop it. Creating more platforms under the government won't stop it. The issue is the people you vote for.
Here's hoping everyone realises that and you continue to vote for competent professionals instead of incompetent grifters. Let see how this goes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“ If you believe those acts aren’t censorship, by all means: Explain the difference between those acts and Twitter moderating the speech of a third party who has no right to use Twitter.
If you believe those acts are censorship, by all means: Tell me exactly which civil rights were violated by the property owners.”
all three cases are acts of censorship.
And perfectly legal based on rights of private property.
You appear to believe I’m still calling twitter’s actions a violation of constitutionally protected free speech. I am not.
Your definition must also lead to the idea that (what you think of as) “censorship” must be stopped at all costs.
Ideally, but it’s not constitutionally possible to force that. It violates property rights.
“For what reason should the law force Twitter to host third-party speech its owners don’t want to host?”
It should not; which is why I said my view on 230 was in error, multiple times, above.
A less me-right-you-wrong post reply on another 230 article on this site pointing out the property issues without attacking the terminology, with a bit of pressing, convinced me to reconsider that stance.
I see I have to spell it out much more plainly since you appear to think I still believe twitter is doing something in violation of the constitution or law.
I was inaccurate in my assessment of the situation based on a combination of politically charged reporting by competing sides, and my ignorance to the reality of twitter’s private stance in the context of its existence.
I renounce my prior opinion that twitter’s actions were in violation of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and recognise that a private company has the right to censor and that twitter is such a private company.
I may not like it. But it’s constitutional. And thereby legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By referring to moderation as “censorship”, that is exactly what you’re doing. Moderation doesn’t violate civil rights. Censorship does.
No, it violates the freedom of association. (Property rights are a tangential concern, though.)
No, it doesn’t. No private entity has a clear-cut inalienable right to prevent anyone — including the gotdamned president of the United States — from expressing themselves. That would be a violation of the First Amendment and censorship.
A private entity has a right, however, to choose which persons and speech it will associate with. And on property owned by that entity, that right remains theirs no matter how much other people might wish otherwise. That choice is not censorship.
Twitter can moderate speech on Twitter. That moderation doesn’t prevent anyone from speaking their minds on platforms outside of Twitter — or in meatspace. It also doesn’t violate any civil rights. While you may feel that such decisions are censorship, they aren’t. Feel free to explain how Twitter can censor someone who can provide an example of the “I have been silenced” fallacy…if you think you still can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“ Someone saying “we don’t do that here””
Good read. And:
Makes me realise I’m probably coming across more argumentative than I actually intend to.
Recognising that twitter is actually not an open public platform, I was looking for ways to keep this from ever being an issue going forward.
For starters something needs to be put in place so members of the government are not using private platforms for government business. Including official comments to the public.
Figuring out what was Trump the President from Trump the person was difficult enough for those of us who weren’t blindly following, rather agreeing more with than against.
That is Trumps fault, to be clear. But it shouldn’t happen again.
We also have members of both the Senate and House, both Parties, using personal “social media” for both ‘the person’ and ‘the office’ reasons. Elected or appointed, twitter shouldn’t be the first place official messages are posted.
Right now the federal government has departments spread across hundreds of .gov sites. Many with little to no traffic. The majority the population doesn’t know exists without scrolling to the second or third page of a net search.
Those who have the need, or even want, for direct access to the public should have a single official site to do so at.
Be it the President, a Senator, or the head of the Department of Overpriced Toilet Plungers. A platform where the citizens can go, type in a Name, Office, position, and pull up a listing of official postings.
A place where what is posted is permanent and free from censorship (including moderation) for anything posted of official intent. Where it can be recorded permanently and directly via the LoC/NA.
Where what you see is what you get, free from editing or commentary. A simple source for the public. Rather than taking down comments it serves as a permanent source of evidence. What is posted is posted.
Being permanent it would be impossible to state something did or did not get posted as the evidence is right there. Date and time stamped.
Expanding that to broadcast and radio would all for the permanent record of government, recorded/posted/streamed to the site in real-time time, of what each and every member of branch says.
A single easy to access site of everything on the internet.
Combined with national radio and television broadcasting on government stations.
CSPAN, which I mentioned first, is hampered by not being on broadcast, and by being privately operated.
Along with this platform we would then have full, and recorded, coverage of each department. The Senate, the House, and the SCOTUS. As CSPAN tries to do.
Every commission, every committee. The full recorded of every act.
The definition of national security needs to be redefined and narrowed. And Congress must be barred from “closed sessions” other than for national security.
Elected officials are completely, uncompromisingly, beholden or o the populace that elects them. Their activities are and must be, public.
Doable? Yes. Feasible? Absolutely. Will it happen? Not any time soon.
The older generations in government see it as a cash machine for personal gains. The result of that has attracted activists to both parties who are far outside the mainstream.
The dive cable “news” stations are all deeply entrenched to a political party line. All stuffed with people who’s only goal is maintaining their position or advancing. By any means necessary.
Republicans don’t trust CNN/MSNBC. Democrats don’t trust Fox/OAN.
It’s growing hard to find anything on any cable “news” station that doesn’t have some slant. Furthered by the fact those who watch don’t see any slant, or approve of it.
It’s a one for the government to talk directly to the people on a government service. Free from any manipulation. Be that private tos or commentary.
Again: a place where it is or is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is what .gov websites are for.
So what? They exist. That they’re not heavily trafficked is more a PR problem than a “I wish this thing existed” problem.
And how do existing .gov websites prevent this from happening? Keep in mind that “because social media” is not a valid answer.
Moderation isn’t censorship. Otherwise: Good idea. So what’s stopping .gov websites from doing this right now?
Had you used “manipulation” instead of “censorship”, you wouldn’t have to keep defending an overly broad, overly permissive, and largely bullshit interpretation of the meaning of “censorship” that turns things that aren’t censorship into censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“And how do existing .gov websites prevent this from happening“
It’s not a single place.
And! many choose to use social media in an official capacity. That needs to end.
That I chose to us a consistent dictionary standard definition of censorship doesn’t change what I state. I made it clear multiple times I’m not using the definition in a broad stroke to cover anything the the immediate act at the single time and place of occurrence.
See the above film ratings and editing comparison, as well as the Wikipedia opening on the subject. Also conveniently posted above for reference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copy edit self reply
“anything the the”
-> anything beyond the
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irrelevant.
Because you said so? Nah, fam, shit don’t work that way.
Politicians use social media because it’s where to find the biggest audience. But no one is entitled to an audience. If a politician ditches Twitter for a .gov blog and nobody shows up to read it, that sucks for the politician…and that sure as shit ain’t censorship.
You’ve literally used your interpretation of “censorship” to cover the act of a bar owner kicking out an unruly patron for espousing Nazi beliefs. Stop bullshitting me; it won’t work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If a politician ditches Twitter for a .gov blog and nobody shows up to read it, that sucks for the politician…and that sure as shit ain’t censorship."
It also doesn't mean they can't do their job. A modern president has access to many more ways of communicating directly with the people than most former presidents could even dream of. Even if they are not allowed to use a couple of the larger social media platforms, they can communicate way more effectively than even Reagan could have done.
The problem isn't social media platforms moderating on their own property. The problem is the belligerent grifter who decided that rules and procedures didn't apply to him.
I do find it interesting how this conversation has changed from this guy across threads, though. We're no longer talking about people like Milo being kicked off social media as a direct consequence of his actions, now we're splitting hairs over whether Trump needed a special government run platform to sooth his fragile ego.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Strange that all these "bipartisan" or "non-partisan" people keep showing up only when it's Trump's fee-fees getting hurt. It's almost like the claims of being impartial were actually all bullshit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, part of the problem is that they actually buy into the propaganda and don<'t realise how wrong they are. Take this guy on the top of the thread, for example - in other threads he's talked about how he gets his news from different sources to remain non-partisan, but when pressed he admitted he gets most of his news from Rupert Murdoch outlets and referred to the NYT as "alt left".
Imagine how misinformed you must be in that bubble, yet he was convinced he was getting every viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Imagine how misinformed”
And yet it doesn’t take much more than a few clicks of a mouse and taps on a keyboard to see my views on censorship long predate your hatred for Trump.
Like the long penned discussion at AVM in 2001, or the editorial in 2009 at A/V-T.
The bickering from less open people when I allowed subs in the AOL VGS section to discuss other technology. Including early net censorship issues. In the early 90s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And? The point being raised here is that your "views" were nowhere to be seen when it wasn't Trump getting his feelings hurt. It's not my job to look up your history of thought-provoking content when your third comment on this site is the usual Republican talking points:
"But but but I'm not always a Trump supporter!" is not a good look for you, my guy, especially if you expect others to track your resume for you off-site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ And? The point being raised here is that your "views" were nowhere to be seen when it wasn't Trump getting his feelings hurt. ”
My opinions and legitimate work: my sweat. My tears. And occasional my blood! My history is easily accessible to anyone interested!
Unlike cowards I have no issue with my history.
I think ‘right to be forgotten’ is the biggest piece of white joke in History.
My various platform posting ms against the brother movement are easy to find. My hatred for the Bush family and the damage the created is also well and easily available.
Congratulations. Not only are you a fool you’re not willing to post who you are. My censorship views! Again! anonymous chickenshite turd, are public.
I don’t hide. I’m easy to find to anyone willing to put the effort in. And I’m afraid of no man, no god, an no institution.
As a secondary note here: I have GREAT respect for those who are willing to discuss, or fight, head to head.
Be it Stephen T. Stone or Mike Masnick or anyone else with the bollocks to state their opinion under their own name. I am LostInLoDOS. The one the only.
Some call me John Clark or Jon Clark. In Asia it’s Darian: ダリアン
Unlike you I don’t hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol bro. I'm not the one anxiously trying to kiss up to Trump, or attempting to use his history as justification for being an asshole. You've been here since, what? 2019? And only now, because your Trump spider senses have been overstimulated, are you putting yourself forward like it's some major sacrifice to be acknowledged. It's not my damn responsibility to do your homework for you, or look up your post history outside of this website, if you can't put up a good argument forward. If your disagreement with Republicans mattered so much to the crux of your argument you wouldn't wait this long to mention it after making your opening move while surgically attached to Donald "Grab 'em by the Pussy" Trump.
Considering that you've spent hundreds of posts desperately braying because Trump got his ass kicked off Twitter for the Jan 6th incident, I'm calling shenanigans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How sad when some people are so defined by a single party they can not recognise that others are not lock step too.
Let me help the blind sheep:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Learn to reply to the actual post being made, wise guy. I've already acknowledged that the "Trump calling the virus a hoax" thing is incorrect. But for someone eagerly chomping at the bit to call everyone else lockstep you sure jump like a whipped puppy every time Trump's feelings get besmirched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“you must therefore believe even “legal ‘censorship’ ” (i.e., moderation) must be stopped.”
See, you use “must” as a hammer to my perception of it as a transcontinental roadway.
Immediate vs long and slow.
The difference here is I support moderation that is not by it’s nature destructive. I see it as a perfectly acceptable to purging from existence in the immediate environment.
Even obscenity is being struck down at state levels (Started in Oregon in the 80s).
We’ll likely never reach no censorship because someone always wants to come along and stomp out something they don’t like.
But I can balance non destructive moderation as acceptable against deletion.
Even if you don’t agree, or understand that thought process, it’s my belief.
Much like I support the intent behind railings and being over 18 for porn. Despite the premise behind it being extremely flawed scientifically.
The method of moderation is to keep such materials available for adults and out of reach of children in book and magazine shops.
Works fairly well in most cases.
IMDB hides adult films behind a toggle switch site wide. Sure, things get caught up in that. Some films that are simply erotic and non-pornographic get hidden. And a commercial release that went through the ratings process can clear the filter despite being pornography.
But by preserving it behind a filter such mistakes can be addressed by the users so that the issue is rectified.
Ideally all sites would use the very method used here on techdirt. Enough flags or down votes or etc and it gets hidden away out of public view. Yet still capable of being retrieved by anyone interested.
The method balances things.
An interesting omission from your thoughts on “People would likely stop using Twitter…”
True, just like many Republicans did.
But many many would undoubtedly take to the public about how wrong it is to “censor”. Or do you truly believe hardened democrats like the “squad”, and their support like Pelosi would simply quietly go to another platform? I don’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the Democrats fuck up you can expect Techdirt to talk about it. Which Techdirt already does, and did so, during the Obama administration. Which Techdirt literally does every time some Democrat dumbass proposes killing Section 230. This level of "But but but" whataboutism is just sad at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either that is carried out by the platform, and acts the same as deletion, or it is carried out by users, most of whom would have no idea or ability to keep up with the changing tactics of the trolls. A third possibility would be to allow a third party to filter a feed, but that in effect requires them to duplicate the data, and have a fire-hose feed from the site they are moderating, making it an impracticable approach.
Besides which, anybody can keep copies of what they post, or recreate a post on a site where it is acceptable. Having a post deleted from a site is not destructive of speech in the grand view of things, just a means of moving the conversation to a different platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Therein lies my entire point: You see “destructive” moderation as censorship. If you dislike censorship and would want to see it stopped (which I hope you would!), you cannot then turn around and say “oh that form of censorship is okay” — it weakens your entire stance on censorship.
Assume a platform owner don’t want to host speech such as Ku Klux Klan propaganda — even if it’s “hidden away” by sandboxing it. Do you want them forced to host that speech so they aren’t “censoring” a white supremacist terrorist organization?
Yes or no: Can you perfectly balance the desire of platform owners to not host offensive/repugnant speech with your desire to keep them from deleting/“censoring” it, such that platform owners aren’t forced to host speech?
Like, say, the same people you claim have been censored by Twitter — the people prevented from speaking by way of having their tweets/accounts deleted by Twitter? Because that sounds like the “I have been silenced” fallacy in action.
No. But I’d also call them ignorant if they equated Twitter moderation with censorship. I don’t care about political ideology on this point; I’m not playing that game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On rights and balance
“Do you believe the government should have an absolute and irrefutable legal right to prevent any privately owned interactive web service from deleting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?”
Big question. I don’t know. An nothing in any of the 230 discussion, this site and others, has made any real impact on me.
From my viewpoint, and to be clear this is MY PERSONAL viewpoint, it’s a balancing act between private property rights and free speech rights.
On one hand I believe deeply in the right of communication and that that is a natural right. One used by every animal on the planet, and a surprising number of plants.
I have a serious problem with deleting. Mainly because it causes something to cease to exist and I consider all speech to be something that should never be destroyed. Good, or bad. Great, or ugly.
On the other, I strongly support property rights. From my choice of grass height to my ability to defend it at any cost via castle doctrine.
By placing 230 into the brick and mortar world my opinion on 230 has changed.
Thinking of a social platform as my home: I see a serious problem with allowing someone to come by and place a Jesus saves or he is risen sign at my front door.
Should I be required to keep it, and put a bigger sign up that so no he doesn’t?
Or should I be allowed to take it down, and put it in the recycling bin?
Or should I be required to roll the sign up, place it inside, make a tiny little paper note for the door that someone has previously posted a sign I disagree with, Ask to see it?
If I go with the latter as long as I can make a record of the post in question, say a 3x5 photo, and discard the original? I’m not sure that would constitute “undue burden”.
I could even eliminate myself from having to be the one to show it by placing it in a box on a post with the note “this is a reduced size replica of another’s post which I do not agree with! Open to view”.
It’s a legitimate debate.
We have multiple things to look at here
Right to expression
Right to not be burdened by others’ expression
Right of private property, including one’s self
Right to not suffer undue burden
The answer is quite literally I don’t know. I’ve yet to see anyone present an argument that fully placated all people, nor one that protected the very right in the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On rights and balance
You somehow have to keep going back to the far right, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On rights and balance
From my viewpoint, and to be clear this is MY PERSONAL viewpoint, it’s a balancing act between private property rights and free speech rights.
There's nothing to balance, honestly. Everyone has their own right to speak, but private property rights means that they cannot force others to host that speech. They can speak freely in their own space, and the government cannot interfere with that. And that prohibition on gov't interference includes compelling websites to host speech.
A private property owner saying "you cannot say that here" is not the same as saying "you cannot say that anywhere." The latter would be an infringement on free speech rights. The former is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On rights and balance
I get the point. And contrary to the left assaults by others her and elsewhere, often anonymous, I am capable of understanding other viewpoints.
We may disagree, but I try not to be disrespectful unless I am personally attacked.
The ultimate solution to this is for A: Democrats to understand where so many Republicans are coming from and B: Republicans to understand the Democrat’s POV.
Most of us, though a simple majority, not bound to any party tend to be closer to the side Republicans take at the moment.
This isn’t about Trump, specifically, for many of us non-republic. Republicans counting us in their numbers is deceitful. At best.
For us, those who are anti-deletion, over 40, and politically fluent, who gets deleted, blocked, bared, is of no issue! It’s the action.
I know from private discussions (hundreds of people over the last decade alone) that this is a difficult topic for us. We may ourselves be a minority, in not agreeing with the majority of Republican views. Many keep silent for fear of being labelled a Republican.
My anti-religion stand alone eliminates any Republican platform. Dems hate my stance on national image, limited immigration, and drive for arming any willing American citizen.
Censorship is not political for us. It’s deeper and broader.
We, a minority granted, have a long history of fearing and feeling the results of censorship in this country.
Be it Thelma in the 40s, communists in the 50s, non-heterosexuals in the 60s, socialists and D&D in the 70s, Race track and Holocaustal Cannibal in the 80s, Doom and Carmageddon in the 90s, GTA and American Pie in the 2000s,
That it happens to pull in alt-left (socialism) and alt right (communism) is a byproduct.
Be it Women’s power on the left or pro sex feminism on the right. Be it atheism on the left or christian nazis on the right.
Like UseNet there are many alts for both sides. An that we tend to all fight what we see as oppression is a sign that something is wrong.
If every person who considers themselves a minority in some group is counted up you have the majority of the country.
If the majority of the country feels oppressed, something is wrong.
I don’t have the answers. All I can say is the current system, appeasing half the country, isn’t working.
The fastest way to fix the problem is to leave politics a d bigotry at the door, listen, to each other, and find a solution. Otherwise we face a long broken government forcing a simple majority resolution against half the population and solving nothing.
The Greek, Roman, West Toman, Ottoman, and British empires all show what happens when compromises can’t be reached.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
That's what you lot claim, every time. Yet you'd never show up if Trump wasn't the one being besmirched. Now why is that? Why do you continue to think that speaking in defense of Trump, because Democrats are misbehaving, is the default method of making your first impression?
The fact that you're over 40 isn't a notable factoid. You realize that people from all demographics and walks of life have stood firmly by Trump, right?
I don't know why atheism gets trotted out as a reason to take someone seriously. We've seen black people, gay people, various minorities step out in favor of Trump after drinking the Kool-aid. Never mind that Republicans make an absolute fucking mockery of the religion they're supposed to uphold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On rights and balance
I ask you this, as the founder of the site. As a man with undeniable influence in this country and somewhat world wide.
Which is better: being correct in the current climate, or reaching compromise with those who are either against, or question, the current situation.
The Trump situation is only the easiest to hold up for being so recent and so internationally public.
You, more than anyone is likely to have down at least a simple search. From both paid and voluntary positions, with some of the biggest public facing companies in the world: Compuserve, AOL, Sega US, Sega Jp, CyBEx, Go2… I have a long standing comprehension of moderation.
Again I’ve gone out of my way to not delete outright. And over the decades I’ve butted heads with not equal counterparts and superiors. Most of the time I’ve been cleared in the end. Eventually.
I readily admit my comprehension of the line between censorship and moderation is not the same as others, even many or most. But I’m far from alone.
Ultimate my strive has been to allow the expression, and limit damage. A process that creates considerably more work than simply deleting.
One need not agree for validation of fact.
Right now we, as a country, face a major first amendment issue. If Democrats dictate a law it will allow for unlimited censorship. If it manages to be held off for Republicans to decide it will end moderation as a whole.
So again. Which is better: being correct in the current climate, or reaching compromise with those who are either against, or question, the current situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
"The Trump situation is only the easiest to hold up for being so recent and so internationally public."
...and for being an extraordinarily clear case of a platform bending over backwards to make special exemptions to their rules for him, until the point they finally had no choice other than to drop him for extreme and consistent violation of their policies.
At which point you come out and whine that he's been treated so poorly.
"Again I’ve gone out of my way to not delete outright"
Good for you. Other people prefer to moderate differently, and until you manage to get the law changed so that they lose that choice, they can set their own house rules. People who dislike that have a wide variety of choice as to alternative venues to visit.
"But I’m far from alone"
Yes, we know. The Murdoch echo chamber from which you admit you get most of your news has told a lot of people that simple moderation of private communities is wrong when people they like are the ones being told to behave or GTFO. That doesn't make the spin true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
“ The Murdoch echo chamber …”
My viewpoint our viewpoint FAR predates Fox and trump.
“ That's what you lot claim”
Only a completely ignorant ultra-left-wing child or brainwashed partisan hack idiot would lump me in with Republicans on consistency.
I didn’t drink any poisoned sugar drink.
Did you total miss the fact that Clinton was manipulated to a nomination? Because most entrenched Democrats thought she may loose to the populace Republicans? None of the Dems expected trump to win.
My choice was simple. As simple as the never Trumpers! I will not then, now, or ever vote for H Clinton the genocidal war criminal who should be drawn and quartered without trial by a military tribunal.
That I recognise that TRU o land some historic achievements is a side issue. So did Obama, Bush, Reagan, and Father of progressive alt-left bullshite Carter.
That doesn’t make me a Republican (I voted for Sanders prior to November). It makes me non-partisan.
That I voted for trump again was simply a choice of someone who proves ability despite public perception over someone any independent non-partisan doctor would state had dementia: something that runs in my family and is easily understood by those who have seen it themselves.
Atheism? First I’m not, by definition. Your wrong again.
Second the number of Republicans who admitted to being atheist
S historically is so small as to be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Statistically they don’t exist outside the margin of error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
Damn you Siri sometimes
TRU o land
Trump had
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
Is this the part where you start boasting about how Trump handled the pandemic too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
"My viewpoint our viewpoint FAR predates Fox and trump"
Yet, you parrot them perfectly, and you stated that you get your news from almost nowhere else.
"Only a completely ignorant ultra-left-wing child or brainwashed partisan hack idiot would lump me in with Republicans on consistency."
Well, you share their partisan attitude, and the belief that childish namecalling has a place in adult discourse, anyway.
"None of the Dems expected trump to win."
No sane, intelligent person on the planet believed that you'd be stupid enough to vote for a bankrupt narcissistic con artist with decades of history of corruption and failure - and in many ways they were right, since he only won due to a quirk of the electoral college. The people didn't vote for him.
"That I voted for trump again"
It doesn't rally matter which reason you invent to make yourself feel better. You weighed up your options and thought that this bankrupt con artist who had recently driven the country to its knees because he gambled 500k lives on the pandemic not being real, so that he could save his reelection chances after impeachment, was the best choice for you.
Justify it all you want, I'm just glad there's adults back in charge for a short moment so that the damage can start to be repaired.
"Atheism? First I’m not, by definition. Your wrong again"
Well, your poor reading comprehension and writing might only be matched by your inability to define who you're replying to. I didn't mention atheism.
But, thanks for demonstrating yet again the kind of adherence to facts, logic and basic competency that a Trump voter possesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
“ only won due to a quirk of the electoral college…”
A system that protects the masses from small scale major population masses.
Multiple studies since 2000 have broken down states.
The consistent result is that large “Blue” states are such do to one or two very dense cities.
That would be NY, IL, CA, OR, WA…
It’s gotten so extreme in difference that both Illinois (jettison Chicago) and Oregon/Washington have (create a new state) have contemplated methods to rid themselves of those Democrat entrenched locales.
I’ll ignore the attack on the single greatest medical achievement in history. Trump, worked to to push a vaccine in beyond record time.
All Biden did was become President after Trump’s success.
That MSNBCNN managed to convince the public that electing a man with dementia is the best choice is to their credit.
People who recognised the condition voted against him or not alt all. No person of sound mind would put a man with dementia in the highest office, no matter how much they dislike the opposition.
@ PaulT no you didn’t. Rather than make multiple post reply’s I quoted specific comments. I do, sincerely, apologise to you if you misunderstood my quoted reply’s as being towards you. The atheism comment was to the sorry poc not even willing to stand by their comments by logging in or registering
This reply thread has grown quite long and everyone (being a generic exaggerated statement) is replying in condensed method now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
While promoting bleach injections and having masks off and rubbishing everyone who disagreed with him.
Look, if you take a shit in my house and rub your diarrhea into the floor, I'm not going to go on my knees and beg for the privilege of thanking you even if you paint my front door afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
The thing is, he didn't even do that. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/12/01/trump-takes-credit-for-vaccine-created-by-oth ers-including-immigrants/?sh=2f86e608374c
He played the usual con game he played, where he took public credit for things other people did without his input. He also botched the distribution of the vaccine and refused an extra 100 million doses (IIRC) when the administration had the opportunity to procure them. Doses which might not have been necessary if there had been competent responses to the initial pandemic rather than lies and attempts to attack China (while the disease was already spreading from Europe).
Some people really do seem to live in an alternative reality, and I'm glad I live in the one where Trump is not the best available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
Apparently Biden is bad for taking over the Presidency when vaccine development started under Trump, but Trump is good because Fauci and other companies did all the work for him while he peddled bullshit lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
Oh, how narrow a pinhole used here. Typical: use part of an original statement and quote it out of context to fit what you want it to be.
Trump’s administration put together the task force, the funding, cut the legal tape obstacles. His administration worked to accelerate trial timelines and then leaned heavily and aggressively to push the vaccine out the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His administration also ignored COVID-19 until it got so out of control that even Donald “I lie as easily as I breathe” Trump couldn’t ignore the existence of a global pandemic. The only reason he did all that shit with the vaccine is because he forced his own hand in that regard. Thousands of people died before he ever thought to order the development of a vaccine. Don’t give a murderer credit for preventing deaths his own indifference would’ve caused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
One of us cherry picking facts to meet a certain narrative, but it's not me.
Again, stop getting your news from Rupert Murdoch, you'd be surprised at what the actual facts say, and they don't make con artist who pretended the virus wasn't real, withheld aid from states that didn't vote for him and sacrificed the lives of 500K Americans look good, even if his misdirection at his role in getting the virus funding works on you weak minded types.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
"A system that protects the masses from small scale major population masses."
Or, the system that overturns the votes of 3 million educated voters in favour of a a few hundred thousand ignorant hicks who were taken in by an obvious con artist.
It's all down to perspective, and it is the way the game is played now, but the fact is that Trump did not win by the will of the people. Which makes it even funnier when you people whine that he lost the popular vote and the electoral college this time around, as if the only way that such an abject failure could lose is by some mysterious fraud.
"I’ll ignore the attack on the single greatest medical achievement in history"
I'm all ears as to what that would be...
"Trump, worked to to push a vaccine in beyond record time."
Oh dear. You fell for that bullshit as well. Sigh... I can link to a detailed explanation as to why you're wrong, but you do seem to prefer fiction in every piece of news media you consume.
"All Biden did was become President after Trump’s success."
...then after weeks of the outgoing administration refusing to do any kind of translation, he came into a situation here the vaccine distribution plan didn't actually exist. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-klain-idUSKBN29T0FY
So, he did the work required to greatly exceed his campaign promises. Not perfect on every subject, but it's notable how much movement has been made, compared to the idiot who was telling you the virus wasn't real this time last year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
I’d be happy to hear a source where any other vaccine was created, produced, tested, trialed, and released, in history, faster than C19.
I’ve hear people on the left claim he said the virus was fake but I’ve yet to see where he had said that.
Just like the multiple times he called out white power extremists and they kept claiming he didn’t. Even after he did so on international broadcast during the debate they kept the same “never” story.
Feel free to correct me, but I’ve yet to see a post or video clip of him saying it was fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
That's... hardly a damning point. Nobody denies that the COVID-19 vaccine process was accelerated. But saying Trump was primarily responsible for that vaccine going through is stretching it. Especially considering that he claimed, on multiple occasions, that:
That's not forgetting Trump personally cutting CDC funding, crippling the pandemic response capabilities of the US.
To be fair, what Trump referred to as a "hoax" was over the Democrat's claim that his administration largely bungled the pandemic response. Trump didn't call the virus fake, he simply responded to it in a way that looks incredibly incompetent. As I said, if you take a shit in my living room and rub your solid waste into the floor, I'm not going to thank you even if you paint my front door afterwards. I'm not going to be overcome with gratitude if you tell me "I could have taken a dump on your bed but I didn't!"
If you want to argue that Biden inherited the presidency from Trump and thus shouldn't be praised, sure. I don't hold Biden as personally responsible for how the US is currently handling the pandemic. Then why should we praise Trump, when all he did was be president at the time while Fauci, pharmaceutical companies, and medical staff were the ones doing all the work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
"But saying Trump was primarily responsible for that vaccine going through is stretching it."
He basically had nothing to do with it, and his constant attempts to block and undermine his own CDC experts might actually have hindered a lot of the progress, if not with the development then certainly with the overall takeup of the available vaccines. Not to mention that he's personally responsible for dismantling the pandemic response team and their infrastructure that would have helped without him having to lift a finger.
"I don't hold Biden as personally responsible for how the US is currently handling the pandemic"
I do, the difference is night and day, especially if reports about the vaccine rollout plan discovered when he took office are correct (there was no plan).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
Too funny.
“considering that he claimed, on multiple occasions, that”
Not that bad? At the time it wasn’t. If the Democrats didn’t stand in the way of closing travel from China and the boarder stayed remain in Mexico; it’s likely it would have remained rather low numbers.
The numbers were still well within manageability. The surges were all near International airports.
The self harm comment would have likely been accurate if we closed down international travel.
We have today both the CDC and WHO noting that mask use is also dangerous. Most of us considered any protection better than no protection. I now recognise I was wrong in that. Disposable masks in general did not and will not stop the virus. And have considerable drawbacks of their own.
Only 95% filtration (or higher) masks are proven to be effective.
hydroxychloroquine has proven benefits for helping those who were infected. It was suggested as a potential stop gap measure or even secondary candidate for review.
Ultra violet lights are used world wide in the medical industry for sterilisation.
And Trump never said you should inject bleach. Not once.
That’s an intentionally out of context misrepresentation of
“…And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning…” during a discussion over cleaning viral contact areas, which also included Alcohol, direct sunlight, and UV.
Biden inherited everything from Trump’s administration. If you truly believe the timeline we have would have been different under a second Trump term I can’t do anything to change your mind. It’s a what if situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc
Citation, please.
Citation, please.
Citation, please.
When referring to chemical disinfectants. Not bleach specifically, but yes he suggested we research injecting disinfectant into humans.
Including no plan for vaccine distribution.
When they had no plan for distributing the vaccine, I can't see how you could believe otherwise. Oh wait, yes I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc
"the boarder"
I'm always curious - why is your type so obsessed with borders but so unable to spell the word?
"We have today both the CDC and WHO noting that mask use is also dangerous"
Bull. Shit. Read some facts. There was some doubt early in the pandemic if they'd help as much as other methods, and since we'd all seen the toilet paper hoarding there was concern that people would take N95 stock away from people who actually needed them. That advice was changed when the true benefit of using non-N95 masks because clear, and the advice has been pretty consistent up until recently when vaccinated people in open areas are advised they' re not mandatory for them.
Nowhere is wearing a mask stated as being dangerous, unless you're going to give us a glimpse of the propaganda you've been ingesting.
But, you seem to swallow a lot of false information, so I wouldn't be surprised if you've been told something that's not true. Another reason to be glad to have adults back in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc
And thus the Trump fan shows his true colors. Seriously, pushing your buttons should not have been this easy. The "both sides" argument just falls apart because your precious "grab 'em by the pussy" hero might be mildly insulted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Statement proves only that Lostinlodos lacks reading comprehension]
[Asserts facts not outside sham studies]
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Bringing some facts (for once) would work, but here you admit you can't muster any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and ba
I did make a post with links. It didn’t go up yet for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights an
Too many links and it gets held for moderation as suspected spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On right
I guess we’ll have to wait.
I expect it will actually clear once someone reads it. I’m not arguing left or right here. I’m pointing to reported issues. I referenced sites anyone could get behind generally.
From a medical family any properly used protection is better than no protection! I’d suggest a plastic bag and all the risks that come with it before saying a non-vaccinated person should go maskless.
Hand-in-hand with that: the vaccines now have a now documented combined average efficiency over 90%. There is zero reason for a vaccinated person to wear a mask. Anyone unwilling to get the shot at this point with total access rollout is taking their lives into their own ignorant hands and deserves what ever happens to them. I have no respect, no putty, and no care.
Using the same disposable paper mask over and over and over is not safe.
They quickly gather mould and bacteria the longer you use them. Far more than any 95 mask.
All plastic masks (synthetic cloth) are a risk. No matter what filtration level and who made it when and where. Micro fibre plastics inhaled are problematic alone. And many foreign sourced ones have additional issues.
For the non-partisans and those on the left a box of 20 KN95 masks is under $20 and are, usually, rated for the lesser of 72 hours or one week.
Far better to be mostly safe than use the fastest method if you can wait a day for next day Prime!
The whole bleach injection crap is debunked by most major news sources, as well as fact Check and snopes. Someone took a tiny clip of a long discussion and ran with it. The President never suggested it for the public, for the medical industry, or anyone else. In fact it wasn’t a statement at all. It was a question. And it wasn’t bleach he asked about injecting, it was generically a question on any disinfectant.
To be clear, if you don’t have the vaccine use a 95% filtration respiratory device. If you refuse to use a proper protective device and drop dead I have zero sympathy.
A paper napkin from McDs is not a proper respiratory device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On r
Said the guy who enthusiastically stood by Trump over multiple comments in the same thread, then gets angry when people find it difficult to believe that he's non-partisan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On r
"There is zero reason for a vaccinated person to wear a mask"
There's no harm if they want to, either. Well.. a vaccinated person can still be a carrier, and I'm sure there's a lot of immuno-compromised people who would prefer it if you cared enough about them to take basic precautions even if you don't legally have to.
"Using the same disposable paper mask over and over and over is not safe"
What kind of idiot was doing that in the first place?
"A paper napkin from McDs is not a proper respiratory device."
Yet, way more robust than the strawmen you construct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As someone who is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, I have three good reasons (and one mediocre reason) for wearing a mask despite having gotten the jab:
I don’t want to potentially catch the disease; no vaccine is perfect
If I catch the disease, I don’t want to spread it to others if I can avoid doing so; masks help with that
I don’t want to potentially catch the common cold, the flu, and other such diseases that spread in similar manners to COVID-19
Don’t assume you speak for every vaccinated person when you make claims like that, Lodos. Because you better fucking believe you don’t speak for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ Don’t assume you speak for every vaccinated person…l
I didn’t. I still use a mask in public as well. You missed that part eh?
Nobody said you had to take it off. Only it’s a choice that shouldn’t be infringed upon by an unconstitutional violation of power. Be it federal or state.
Congress sets the laws. Not the governor or president.
They said we all must to keep them on till they said we could take them off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights an
I look forward to reading it when it gets approved out of the spam filter, although I suspect that your sources might not hold up to scrutiny. We shall see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On right
—paul T
“I look forward to reading it when it gets approved out of the spam filter, although I suspect that your sources might not hold up to scrutiny. We shall see.”
Thanks ☺️
Snopes and fact-check tend to be the most cited by all parties so I went with them first.
Add a German study and Swedish research.
I voted and support trump. It I reiterate now as I have web wide, it wasn’t so much as for trump as against Clinton.
Trump made mistakes. Most of them were caused by his own ambitions to maintain a “legacy” in the second half of his term. But I can separate the man and his freshman gullibility from the deeply entrenched political system. The fact that he was gullible only shows his inexperience.
Trump isn’t politically experienced enough to be the con many Dems make him out to be.
His mistakes are often traceable to those he relied on. Many of which were neither Republican nor Democrat in their beliefs but simply career politicians with no care at all for the oaths or positions they took.
I call out hatred and misinformation. When it’s flat out fake: I’m annoyed. I don’t care what party:
Alagain my support for Obama’s candidacy and his re-elect are not difficult to find. I was awarded as one of the top 10 successful cold callers in 2008 in my state. I didn’t always agree with him but the Republican alternative was just as insane as electing Clinton in 16!
I would have voted for Palin. I would want nothing to do with John the Jon.
For anyone who actually wants to understand us Dems who voted for trump just look up disenfranchised Democrats 2016.
It literally destroyed me and left me in tears when the Iran ransom was made.
———
“ There's no harm if they want to, either”
And I have no issue if that’s your choice. What annoys me is a mandate. I went through the hoops to get vaccinated. Leave me alone. I fully understand the immuno-deficient issue. There’s a few of those I’m my family including my mum. And mask or no mask it kept me in solitary till I got the VAX.
“What kind of idiot was doing that in the first place?”
Too many: enough for even the WHO to comment on it.
Speaking on that: Put the damn thing in the bin. The self righteous turds tossing it out the window or dropping in on the ground? I’ve never been a fan of torture but I can think of all kinds of medieval devices that would be too kind to you turds. Public execution by piranha tank sound too kind for you losers.
The napkin issue is something I ran into personally. While picking up an order from Denny’s a man walked in holding a napkin over his face. The host said you need a mask, he said he had one. An argument ensued.
Stupid stupid stupid!
A splatter shield doesn’t protect you or me. A napkin neither. Yall need to just stay home or be tarred and feathered.
I’m not as partisan as a Trump related article suggests, and it’s not hard to see that’s actual truth for anyone who wants to look.
Lostinlodos is a registered name.
I can be reached on over 2 dozen services. (Don’t use social media, I joined Facebook to get $10 in Pepsi coupons and Twitter to get $40 off a carton of cigarettes). Send me an email, a burn… I’ll reply within 48 hours on average. I get over 2000 emails daily, half of which are spam and a quarter more are attacks.
I have a LONG history on the internet. The only varianobeing AOL (JamPro1, GuideJamPro) and compuserve (10173).
Ultimately, for me, it comes down to, call it what you choose, deletionism.
The bullshite tended to get regulated out of the way, be it illegal disgusting child porn or the naziesque Church of the Brotherhood In Christ.
Is was one of the early contributors to Deletionpedia because I support total publication. If it’s dangerous: call the cops. If it’s illegal: call the cops.
No, I don’t support forced speech, I think by now I made it clear property rights, alone, changed my mind on 230.
Save the association comments. After 30+ years of presence supporting “liberal” movements I’m classed in with the likes of Reagan (yuck) and Romney (gag, 🤮) simple for voting against yet another NWO progressive.
I will not now or ever support genocide. Be it Israel (kill Arabs), neo nazis (kill blacks and gays), Or Ukrainian (kill Russians).
Given the choice of Clinton, a war criminal who supports and supports genocide, or Trump, a wild card former Democrat running as a Republican under immigration reform, boarder security, gun rights, and ending our interjection into foreign issues that are, truly, none of our damn business… it wasn’t that hard of a decision for me.
For all the Trump hatred, it works well to distract from Sanders being flat out screwed by the DNC not once, but twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On r
"Trump made mistakes. Most of them were caused by his own ambitions to maintain a “legacy” in the second half of his term"
Sadly, not even remotely true. For example, removing the existing pandemic team that had been set up by previous administrations to deal with expressly the type of pandemic that came along. The terrible reaponse to Puerto Rico. His gutting of various departments and installing cronies to them in order to cripple them, and failure to staff a majority of government positions. The list goes on.
He was certainly desperate to try and protect a legacy, especially after he was impeached and the economy was pretty much the only thing that remained relatively untarnished until the pandemic, but you're really trying to rewrite history if you're going to pretend that it was all good up until that point.
"Trump isn’t politically experienced enough to be the con many Dems make him out to be"
He doesn't have to politically experienced, and the con is the same that he did in the private sector - do a bunch of things for self-promotion and get adulation from his fans, dismiss anything that he didn't feel profited him personally, run businesses into the ground while grifting from incredulous investors and stiffing the contractors he hired to do the job. The only thing he wasn't able to do like he did with his businesses was declare bankruptcy and escape personal consequences for his failures, although hopefully with criminal investigations and his $400 million debts coming due he might face some (albeit that he's conned enough people to give him money under false pretences since the election that he might actually be able to pay them now).
"And I have no issue if that’s your choice. What annoys me is a mandate"
The mandate exists because when asked to voluntarily do the bare minimum to stem to exponential growth of the virus, they not only refused, some actually went out of their way to participate in behaviour that guaranteed its spread. The mandate is already being lifted for people who have done what they can, and it's not even controversial in many places outside of the US, which has uniquely turned basic medical advice into a political issue.
"boarder security"
Again, why are people so obsessed with the subject unable to even spell it? It's a very curious issue I always noticed.
Oh, and when Trump told you that was his platform? That's the con I was talking about. He wasn't doing any of those things, and on subjects like security his actions actively make the situation worse. He lied to you for power and money, and you handed it to him because you're his intended mark.
"gun rights"
Lol, you know what Trump said about gun rights?
A real hero for your cause there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally I think it's funny as fuck that he voted Trump purely out of spite for Hilary, but apparently when people vote for Biden because they hate Trump, that's somehow not acceptable to him anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just funny that he apparently votes for Republicans because he hates warmongers. The only remaining surprise about Trump's term is that he didn't actually manage to start multiple conflicts, although he did try his best to offend everyone and I'd bet good money that he'd have got a lot of people overseas killed if the pandemic hadn't got him focussed on slaughtering Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny you can’t sort acceptance from preference. I accept people electing Biden. That the Democrats were so mad at Trump they chose to elect a personal barely mentally competent.
I accept a lot of things I don’t agree with. That’s part of living in a republic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Republicans were so mad at “the libs” that they supported another barely mentally competent old white man to the point of armed insurrection. Not really lookin’ good for your “side”, fam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm going to say exactly one thing, and one thing only:
A vote for Trump is a vote for the following things:
Human rights violations. Racism. Lying in office. Sexism. Criminal behavior. Rejection of science. Voter suppression. A complete disregard for the value of human life.
You can come up with whatever reasons you want to justify it. The first time around, in 2016? I might even forgive you.
This past time? No. There is no forgiveness. If you voted for Trump, you voted for evil, and so long as you stand by that vote, you are on the side of evil. Everything you say, everything you do, and everything you are is suspect, and I will not forgive you - while you still stand by that decision.
That goes for every Trump supporter - and I don't care if you care. Just understand that is how you are viewed.
Let me also be clear on something: I didn't vote for Biden. I voted against Trump - because what Trump represents is evil, and Biden at least had a chance to not be that.
May you someday see the truth of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that is your (and many Democrats’) opinion. I didn’t vote FOR trump in that regard either. I voted against Clinton.
In seeing the many benefits of his term: border wall, middle-east agreements between Muslim states and Israel, attempts at negotiating with North Korea, a roaring economic recovery that remained generally stable despite the pandemic, I made a choice in 20.
A man incapable of making decisions on his own, bound to be the public face of someone else we didn’t vote for, or a flawed individual who had great accomplishments. Despite his flaws.
Biden is President in name only. The question I have today is who is actually standing behind him. Who is making the decisions.
I’d rather have a flawed President and know where he stood than have an invisible one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He didn’t even get a huge chunk of it built. At best, he had a small new portion built and fixed up existing portions of the current wall. And no, Mexico didn’t pay for any of it.
Most of those deals were made with the intent of uniting Sunni-controlled countries against Shiite-controlled Iran. The side effect of such a united front? Palestinians would be left without any major allies. And all at the behest of an asshole who literally called the Israel/Palestine conflict — and this is a direct quote — “a real-estate dispute”.
Donald Trump handed credibility as a genuine world leader to a brutal dictator in Kim Jong-Un. The United States received literally nothing from North Korea in return. Winning~!
Uh, no. No, it did not. The pandemic fucked up the economy hard; it may be well past Biden’s term before it picks back up to full steam again. And even if — if — Trump did help build it back up in the three years prior to the pandemic he helped make worse, the economy was already recovering prior to Trump entering office. He inherited a growing economy from Obama, managed to keep it steady for three years, then fucked it all up when he decided his political ambitions were less important than people dying of COVID-19 by the hundreds every day.
And you chose to vote for an racist, sexist, philandering, woman-groping, white supremacist con artist whose biggest claim to fame prior to becoming president is that he hosted a hit game show and overinflated his net worth. You voted for a man who approved of putting migrant kids in cages by themselves, who showed support for the “very fine people” who shouted “Jews will not replace us”, who referred to a Black man peacefully protesting police violence as a “son of a bitch”, who was seemingly in favor of worsening global climate change, whose rhetoric about masks and lockdowns inspired a group of armed sociopaths to make a plan involving the kidnapping and execution of a sitting governor, and who committed hundreds of other atrocities during his campaign and during his time in office. And let’s not forget his support for the people who have supported, are supporting, and will continue to support his Big Lie — including the armed insurrectionists who broke into the Capitol and chanted “kill Mike Pence” as they looked for both Pence and members of Congress, the assholes working on that ridiculous audit/recount/whatever in Arizona, and the lawmakers who would rather abandon truth than stand up to an old man who rules by fear of what his supporters could do…politically and physically.
I didn’t vote for the worst president in American history — the closest thing we’ve had in our lifetimes to an American tyrant, a man who would be king if not for the spines of those willing to tell him “no”. You did that. Until you can denounce your support for the man, you will be marked as a supporter of blatant and unrepentant evil.
May God have mercy on your soul. I sure as shit won’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Building a wall that long and that high takes time.
Even if his running premise was to make Mexico pay, few actually believed that would be a possibility.
It was partly offset by other concessions from the country though.
Most of those deals were made with the intent of uniting countries against Iran. And that sounds good to me! Iran is the largest threat to the world. Then. And now.
I would have used a deferent term, but that’s exactly what the issue is. A land dispute.
I’m no fan of either though I am more likely to stand with Palestine.
The two sides could wipe each other off the map for all I care and we’d be rid of an international cancer. Both governments conduct regular acts of terrorism against each other.
North Korea is a genuine country with a genuine leader. They’d be far less of a threat if the West stopped stepping on their neck and stabbing them in the back.
I’ll simply skip the partisan economic issue. Whatever damage came from the pandemic was limited to shutdown states.
I chose to vote.
I do not accept you claim Trump was a racist.
The next two mean nothing. So what. Never proven. Don’t believe you.
Biden did no better with migrants.
You intentionally mis-quote and I agree with the statement, not the intention. Nobody should steamroll anyone based on race.
Next sentence is bullshite as the majority of BLM’s public front is violent anti-white racists. All shouting black power over a surge fuller criminal who was stopped for committing a felony.
I don’t accept heavily edited papers claiming humans are more than a drop in the proverbial bucket on climate.
The person who tried to kidnap the Michigan gov was anti-trump,
Wow, and I’m in a bubble on choices.
Trump never told anyone to ‘invade’ the capital.
The recount happened because the PEOPLE called for it.
The members of Congress exercised one of their rights in objection.
All opinions
I don’t believe in your god.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Four years wasn’t enough to build even a significant portion of the promised wall? Four years of tearing through environmental regulations, rerouting government funding, and promising that American taxpayers would never foot the bill amounted to what — some new fencing? Keep making excuses for his failure; I’m sure Old 45 would appreciate your support.
And if that happens to fuck over the Palestinian people to the point where they’d agree to any deal just to stay alive…well, tough shit for them, huh?
Even if the conflict is a “land dispute”, referring to the situation in that way makes it sound like the multitude of deaths that have happened just this year (to date) are about a hotel or some shit. Saying the conflict is a “land dispute” is no better than saying the genocide of the indigenous Americans at the hands of the colonists/American government was a “land dispute”. It is sick, sociopathic shit — and you’re helping to propagate it.
North Korea is a nightmarish dystopia of extreme poverty hidden by excessive luxury that is run by a dictator who kills family members and has dissenters sent to work camps. North Korea is a country led by people willing to start a war so they can eventually drop a nuke. North Korea is a threat not just to the stability of the East Asian region, but to the entire world — because they want Global Thermonuclear War to be something other than a computer simulation. But sure, tell me how the guy with the funny haircut makes for a great meme or some shit.
Restaurants around the country closed. The travel and tourism industries got hit hard because virtually nobody was travelling to (or from) the States. Everyone suffered from the lockdowns; that you want to limit that damage to “shutdown states” (read: states that actually tried to minimize the damage from COVID because they were run by competent lawmakers) says a lot about you.
He referred to Mexican immigrants as “thugs and rapists”. He referred to a Black man peacefully protesting police brutality as a “son of a bitch” and was the primary reason for said Black man getting blackballed from the NFL. He also referred to violent white supremacists as “very fine people” and refused to condemn the violent white supremacist organization known as the Proud Boys. Hell, he even refused to condemn white supremacy. “Racist” is the kindest thing I can say about him in that regard.
As far as “sexist” goes: “Grab ’em by the pussy” should be enough, but go back to statements made throughout his term — and notice the gender of the people for whom he saves the most heated insults. (Hint: It wasn’t men.)
As far as “philandering” goes: He admitted to having affairs while married to his ex-wives, which is a telltale sign that he’s not going to be truthful in all his dealings with other people. (To wit: his overinflated net worth.)
Biden may not be doing much better, but he’s not trying to make things worse by actively separating families and shoving kids in cages within concentration camps. That shit happened on Trump’s watch. Why aren’t you criticizing Trump for doing that shit?
“Jews will not replace us” is anti-Semitic horseshit that is an offshoot (if not a whole-assed plank in the platform) of the so-called Great Replacement Theory. That “theory” says whites are in danger of being “replaced” by all the other races (and mixed-race people), so whites have to do whatever they can to prevent that fate. It’s bigoted horseshit and defending that horseshit, even in passing, makes you little better than the tiki torch–carrying white supremacist bigots who chanted that phrase during a midnight march the night before Charlottesville.
[citation needed]
Three things.
“Surge fuller”? What the fuck is that.
George Floyd was killed by a police officer who arrested Floyd for using a counterfeit $20 bill — which Floyd may not have even known was counterfeit. How did the sentence fit the crime?
We are more than “a drop in the bucket”. Well, not all of us. We know who the biggest pollutants in the world are — hell, we have their names and work addresses. But our leaders don’t do anything about them because Big Energy still has big bank accounts and none of them fucking care about what’s going to be left of this world after they’re dead.
The plot to kidnap and execute Gretchen Whitmer involved an entire group of people who, at one point or another, showed support for Old 45. The likelihood that they were inspired to plan their violent uprising against the Michigan state government by the words of Donald Trump (e.g., “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!”) may not be 100%, but to rule that factor out completely because some of those assholes criticized Trump later on is…flawed thinking, at best.
“We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.” — Donald Trump, on the 6th of January
And because I know it will be brought up: Yes, he exhorted his followers to march “peacefully” in the next sentence he spoke. But after having riled that crowd up with lies about voter fraud and weak Republicans and “cancel culture”, nobody expected his followers to march peacefully. And we now know that members of white supremacist groups that had planned a violent entry into the Capitol were in the crowd, so peace, as the meme goes, was never an option.
Why did they call for it? Because they were lied to for months about whether the result of the election would be legal. (It was.) Because they were lied to for months that massive fraud would take place. (It didn’t.) Because they were lied to by a man who believed he would win a second term (he didn’t) and explicitly told supporters in both 2016 and 2020 that he would refuse to accept any election result that didn’t have him marked as the winner (he did). The only reason that ridiculous Arizona “audit” is going on right now is because of the Big Lie that — and you have to know this is true now — Republicans can and will use to justify a refusal to certify any election in which a Democrat wins. Why wouldn’t they? They’re not going to suffer any actual consequences for it — none that their rich lawyers and a Republican president can’t do away with, anyway.
Their objections were bullshit because nobody — not Trump supporters, not Trump’s legal team, not Trump himself, and certainly not the members of Congress who objected to the results of a free and fair election out of naked partisan loyalty to an American fascist — produced any credible indication that the 2020 presidential election was anything but free, fair, and above board.
You will receive no mercy here. If you want mercy, pick a god and pray.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The wall didn’t start in 2017. So it’s not 4 years.
I did say I’d word the conflict differently but it’s still a land issue.
north Korea, is only poor because they’ve been cut off. It’s a prime example, however, of how communism works in reality. The ruling class that dictates to the people how things are divided rarely is willing to give up anything.
I’m simply not going to argue about covid with you. We obviously have different views on how it should have been handled.
Nope, it was “including” thugs and rapists. Your foot ball hero wasn’t a great player to start with. Good, maybe, not great. When he turned his job into a protest platform he became a bigger liability than he was worth. That has nothing to do with Trump.
My point was I don’t care. Bravado is different from action. philandering? So what. None of your business nor mine. That’s up to him and his wife(s).
Because I agree with the separation and the “kids in cages” crap was bull. Kids weren’t shoved in cages. The overcrowding was an issue caused by Democrats. Every time he tried to deport, someone got in the way. Much of the issue was the porous border. Stay in Mexico was a big help as well.
Trump didn’t call violent people good folks. Period. Didn’t happen.
Not sure
Unlikely, and it didn’t. Did cities across the country need to burn for the angry cop?
How idealistically utopian your world is.
I don’t agree and don’t care.
The leaders of the plot were always anti-Trump.
Nothing there says or suggests “violently storm into the capital”.
Recounts are part of the legitimate electoral process.
Doesn’t matter why or if you agree. They had the power to do so and used it.
———
I don’t blame trump for anything on the pandemic. It’s not the first one and it’s not the last. A reacted to the best of his ability on an unknown with half the country fighting every move he made.
Many of us lost people to covid. But most people who contracted it recovered. Many people need something or someone to blame. as far as I’m concerned that’s all it is. Choose the target and point your finger.
I don’t know if China created it or if it jumped from another animal. But it happened, and we weren’t prepared.
I prefer not to cower in fear and blame. I’d hope instead we look at how it got here, how it spread, and find ways to react better, faster, when it happens again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why you keep coming back for more punishment, I will never know. But since you’re here…
Irrelevant. Trump promised a wall across the entire southern U.S. border. Trump didn’t deliver anything even close to that.
Only if you take the cost of human lives out of the equation, sure.
North Korea is militarily hostile towards several of its immediate neighbors and the United States. If you can’t figure out why the world would rather sanction North Korea than let that country do whatever to South Korea, Japan, etc., this conversation is above your ability to comprehend.
I’m not hearing you say Trump should’ve handled it differently. 400,000 deaths on his hands, and you can’t even bring yourself to admit he fucked up. I’m more than willing to criticize Obama for his failures. (Kickstarting the policy that would eventually evolve into Trump’s family separation policy is a good place to start.) For what reason do you remain unwilling to criticize Old 45 for his failures as a leader during a national pandemic?
His statement heavily implied that of the immigrants coming in from Mexico, the majority of them were “thugs and rapists” while only some of them were “good people”. The broader (and racist) implication is clear: Mexico is sending criminals into the United States.
Irrelevant. Plenty of players with worse stats than Colin Kaepernick were signed to other teams after he was drummed out of the NFL. The league blackballed him out of fear of what Trump (and his supporters) might do in retaliation for the protests. It wasn’t a “hey, this guy sucks at the game” decision — it was a “hey, we don’t wanna piss off Dear Leader and his angry-as-fuck followers” decision.
If he’s willing to fuck around on his wives behind their backs, how willing is he to lie to anyone and everyone about anything? (Judging by his time as president: He lies as easily as he breathes.)
Oh, wonderful, you’re in favor of traumatizing children and breaking them up from their families for no reason other than they crossed the border illegally. I hope you know there are still several hundred migrant children that the U.S. government still hasn’t managed to reunite with their families. And I won’t even get into the nightmare of a system that lets American families receive custody of migrant children whose parents were deported — a sick form of adoption that will likely separate a child and their birth parents forever.
Gee, it’s almost as if he tried to violate the law and a bunch of people said “no, that isn’t how this works” until he finally got the message. Imagine that~.
He literally said there were “good people on both sides” of a march for white supremacy and a protest against said march. Whether he referred to “violent people” or not is irrelevant — he still said that the people marching in favor of white supremacy were “good people”. He didn’t denounce white supremacy; he never has; he never will.
Better to burn buildings than to…oh, how did the insurrectionists put it? Oh, right — better to burn buildings than to hang the Vice President. Property can be replaced; lives can’t.
And I don’t condone riots/looting/property damage. Don’t even think of laying that accusation on me. That said: I understand the anger that gave birth to those riots. Centuries of injustice and hatred and pain and suffering visited upon generations of people for no reason other than the color of their skin created the conditions for those riots. The murder of George Floyd — another unjust execution of a Black man at the hands of the same system that can bring in white mass murderers without firing a shot and even treat them to fast food — was merely the latest match to light the flame.
The insurrection, on the other hand, was a giant group of assholes — people who’d been convinced by a con artist that an election with no signs of massive widespread voter fraud was actually stolen — crashing into a citadel of American democracy and chanting for the murder of the Vice President because he didn’t violate the Constitution and declare Donald Trump as the winner of an election he lost both popularly and electorally. That shit isn’t “understandable”. That shit is indefensible in both act and spirit.
No, they weren’t.
Rudy Giuliani suggested “trial by combat”. Other speakers, like Trump, extolled the virtues of strength and begged Trump supporters to help “stop the steal”. For months, Trump and his cronies claimed the election would be stolen (or, post-election, was stolen) and suggested his supporters would have to take action on his behalf. Trump acted in his usual mob boss way: He didn’t need to give an order when his wishes were so plainly known. All he needed to do was light the fuse — e.g., give a speech that asked his followers to take some sort of action on his behalf — and watch the kindling burn.
Every recount that was triggered as part of the legitimate electoral process found no evidence of widescale voter fraud. The “audit” in Arizona is not part of that process — and given the stories I’ve read about the incompetence of the group carrying out that audit, that is certainly for the best.
Over a year before the COVID pandemic, Donald Trump dismantled the government team created to help fight/prevent pandemics. When the pandemic first reached American shores, he claimed it was “under control” and it would “disappear”. In the course of the year between the outbreak and the end of his term, Donald Trump repeatedly downplayed the severity of the virus, repeatedly contradicted actual scientific experts, suggested false “cures”/treatments such as ingesting bleach and taking hydroxychloroquine, and showed more concern for his own image than for the health and safety of the populace — including the Secret Service agents he had drive him around the hospital after he himself contracted COVID-19.
He didn’t do anything a good leader would’ve done. He did what he thought was best for his polling numbers: Ignore the large bad thing, focus on the small good thing. More than a year later, we have more than half a million Americans dead because of Trump’s incompetence, lies, and unwillingness to tell his supporters that wearing masks and social distancing would save lives. I mean, he and his administration wanted to “re-open the country” on Easter (2020, that is) — a time when the virus was still rapidly spreading around the country.
400,000 people died so Donald Trump could focus on his election. But sure, keep telling me he wasn’t responsible, as the man in charge of the federal government, for the shit-ass response of the federal government to the COVID-19 pandemic. See how far that argument gets you.
Half the country was fighting mask mandates and shutdowns — and they were fighting those measures partly because Donald fucking Trump himself came out against those measures. (The other part was because of brainwashing about “freedoms” and “liberty” by — you guessed it~! — the same Republicans that supported Donald Trump.)
I point my finger at a federal government that either seemed uninterested in helping prevent a pandemic or was too afraid of Dear Leader to contradict his proclamations of “it’s nothing, it’s going to go away, it’s fine”. And since Trump was Dear Leader at the time…well, gee, guess who gets to eat the blame for the incompetence/carelessness/sociopathy of his administration~.
We could’ve been if Trump hadn’t literally tossed out the pandemic playbook left for him by his immediate predecessor because Old 45 hated Barack Obama for being both Black and a better man than Trump.
Let’s start by not electing someone who gives more of a fuck about whether he’s polling well on Fox News than about whether thousands of people are getting sick/dying on his watch. I know that being president takes at least some minor sociopathy, but we don’t need to elect a complete sociopath. So maybe don’t vote for the Republican next time, Lodos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The wall didn’t start in 2017. So it’s not 4 years.
I did say I’d word the conflict differently but it’s still a land issue.
north Korea, is only poor because they’ve been cut off. It’s a prime example, however, of how communism works in reality. The ruling class that dictates to the people how things are divided rarely is willing to give up anything.
I’m simply not going to argue about covid with you. We obviously have different views on how it should have been handled.
Nope, it was “including” thugs and rapists. Your foot ball hero wasn’t a great player to start with. Good, maybe, not great. When he turned his job into a protest platform he became a bigger liability than he was worth. That has nothing to do with Trump.
My point was I don’t care. Bravado is different from action. philandering? So what. None of your business nor mine. That’s up to him and his wife(s).
Because I agree with the separation and the “kids in cages” crap was bull. Kids weren’t shoved in cages. The overcrowding was an issue caused by Democrats. Every time he tried to deport, someone got in the way. Much of the issue was the porous border. Stay in Mexico was a big help as well.
Trump didn’t call violent people good folks. Period. Didn’t happen.
Not sure
Unlikely, and it didn’t. Did cities across the country need to burn for the angry cop?
How idealistically utopian your world is.
I don’t agree and don’t care.
The leaders of the plot were always anti-Trump.
Nothing there says or suggests “violently storm into the capital”.
Recounts are part of the legitimate electoral process.
Doesn’t matter why or if you agree. They had the power to do so and used it.
———
I don’t blame trump for anything on the pandemic. It’s not the first one and it’s not the last. A reacted to the best of his ability on an unknown with half the country fighting every move he made.
Many of us lost people to covid. But most people who contracted it recovered. Many people need something or someone to blame. as far as I’m concerned that’s all it is. Choose the target and point your finger.
I don’t know if China created it or if it jumped from another animal. But it happened, and we weren’t prepared.
I prefer not to cower in fear and blame. I’d hope instead we look at how it got here, how it spread, and find ways to react better, faster, when it happens again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sadly, this is probably true.
As long as that doesn't involve admitting Trump made any mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The overcrowding was an issue caused by Democrats"
Amazing, isn't it? Anything your orange man did badly was all the Democrats' fault. Meanwhile, anything that Biden has done right is just because he inherited it from Trump.
I often wish that being this deliberately ignorant was painful instead of being bliss.
"But most people who contracted it recovered"
Most other countries got out of it without so many people being infected at all. You have 4% of the world population, but 20% of total infections and 17% of all COVID deaths... and you think this demonstrates competence?
Oh, and I'd like to see figures eventually on what "recovered" means. There's a big difference between "didn't die" and "recovered without long-term respiratory problems as a result of the disease". We won't know the full scope of COVID until years after the pandemic has ceased, but we do know that death is not the only problem.
"we weren’t prepared"
You were prepared... until Trump fired the pandemic team that had been created by previous administrations for the express purpose of dealing with a situation like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"As far as “philandering” goes: He admitted to having affairs while married to his ex-wives"
He paid a porn star $130k to not talk about him cheating on his wife with her. This is public knowledge, and I'm sure even the cult was aware of the situation when it was revealed, even as they pretend that it's meaningless (but will maintain that Clinton didn't receive enough punishment for his blowjob).
"Biden may not be doing much better, but he’s not trying to make things worse by actively separating families and shoving kids in cages within concentration camps"
He's also only been in office for a few months, and has had way more pressing issues to concentrate on. Any cries of "why hasn't Biden done X yet?" until at least halfway through his term should be dealt with as the impotent whining that it is, especially since Biden has smashed targets he set elsewhere.
Even so, at least we can rest assured that there is going to be some semblance of humanity in how the situation is dealt with, and not the cruel incompetence of deliberately ripping families apart then losing track of where the parents are, as happened under Trump. Remember everyone - basic competence and humanity, things to vote against in this guy's eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In particular, they feel that Hillary Clinton didn't receive enough punishment for Bill's blow job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For anyone who somehow doesn't believe Trump is sexist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE4hKIP4n0
Watch that, and tell me that person respects women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Building a wall that long and that high takes time.
Even if his running premise was to make Mexico pay, few actually believed that would be a possibility.
It was partly offset by other concessions from the country though.
Most of those deals were made with the intent of uniting countries against Iran. And that sounds good to me! Iran is the largest threat to the world. Then. And now.
I would have used a deferent term, but that’s exactly what the issue is. A land dispute.
I’m no fan of either though I am more likely to stand with Palestine.
The two sides could wipe each other off the map for all I care and we’d be rid of an international cancer. Both governments conduct regular acts of terrorism against each other.
North Korea is a genuine country with a genuine leader. They’d be far less of a threat if the West stopped stepping on their neck and stabbing them in the back.
I’ll simply skip the partisan economic issue. Whatever damage came from the pandemic was limited to shutdown states.
I chose to vote.
I do not accept you claim Trump was a racist.
The next two mean nothing. So what. Never proven. Don’t believe you.
Biden did no better with migrants.
You intentionally mis-quote and I agree with the statement, not the intention. Nobody should steamroll anyone based on race.
Next sentence is bullshite as the majority of BLM’s public front is violent anti-white racists. All shouting black power over a surge fuller criminal who was stopped for committing a felony.
I don’t accept heavily edited papers claiming humans are more than a drop in the proverbial bucket on climate.
The person who tried to kidnap the Michigan gov was anti-trump,
Wow, and I’m in a bubble on choices.
Trump never told anyone to ‘invade’ the capital.
The recount happened because the PEOPLE called for it.
The members of Congress exercised one of their rights in objection.
All opinions
I don’t believe in your god.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. I’ve spent the majority of my life seeing first hand what dementia is and what it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only in the sense that you clearly have it, perhaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Said the guy who's been spending days shitposting everyone who did.
You're not fooling anyone, mate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your blind hatred, coupled with MSNBCNN doing everything they could to hide the medical fact, allowed you, and half the population, to vote for Biden, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's fair to say after over three hundred instances of back and forth in this article, you run according to very different personal metrics.
The apologism for Trump's failure to deliver on his campaign promises of building the Mexican border wall, or arrest Hilary Clinton, despite having an overwhelming majority in all the government departments that mattered during his tenure, is the icing on top of a shit cake you've been trying to serve everybody else. Because a Democrat-run Presidency would have been the apocalypse but nobody can speculate what would happen if Trump got a second term. Sure, you're not a Trump fanboy - pull the other one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump, over Time, won me over.
He’s not my ideal choice. Just the best offered.
A hundred years from now it would be interesting. How do totally devastated the Communist entrenched Democrat and Republicans were that trump won. How totally incomprehensible that over 20% of registered Dems voted against genocidal Clinton.
It’s quite obvious Trump haters will never accept his achievements.
Want to ridicule me? Fine. I don’t really care what any individual thinks of me. Unless you make absolutely false claims about my person or history.
As far as I’m concerned, Trump was the only choice twice. Period.
The administration’s achievements in 4 years was worth any failures. Period.
Nice of you to hide behind anonymous. So bold you are. One thing for sure, I don’t hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you've been so receptive of the achievements of non-Republicans? Achievements are not worth criticizing. That's what makes them achievements. On the other hand, you've done little more than stammer your lips like a woman scorned because Trump was mildly insulted on a website he doesn't even read.
These obvious lies aren't fooling anyone, son.
Ah, yes... he rode the back off natural economic shifts in the same way Biden and Obama and every other President did, then promised bigger tax cuts for corporations because those over-enriched entities really needed the help for some reason, then completely failed to deliver on his campaign boasts of the Hilary arrest or border wall. Following this he delivered a tub-thumping speech showing off how much of a bad loser he was, then proceeded to throw all his most fervent, devoted supporters under the bus after the January 6th failure.
You know, you could have just skipped out all this embarrassment if you'd just went ahead and admitted you were an always-Trumper Republican instead of failing to lie that you were non-partisan. But your mad lads have always had a strange obsession with embarrassing yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, you’re opinion of me means nothing, unless you attack.
“…always-Trumper Republican”
The fact is your flat out wrong. I have never been a Republican. Republicans believe in some fantasy flying dude in the sky. They allow that nonsense to guide their “morals”.
That alone l, and making up 99% of my dislike, guarantees I don’t allow myself to be counted among them.
Support of trump over the last 4 years? Yes. Republican? Never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The back you're breaking just to carry their water like a simp incel watching OnlyFans.com would disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OnlyFans may have a reputation for porn. But it’s more than that.
Only fans is a chance for people to supply their fans with what they want for a fee. Sometimes it’s exactly what they want m.
Everyone involved on all sides is a willing consenting participant.
Email
So wtf are you even trying to convey with that comment?!??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who said anything about porn? I was pointing out your consistent, fervent dedication to Republicans despite your constant, mediocre attempts to distance yourself from them.
But it's quite clear how your brain is wired. When I mention "masculine insecurity" your thoughts turn to fellatio. When I mention "OnlyFans" your first instinct is to claim "it's not all porn". Quite the cultured mind you have, to be expected from a diehard advocate of the pussy grabber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OnlyFans is hard for anyone to report on; it’s not indexed.
I still have no idea what OnlyFans has to do with anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It means you're the type of person who clutches his pearls and empties the family vault because Trump started selling his ex-President bathwater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the 20th of January, the COVID-19 death toll in the United States was near or above 400,000 (depending on which stats you’re looking at and whether you believe the death rate is underreported).
Yes or no: Is everything Donald Trump accomplished in his four years as president worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who died from, and the health and well-being of the millions more infected with and affected by, COVID-19 in the year between the first recorded cases/deaths and the time he left office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Executive mask mandated are unconstitutional. Along with that, why are you so worried if an anti-Vax or anti-mask idiot drops dead. Lifting, only now after months of saying it wasn’t safe to do so.
Boarder, border. Because many people gave auto complete turned on and for whatever reason boarder is the auto fill.
I supported a border wall. It’s that simple. A high tech one with animal passage and AV with AI that can tell the difference between a dear or fox or Jaguar vs a human.
I’d take having it over not.
“ Lol, you know what Trump said about gun rights?”
Context. Congratulations on finding evidence even he supported some levels of control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why hasn't a single one of them been struck down?
Because they could take a lot of other people with them. The germ theory of disease and all that.
Where did you hear that, Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither. Both my grandfathers had dementia. As did my grandmother. Multiple aunts, uncles, extended family.
Just because Cuomo won’t report it doesn’t make it go away.
Multiple lawsuits are making their way through the system. The President does not have the power to make law. A governor doesn’t have the power to make law. That’s what the legislature does.
Masks stop the spread right? So your safe regardless of what someone else does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you may be disappointed by the outcome.
https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/face-covering-requirements-and-the-constitution/
Masks primarily stop the wearer from spreading the disease. They're not particularly effective at keeping the wearer from catching it. So I am protected when those around me are wearing masks (and now because of the vaccine but that's a different topic).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
an interesting read.
Though nothing directly negates my point.
There’s a few issues to this often heated and partisan discussion.
The premise behind an executive order for a time of crisis is to be for the short term, and the duration of the crisis. But usually in that order.
The continuing expansion of an order’s duration is problematic. At some point the Congress needs to legislate. Ideally the governor calls a special session for a directed action.
That the mask mandate state governors have failed to do so calls into question their reasoning for the delay.
Executive ability is meant to be Temporary to allow congress time to act. Be it federal government, state, or the community association or renter’s board.
The second is mandating within private commune. I have the same issue with smoking bans and the same issue changed my opinion on 230.
I have a legal issue with the the law stating a company can not serve smokers even if they choose to serve only smokers.
That’s a violation of property.
I wonder if these governors are worried the legislature wouldn’t pass a bill to force masking indoors at private companies.
I question the authority of a governor to mandate actions on/in private property in any time. Pandemic or not.
If a dance club chooses to go mask optional and the people choose to go there, so what.
And if a gym would rather have people not drop dead from masking over the rights of their patrons to exercise without restricted airflow: so be it.
It’s not about a company requiring a mask for me. It’s about the government not giving a private company the option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Multiple lawsuits are making their way through the system"
Wake me up when a court finds in favour of one of them. People file lawsuits for things that will never work in court all the time, usually as red meat to throw to an uneducated base.
"Masks stop the spread right? So your safe regardless of what someone else does."
Yes, masks stop the spread... by reducing the spread from you, not to you from others. Which is why mandates are necessary, because way too many selfish morons won't bother to do something to protect others.
You'd know this if you read up on the basics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Executive mask mandated are unconstitutional."
I'm interested to read the supreme court decision that states this, and how the parameters decided fit the scenario of a global pandemic. It seems strange to me that basic health mandates of a type that already happened in the country's history would be illegal, but I'm interest in seeing your sources.
"Because many people gave auto complete turned on and for whatever reason boarder is the auto fill."
I note it only because it's always right-wing morons bleating about fictional open borders who spell it that way. I don't see it from people on speaking terms with facts. It's just a strange quirk I notice, and it's almost always a tell that the person using the word is not dealing with the facts honestly.
"I supported a border wall. It’s that simple."
Yes, I do understand that you supported the most expensive, least effective method of dealing with the problem. That was never a question in my mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the Democrats didn’t stand in the way of closing travel from China and the boarder stayed remain in Mexico; it’s likely it would have remained rather low numbers.
Am I reading this right? You believe that closing the borders after we already knew COVID-19 was in the general population was somehow going to help keep the numbers low?
I'd say you are either delusional or terrible at math, but I bet this is a thing like young-earth creationists who espouse falsehood under orders.
Your arguments may be pragmatic bad faith, but they're bad faith nonetheless, and it's an act of hostility just to make them. You're trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not intentionally. I see the same effort in Biden stopping travel from India. You see hot sources and you stop inbound travel. There are numerous countries that should have had inbounds halted. China is the top of the list but also Italy, UK…
Travel and immigration without pre-boarding testing should have been halted, and the worst hot spots completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they weren’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only Chinese people were prevented from travelling. Thousands of US citizens were let in direct from China and even from Wuhan straight into the largest international airports with neither quarantine nor effective screening, under Trump's "travel" "ban."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“ Thousands of US citizen…”
Yes. I agree across the board. The ban should have been all travel from hot spots!
Sadly barring Americans from returning is fraught with Constitutional issues and would have required an act of Congress.
While i understand the intent (stop inbound infected), it was inadequate.
But Democrats fought even that attempt, which with mandatory quarantines would have been better than nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Yes. I agree across the board. The ban should have been all travel from hot spots!"
But, it wasn't. Therefore, it was a clearly racist policy that was ineffective at its declared aim, and thus Democrats were right to criticised it. Especially since at the time Trump was arguing that he was a great visionary for finally admitting the virus was real and doing something about it, restricting travel from China and not Europe would not have made a real difference in the spread.
"Sadly barring Americans from returning is fraught with Constitutional issues"
Emergency powers exist, and there are other ways to deal with things than an all or nothing approach, especially with the way Trump inspired a lot of people to crowd airports in a panic.
"But Democrats fought even that attempt"
Yes, they fought to attempt to do something that was utterly ineffective at that point that caused more problems than it hoped to fix. This is not a bad thing, despite your insistence on pretending that Trump was competent despite all available evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like his Muslim ban that preceded it. Or his anti-brown-immigration policies in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and then when the incompetence and ineffectiveness are criticised, the cult will pretend that any criticism of the programs means that Democrats just want to open borders and remove all immigration procedures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I differentiate between incompetence and guided ignorance.
Open boarders? It doesn’t help when the alt-left (far left, progressive movement) is specifically calling for just that.
Or do you admit that the progressive AOC Squad is not representative of the party as a whole?
It’s fairly cut and dry in my opinion.
Did you wait in line, fill out forms, and gain legal access. Or did you cross between border points and simply walk in.
The first is legal immigration. Motherboard second is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show me proof of any sitting politician in the United States has ever called for open borders. (That’s b-o-r-d-e-r-s, no “a”.) Also, show me proof that any sitting politician in the United States is part of a “far left” movement. Also also, show me proof there even is a “far left” movement in the United States.
When has anyone here ever said otherwise? And yes, the so-called Squad are outliers in the Democratic Party precisely because they aren’t a bunch of middling centrists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Show me proof of any sitting politician in the United States has ever called for open borders"
Preferably one with significant influence and power. One of the things that differentiates the parties is that Democrats are not as prone to promoting the fringe nutters to prominent positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And no, reopening the lawful entry points to their pre-Trump levels is not an "open border."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Proof of sitting alt left?
“ do you admit that the progressive AOC Squad is not representative of the party as a whole?”
And her late January call for total disbandment of ICE and totally open borders? A sitting politician, alt left, open borders. Her Instagram Q/A and multiple public calls for totally open borders is quite well documented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove, with links to credible news sources, that AOC (or any other Democrat) has called for a “totally open borders” mandate while in office.
We had immigration and customs enforcement well before we had Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Note the capitalization, lest you think I’m repeating myself.) Abolishing ICE isn’t a “radical” idea; the agency is only 18 years old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) easy: Cortez is a member in good standing of the DSA.
Who’s platform is completely open borders.
http://www.trueworldpolitics.com/articles/racism/images/dsa-2019-resolution-73.pdf
2) ICE combined INS and Customs And Border Patrol. Abolishing ICE would eliminate multiple agencies now under one banner; that protect our country. Though I didn’t bring up ICE at all. It sure where that came from.
3A) so do I. I don not support swimming across a river and running into the desert. I do not support climbing over the fence and running away.
What we need is MORE control. More wall, more points of entry, more people processing inbounds, more tracking of where these people are if they overstay their visit, …
3B) I’ve long supported public funded healthcare for all US citizens.
One that must include full reproductive protections and family planning.
One that does not deny care based on religious objections.
One that tells you the truth on options and lets the patient choose.
There’s nothing wrong with public medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I said credible sources. You should’ve searched the official DSA website for its platform - a search which led me to find a first draft of the 2021 platform for the DSA. The draft contains only three instances of the word “border”; in all three instances, the context is not “open borders”, but “border enforcement” and the militarization thereof. (A similar situation occurs with “immigration” and “immigrant”, and both “open” and “immigrate” aren’t found anywhere in the document.) Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut, for the sake of making sure I don’t hurt your fee-fees by talking only about “credibility” and “bullshit”, I took a look at the document you linked to. Turns out, it’s part of a list of resolutions approved for debate at the 2019 national convention — not an official voicing of support for “open borders” by the organization as a whole. While I did see a tweet or two saying DSA delegates voted in support of that specific resolution, it doesn’t appear to be a major plank of the DSA platform (judging from that 2021 draft), and those delegates don’t speak for all members of the DSA. This is what happens when you look for official/credible sources instead of going with “junk food” news that makes you feel good by playing to your biases: You learn some actual facts.
We didn’t need one consolidated agency before 2003. I don’t see why we need one consolidated agency now, especially since ICE is so militarized and violent that abolishing it would probably save lives (though I’m not sure you’re all that concerned about those lives…or that you think they even deserved to be saved).
That’s how we have the system we have today: Thinking greater enforcement, stronger enforcement, more violent enforcement is what’s needed. You want to curb immigration from Central and South American countries? Here’s an idea: Tell the U.S. government to stop fucking around in/destabilizing those countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which may or may may not have a given my 2019. A quick search for their name gave me only news articles.
I scanned down the list for the first hit that wasn’t left wing (NYP) or right wing (most were) and took the platform hosting it from a company I’ve never seen before.
Quite obvious from your post that they have abandoned that aspect. I retract that claim.
I do know she discussed open borders on Instagram just recently but I don’t have an active Instagram account so can’t look myself what she actually said.
The department consolidation was done to speed response and increase interagency communication. Like police though, I don’t like simply disbanding it. The department should be split back to the original agencies.
I didn’t say greater strong or more violent. I said more entry points on a more secured order. And more people to process entry. With the addition of addressing people who over-stay limited visits.
One need not agree with all to agree with some policy.
Given everyone has come out with reports post 2016 stating the majority of Americans a limited issue voters and a statistically important number are single issue voters.
Health care is a disaster in this country. The most significant negative of Obama care was mandated terms. It’s no longer possible to switch carriers at will. You are now forced into enrolment periods and mandated durations. Not for “public” options: for ALL options.
It gave us many positive benefits but it is poorly implemented. I don’t have a solution but Obamacare is as bad as it is good.
Do you not understand people can have views that contradict their chosen vote? I have some issues I find more important than others. Just like most polls show the vast majority of US citizens to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False premise: To have abandoned that policy, the DSA would first have needed to adopt said policy as part of its overall platform. I’ve found no proof that it has; if I’m wrong, I retract this criticism.
Then you should be able to find a direct quote, or a video clip, where AOC herself explicitly says she supports open borders — instead of a bunch of results that claim (without sourcing those claims) AOC supports open borders.
Which is the position I support. ICE isn’t necessary; the agencies it replaced were.
The U.S. can’t secure more entry points without more people and more deterrents against illegal entry. It can’t really deter illegal entry without resorting to violence (because little else works). So in this case, yes, “more security” inherently means more violence.
It’s still better than the status quo we had before Obamacare, which is what the GOP — the party of Trump, the man for whom you voted — wanted to bring back without any plan to replace Obamacare/the pre-ACA status quo.
You said you voted for Trump. Trump supported — among other things — a complete repeal of the ACA, stronger border security (which would eventually include his concentration camps along the southern border), “very fine people” who marched on Charlottesville in support of white supremacy, letting COVID run rampant for months before finally admitting that it wasn’t going to “just go away”, and…oh, what else was it…uh…lemme think…oh yeah, he also supported an armed insurrection against Congress and the unconstitutional overturning of the results of a free and fair election.
You voted for him and everything he stood for, even if you didn’t agree with all of what he stood for. You voted for a president who is, in every sense of the term, evil. Until you renounce that vote and express sincere regret for the pain caused by the man you supported, you’re a piece of shit. I won’t grant you absolution or sympathy if you can bring yourself to do those acts, though — I’ll save my sympathies for the families of those who died from COVID thanks to Donald Trump, the man for whom you voted, being a lying narcissistic grifter asshole who was more worried about looking bad in the polls than about the deaths of the people he was elected to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I differentiate between incompetence and guided ignorance."
I want neither quality in my leaders, but you voted fo him..
"t doesn’t help when the alt-left (far left, progressive movement) is specifically calling for just that."
I've already told you how stupid you are for falling for that piece of marketing. But, even if the "far left" are saying that, they have no significant power in the US. Are the centre-right party currently in power saying any such thing?
"Open boarders?"
Again with referring to renters when you mean to refer to boundaries between countries. I do find this fascinating.
"Or do you admit that the progressive AOC Squad is not representative of the party as a whole?"
Nobody apart from the right-wingers shitting themselves about non-white women with some power who think differently to them thinks otherwise. AOC would have been just another motivated first time player if Fox didn't decided to be scared of her. To anyone else without you people whining about them every few minutes, they would be relatively unknown. They might be the future if the future is something other than white baby boomer men with a big bank account, but that's up to the voters to decide.
"The first is legal immigration. Motherboard second is illegal."
Yes, and various things ranging from the massive barriers to legal immigration from some countries to the war on drugs that made so many desperate people needing to try and make the journey complicate things somewhat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ohkay, banning travel from anti-American countries that promote terrorism is racist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like Saudi Arabia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Didn't happen that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“ Thousands of US citizen…”
Yes. I agree across the board. The ban should have been all travel from hot spots!
Sadly barring Americans from returning is fraught with Constitutional issues and would have required an act of Congress.
While i understand the intent (stop inbound infected), it was inadequate.
But Democrats fought even that attempt, which with mandatory quarantines would have been better than nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
"I’d be happy to hear a source where any other vaccine was created, produced, tested, trialed, and released, in history, faster than C19."
There were several successful trials, some of which had absolutely fuck all to do with Trump's push to pretend to be doing something after he dropped the ball so many times early on.
The speed of rollout is easily explained by the being a worldwide pandemic, which obviously led to some of the normal red tape being suspended on an international level to fight the disease.
Trump is a con artist and grifter who regularly takes credit for things he didn't really have anything to do with, and you've fallen for it again.
"Just like the multiple times he called out white power extremists and they kept claiming he didn’t"
After he called black people silently protesting the police murdering black people "sons of bitches" and the murdering white supremacists "very fine people", does it really matter what he was told to say in future comments to stop getting the bad press? He'll condemn George Floyd, but wish Ghislaine Maxwell the very best.
You have to be pretty deep in the echo chamber not to see what's going on here.
"Feel free to correct me, but I’ve yet to see a post or video clip of him saying it was fake."
Then you're being wilfully ignorant, and you should stop getting your news from outlets known to outright lie to their viewers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
The actual quote is “But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”
In context of the discussion he stated his support for the rights of peaceful protesters on both sides.
You can check out the entirety of the situation at:
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc
"Trump has said his “very fine people” comment referred not to white supremacists and neo-Nazis but to “people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee"
Oh, so he's not referring to Nazis and white supremacists, he's actually referring to the type of person who supports the Confederacy in the 21st century using symbols that mainly became prominent during opposition to civil rights. I'm sure there's a difference somewhere in your mind.
Meanwhile, he has many other words and actions that reveal how he really felt about such things. Maybe they didn't penetrate the Murdoch echo chamber you built for yourself, but a lot of the rest of us have seen and heard them. You might be able to point to prepared statements he made when he got competent adult supervision after a tragedy, but we've also seen the mask slip when he's left to speak off the cuff or Twitter rage at 3am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and ba
"Ignore the actual context of Trump;s actual thoughts, and instead look only at this cherry-picked time he stayed on-script!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc
Yep, and one of the sides was neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Then when condemning the violence, he couldn't bring himself to just condemn the neo-Nazis, he had to also pretend the peaceful protesters were violent:
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very fine people
Trump, advised by his handlers, added context to obfuscate what was clearly an endorsement of white supremacist groups endorsing replacement theory one of whom launched a lethal attack on counter-protestors, killing one.
Trump was covering his ass while at the same time resenting he had to cover his ass. Now, enough of the GOP is afraid of him (and the rest of us see his dog tubas) that he doesn't bother.
Trump is very much the monster we knew he was in 2015 and 2016. He made it clear what it was. That just happened to appeal to a lot of people: Create a mythical past where the overclass held power that was allegedly better than today, and administrate to return to that era, as if it were true, even if it means treating the underclass as subhuman.
Fascism.
Even the idiots who didn't get it was a con by a liar got that Trump was the obliterate-the-nonwhites president. And today, that's all the GOP is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
Not only that, but they had already been working on a vaccine for another coronavirus, which gave them a big head start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balanc
That is true. A lot of the "just asking questions" crowd seem to think that the medical community was starting for literally nothing, which is so far from the truth it's laughable.
The other problem is how some of them get confused and bring up 10 year old coronavirus documents that mention dangers with then-current research and think that it has to do with the vaccines we have now, because obviously medical science doesn't change in a decade...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
Can you explain why people choosing to live in large cities should make their votes count for less?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
So your interest in the constitution ends after, what, the second amendment? You're obviously not a fan of the fifth, sixth, or eighth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On rights and balance
Without should be with. Auto type.
Wow that makes a bit of a difference doesn’t it. Oops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I assume that, with this paragraph, you’re referring to the efforts to repeal Section 230.
Democrats want to repeal 230 because they think services such as Twitter aren’t moderating enough speech — that those services are “letting” TOS-violating speech stay up because…reasons. Their thought process in repealing 230 goes like this: “We repeal 230 and they’ll be forced, by threats of lawsuits, to moderate far more than they do right now.” But any repeal of 230 wouldn’t repeal the First Amendment — i.e., it wouldn’t “allow for unlimited censorship”.
Republicans want to repeal 230 because they think services such as Twitter are overmoderating speech — that those services are “censorsing” conservative speech and ideas (you know the ones…) because of an anti-conservative bias. Their thought process in repealing 230 goes like this: “We repeal 230 and they’ll be forced, by threats of lawsuits, to carry conservative speech no matter what.” Their repeal of 230 wouldn’t “allow for unlimited censorship”. It also wouldn’t “end moderation as a whole”…although it would prevent most moderation, even the “non-destructive” kind, from ever happening because of the threat of being sued over it.
Repealing 230 would do nothing to stop actual censorship. If anything, it might encourage censorship by encouraging companies to stop hosting third-party speech, since 230 would no longer prevent services from being held liable for such speech.
And moderation still wouldn’t be censorship, no matter how much moderation feels like censorship to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you for expanding what I said.
I see we are in agreement On Dems, Reps, and repeal.
The only disagreement is how we got to agreeing. And the choice of definition.
See. Opposing views doesn’t have to be a roadblock to understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, let’s look at that list.
Twitter moderation doesn’t infringe upon this right. A person who has a tweet/account deleted from Twitter still has the right to go elsewhere and say the same things that made Twitter moderate them. Thinking otherwise is to believe in the “I have been silenced” fallacy.
I’ll assume here that you refer to the right of association. Twitter moderation doesn’t infringe upon this right, either. What would infringe upon this right is the idea that Twitter must sandbox speech it would otherwise delete — that it must host speech against the wishes of the owners/operators — or else it is (somehow) a censor.
Tangential to, but not wholly the same as, the above question. The right of association gives me the right to tell someone to fuck off while in an open field owned by no one; property rights give me the right to kick out someone who I’ve told to fuck off but won’t leave my home.
People suffer undue burdens all the time — sudden deaths of family members, debilitating diseases, financial hardships, you name it. Nothing in the laws of Man or God (whichever one you worship) says people have a right to be free of such burdens.
Moderation doesn’t fuck with anyone’s rights. Forcing “non-destructive” moderation to prevent “censorship” would, at the bare minimum, violate the right of association and property rights. You can’t balance the idea of “non-destructive” moderation and the right of Twitter to choose which speech it will and will not host without infringing upon that right. Nobody can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m no atheist. If a higher power exists it’s of female form.
Given that women are better than men in almost all comparisons.
If the JIC god existed he’d let me know. And I’d tell him to come down here and know his roll and open his mouth and “know” me.
As I’ve said before. And stand by, the quote from “Kings of the North”:
What would I do in heaven when all my friends are down in hell.
Well, and I’m quite sure I can convince enough of the demonic hordes to fight along side me I’d take over.
So sure.
I’m agnostic and anti JIC same god different name interface in advancement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stay classy, bro. You don't want to let that masculine insecurity out of sight now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, rotflmfa!
In an attempt to stay somewhat r15
I’ll limit my brief reply to, I’m not insecure. I’m quite content with my slightly shorter than average rifle and slightly larger than average grenades. My mouth and skilled use of it provide enough to make any consideration of “deficiency” a none factor.
I pity your self confidence that you need to turn the generic suck/kiss/lick my into something of more, specific and directed usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's funny that you got anything "specific and directed" out of
I'd say to tell the class what you thought was being "specific and directed", but hundreds of shitposts from you later, it's very clear that you let your Trump do the talking for you instead of your brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“least effective method of dealing with the problem“
You have a less expensive solution to people illegally crossing the border? Be my guest in explaining what neither Democrats nor Republicans have come up with since, oh, ever?
Do save any nonsense about fixing the issues down south. We already have our fingers in too many country’s politics.
America needs to mind its own business internationally.
“I'm interested to read the supreme court decision that states this“
Well, You can’t. The cases haven’t gotten that far yet.
Something you well know and use to attempt to weaken my comment. I doubt the Supreme Court is going to allow Governors to run over the separation of powers.
Those past pandemic restrictions have all reached the same issue this pandemic likely will. By the time the cases makes it to the SC it’s already moot.
“You'd know this if you read up on the basics”
Given Dr Flip-Flop couldn’t begin to show ANY consistency,…!
The N/KN/K 95 masks stops the spread to you.
Maybe you’d understand that if you read up on medical basics.
But since you prefer MSNBCNN over Competent doctors I don’t blame you for being misinformed.
As for the OnlyFans:bath water …wtf?
What does that even mean. Trump isn’t selling bath water (as far as I’m aware).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You have a less expensive solution to people illegally crossing the border?"
Yes. The primary solutions would be to go for the source, the reasons why people are trying to cross in the first place. There's two main types of migrants - economic and refugees. You can reduce the problem of economic migrants by cracking down on employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants, and by improving a lot of the problems facing would-be migrants who resort to illegal methods when they find the legal ones impossible.
As for refugees, well, most of the actual refugees crossing the border are displaced due to American military activity on the rest of the continent, especially with regard to the "war on drugs". You won't get so many people risking their lives desperately trying to reach the US if you stop destabilising their home countries.
There's a lot more to it of course, but the real solutions are complex and don't allow Republicans to shit their pants over "caravans" when it's convenient to their election chances, and there's no chance for Steve Bannon to grift gullible idiots in the process. This is the problem with your type - you prefer the easy lies over the complicated and hard truths, which is why you fell for a con artist's grift.
"Well, You can’t. The cases haven’t gotten that far yet."
OK, so in other words they've not been found to be unconstitutional yet. Let me know when that happens. My prediction is that they'll be laughed out of court like so many Trumpian lawsuits are, then rather than admit that you were wrong you'll start bleating about activist judges or some such nonsense.
"Given Dr Flip-Flop couldn’t begin to show ANY consistency,…!"
He was consistent given information available at the time, and with the knowledge that recommending medical grade masks before it was confirmed that they were necessary would result in morons hoarding them as if they were toilet paper. A big problem, given that there was already a shortage and front line medical workers needed them more than the average person. Once it was confirmed that not only would masks be effective, they didn't have to be full N95 grade to be so, the advice was changed.
This is how science works - when new evidence is available, you re-examine your conclusions and adjust it if required. Only an idiot would keep stating the same thing over and over again in light of evidence showing them to be wrong. What you call "flip-flopping" is what the rest of the world calls being a responsible adult.
"The N/KN/K 95 masks stops the spread to you."
We're not just talking about those masks, which as far as I'm aware are not the masks used by most people.
"As for the OnlyFans:bath water …wtf?"
...and you again reply to me with a comment I didn't make. The joke that person made is pretty obvious, but it's no surprise that it went over your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trump's "close the legal border checkpoints" "solution" was counterproductive at controlling "illegal" immigration, but like his children torture policy was great at the goal of causing unnecessary harm to brown people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“This is the problem with your type”
So the US just must accept each and every “refugee” who comes knocking? Just walk I and don’t register!?
I have no issue with immigration. It’s the violation of sovereignty I have a problem with. If you don’t use a point of entry you’re breaking the law. Being a criminal on day one isn’t a good start in a new country.
I do agree we should just mind our own business.
“ We're not just talking about those masks”
I am. You’re not. Which is why we didn’t go out in public until we got them
. Once we had the correct protection for the situation we resumed our daily lives. It didn’t help that the government spent months and months pushing something only partly effective!
The proper thing to say would have been the truth. The partisan bubbles made it easy for Dems to demand masking using ineffective methods and the Republicans to say it doesn’t stop you from getting it.
Further every time someone pointed out that masks didn’t stop you from catching the virus the conversation was shut down. There’s a large number of doctors that question the efficacy of disposable masks against the virus at all.
Any protection is better than no protection; but the mandate to use something only partly effective is a major problem.
And in reality, some people simply don’t care. Private stores can refuse to serve maskless. But they can choose to serve them?
Why shouldn’t a company be allowed to be maskless only?
It took a while to figure out bath water was some form is saying snake oil. What that has to do with only fans is, yes, over my head.
I didn’t attribute the quote to you (not intentionally).
Just replied and o the comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"So the US just must accept each and every “refugee” who comes knocking"
You've been corrected on this before. There is not a binary choice between zero refugees and just letting everyone in without question. Reality is more nuanced than your chosen propaganda outlets tell you, and there's nobody with any real influence on the side of the issue that your poorly erected strawman represents.
"It’s the violation of sovereignty I have a problem with"
Nobody's suggesting you lose that either.
"I am. You’re not"
Yes, I'm talking about the full scope of reality, you're cherry picking things to pretend that you're respresenting the truth. Which you are not.
"Further every time someone pointed out that masks didn’t stop you from catching the virus the conversation was shut down"
Yes, because that argument was invariably a lie, usually driven by people who care more about a political agenda than the people.
"There’s a large number of doctors that question the efficacy of disposable masks against the virus at all."
Which doctors? I've seen chiropractors and the like spout such things, but I've not seen anyone with any credibly relevant backgrounds. I'd be suspicious of those people too since there's usually some obvious grift involved, but the loudest voices always seem to be people with as much direct expertise as I have (and less understanding of the data).
"Any protection is better than no protection; but the mandate to use something only partly effective is a major problem."
Ah, so you're a fan of letting perfect be the enemy of the good, what a shock. Again, those of us in the reality based community understand things like supply and demand, and the fact that some people will actively harm themselves and everyone else around them if they can be convinced that they're "owning the libs" by doing so. In these cases, sometimes the adults have to take charge, even if you think that your right to not be mildly inconvenienced trumps everyone else's right to live.
"Why shouldn’t a company be allowed to be maskless only?"
Because sane people don't want to create superspreader zones that encourage mutations and extend the pandemic indefinitely. I'd have no problem with you idiots doing such things if it could be guaranteed that you're the only people affected by your own actions, but while you risk everyone else then steps have to be taken.
Meanwhile, many other places in the world that did not treat wearing a mask as a political symbol have experienced way lower cases and thus problems with lockdowns and such things, because they worked well enough for them not to be needed. Masks are not a panacea, but they're an important part of trying to keep things as close to normal as possible until we reach the point where they're not needed.
"It took a while to figure out bath water was some form is saying snake oil."
That's not what was implied, but your lack of understanding about commonly used phrases is the least of your problems.
"I didn’t attribute the quote to you (not intentionally)."
Maybe not, but your inability to use the reply button and need to mix replies to different people in a single comment makes it appear that you're not trying to converse honestly at best, at worst maybe indicates that you're trying to derail the conversation away from the points you've already been correct on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“ Yes, because that argument was invariably a lie, usually driven by people who care more about a political agenda than the people”
“ by reducing the spread from you, not to you from others.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"by reducing the spread from you, not to you from others"
Yes, that is how masks work, and why it's been so difficult to get selfish psychopaths to protects others from them when they're told they have to consider something other than themselves. Hence the mandates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Further every time someone pointed out that masks didn’t stop you from catching the virus the conversation was shut down"
“Yes, because that argument was invariably a lie, usually driven by people who care more about a political agenda than the people.“
What they were pointing out is exactly what you say. Yet the conversation gets deplatformed.
The reality is the virus is less likely to travel either way with a low grade mask or article of clothing. But the benefit is minimal compared to a properly selected mask. The 95% filtration masks.
Ultimately this comes back to property rights for me. Nowhere in the constitution or it’s amendments is their any requirement the government protect the people from themselves.
If a business wants to be open during the pandemic there’s no constitutional reason for them not to be.
If the customers choose to visit a location there’s no constitutional reason they should be prohibited.
And if a business chooses to be mask free it’s private property.
Here’s that pesky thing about “if you don’t like it go somewhere else”!
So the government should only invent rules on private business activity if you agree with it?
These orders aren’t even properly legislated. If the state legislature decided to encroach on property rights that’s for the legislature to pass, the governor to sign, and the citizens to accept, or fight in the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Further every time someone pointed out that masks didn’t stop you from catching the virus the conversation was shut down"
“Yes, because that argument was invariably a lie, usually driven by people who care more about a political agenda than the people.“
What they were pointing out is exactly what you say. Yet the conversation gets deplatformed.
The reality is the virus is less likely to travel either way with a low grade mask or article of clothing. But the benefit is minimal compared to a properly selected mask. The 95% filtration masks.
Ultimately this comes back to property rights for me. Nowhere in the constitution or it’s amendments is their any requirement the government protect the people from themselves.
If a business wants to be open during the pandemic there’s no constitutional reason for them not to be.
If the customers choose to visit a location there’s no constitutional reason they should be prohibited.
And if a business chooses to be mask free it’s private property.
Here’s that pesky thing about “if you don’t like it go somewhere else”!
So the government should only invent rules on private business activity if you agree with it?
These orders aren’t even properly legislated. If the state legislature decided to encroach on property rights that’s for the legislature to pass, the governor to sign, and the citizens to accept, or fight in the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The reality is the virus is less likely to travel either way with a low grade mask or article of clothing. But the benefit is minimal compared to a properly selected mask. The 95% filtration masks."
Yes, so you admit that wearing some kind of mask, even if they cannot use a proper N95 grade mask, is better than not wearing one at all. Therefore, given that there's so many selfish people who refuse to do the bare minimum of their own volition, and their refusal to do so infringes on the rights of others, a mandate is good policy even if it falls short of forcing everyone to wear medical grade masks (which, as already mentioned, didn't happen because hoarding assholes would stop front line staff from accessing them)
"And if a business chooses to be mask free it’s private property."
Businesses have rules they need to abide by, in return for offering the property to the public. This is just one extra public health rule to add temporarily to the list they already have to abide by in order to be open to the public. Unless your argument is that no codes should apply to businesses in order to open their doors (which is idiotic, even by your standards), I don't see the problem.
What's sad is that the people arguing like you don't seem to understand that by throwing your childish tantrums, you're extending the mandates and threatening further losses to business that wouldn't have happened if you just acted like adults from the start.
"These orders aren’t even properly legislated"
Emergency powers are like that. I can't imagine how many more people would be dead and permanently scarred now if the government had to fight a multi-year battle in court to get basic emergency medical measures in place.
The vastly disproportionate body count in the US compared to the rest of the developed world where basic medical advice did not become a political issue should be enough to make the point, but apparently your bloodlust knows no bounds when someone asks you to slightly inconvenience yourself to save others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I am not a Trump supporter," said Lostinlodos, "But I will bend over backwards and herniate my own spine in order to present an impression that I am, then get angry when people accuse me of resembling the impression I'm actively trying to give."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, he admitted he voted for Trump last year, he just pretends he's not a Republican. Which actually makes it worse that he's parroting all their talking points, complete with logical fallacies.
But, he confirms why things like lockdowns and mandates are necessary. If we had to wait for these people to do something altruistic or effective in a way they've been told is a political issue, the US death toll would have been way higher than the vastly disproportionate number it is already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“pretends he's not a Republican”
See, commentary like that is why many fight back against lockstep nonsense so passionately.
It’s why American politics has become A/B flip-flopping every 4-6 years since the 70s.
Agreeing with the other party on some things doesn’t make you part of it.
Part of what drove enough Democrats from the party to elect Trump the first time was by running someone so deeply entrenched in the extremes we chose someone who didn’t really represent the leadership of either party.
I voted for security and protectionism. Against Communist redistribution and globalism.
And end to West Asian US supported genocides and against imperial engagement.
I voted for now, not 500 years from now. For current reality, not as-yet-unproven hypothesis.
I supported fact during the pandemic over protectionism based on unknowns.
How many Americans got the virus based on the false statements that disposable masks could save their life?
Hoarding could have been legislated like every other disaster situation. By limiting who sells new stock (not already there) by lottery, and limiting per-person quantity.
By saying “masks save lives” and not qualifying the statement how many people died?
The majority of the country’s death toll was in the infirm and advances age categories.
Large pockets of that were caused by local governmental incompetence.
Throwing the sick in the the rest of closed locals like nursing homes helps no one.
Neither party did anything wrong. Other than fighting with the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only if you ignore how Republican leaders fought tooth and nail against lockdown measures and mask mandates and other “we need to protect public health” actions — the same actions that Donald Trump decried over and over and over again even after he himself caught COVID. He wanted to “reopen the economy” at several points during the pandemic — including Easter and the 4th of July — when the pandemic was nowhere near under control. Neither Trump, GOP lawmakers, nor Republican voters generally gave a good god’s damn about how many people died from COVID, so long as they could find a way to stop wearing masks indoors and act like the pandemic wasn’t killing hundreds-to-thousands of Americans per day.
For all their general spinelessness, at least Democrat lawmakers cared enough to enact and enforce measures that likely saved thousands of lives. They cared enough to keep mask mandates in place, to lock down cities so the virus wouldn’t spread as quickly as possible, to do something other than pretend the pandemic was “under control”.
Keep in mind that your support for Trump in 2020 was a vote for supporting the same person who ignored the pandemic until he couldn’t, tossed out a pandemic playbook because it came from the presidency of a Black man, and suggested the idea of injecting bleach into one’s body to kill the virus. Your vote was in support of a presidency that wanted great economic numbers regardless of how many deaths were needed to get those numbers. Among the many evils of the Trump administration, the absolute disregard for human life and suffering from a president who cared more about his polling numbers than death counts sits on the top of the list of his biggest atrocities. And you voted for that to keep going.
I hope you eventually get the fascist you want in office. I hope you vote for him, support him wholeheartedly, and cheer when he announces the death of American democracy. Because when he comes for you — and he will, eventually — I want your last thought before you get dragged off to prison (or worse) to be “but I voted for him to hurt others”.
Your vote was a vote for human suffering. Live with that for the rest of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
—Franklin
“…mandates…”
I won’t point that out because I do see that as a wrong.
Lockdowns are not the solution and have gone on way too long. A few week? Maybe. A year? No.
Mandating everyone use an inadequate mask is not only a violation of personal Liberty, it’s such a minor benefit I can’t justify trampling personal, and property rights for it.
Wonder how many masked people got the virus from being misinformed on how and what a mask can do. And NOT do.
The discussion of masks rarely properly covered the 95% masks. There was minimal coverage of N95/KN95/K95 masks outside of Fox. And even they didn’t cover it enough with the rights issue dominating conversation.
So people had no motivation to spend slightly more for a working protective solution. The misinformation on masking, by lack of disclosure, was a major problem.
“lock down cities so the virus wouldn’t spread as quickly as possible“
And yet those same states have the highest infection rates. Lock downs and mask mandates created a false, fake, sense of security.
He didn’t ignore the pandemic, he tried to not panic the population.
He tossed out a plan that wouldn’t have worked for the current virus. That had nothing to do with who created it.
And he NEVER said inject bleach into your body. But cling to your lie.
He wanted to protect the people likely to have problems without stomping on liberty.
He tried to shut down travel but the Dems went to court. He tried to move funding but the Democrats set up road blocks. He set up a plan for vacation funding, testing, and distribution. The the Democrats stood in the way on every single act.
When Biden came in and “did stuff” it’s because the Democrats stopped obstructing everything.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
—Franklin
It’s a profound statement. One of which I live by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FYI: Quoting a Founding Father doesn’t scare me.
I’d tend to agree, except for the fact that lockdowns weren’t adhered to in a unified way across the country. Some places locked down fully; some didn’t. Some places held onto the lockdowns until the virus was more under control; some didn’t. This lack of a unified national response to a once-in-a-lifetime public health hazard — especially from the federal government, which should’ve been leading one but wasn’t — led to the greater spread of the virus within the U.S.
Would you have preferred a mandate against wearing masks of any kind?
The mask mandates don’t “violate liberty” — at best, they mandate a minor inconvenience for the sake of protecting public health. (As Thanos might put it: “A small price to pay for savlation.”) It’s such a minor inconvenience that I can’t justify destroying public health and causing an even worse social and economic crisis in favor of complete “liberty” from masks.
I wonder how many unmasked “patriots” spread the virus in the name of “liberty” and “freedom”.
So what.
You know what would’ve helped? Clearer information about masks from the federal government and medical experts. Wanna know what stopped that from becoming front-page news? GOP leaders — including the then-president! — decrying mask mandates and saying “masks are ineffective” and all the other bullshit they said to make wearing a mask seem like (to paraphrase recent comments from GOP Rep. Marjorie Three-Names) wearing a yellow star during the Holocaust. Blame the man you helped put in office for that outcome.
Several states didn’t take the lockdowns/mask mandates/etc. seriously. GOP leadership in Washington didn’t, either. I won’t deny that we had some false hope pinned on masks and lockdowns and such — but we would’ve had better outcomes if we’d all have tried our best to avoid situations where we could catch/spread the virus.
Look how well that worked out: 400,000 dead in a year, panic buying on supplies people normally took for granted, numerous jobs lost and businesses closed, and all so Donald Trump could claim day after day that the virus was either “under control” or “going away” when neither claim was true.
He didn’t try to stop a panic. He tried to sweep a pandemic under the rug because it was destroying the economy and he knew that didn’t bode well for his polling numbers.
How do you know, with the absolute certainty of God Herself, that the pandemic playbook developed by the Obama administration wouldn't have worked — even partially — for COVID-19?
Donald Trump spent his entire time in office in a mad dash to undo anything good that Obama did — notably the attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act and his revocation of LGBT-friendly policies enacted by the Obama administration. Hell, the political career of Old 45 arguably began when he led the “birther” movement that sought to invalidate the presidency of the first Black man elected to the seat. To claim Trump tossing out the pandemic playbook had nothing to do with whose administration created the playbook is, at best, unintentional ignorance of the racist past of Donald Trump. (At worst, it is intentional ignorance.)
Donald Trump himself said the following at [a press briefing on the 23rd of April 2020] (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pe nce-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/): “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting. … And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.”
While he didn’t explicitly say “bleach”, the context of those comments makes his suggestion clear. And that context? He made those comments after a presentation about how sunlight and disinfectants (such as bleach) affected the COVID-19 virus on non-porous surfaces.
No, he didn’t. He didn’t give a damn about people dying of COVID until after the number of people dying became too great for even him to deny the truth.
Please provide a story from a credible source that proves this claim.
Please provide a story from a credible source that proves this claim.
Even if I were to grant this: His plans were half-assed and rushed into because of how late he was in getting his shit together in a backpack and telling the federal government to do something in response to the pandemic.
The Democrats didn’t “obstruct” any of the major COVID relief bills, except to fight for measures that would’ve benefitted the American public but the Republicans had tried to kill. The Democrats didn’t “obstruct” any plans to develop a vaccine. The Democrats didn’t “obstruct” anything meaningful related to the COVID-19 response. If you could offer proof of that claim, you would’ve.
And Biden coming into office meant a changeover in administration leadership on multiple levels — including those that had seen lax (if not non-existent) leadership from Trump cronies who cared more about making Old 45 look good than about saving lives. This meant people who knew how to do their fucking jobs, and do them well, were finally in positions of power again. Democrat-led “obstruction” didn’t cause COVID-19 responses to be delayed — that happened because of Trumpian-led incompetence and sociopathy.
Your vote for Donald Trump was a vote for human suffering. Live with that for the rest of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ Quoting a Founding Father doesn’t scare me.”
It wasn’t supposed to. Most people have a previous political hero. Many state Jefferson, Adams, Jackson, or Lincoln.
For me it’s Franklin.
That letter regarding the tax issues during the French and Indian war were about government overreach. But he himself referred to it at least 6 more times in political debate.
It’s one of the values in this county I hold close to my heart.
Maybe “Live free or die” would be more accurate but morbid.
“…masks…”
So everything. The left in the mask every or else drive worked so hard to force everyone to put on something that they ignored accurate information in trying to kill all discussion.
The vast majority of masks do nothing to protect the user. The federal government is not their to force you to care for yourself.
You have no right to tell me to put it on or take it off unless I’m on your property.
We’re just going to disagree with what method the president should have taken. The intention to shut down most travel from China would have greatly eased the numbers of infected and dead. By the time it became clear Trump hatred was going to delay a logical decision indefinitely, the fleeing travellers were already here. SoCal, NY, Chicago, Denver, etc.
“How do you know, with the absolute certainty of God Herself, that the pandemic playbook developed by the Obama administration wouldn't have worked — even partially — for COVID-19?”
Because it didn’t work for swine flue.
A virus that nearly kills a member of my immediate family. Turning a relatively healthy person into someone in need of permanent respiratory care.
I take it you lost someone from covid. Given how strong your feelings are.
I don’t blame Obama. He did his best to protect the country without panic. I use an KN95 mask today to protect myself AND others.
Given that most discussion about some masks working better than other ones is quickly killed because they’d rather you protect them than yourself: I don’t blame the no mask crowd either. They’re ignorant.
If both parties had been completely honest about masks in the first place we wouldn’t be debating this as much today!
It is not the federal government’s job, however, to dictate how a state should handle emergencies. Trump, as I do, happened to believe in something known as State’s Rights.
Some made mandates that are questionable at best. In every case of it was poorly implemented.
“…anything good that Obama did”
Affordable Care Act: a good intention, a terrible law.
It helped those who were un and under insured. But it decimated portability for anyone who already had insurance.
And Trump wasn’t advocating repeal, he advanced “repeal and replace”!
“ LGBT-friendly policies”?
Like what?
“ birther” movement”
Which he retracted when presented with evidence. The key thing never-Trumps like to ignore was that he asked for proof.
“Bleach”
Like I said: never did trump tell anyone to inject bleach! Or even imply someone should do that. The bleach bit is a progressive lie. Period.
The context, you are ignoring, is this wasn’t even a discussion with the nation, his supporters, or any official statement.
It was a question to an advisor on the current status of covid research.
“ No, he didn’t.”
Oh, what’s that term? Facts not in evidence! That’s it.
“Credible source”
The actual document
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants- nonimmigrants-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/
I may not be accurate on the response though.
I can’t find records for a case being filed, so it may have just been the bluster of threats made shortly after the order.
There’s little denying there’s plenty of travel-ban-racist reports though. The only mention I can find on the lawsuit is from a cached post on FoxNews. Obviously taken down for being incorrect. Since I can’t open it and can only read the snippet I have no knowledge if it was a “news report” or commentary either.
Every measure presented by a Republicans in Congress that had pandemic funds was fought, or blocked, by Democrats. They delayed the first relief bill by adding pork to it. Like the Kennedy Center
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/reaganmccarthy/2020/10/20/senate-covid-relief-n2578427
He only people I blame for covid deaths are the Chinese who either (likely based on international news) created it or refused to be honest about its spreadability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When multiple people have told you over and over again that the problem is that the president suggested researching injecting disinfectants into the human body, why do you go back to the word "bleach" every time? Do you think it's perfectly fine that he did that, as long as he didn't use the word "bleach"? Are you aware that many people ingested household cleaners after he said that?
During a live press conference. One can only imagine the idiocy he spouted behind closed doors if he was willing to say that with the cameras rolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
“ suggested researching injecting disinfectants into the human body,”
How the anti crowd likes to ignore not just context but parts of the sentence!
“ THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.”
“… And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning…”
Something like that. Nope. Still false. Absolutely did not suggest injecting Bleach, or any non-medically approved substance.
If you were confused by what was reported you can take it up with MSNBCNN and their tilted fake narrative.
“When multiple people have told you over and over again “
Bleach is what the talking point is.
Here’s our wonderful Vice President:
“I will not take his word for it. He wants us to inject bleach. No, I will not take his word,”
Yes, I’m fine with what he said. “Many”? Source? I read random people here and there. Not “many”.
A) these are poison hotline reports of calls. Not actual poisonings.
B) for all the “blind sheeple” of Trump, no wave of actual poisonings happened
C) Anyone who ingested cleaners without medical order is an idiot.
Maybe do some fact checking of your own?
Maybe read the actual transcript or watch the archive video from a reputable source, like the national archives. Not the partisan news spin?
If you were actually correct in any way in your CNN said it it’s true view, I’d agree with you. Your flat out wrong on all counts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I posted the whole goddamn sentence and then some. I didn’t ignore it; you’re ignoring both context and the idea of suggestibility.
Except he did — in his usual mob boss fashion. Take a look at his full remark about disinfectants:
The implication is clear: He wants people — scientists or doctors, sure, but anyone will do in a pinch — to try injecting disinfectants into human bloodstreams as a method of fighting COVID-19. He didn’t have to tell his followers to try it; they would pick up on his wishes and do it anyway. (Which they did.) He didn’t have to say “bleach” himself; the context of the entire conversation around that point and the mention of disinfectants did that heavy lifting for him.
Even if he didn’t explicitly say “I want you to inject yourself with bleach”, his implications were clear to the American public. He didn’t need to say it explicitly. His followers obviously knew what he meant. That he seriously suggested, in a public press briefing, the idea of injecting disinfectants into living human beings as a means of fighting COVID makes him an irresponsible buffoon who is indifferent to human suffering at best.
The fact that a higher number of calls than typical for that period of the year occured in the days after Trump suggested injecting disinfectants is at least one data point in favor of the idea that people took him seriously.
That you know of.
Anyone who suggested people could inject themselves with disinfectants to fight COVID during a public press briefing is an even bigger idiot.
I listened to the soundbite. I read the transcript. Unlike you, I can understand the nuance of implications — i.e., I can read between the lines.
Your vote for Donald Trump was a vote for human suffering. Live with that for the rest of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Clear?
And is there a way we can do something like that.
So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me
Against this wasn’t an address to the public, either.
How you get to shoot up with cleaners from that is beyond me!
“ That he seriously suggested, in a public press briefing, the idea of injecting disinfectants into living human…”
trump isn’t a doctor and was simply asking about it. If such a situation was possible, and that the question should be brought up to doctors.
“The fact that a higher number of calls than typical for that period of the year occured in the days after Trump suggested injecting disinfectants is at least one data point in favor of the idea that people took him seriously.“
OR
crank calls.
Unlike 911 there is no legal prohibition on calling any of the poison control hotlines. Unless you request medical assistance.
“Know of”
That I can reports of. Some report from Brazil. And another South American country. Argentina I believe though. Though any link to Trump is hair thin at best.
“Suggest”
That’s not what he said. That’s not what he implied.
“Between”
Haw sad. First he said bleach. Then everyone back-pedalled and claimed he see inject cleaners/disinfectant. Then when that was debunked you and others imply some “between the lines” nonsense.
I voted, and I sleep just fine. I don’t have to spend my time finding some rational meaning to cling to whatever fake invented story MSNBCNN put out today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In that the entirety of the US population wasn't in the room? It was a daily press briefing. What exactly do you think those are for?
It's right there in black and white, in language that is about as clear as Trump ever gets. But I'm not surprised at this point that it's beyond you.
What is "it"? You keep saying it's not injecting cleaning supplies, but I have yet to see your explanation of what exactly he was suggesting, if not that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The question, not directive, was if some form of disinfectant could be used as an injectable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as pointed out in another comment, bleach was mentioned as a disinfectant that kills the COVID-19 virus (albeit on non-porous surfaces) mere moments before Trump made his remarks. Logically leaping from the generalized “disinfectants” to the more specific “bleach” isn’t the stretch you seem to think it is. And openly positing the idea isn’t asking a question, either — because Trump never once phrased his idea (say it with me, Jeopardy! fans) in the form of a question.
You’re going to incredible lengths to defend a man who suggested that poisoning people with disinfectants was a possible idea for fighting COVID-19. Maybe reconsider whether you want to die on Clorox Hill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just a reminder, this is why we're having the conversation:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/AA47/production/_111919534_trumpgetty2.jpg
The orange idiot was reading a sign before the briefing that mentioned UV and disinfectant, and his addled mind turned it into the rambling nonsense we heard because he was desperate to pretend that he had ideas. This is what the con artist does - repeat things he heard as if they're his own idea, then claim credit when something blindingly obvious to experts happened. This was only a few weeks before he was asked to take a test designed to diagnose dementia, which he boasted about passing for weeks, as if it wasn't the bare minimum to be expected. Incidents like this might be why he was asked to take it.
Why these people are so stupid as to not only fall for this, but defend it a year after his incompetence left a greater American body count than almost every war combined is beyond me, but here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only people who thought this was anything more than exactly what was presented are: Democrats (and their blind followers around the world), carrier Republicans (and their blind followers around the world) who knew he couldn’t be bought off from day one, and a handful of idiots that try to light their farts on fire for YouTube.
Which of the three you are I don’t know. Not the third, but can’t tell if you’re the first or second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The only people who thought this was anything more than exactly what was presented are:"
It was presented as a rambling con artist trying to explain things he clearly doesn't understand to a world asking why he's failed so completely to that point.
I'm sorry that your politics didn't allow you to see that at the time, and that you're reduced to childish attempts at namecalling and threadbare strawmen to argue against this, but here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People with working brains and a sense of rational logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was a broadcast-to-the-public press briefing. You’re splitting hairs so thin that they’re practically invisible.
I’m not a doctor, and even I’m not ignorant enough to seriously suggest injecting disinfectants of any kind — including bleach! — into a living human being. No one should need a doctorate in human biology to know “bleach in body = bad”. I mean…just…fuckin’ hell, son, did your parents not keep the cleaning chemicals out of your reach or teach you that they weren’t for drinking?
Prove it.
He heavily implied that injecting disinfectants into human bodies was a possible method — and remember, even you said “possible” earlier! — of fighting COVID-19. Again, mob boss mentality: If he has an idea, so long as he expresses the idea, one of his followers is likely to act upon that regardless of whether the expressed idea lacks an explicit direction. Trump didn’t need to say “inject bleach” — his followers heard him raise the idea of “inject disinfectants to fight COVID” and some of them acted accordingly.
FYI: “Bleach” is shorthand for “disinfectants” in this specific discussion. And just so you know, in the moments leading up to Trump’s comments, Bill Bryan — then the head of Science and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security — said the following when mentioning which disinfectants scientists were testing for efficacy in killing the COVID-19 virus on non-porous surfaces: “We’ve tested bleach[.]” He followed that up with this: “I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes[.]” Given that context and the comments Trump made, saying “Trump suggested that people could inject bleach into their bodies to fight the virus” isn’t entirely accurate — but it’s closer to the truth than I’m sure you’re willing to admit.
Yes, I’m sure you’re indifferent to any human suffering that doesn’t directly affect you. I’d bet money on you thinking Derek Chauvin should be a free man right now, but I don’t do sucker bets.
Your vote for Donald Trump was a vote for human suffering. Live with that for the rest of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ and even I’m not ignorant enough to seriously suggest injecting disinfectants”
Disinfectants are used internally all the time. From deep wound care to surgery.
Antisepsis, Bactericide (a virucidal would be most relevant here), antimicrobials. Liquid antibiotics are exactly that: liquid disinfectants.
Maybe you are the one missing the context of the discussion?
“bleach in body“
Oh, back to bleach? Lol
“ Prove it.”
I can’t prove they fake any more than you can prove they were real. Since of the various reports of increased calls, no increase in requests for medical assistance occurred as directly dispatched via poison control centres.
“He heavily implied that injecting disinfectants into human bodies was a possible method”
Yes he did. One to be followed up on.
“ FYI: “Bleach” is shorthand for “disinfectants”
Uh, no. Bleach is never shorthand for any and all disinfectants.
“Derek Chauvin”?
Not at all. He killed a man without justification. And he will do his time.
I think voluntary manslaughter would have been a more accurate charge, but regardless the end result of the case would be the same. Just because the man Chauvin killed was a repeat offender criminal doesn’t make his death acceptable.
I’m content with my vote. Regardless of what you think it means. I’ll live with that just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bleach isn’t.
I understood the context just fine. Maybe you’re the one too afraid to criticize Dear Leader for suggesting the idea of injecting people with bleach — oh, I’m sorry, ~disinfectants~ — as a means of fighting COVID-19.
Again: The fact that he suggested the idea is enough for his followers to take him at his word and try it themselves — which some did, much to nobody’s surprise. (A similar thing happened when Trump first suggested using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment: At least one of his followers drank chlorine because of the suggestion posed by Dear Leader.)
In this discussion, it is.
My god, a Trump supporter who (maybe) cares about Black lives. I didn’t think such a thing was pos—
…never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"At least one of his followers drank chlorine because of the suggestion posed by Dear Leader"
Two people died because Trump did his hydroxychloroquine promotion, since they were Trump supporters and therefore too stupid to understand the difference between fish tank cleaner containing the chemical and the actual snake oil he was pushing.
But, that's what you get when a grifting con artist who fired all the actual scientists dealing with this makes a desperate hail mary move to distract from the fact that he killed so many people with his incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ My god, a Trump supporter who (maybe) cares about Black lives. I didn’t think such a thing was pos”
Has nothing to do with his race.
This was a minimum level felony. He wasn’t violent. He wasn’t fleeing. He didn’t attack them. He did nothing to deserve to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you think he was talking about injecting then?
No, it isn't. You're the one insisting it's about bleach, and I'm pretty sure it's because that's the only way you can be semi-right about it. I can't discount the possibility that you are just having trouble understanding it though, because you seem to be having trouble understanding a lot of things.
Correct, Trump supporters are idiots.
It's been quoted, in full, multiple times. There is no further context that can save you here. You are quite simply defending the former president for suggesting we inject cleaning products into people.
You have yet to identify a single aspect of this matter that I have gotten wrong. And it's "you're".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s quite simple. Nowhere in that conversation did Trump suggest anyone inject anything. He asked if such a thing was possible. More specifically he said to ask if such a thing was possible. He didn’t tell anyone to inject bleach, or any other household cleaner. He said we (the government) should look into the possibility of using disinfectants.
Bleach was the Biden campaign talking point. The Democrat talking point. The CNN talking point. Etc. Repeating “bleach” over and over. Finally accepting the Transcript was public and their story was indefensible, they switched the claim to disinfectants or cleaners in the news. Though both Biden and Harris had kept it up a bit longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you still voted for him despite his explicitly stated desire to have government scientists look into the possibility that poisoning human beings with disinfectants.
I mean, he wouldn’t have been wrong that such an approach would’ve killed the virus. He just didn’t seem to care that it would’ve killed the host, too. What’s worse? You don’t seem to care, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not all disinfectants are lethal. Disinfectants are used in humans daily in hospitals across the country and around the world. Your inability to separate the generic disinfectant from a household cleaner is your problem, not mine.
The next time the doctor prescribes you a bottle of antibiotic solution are you going to say no?
Didn’t think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"He said we (the government) should look into the possibility of using disinfectants."
Then, the question is when Trump fired the pandemic team, sidelined the world's foremost expert on such things and decided he had to scramble to replace them - what kind of incompetent morons was he hiring in the medical field that had never before considered basic household products?
In reality, there's shots of the moron reading a sign that mentioned disinfectants and UV for use on surfaces just before he got on stage, and his addled mind turned it into a ridiculous word salad when he tried his usual con artist trick of regurgitating whatever an expert last told him and pretending it was his own idea. Then, because he only had a compromised coward on stage with him and not a competent professional who would ask him immediately WTF he was on about, it stuck.
...and you people not only fell for it, you're defending incompetence a year later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“No, it isn't. You're the one insisting it's about bleach, and I'm pretty sure it's because that's the only way you can be semi-right about it”
Anonymous Coward: bleach
Stephen T. Stone: such as ingesting bleach
suggested the idea of injecting bleach into one’s body to kill the virus
I’m not the one stuck on the MSNBCNN talking point.
Didn’t suggest anyone inject anything. Other than the vaccine.
Here’s the quote again to help out:
“Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.”
that Democrats, progressives, never-Trumps can read some alternative to what is there “between the lines” is just beyond logic. But they did all spend 5 years thinking everything Trump did was some great conspiracy so I’m starting to understand no matter how much the evidence proves otherwise, they’re going to cling to their doctrine to the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering how open Trump and his cronies were about their corruption, it wasn’t a conspiracy — it was a criminal enterprise disguised as a government administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wearing no mask at all does nothing to protect anyone.
But it does exist to help care for the populace in times of national distress. A pandemic sure as shit qualifies for that.
No, it wouldn’t have. By the time anyone thought to cut off travel from China, the virus had already spread to other places. Cutting off China but letting everyone else in would’ve only delayed the inevitable. The only viable solution would’ve been to go Full Madagascar (“Shut. Down. EVERYTHING.”) and prevent anyone from coming into the country in any context — even if they were American citizens.
“Trump hatred” didn’t delay a decision. Trump being a callous sociopath who thought the virus would simply “go away” delayed any and all decisions he made concerning the pandemic…except maybe the one where he had his name put on the first two COVID stimulus checks.
Via Wikipedia: “From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, the CDC estimates there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3 - 89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086 - 402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868 - 18,306) in the United States due to the virus.” That looks like a far less severe pandemic compared to COVID-19, so maybe the playbook worked better than you think it did.
Unlike you (and Republicans), I don’t need a personal loss to stimulate my sense of empathy/sympathy for others.
Discussion about which masks work better is largely irrelevant. If the average person can get their hands on the proper masks, great — but if they can’t, any other mask that offers even some protection is still better than no mask at all. And yes, wearing a mask is about protecting others — I don’t know how thinking of the well-being of others and inconveniencing yourself for the sake of public health became a controversial position that requires, say, armed protests in state capitols.
Yes, we would have — because Republicans have taught their voter base to distrust science and facts and thinking of others in favor of trusting fear and superstition and thinking only of one’s self.
But the federal government does have a job in such situations: to work with all the states on finding a unified approach to handling the situation — or at least a unified set of facts and scientific recommendations to work with.
Still better than what we had before it.
That…that means he was advocating for the repeal of the ACA. The failure of his administration (and the GOP in general) to produce a replacement plan is irrelevant to his pushing both Congress and the Supreme Court for a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
For starters, acknowledging that queer people exist as something other than a political tool — Trump didn’t even recognize Pride Month for the first two years of his presidency. Old 45 also rolled back Obama-era healthcare protections for transgender patients.
Trump didn’t denounce the theory when Barack Obama presented his long-form birth certificate. Trump finally denounced the theory in 2016 — five years after he initially plugged the theory into the public consciousness — and never once apologized for making all of those false and baseless claims. (He also never admitted to being wrong about the theory.)
Again, note the context of his comments. Also: Like a mob boss, he doesn’t need to exhort his followers directly — he needs only to make a suggestion that, say, maybe diving off a cliff could cure COVID. Then he can sit back and watch every one of his precious lemmings fall off a cliff.
His comments were part of a press briefing that was transmitted to public airwaves. Whether he directed them at an advisor, a journalist, or some schmuck in Nebraska named Jimmy Rocksalt is largely irrelevant to the fact that he said them in the context of discussing how sunlight and disinfectants (e.g., bleach) affect the COVID-19 virus.
Granted, I don’t have facts on this one. But I do have a strong feeling based on literally everything else he did as president. He didn’t give a damn about protecting the marginalized — he proved that when he separated migrant families. He didn’t give a damn about helping the economically disadvantaged — he proved that when he lowered tax rates for the wealthy. He didn’t give a damn about doing anything for anyone but those who would/could support him — he proved that when he threatened to withhold financial support from “blue” states and threatened to send the military into “blue” cities to quell riots (ostensibly with violence).
Then your assertion was bullshit and you should say as much.
Which ban — the one on Chinese people or the one on Muslims? Trump didn’t exactly limit his racist bullshit while he was in office, you know.
The measure mentioned in your (obviously partisan) link is dated on the 20th of October 2020. I looked up that exact date and anything related to COVID relief measures, and look what popped up:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-19-stimulus-delayed-pelosi/
“[A] closer look at the stimulus negotiations showed a more complex debate. It was not just Pelosi with whom the White House needed reconciliation to pass COVID-19 economic relief in fall 2020 as the president alleged.” Turns out, Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with the amount of spending in the more comprehensive relief bill that was floating around at that time.
Two things.
Blame the Chinese government for not being more forthcoming about the virus, not the Chinese people. A whole-ass billion people didn’t wake up and decide one day to fuck with the rest of the world to the tune of millions of otherwise preventable deaths.
And even if — and that’s a big “if”, lemme tell ya — China did somehow unleash this virus upon the world, Donald Trump still refused to take the pandemic seriously until it got so bad that not even he could deny the truth any longer. To this day, even with a half-million Americans dead, he probably still believes COVID is no worse than the average flu and will disappear “shortly”.
Your vote for Donald Trump was a vote for human suffering. Live with that for the rest of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn’t blame the Chinese people.
I blamed China, not the Chinese. my apologies if that was misunderstood.
Now even CNN, the NYT, and the WSJ are covering it. Oven the cult-like leader hero Dr Fauci now, much to his consternation, has finally admitted it’s a very plausible possibility it was lab created. In a lab indirectly but knowingly funded by Fauci.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s possible that Tucker Carlson raped and killed a woman late last night. That doesn’t mean it actually happened.
(COVERING MY ASS STATEMENT: The preceding statement was not an actual accusation of an actual crime. I have not accused and will not accuse Tucker Carlson of having committing a rape-homicide.)
If and when evidence stronger than mere supposition says “the virus was created in a lab” comes to light, I’ll give it an honest look. Same goes for the dueling claims of “the virus escaped by oversight” and “the virus was unleashed on purpose”. Until then: I need more than mere supposition to accept the claim as anything but mere supposition. Saying a thing happened doesn’t make it so, or else I’d be saying “Lodos finally grew a brain”.
(COVERING MY ASS STATEMENT: The preceding statement was not an actual description of an actual event. I have not accused and will not accuse Lostinlodos of having grown a brain.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Affordable Care Act: a good intention, a terrible law."
You might want to look into the reasons for that, and the people he was trying to compromise with who demanded that it be reduced from the actual reform that Obama wanted to push (hint: the Republicans who whined that the plan based on their own plan was "socialist" might have had a say)...
"It helped those who were un and under insured. But it decimated portability for anyone who already had insurance."
I'd also ask you to look at how. The rules did decimate the availability of policies that basically covered nothing and had hard limits on maximum payouts, making them useless for most serious illnesses, but they were cheap enough to let some people fool themselves into thinking they were covered.
Have you ever met a con you didn't fall for?
"Which he retracted when presented with evidence."
No, he retracted when he was running for office because he knew it was an easy angle people could use to remind everyone of his many past racist comments. Not that it really mattered, since hsi idiot supporters were defending his boasts about sexual assault while pretending his cheating divorced ass was "family values", but it wasn't evidence that got him to backtrack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Insurance, I speak from personal experience. Not being able to leave a plan for a year. Mandated registration periods…
You’re stuck with whatever choice you make no matter what. Even if the underwriter changes or the policy modifies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You’re stuck with whatever choice you make no matter what"
That's not true universally to my understanding, though I suppose that it might vary depending on state and provider and so on.
Are you sure that this is actually something true of the ACA and not you falling for another con? (Some providers have been known to ramp up prices and refuse to grandfather in plans, then pretend it was due to the ACA (which specifically included grandfathering), while some states have refused to accept the money that was allocated to them for Medicare expansion in order to pretend that the ACA was to blame for the things they failed to cover as a result).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was fairly clear for us. The broker and the company rep at the new company were quite happy and to have us switch. They took all the info. Set everything up. And then we had to wait till the enrolment period.
Credit to the new class of brokers who came up quickly and learned the red tape of the new law to guide people throughout them and automate modifications.
Again. Good intentions poorly executed.
It had to be left enough to appease the growing progressive wing of the party. It had to be bypassable for the Republicans. And it had to be limited enough in to keep the insurance companies on board enough not to fight anything in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Again. Good intentions poorly executed."
Yet, the largest reform of healthcare in the US that happened for decades, in the face of massive opposition from conservatives despite it fundamentally being the same as Mitt Romney's already successful and popular program. Then brainwashed idiots started rambling about communism when it was suggested that a system similar to the one used in every other developed country might be preferable to handing more control to corrupt private insurers.
Then, in response to this, you voted for the guy who voted to dismantle it completely, with no plan to retain any of the fixes that it made to a brutal and broken system it was replacing, just a promise of restoring the old status quo with no promise that those the old system refused to cover would retain any coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like I keep telling them: Their vote for Donald Trump was a vote for human suffering. Lodos looked at the past four years of Trumpism — the Muslim travel ban, the migrant concentration camps (with bonus family separations), the refusal to denounce white supremacy and treat it as the domestic terror threat it truly is, the mockery and scorn visited upon Black athletes who chose to protest police brutality — and decided that four-plus years of racism from a candidate-turned-officeholder wasn’t a dealbreaker. Hell, I’m sure they’ll be along soon enough to say “It WaSn’T aBoUt RaCe!!!!1!1!” and offer some ridiculous-ass defense of Trump’s words and deeds that looks only at the surface of said words and deeds instead of the full context (including the sociopolitical history of the United States and Trump’s own history of racism prior to his 2016 campaign).
Lodos isn’t a Trump supporter. They’re a Trump asskisser. Such people have no other reaction to criticism of Dear Leader but “this is a personal attack against me and I will defend both myself and my object of worship”. Any criticism of Trump — no matter how accurate, no matter how truthful, no matter how miniscule — is cause for them to take up arms (metaphorically and literally) and fight “the libs” and “the RINOs” and anyone else who dares to question the word of their perfect, unmistaken, honest-to-a-fault Dear Leader.
Notice that for all the complaining about “He DiDn’T sAy BlEaCh!!!1!”, Lodos hasn’t once criticized Trump for openly suggesting, during a live press briefing that was being broadcast to the general public, that injecting household disinfectants — including bleach — into living people was a possible method of fighting COVID-19. They haven’t once criticized Trump for…let’s see…
specifically targeting Muslims with two versions of the now-infamous Muslim travel ban
pushing for the repeal of the ACA without any sort of plan in place to replace the ACA or protect those that were able to obtain medical coverage thanks specifically to the ACA
giving the wealthy (and therefore the obscenely wealthy) a break on their already–ridiculously low taxes
signing a bill that killed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces regulation, an Obama-era regulation that protected workers against serious safety hazards and labor law violations in any government contract above $500,000
supporting dictators, authoritarians, and other “strongarm” leaders around the world (e.g., Kim Jong-Un, Rodrigo Duterte, Vladimir Putin) to the point of fawning over them like a hormonally crazed teenager with a high school crush, even as those leaders violated human rights in their home countries (e.g., jailing or even murdering critics) in ways Trump likely dreamed of doing
advocating for the Duterte-esque execution of drug dealers as a means of “winning” the War on Drugs in the U.S.
appointing climate change denialists into positions of power within the Environmental Protection Agency
demanding one-way loyalty of all his political appointees — including the Attorney General of the United States — to the point where any appointee found to have been putting the law/the country/literally anything else before the needs, wants, and desires of Donald Trump were either terminated from their jobs or demoted into near-worthless (and near-powerless) positions
demanding that same one-way loyalty from every part of the federal government, to the point where agencies found to have been putting the law above that “loyalty” were criticized to the point of being discredited, defunded, or “reorganized” in a way where Trump loyalists were put in power
insulting everyone who ever criticized him, everyone who was “disloyal” to him, and…well, any woman in power who didn’t (metaphorically) suck his dick — the people for whom he saved the harshest insults
threatening to shut down the federal government if he didn’t get funding for his precious border wall boondoggle
concealing the contents of his discussions with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, even from senior Trump administration officials
defending monuments to the Confederacy — a failed nation-state that seceded from and lost a war with the United States over the “state’s right” to own Black people as property and enslave them for their entire lives
pardoning convicted criminals for no reason other than political bias…and the hope that this rare showing of loyalty from Trump would be reciprocated with a show of loyalty to Trump if and when necessary
…and that’s just from a quick cursory glance at The List of Trumpian Atrocities that I’m sure even Lodos will find a way to dismiss without reading — or defend without thinking, an act with which they seem to have plenty of experience.
A vote for Donald Trump was a vote for human suffering. Anyone who voted for him should be reminded of that at every opportunity. They need to live with that for the rest of their lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Barring entry from countries that are state sponsors of terror, or ignore major organisations within their borders
He always pushed for repeal and REPLACE
Tax cuts for nearly every person in the country.
Bill number? I’m not familiar with this.
Negotiations with hostile countries to further peace
No opinion. Not familiar with whatever situation your refer to.
Half the country thinks climate change is part of the natural system as we leave the ice age.
They serve at will of the president. Non-issue
Questionable sourcing.
So what. As Biden’s canned response: “com’on man!”
The President has the right to sign or not sign. That’s how the country works
WaPo, leader of fake news. Try a reliable source, and one that doesn’t require lining the progressive coffers with a paywall
Defending monuments, period.
The President has the pardon anyone he wants. For any reason
There are two sexes. Your preference in partner and clothing makes no difference on physical parts.
The goal is unity in the military. At this time the majority of the population in this country are not comfortable sharing unisex facilities.
Forcing it on the majority in such a setting as the military forces is counterproductive. In joining the military you already waive many rights.
As for your partisan list of half truths and intentional lies, coupled with personal situations that are not part of his political activity? Nice the first dozen links I long pressed on to verify “source” all go to other left wing media.
I’m not going to continue to argue this. Clearly none of us are going to change anyone’s mind. We believe what we believe. We value what we value.
You hate that Trump was president. I despise living under Biden.
You cast your vote. I cast mine.
I can live with that regardless of whatever fake news, half truths, and ignorant beliefs you hold.
I voted, and I can live with that just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which Trump didn't do anything close to
"Replace" with... nothing
Permamemt cuts for corporatations and the rich, temporary cuts that are now becoming increases for the rest of us
His taunting of North Korea is the opposite
Nobody scientifically literate does
[Projects facts not in evisence]
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[Ignores facts in evidence]
[Ignores facts in evidence]
[Projects facts not in evidence]
The one and only source of lies in the conversation has always been you, lostinlodos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All of the countries on his original lists were majority-Muslim countries. You can say it was about “terrorism”, but considering how Trump had previously said Muslims should be temporarily banned from entering America after both the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack and the Pulse nightclub shooting. As for those claims of “it was about terrorists”: An internal report from Homeland Security’s Intelligence and Analysis Unit concluded that people from the seven nations affected by the travel ban posed no increased terror risk.
“Repeal and replace” still includes “repeal”. And considering how neither his administration nor the GOP had any actual replacement plan ready to go in the event of a repeal? Yeah…
Who benefitted more from those tax cuts? The wealthy (and thus the obscenely wealthy), who hoard their wealth like they’re Tolkein dragons and expect us to accept piecemeal charity and “generous” philanthropy as a replacement for contributing monies to the public good.
You’ve never heard of Google, have you, Squidward?
He sent the equivalent of love letters to Kim Jong-Un. He gave Kim a place on the world stage — and the credibility that goes with it — in exchange for nothing. Donald Trump didn’t negotiate with “hostile countries”. He kissed the asses of their leaders while he burned the diplomatic bridges between the U.S. and long-standing allies.
Google is your friend.
Global climate change can be natural…except in this case, it is human-caused pollution that is inching us closer to an irreversible change in the global climate that will affect all life on this planet and potentially cause the Sixth Great Extinction. Anyone who denies the reality of global climate change — and the fact that humans are the most significant cause of that change — doesn’t need a seat of power in a government agency dedicated to protecting and preserving the environment.
It is an issue when a president sees competency and fairness and a desire to serve the people of the United States as an attack on himself and acts accordingly — to the point where multiple agencies are still trying to fix the damage caused by Trump loyalists who placed the needs of one man above both the law and the country.
Prove it.
I can all but guarantee that if Biden was as cruel and heartless towards the people who criticize and oppose him right now as Trump was/still is towards anyone who isn’t a cocksucking loyalist, you’d be treating that cruelty as a big fucking deal. Hypocrisy ain’t a good look, fam.
He shut down the government over the fact that he couldn’t get Congress to give him funding for his precious border wall. His desire to “own the libs” caused a month-long government shutdown that only ended when finally he backed down in the face of enormous political pressure.
Prove their reporting is bullshit.
He explicitly defended Confederate monuments. He also defended the names of military bases that were named for Confederate leaders. Oh, and he also criticized NASCAR for banning the Confederate battle flag from its events.
A president pardoning political allies and loyalists for the rather obvious reasoning of “I did you a favor and got you out of jail, now you do me a favor and shut up about me” is about the purest form of political corruption that I can think of.
Transgender people had already been serving in the military before Trump banned them. How does tossing them out after they’ve already proven their worth accomplish that “unity” goal?
And forcing out a minority that had already been serving in the military because of the bigotry of the so-called leader of the free world and his bootlicking supporters is…productive, somehow?
Don’t blame me if right-wing media is bullshit/afraid to criticize right-wing leaders/afraid to say anything that isn’t a Trumpian “truth”.
…says the poster who used more than a dozen posts to argue about “bleach” and “disinfectants”.
Oh, I don’t hate that Trump was president. In a twisted sort of way, I’m glad Trump was president — because it exposed, for all the country and the world to see, the bigotry and ignorance and outright fascist leanings of Republican voters, lawmakers, and pundits. Donald Trump has been the closest we’ve ever gotten to full-bore American fascism, and everyone who supported him doesn’t seem to understand how that is a bad thing. You’re one of those people.
But otherwise? Yes, I hate Donald Trump with every last molecule of my being and I want nothing more than for him to die of an excrutiatingly painful heart attack that lets him feel at least a small amount of the suffering he inflicted upon this country during his four years as president. I hate him with every ounce of hate I can muster. I don’t bandy about the word “hate” when I mean “dislike”; “hate” is a strong word for a strong emotion. Hell, I don’t even hate you, and you’re one of his shit-eating supporters. So when I say “I hate Donald Trump and everything he stands for”, you can know with as much certainty as a human being can muster than I. Motherfucking. Hate. Donald. Trump.
Why? It’s not like anything is any worse under Biden right now. COVID-19 numbers are looking better, the economy is on the verge of reopening to something looking like a “new” normal, and gun violence is getting back to its pre-COVID rates. The public health, the economy, and the Second Amendment are all looking better again. I’d think all of those things would make you happy.
When you go to bed tonight, I want you to hold an image in your head.
I want you to close your eyes and imagine a young female child — six, maybe seven years old. This child is a South American migrant; she has travelled to the United States with their parents, who want a better life for their child (and maybe themselves). That child and their family reach the border, only to be arrested by ICE. They’re taken to a detention facility where, during their processing, ICE agents forcibly separate the parents from their daughter. I want you to imagine the wailing of those parents as they watch their young daughter ripped from their arms and taken away — possibly seeing her for the last time in their lives. I want you to imagine the daughter crying out for their parents, not knowing what will happen to her in the immediate future — not knowing that she may never see their parents ever again.
And then I want you to picture the smile on Donald Trump’s face as he imagines the same image. I want you to picture the smiles on the faces of people like Stephen Miller, an avowed white nationalist and one of the architects of Trump’s (racist) immigration policies. I want you to imagine the looks on the faces of Trumpians everywhere who have so few fucks to give about other people — especially the poor, and especially poor immigrants — that they hear stories about migrant families ripped apart and laugh at the misfortune and suffering.
And after you imagine all that, I want you to imagine the smile on your own face — because you voted for Donald Trump, which means you gleefully and knowingly voted for human suffering.
I want you to take, to your sleep and to your grave, the feeling of joy in your heart as you voted for the man who believed human suffering was a goal instead of a great evil.
Your vote for Donald Trump was a vote for human suffering. Live with it. Revel in it. Enjoy it, even. But make sure everyone else knows you made that vote — because the cruel will welcome your company and the compassionate will leave you to your own devices. You will find friendship only from those who share the same delight in cruelty and hatred and misery and the causing thereof as Donald Trump.
You voted for human suffering. You voted for sociopathy. You voted for American fascism. Whatever compassion and empathy you think you deserve, you will — and should — receive none of it. Enjoy the company of the cruel, Lodos; it’s all you will ever deserve.
Oh, and one more thing: You still refused to criticize Donald Trump for anything, which proves my entire point. So…thanks for that! 😁
Now do us all a favor and fuck off to Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I prefer Bing over google. But regardless:
What’s Squidward? All a search shows is some cartoon.
Kind of hard to look up a bill without the bill number or name.
As for your child story?
Here’s the issue your missing, did they approach a sovereign nation at a point of entry? Did they get an entry visa there or beforehand for travel, or fill out official protective paperwork for political asylum?
You mistake respect for law as racist thought. I support immigration. Most of those in this country are descended from immigrants.
But do it the right way.
Running across the border in the middle of nowhere and disappearing isn’t legal.
I don’t support separating families permanently, but if you’re found in the middle of nowhere in the desert, there’s a concern for who the child is, who the adult(s) is.
Until the relationship can be verified it’s safest to separate them. That wouldn’t be an issue if they came in at a border entry point.
When I volunteered for Obama’s first campaign as a caller, it was Because I supported primary running topics. Social healthcare that didn’t intervene in private options. Reduced international involvement. Closure of Gitmo, and end to our wars in the Middle East, an end to American Interventionism. The return of our foreign troops and the closure of the majority of our international bases. American protectionism.
Sadly much of that disappeared once he got in office.
When his term was up we were supplied with his second run and an entrenched Republican Religious Warrior but. I chose the lesser concern hoping being a lame duck president with minimal post office appeal would be the better option than a war against rationalism and real wars in Western Asia.
Choosing Trump, a former Democrat with many of the same platform claims as Obama was appealing. That he wasn’t an entrenched politician AND had no want for money made it appear he’d come through despite opposition on things he promised.
Or
HR Clinton. A supporter of the Iran Nuclear Ransom, a supporter of the genocide in Ukraine. Who couldn’t be trusted with classified materials. Who’s interventionism view is well documented, who was a supporter of open borders, who supported environmental policy at any cost. It wasn’t a hard choice for me.
Round 2 and we had someone who’s kept, or attempted to keep, most of his campaign promises. For all his faults in 4 years you knew where he stood and agree or disagree he could be trusted to do what he says.
Or a man with dementia who had shifted his public policy so far left I couldn’t stomach it.
For all the faults people claim of Trump, some real, some imagined, I still think the country is far better off than had Clinton been elected.
The replacement giving us a man who will shortly be unable to know who he is, let alone where, a nice puppet for the New Left’s Communism wrapped in Socialism? I chose the Devil I knew.
Oh, and as I said before, I don’t particularly like Parler. The platform’s freedom and not attracted the masses. Sadly it quickly became a hangout for neo nazis who think aliens are using rectal probes on them Omar night and the Reptilians are controlling the earth from another dimension. Lmfao.
Contrary to MSM most of the people who voted for trump consider that crap just that: crap.
I do think they have every right to exist and every right to believe what they believe.
But the content is almost entirely alt-right.
Makes it hard for moderates. Much like Twitter and it’s progressive leanings.
Would be nice to see a middle platform.
At least you’ve been civil. Until you told me to, et, that ending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NARRATOR: “I’m not going to continue to argue this,” said Lodos, who continued to argue.
Boy — I say, boy, you need to learn about memes. (Nice kid, but about as sharp as a deflated balloon.)
Look up Trump and the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” regulation. Seriously, you couldn’t have fucking Googled that when I first handed the name of the regulation to you on a silver platter?
Two things:
It’s “you’re” — but thank you for further confirming the English proficiency of the average Trump supporter.
Could’ve fooled me.
Show me any president in modern history who managed to come through on all their campaign promises, especially in the face of a hostile Congress that literally promised to stop anything said president wanted to get through Congress for the majority of his two terms.
I voted for Obama twice. Donald Trump was not promising what Obama had promised. Donald Trump was promising to inflict pain and suffering and cruelty upon those weren’t his voting base — to “own the libs” at any cost, and to hell with anyone who got in his way — under the guise of “making America great again”.
He came through on some of those things, sure. That those things just so happened to harm people you don’t seem to give a fuck about apparently doesn’t matter to you, but sure, I’ll give you that one.
…fucking what
…fucking what
And someone who never had any experience in any level of public service could be trusted?
As opposed to Trump’s approach of “fuck our old allies, let’s kiss the asses of tyrants and monarchs and Vladimir Putin”, which really did wonders for the U.S. on the international diplomacy front~.
[citation needed]
This planet is the only one we’ve got. How much are you willing to spend on saving it? Because Trump apparently wanted to spend (and do) less than the previous administration did on protecting the environment and battling global climate change. I mean, shit, Trump complained about energy-efficient light bulbs at one point.
[citation needed — also Trump could damn well have it himself]
What’s hilarious is how you think Biden is a leftist. He is, at best, a centrist Democrat who has an all-too-rosy view of the GOP and is being yanked ever-so-slightly to the left by his Congressional allies and the American public. Besides, most of the “leftist” policy to which you refer would probably be centrist in several other developed countries around the world. Hell, he doesn’t even support nationalized healthcare/Medicare for All.
Tell that to the 400,000 Americans that died in the year between the arrival of COVID-19 on American shores and Trump leaving office. Tell that to the people who lost their jobs and their businesses because COVID-19 shut down a shitload of everything around the country. Tell that to the mother of Heather Heyer.
I can’t (and won’t pretend to) know what would’ve happened in the four years Hillary Clinton could’ve been president. No one can. But I can at least make an educated guess that, for all of her faults, she would’ve been a far more competent — and far less openly corrupt — national leader than Donald “yeah I asked Georgia election officials to overturn a legal election result for no reason other than to make me happy big whoop wanna fight about it” Trump.
ahahahaha you actually think socialism isn’t in America
what the fuck do you think tax-funded institutions and programs like Social Security and public schools are, fuckin’ capitalism
holy shit dude
holy shit
Which is weird, because Trump supporters seem to love it, and yet here you are.
That’s no way to talk about your family.
Yeah, and I’m sure most of them believe January 6th was an insurrection intended to subvert American democracy in favor of a man who lied about (and continues to lie about) the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election~.
(holy shit dudes, Lodos thinks I’m really that dumb, can you fucking believe that shit)
Yes, and? That’s what Trump supporters actually believe. Go there and join them in your quest to rid the world of The Marxist Joe Biden and his coven of Socialist Witches and Communist Warlocks what haunt the halls of Congress, casting spells and chanting “worker’s rights” and summoning dragons and whatever else y’all think they’re doing.
Yes, I’m sure you’d enjoy a platform where bigots can espouse their bigotry directly at the targets of said bigotry without being punished for doing so.
No, what I’ve been is measured. I haven’t been civil with you for a while; I’ve merely hidden my incivility beneath flowery language. You don’t have and dont’ deserve my respect, and you won’t get it any time soon. The only reason I haven’t been cursing you out every other fucking sentence — and I could, believe me — is because you’re the kind of uptight fuckwit who thinks cursing is an “instant lose” trigger to an argument rather than an expression of emotion. (Speaking of which: You seem to lack any emotion in your arguments. No wonder you’re a Trump supporter — you come off as a sociopath.)
But if you really want me to unload on you…well, I’m not going to give you that “honor”, either. You don’t get to control my responses or the level of measured civility therein. You’re going to get exactly as much incivility as you deserve.
Now fuck off to your Trumpian circlejerk. Nobody here is going to kiss your ass, treat you kindly, and thank you for the discourse. We’d all be better off — you included — if you left this site and never came back, you heartless son of a bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I’m the heartless one.
Your right, I should probably move on. The community this site has sucked in is awash in echo chamber politics based on false stories from Democrat funded propaganda outlets. No matter how much evidence is presented, you stand by your political bubble.
I do thank the site for opening my eyes on 230’s property rights position though. Even if users point to association.
Maybe you could take that home with you.
If understanding can be reached maybe, just maybe, you should look at the solution being, projecting something the opposition actually cares about. Democrats would make better progress on 230 issues if they focused on that property aspect.
For a group so concerned about association you sure don’t hold back on classing people by stereotypes and assumptions.
I wish you luck with your progressive bubble. I likely won’t be around when they come after you with their candle culture, do as I say, don’t think mentality. But I can smile when I think about it. They WILL come for you eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, you are.
No, you’re right. 🙃
…says the jackass who obviously prefers right-wing echo chambers, based on the fact that they linked to townhall.com at one point.
“Nuh-uh to your uh-huh” is not evidence.
They’re practically two sides of the same coin. That you’re not seeing that is your own mistake.
And on issues such as gay rights, where is the compromise between, say, “gay people should have the same access to civil rights as straight people” and “gay people shouldn’t have any civil rights at all because they’re abominations unto God”? You’re so enamored with the idea that the solution is always “compromise” and “meet in the middle” that you think the centrist idea — “gay people should have equal access to civil rights” — is the “extreme left” position instead of the centrist position. (The “extreme left” position in this instance, BTW, would be “only gay people should have civil rights”. And literally nobody is calling for that.)
The answer isn’t always in the middle. The answer isn’t always compromise. Your ridiculously fucked-up fealty to the idea of “We MuSt LiStEn To BoTh SiDeS!!!1!1” has you thinking a compromise can be had on literally anything. Hey, how about climate change — where’s the compromise between “we should work on preventing future damage to the environment” and “we shouldn’t give a damn about future damage to the environment because we’re not damaging the environment”?
Except no, they wouldn’t. Republican lawmakers don’t give a fuck about any of that.
You admitted that you voted for Trump. You associated yourself with other Trump supporters. You said you could live with your vote — and that means you also have to live with the consequences of admitting to that vote. One of those consequences? You’re now associated with every “deplorable” human being — every racist, every homophobe, every bigot of every stripe who fell in line behind Trump and the GOP. Learn to live with that.
Before what you’re referring to was called “cancel culture”, it was called “moral crusades”, and leftists didn’t invent it, conservative Christians did.
And when an American fascist who is infinitely more competent than Trump gets into office, I will take comfort in knowing that they will come for you, too. They always go after their own when they run out of fresh victims — you will be no different. After all, you voted for Barack Obama. How much of a loyalist can you be to the cause of Trumpism if you were willing to vote for the man who caused Donald Trump so much embarassment that he ran for president and fucked up an entire country out of spite at being mocked by a Black man?
Now fuck off back to the comments section of Infowars, Lodos. I’m sure Alex is waiting for you. 🐸
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would have walked away. But you went after a subject very close to me.
I support gay rights. Just not in the way that makes current progressives happy.
News flash: Gays for Trump had many many thousands of thousands supporters.
Actually it was through the LBGT community I first heard about Gays for Trump.
Let me throw your A or B classification onto a land mine for you: I’m proudly pan-sexual. For the coach jumpers that means women, men, hermaphrodites. That’s not hard to find historically, again, for anyone who wants to search my history.
The group majority is not gay marriage. Dualist Marriage is a 2000 year old religious tradition. A sacred sacrament (a religious ceremony with extensive ritualisation) of the Christian faith. The term belongs to one collective faith that follows the myth of Jesu/Jesi Christi/Christo: or literally translated Chris (of) the Jew(s).
Rather than fight for equality in the single most important progressive LGBT issue; we say abolish the legal recognition completely (with opt out legal grandfathering).
Don’t pretend to represent all members of the sexual-alternate community in your beliefs.
——
Climate change: most people who believe the earth is in a natural flux don’t deny human damage. Unlimited forestry is a disaster in the making for air quality. Urbanisation is Decimating the upper layer of the planet’s surface.
And it’s the go-green Progressives who want to flatten a good chunk of Mane’s forests to build “green-energy” supplies.
On the geological scale of time any influence on temperature is statistically insignificant.
Republicans are deeply rooted in personal property rights. It mainly comes from their wish to pulpit on religious issues on any private property they are allowed on to: but it’s a cornerstone none the less.
You really don’t understand that aspect of the party do you.
In the 1850s and 1860s the party violated the national Constitution by ignoring priority mobility and focusing on property locality.
Slaves that wound up on the property of free Northerners we’re freed and protected by those northerners.
Protected by armed Republicans who threatened to (and often did) kill any man who trespassed on private property regardless of rendition and fugitive slave law.
Defend ones private property at any and all cost.
50% of the population voted for Trump. Twice. And I’d put my house on the fact that people you know well voted for Trump without you knowing. That your news bubble has painted all who voted for trump on a tiny portion of the voters…?
Cancel crusades.
I agree. The Progressive movement has perverted the Democrat party with its own version of Judaic-Islamic-Christian bullshite. It’s an unfortunate reoccurring theme throughout recorded history. Destroy anything you don’t agree with. Destroy anything you are afraid of.
Destroy destroy destroy.
Personally, I see someone so insecure they must cling to whatever group they are associating with says.
I was happy to slink off into the night. But you struck a nerve. Like the creator, don’t you dare attempt to project anything about sexual liberty to someone who has championed it since the 80s to their own detriment.
Adding alphabet soup doesn’t help the cause. It further infuriates the opposition. If you have a cock your male. If you cut it off your a eunuch.
If you have two holes your a woman. If you stitch it up your a eunuch.
Only someone who has gone through reassignment has claim to the opposite gender.
All these terms developed as a transitional crutch for those unwilling to admit what they were.
Your hetero (opposite sex), gay (same sex), bi (both sexes), or pan, add Hermaphrodites, or, I don’t give a fuck.
Accept what you are. Be proud of it. Own it. And don’t cower behind political hot topic terminology.
Try this!
I fuck the same sex out of wedlock and I like it. I fuck the opposite sex out of wedlock and I like it. I fuck any willing partner and I like it. I fuck my hand on occasion and I like it.
I will “spill [my] seed” as I deem fit. And I will like it.
If there is a god or goddess and they want me to pray to them they’ll show up and tell me. Hasn’t happened yet. After 32 “holy” testimonies and four fiction accounts of a Jew, where did that talk to everyone god go? Until the Bush in my yard bursts into flail and says stop ducking others… I’m not buying it.
Actually, if it did happen…
1) lame dude. All the power of all, and you set a Bush on fire
2) I like sex. Are you here to help? If not go away, and put out the damn fire you pyro!
3) your Angel made a fool of you once. You banished him to earth and look at all the good he accomplished in your absence! I look forward to serving in his army.
4) because I can’t help it, never fucked a god before. Mind bending over so I can be enlightened? Seriously. If you’re going to screw me at least give me the benefit of a reach-around!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's impressive. You've not wrong, you're fractally wrong. As in, the defences of how wrong you are introduced more layers of how you're wrong. I mean, you'd have to be stupid enough to think there's no such thing as secular marriage, and that Christians somehow invented marriage for your nonsense to make any factual sense, but the level to which you are wrong just go deeper as you continue typing.
I'm sorry that your hate makes you invent a world where you can avoid having to treat non-cis, non-hetero people as human beings and afford them the same right, but it must take up so much more effort to maintain that hateful alternate universe than deal with the real one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plaintiff argues that they “would have walked away”. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition.
Yes, I’m well aware of how much your support for Donald Trump means to you.
…oh, you ignorant motherfucker. You really think you’re going to get virtual asspats for being a Trump supporter who’s in favor of civil rights for queer people? (You’re not.)
Queer people aren’t a monolith. Some of them are foolish enough to vote for the furtherance of their own pain and suffering by voting for Republican politicians.
Let me toss that right back at you: I don’t give a flying rat fuck. You don’t get brownie points from me for saying you’re queer. It isn’t a shield that magically protects you from criticism.
[citation needed]
The idea of marriage, even if it wasn’t called marriage, existed long before both Christianity and Judaism did. The concept of marriage — and the word itself — belong to no one person, group, or religious creed. Or does every non-Christian and non-Jew in the world now have to refer to their marriages as “domestic partnerships” or whatever? And who’s going to enforce that “ownership” — You? Your religious leaders? The 1989 Denver Broncos?
that…that isn’t…holy shit you’re at least six years behind the times, what the fuck
While making sure same-sex marriage remains legal is important, queer political groups around the country are no longer near-singularly focused on…y’know, legalizing same-sex marriage. They won that fight. Now they’re fighting for equal protection from discrimination — since, in numerous states across the country, queer people can still be fired, evicted, and denied service in public-facing businesses for being queer.
So long as it’s abolished equally — take every legal privilege and tax break out of the law for all couples, not just the gay ones — I’ve no problem with getting the state out of the marriage business. But if abolishing marriage is limited only to queer people? That’s bullshit, and even you should know it’s bullshit.
The fact that you’re using a clumsy-ass phrase such as “sexual-alternate” — one that I’ve literally never heard until now, and I follow a decent amount of queer people on social media — instead of the reclaimed catch-all of “queer” or some variant of the LGBTQ acronym is a tell that maybe you’re not as queer as you want me to think you are.
GOP lawmakers all but deny the truth of global climate change — and if they don’t, they near-uniformly believe (or say they believe) human-created pollution isn’t a primary reason for that change. Even if they believed otherwise, they’re not proactive about stopping climate change; Trump himself extolled the virtues of fossil fuel far more than he did the same for renewable energy.
Hell, Trump himself once mocked wind turbines: “The Green New Deal, right? Green New Deal — I encourage it. I think it’s really something that they should promote. They should work hard on. It’s something our country needs desperately. They have to go out and get it. But I’ll take the other side of that argument only because I’m mandated to. I’m mandated. But they should stay with that argument. Never change. Never change. No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric. Let’s hurry up. ‘Darling’ — ‘Darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.’ No, but it’s true.” That doesn’t sound like someone who thinks clean renewable energy is important — or someone who thinks saving the environment is a worthwhile investment.
[citation needed]
I agree — the planet isn’t going to be destroyed by a rise in global temperature over a period of decades/centuries.
It’s every form of life on this planet that’s in danger of being part of the Sixth Great Extinction, which is being hurried along nicely by that aforementioned rise in global temperatures. Every person, every dog and cat, every bird and bee, every creature from the smallest rodent to the largest elephant — all of them are going to be affected by global climate change. And the lawmakers you support don’t seem to give a fuck. Or are you actually going to criticize Republican lawmakers (including Trump) for their full-throated support of the continued use of fossil fuels over the use of renewable energy?
And yet, they’re trying to demolish Section 230 in an attempt to circumvent both property rights and the freedom of association.
…y’know, for someone who says they aren’t a Republican, you sure do seem to uncritically defend them a whole hell of a lot. 🤔
You really don’t understand that the Republican party you think you know by way of reading history books isn’t the Republican party of today. Read books that cover more recent Republican history — history such as the Southern Strategy and the Dixiecrats that flipped the ideologies of the two parties, such that the so-called party of Lincoln became the party of bigotry. (I mean, you don’t see the KKK seriously endorsing Democrats these days…)
That you used the phrase “private property” in a discussion about slavery is, at best, an unintentionally misguided statement. In the future, you should do your absolute best to avoid the perception that you could be talking about actual goddamned human beings instead of land or houses.
No, they didn’t.
According to Wikipedia, “The United States had an official resident population of 331,449,281 on April 1, 2020, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.” Let’s round that down to an even 330 million. Now, let’s take a look at the election results from both 2016 and 2020:
In 2016, Donald Trump received 62,984,828 votes (46.1%) and Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes (48.2%).
Trump lost the popular vote in both elections. He didn’t hit a 50% mark in either election. And as for the claim that 50% of the U.S. population voted for Trump? In 2016, that number was closer to 20% (63 million out of 330 million); in 2020, that number was closer to 23% (74 million out of 330 million).
You can fuck with perceptions, but you can’t fuck with publicly-known statistics. Don’t try that again.
Again: You seem to think this all started with “leftists” when, in the plane of reality on which everyone else is sitting, conservative Christians invented “cancel culture”.
Sort of like how you cling to the fact that Donald Trump did no wrong, much like the group you associate with — Trump supporters — keep clinging to that same fact? 🤔
No, you weren’t, but keep telling yourself that.
Queer people were already serving in the military well before both Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (both its enactment and its repeal) and Trump’s transgender ban. Also, don’t think I don’t see that close-enough reference to “alphabet people”, a derisive anti-queer term used largely in conservative circles. Again: For someone who says they aren’t aligned with the GOP/conservatism, you’re doin’ — I say, you’re doin’ a shit job of provin’ it, sonny. (Nice kid, but about as sharp as a bowling ball.)
…says the jackass who thought saying “I’m pansexual” was going to protect them from criticism for their support of anti-queer views.
You’ve more in common with self-hating queer conservatives than you do with the broader queer community. You’ve more in common with conservatives than you do with any other political group. Accept what you are. Be proud of it. Own it. And don’t cower behind your sexual identity as a means to escape criticism for being a conservative bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You really think you’re going to get virtual asspats for being a Trump supporter who’s in favor of civil rights for queer people? (You’re not.)"
From what I understand, he doesn't support the "progressive" version of gay rights (LGBTQ+ people should actually have equal rights), he supports the Trumper version of gay rights (we're not actually murdering people for being gay any more, so be happy with that).
"The idea of marriage, even if it wasn’t called marriage, existed long before both Christianity and Judaism did"
...and still does without religion. Even if you get married in a religious ceremony, there's still secular paperwork to fill in to ensure you get the legal rights associated with that status. A secular marriage does not change the religious part, you can be as bigoted as you want behind that shield. But, religious arguments have no place in a secular rule.
It's amazing how far some people will go to try and argue against actual equality while fooling themselves that they're not a bigoted tosser. But, unabashed Trump voter, so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ legal recognition completely (with opt out legal grandfathering)”
… of those who want protections under civil partnerships can be recognised as such.
That a portion of our population didn’t get behind the invented gender movement: sorry if you’re not happy with that. Let’s get equality of access and care and respect, before we start inventing more genders to create more road blocks.
I don’t claim any representation for the progressive movement. Just recognise “Queer people aren’t a monolith”
The queer use includes progressive aspects that are false, and detrimental to the cause.
Wind turbines? Let’s just ignore the detriments to birds. Physical pollution is on of the larger problems. We need a Japanese style recycling system. Everything man can make man can unmake.
Clear plastic island from the ocean. Fund government recycling systems. Help electric vehicle expansion by coming up with charging standards locked in law. Mass manufacturing of a single standard lowers production cost and raises adoption.
https://apnews.com/article/ny-state-wire-climate-change-business-environment-science-07cffb02d6fab7 b9a517e8b8c808b80c
“Wiping out entire forest habitats is all part of our ‘inevitable’ transition to a wind powered future”
stopthesethings dot com
And here yet another:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/04/30/locals-worry- wind-and-solar-will-gobble-up-forests-and-farms
The premise of the electoral count is to give the minority representation. The majority population is in extremely minority property area. Big cities voted for Clinton. The majority of the country didn’t.
That queer people were serving isn’t really an issue. Putting men in the women’s barracks is.
The progressive push for all creates an environment of all or nothing.
When you push for something that doesn’t fly within a large chunk of your own group, you create a major obstacle for getting through to the “other” side of it. We can’t even get a unified front.
Focus on the now with the environment. Not 5 million years from now. Whatever minor influence emissions has is far less important than physical pollution (trash, recycling etc) and destruction (forest clearing, strip mining, toxic ocean dumping).
And for the various thoughts on what Obama stood for in 2007/2008 and how that changed moving to today: I suggest reading his early camps materials. Everything I listed above is public records. I don’t need to agree with everything To agree with principle points for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So long as those secular civil partnerships are on equal legal footing with government-recognized sectarian marriages and both are referred to using the same terminology (i.e., “civil partnerships”) in official government documents, I have little issue with that. But if the idea is to make those civil partnerships “separate but equal” to sectarian marriages? Fuck that noise.
We can start by guaranteeing equality of access and care and respect to transgender people. They’re people, too — or do you not believe they deserve to have their civil rights protected (and their basic humanity recognized) by the government?
Never said you did. Besides, it’s clear that you’re the kind of self-hating queer person that votes for the same politicians who want people like you stashed away from the rest of society — six feet under, if possible, but simply being in the closet will work well enough for them.
Let’s not and say I didn’t. But wind turbines are a cleaner and overall safer-to-the-environment form of energy than, say, burning fossil fuels. How about the detriments to wildlife and humanity alike caused by the smoke emitted by coal power plants?
Recycling is nice, but it won’t fix the bigger problem — which is that major corporations (especially the “Big Energy” companies) are the leading polluters in the world and few people are doing anything to make those companies work towards preventing the worst-case climate change scenarios.
I’m against the en masse eradication of wildlife habitats. That said: Rejecting clean energy altogether because of its potential impact on the environment is basically throwing one’s hands up in the air and saying “welp, this can’t work, so we might as well keep burning fossil fuels until we go extinct”.
We can create clean energy facilities — including wind farms — that balance our need for energy with the protection of the environment (and the wildlife therein). We must find ways to do that. To act like we can’t is to give up. Unless you want people being born today to live in an even worse environment once they become adults, we can’t give up on trying to find the right solutions for this problem.
Irrelevant. Nobody mentioned the Electoral College.
You can show me the map that shows how “red” counties outnumber “blue” counties and other such horseshit that you think justifies the claim “over half of the country supported Trump”. I can demolish that “evidence” in five words: Land doesn’t vote. People do.
You can’t fight the statistics: If we look at the popular vote, less than a quarter of the country — and less than half of all participating voters — voted for Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020. So don’t bring up that fake-ass bullshit claim again, you fractally wrong dipshit.
I can’t even pretend to know enough about the experience of trans people to have an opinion on this facet of the broader trans community — but I know that referring to trans women as men is bullshit, especially coming from someone who themselves claims to be queer.
And the conservative push for “none” — as evidenced by the transgender military ban enacted by Donald Trump — leaves no room for finding a solution that works for both the military and trans people. And besides, conservatives don’t want to even recognize the humanity of trans people. To conservatives, trans people are…oh, how best to put this…let’s say, “undesirables”. Yeah, that seems like the reich terminology for their beliefs.
And that’s because of queer people like you, since I’m almost sure you’re one of those “drop the T” folks. You want me to recognize and give you credit for your queerness, but you’re not willing to stand and fight for fellow queer people because they’re transgender? Fuck. You. (And on behalf of the Gay Agenda: Your invitation to Pride Month has been, by thine own hand, revoked.)
Focusing only on the short-term is a bad idea. Clean up enough trash and you’ll think “oh, hey, things are okay now” — and you’ll get lazy and watch things go back to “not okay” (or worse). We must focus on changing entire systems, not individual behaviors.
Yes, we should all do our part to reduce our impact on the environment. But regular jackoffs like you and I have a near-negligible impact in comparison to the major polluters in this world. We have to work towards eliminating the incentives to pollute — to keep using fossil fuels, to lower emissions standards, to refuse responsibility for disasters such as oil spills — or else those polluters will keep doing what they do.
Recycling our plastic bottles won’t mean shit unless we make the manufacturers of those plastic bottles pollute less. Taking fewer/shorter showers won’t mean shit unless we make energy companies stop polluting water sources. We must change our actions, yes — but we must also fight to change the systems that enable the worst polluters to pollute in ways that harm the world and its living beings…including people like you and me.
Unless you prefer to breathe polluted air and drink poisoned water, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ But if the idea is to make those civil partnerships “separate but equal” to sectarian marriages? Fuck that noise.”
Let’s just end legal recognition of sectarian marriage recognition and naming. Give the religious their little ritual. But make the legal method what it is, complete in recognition and rights as civil partnerships”.
The biggest roadblock to marriage equality is the religious right. The solution is to eliminate the term entirely from law and give the right their rite without legal entanglements.
Separate but equal is shite.
The transgender issues is more than just rights. There are multiple issues, not a single issue. The safegate used by bigots does have real concern even within the community. Fakes. When a biological man can dress as a woman and head into the women’s bathroom, it opens up the door to fakes. Any ped can dress up as a man or woman of the opposite sex and head on in with the teens and preteens using the stall next door. There’s serious safety concerns. And there’s a perception backlash for the community as a whole.
The first time such a case happens the entire community gets dragged out for stoning.
Radical changes work better when moved toward slowly.
Personally I’d rather (slowly) move to inter gender inclusionism and away from separate but equal binary.
But the place to start is protecting companies that want to include or move to mixed use to be able to do so. Not forcing those who don’t into it.
“To act like we can’t is to give up“
I agree. But the green new deal paves the way for environmental destruction of another kind. In the US California, Washington, Maine. Internationally we see it from Germany, Norway, and Ireland.
The goal is good. The implementation planned is not.
Trans is generic and covers multiple choices.
Again the solution would be Dissolving binary and total integration. But radical change should be approached slowly.
I’m a drop the Q type. There’s limits of what a society will accept. Forcing accommodation doesn’t guarantee acceptance.
What concerns me is repeating previous for cements that caused bloodshed. There’s more of “them” than are of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So long as it means all such partnerships — even the ones ordained as marriages by religious sects — are all referred to as “civil partnerships” in official government documents and on official government forms, such that a gay atheist couple and a straight Christian couple are both given “civil partnership licenses”? So long as the same legal rights/privileges given to married couples now still apply when the changeover to “civil partnerships” is completed? Hell yes, go nuts.
But if straight people/religious people still get “marriage licenses” and still get more legal rights/privileges that people in “civil partnerships”? Fuck every last bit of it. Either it’s equality or it’s “separate but equal”, and we all know how well that worked out in the past.
Except they’re…uh…not a roadblock any more. Same-sex marriage was made legal nationwide almost six years ago. They’re an obstacle to keeping same-sex marriage legal, sure. But the Supreme Court steamrolled their shit in 2015, in terms of making it legal nationwide.
No, it really isn’t. Your discomfort with the existence of transgender people doesn’t, won’t, and shouldn’t have any bearing on whether they deserve equal access to civil rights and protection from discrimination based only on who they are.
Is there now, and has there ever been, any credible indication that cisgender men are dressing up in female-coded clothing and presenting themselves as female to gain access to women’s restrooms/showers en masse? No, quoting bigots doesn’t count as a credible indication. Neither does quoting heavily biased/largely discredited sources.
I’ve got news for you, fam: They can do that now without having to fake presenting as the opposite gender. Do you think those signs outside a bathroom are fucking magical barriers or some shit? I’m a cisgender male, and I can walk into a women’s restroom without being transported directly to jail or incinerated by a dragon or whatever you think happens if you cross that invisible line. (And for the record: I’ve never walked into a women’s restroom unless it is the only working restoom in a given building.)
If a person wants to commit a crime inside a restroom meant for the opposite sex — i.e., if a cisgender male wants to rape a cisgender woman in a stall in a women’s bathroom — they’re probably not going to dress up for the sake of committing that crime. And your worries about transgender people using “the wrong restroom” brings up a point that I don’t think you’ve ever considered: If a fully transitioned transgender female is forced by law to use the men’s restroom, what the fuck do you think is going to happen to her?
The bathroom issue is what I’m talking about when I talk about how conservatives want to push queer people out of society: A trans person who doesn’t feel safe when using the bathroom in public — as everyone does at some point in their life — will want to leave their house less. If they go out less, they become less visible in public. If they’re less visible in public, people discomforted by the existence of trans people don’t have to think that much about trans people. Ergo, using the bathroom issue as a wedge to drive trans people out of public life is one-hundred fucking percent the methodology of a conservative bigot. Congratulations — you’re on the side of the people whom you keep saying you don’t side with.
They’re not “radical” if they’re gradual, you dipshit. It’s why the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide was a radical change: It happened suddenly and without having to need every individual state to legalize it by themselves.
So suggest something better. Look for something better that’s already out there and champion it. But let’s not act like doing what we’re doing now — incrementally moving away from fossil fuels at a snail’s pace, letting the biggest polluters get off virtually scot-free — is making the kind of difference that needs to be made for the sake of avoiding a climate change–driven Great Extinction.
No, it doesn’t. The gender binary is bullshit, I agree, but “transgender” as a term is near-specifically intended for use in referencing that binary. (Maybe I’m wrong about that, though. Being cisgender, I’m not well-versed in terminology and usage and context for language surrounding the gender spectrum.)
…fucking what
Forcing accomodation guarantees accomodation. That’s where we start. Tolerance comes next — you don’t have to like trans people existing, but you have to tolerate their existence because they’re fucking human beings like you. If tolerance leads to acceptance, great. But trans people aren’t looking for your motherfucking permission to exist, and they sure as hell don’t need your permission to live out and proud.
Now fuck off back to the TERF forum that spawned you, you transmisic bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Except they’re…uh…not a roadblock any more. Same-sex marriage was made legal nationwide almost six years ago. They’re an obstacle to keeping same-sex marriage legal, sure. But the Supreme Court steamrolled their shit in 2015, in terms of making it legal nationwide.“
Exactly. We now have religious zealots pushing to legislate that our. Some, including myself, see the fastest way to protecting couples is to simply toss the term completely. There’s a moment to do that now. Jam it into one of the super bills filled with pet projects for everyone and make it happen.
We all know how fast the religious right can turn rights on their head.
I have no discomfort. Personally.
The issue is “trans”. Trans covers transvestism, transgenderism, and transsexualism.
What it does is open up the door. In many places you can get arrested for intentionally using the wrong restroom.
It may not stick but you can get arrested.
A Seattle man, citing transgender bathrooms laws, was able to gain access to a women’s locker-room at a public recreational center while little girls were changing for swim practice.
-NBC King5 news
A Toronto man claiming to be transgender was arrested and sentenced to jail for sexually assaulting several women in a women’s shelter after he gained access to the shelter and its shower facilitates as “Jessica.”
-Life site
A Virginia man was caught and arrested for peeping on and filming two women and a 5-year-old child in a women’s restroom after receiving entry by dressing in drag.
-NBC Washington (Virginia)
A Los Angeles man dressed in drag, entered a Macy’s department store bathroom and videotaped women under bathroom stalls.
-NBC 4
Two male students were caught at the University of Toronto exploiting “gender-neutral” facilities to peep on women in the shower with their cellphone cameras.
-CBC
Remove that barrier and more people could try it.
It’s rare but it does happen.
Perpetrators are usually caught but not always.
I don’t know which is better; throwing everyone in together or allowing a single group to cross the “boundary”.
Personally, I think tossing everyone together is the best choice. More people, less chance of the bad seeds getting away.
You don’t often find people robbing busy restaurants or subway news shops during rush hour for that very reason. Safety in numbers.
“So suggest something better.”
Well: auto:
Federally subsidise automotive manufacturers of electric vehicles.
Offer REAL tax incentives for buying electric
Standardise charging stations
Electric cars are too expensive for most people to buy.
Charging stations are too far between to be completely reliable.
Electric:
Fund a federal solar program
Set up solar in open areas around the country. The South East has plentiful desert land. The Rockies. Alaska, which has months of nearly day long sun.
Fuel:
Increase pipeline usage and decrease barging. With the eye on eliminating it. Pipelines can be almost completely automated in both use and repair. Double shielding prevents external leaks.
Transport:
Fund electric and magnetic high speed rail. That would greatly reduce air travel.
Environment:
Fund a National recycling program.
Require recycling companies to recycle what they collect. In house or down-stream.
Create federal regulations for littering and dumping law, and force states to do the same by linking federal funding to it.
Too much is currently collected and then just discarded. And tossing a plastic bottle out the window hardly equates to a slap on the wrist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It’s rare but it does happen."
OK, so then that raises 2 questions:
Does the rarity justify the problems that happen the other way round (for example, TG women presenting as such getting beat / harassed because they have to use the mens' room)?
Depending on the answers to those questions, there may be way better ways to deal with this other than demonising TG folk for something that people not part of their community are doing.
"In many places you can get arrested for intentionally using the wrong restroom."
Well, the problem is how do you define "wrong" restroom. You can search online and find many examples very quickly of trans folk who look nothing like their birth gender. If a TG woman looks like she is biologically female to any passerby, but is pre-op, which bathroom should she use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the fastest way to protect gay couples is to uphold the wall of separation between church and state. Christianity doesn’t own the term “marriage”, and no religious bigot of any creed or individual sect therein has the right to turn their beliefs into law. The Supreme Court said that same-sex couples have the right to marry. So stop trying to turn all marriages into a word salad (“we’re entering into a civil partnership!” vs. “we’re getting married!”) for the sake of appeasing religious bigots. Their feelings are not — I repeat, not — more important than another person’s civil rights.
Could’ve fooled me.
The commonly accepted usage of “trans” these days covers “transgender” (e.g., “trans woman” = “transgender woman”). Both “transvestite” and “transsexual” are considered outdated terminology. I may be a cisgendered dumbass, but I still know that much.
Again: Do you think the little symbols on a bathroom door are magical barriers or some shit? If a cis man goes into a women’s restroom to commit a crime, they’re going to be arrested for committing the crime, not for how they’re dressed…
…because under the law, a cis man can and will be arrested for committing a crime regardless of whether he’s wearing a tailor-made three-piece suit or a lovely floral sundress with a set of matching heels.
The barrier (a bathroom law) doesn’t even exist in a good chunk of the U.S., and there still isn’t a wave of “cis people pretending to be trans to commit crimes” crimes.
And the rarity of it happening doesn’t enter into a bigot’s mind. They need only hear about one case — just one! — to justify their anti-trans bigotry. One case gives them all the ammo they need to press for bills that, if turned into law, would help push trans people out of the public sphere and back into the closet (if not the grave, which I’m sure the bigots would be fine with as well). And guess what? You’re playing right into their hands by helping them spread the same odious lie about trans people based on a handful of cases — which is to say, you’re spreading the lie that being transgender is a “dress-up game” or an “act” instead of being transgender. Stop reading what right-wing websites say about trans people and start reading books/articles about being trans that are written by actual trans people. And if you’re discomforted by the idea that they’re not all going to play to your bigotry — that they’re not going to comfort your ignorance by telling you exactly what you want to hear? That’s a “you” problem. Guess who gets to solve it.
…fucking what
See? That’s what the fuck I’m talking about! Instead of whining and complaining about the downsides of wind turbines — which plays into the exact same bullshit your Dear Leader was doing to discredit clean energy — you’re suggesting ideas and programs we can support. Oh, that’s that good shit!
…now if you’d only drop the bigotry against trans people and the uncritical ass-kissing fealty to Donald Trump. Do that and you might not sound like such a conservative dipshit — to the point where you could pass for someone who didn’t look uncritically at the Trump administration and didn’t think a vote for cruelty, bigotry, and good ol’ American fascism was a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wind turbines are as environmentally precarious as unregulated hydro electric (other countries). Chopping up migratory sea birds just doesn’t fit my idea of save the environment.
And flattening old growth forest is even worse.
We have plenty of open land that could host non-destructive build-outs.
California has an interesting idea in floating solar on the aquifer system.
Utah and Colorado both have wonderful land that could host high altitude solar. Again without decimating the current environment.
As for current methods. Clean coal? Here’s my opinion. Rather than release soot, incentivise capture. Carbon capture could be returned to the steel industry. If the government were to mandate use and fund the supply of high efficiency filtration problematic emissions could be reduced by 75-98% according to the journal Science. Green energy isn’t going to replace industrial energy over night. Why not focus on cleaning what we have as we work on greening tomorrow?
We don’t have to agree on individual aspects of cause and concern to come together to find solutions. If every charging station had adaptors for every car the pickup of EV would rise rapidly. Right now a dozen different apps help guide people since the manufacturers aren’t interested in directing you to third party chargers.
And we still have the issue of what do we do in the far north when it’s 20• below or the south west when it hits 110•
I have yet to see a report that approaches that issue logically. They’re either works fine or can never work.
Anyone with a cell phone can tell you how well they work below zero.
Not well. Now I get 20 miles and need to charge?
And when air temperature is 100+ surface temps can be much higher. Hang a thermometer in your car in the Death Valley summer to understand that. Compounding thermals. Now what?!?
Right path, long way to go.
On a lot of public issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ain’t no such thing.
Because that would prevent energy companies from making the kinds of profits they make now — and we all know executives will not give up their hard-“earned” money without a fight. Not sayin’ it ain’t worth pushing for, but don’t expect it to happen any time soon…especially if your precious demigod Trump somehow gets back into office or one of his ass-kissing acolytes wins in 2024.
No, we really do. While individual people have a role to play in helping prevent climate change disaster, we know who the biggest threats are — and it isn’t regular jackoffs like you and me. If you think making people like us do more to curb their effect on the environment is the solution, and I think making people like Big Oil/Big Energy executives do more to curb their companies’ far, far, far, far, far larger effect on the environment is the solution, we’re going to keep arguing past each other. We need to agree on the primary driver of global climate change — corporate pollutants and the executives who don’t give a shit about changing that fact — before we can start agreeing on actual solutions that will have a greater effect of slowing down global climate change than does your individual decision to recycle plastic bottles.
We say “this is the effect of global climate change”, point at the biggest pollutants, and tell our leaders to make them stop fucking up the planet.
Weren’t you the one who said we should…and I quote…“focus on the now with the environment"? Why are you so worried about the “long way to go” if you think we’re not even supposed to care about that? I mean, after all, you said…and I quote…“On the geological scale of time any influence on temperature is statistically insignificant.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ We say “this is the effect of global climate change”, point at the biggest pollutants, and tell our leaders to make them stop fucking up the planet.”
As long as humans have existed the northern part of what would become North America had sub zero winters and the Deep South west had 100+ summers.
And electric car technology today, that works in most places, and should be funded better and helped by the government, doesn’t work well in our country’s extremes. Petrol is currently the most logical solution there. (Aside from abandonment).
My concern is pollution, habitat loss, ecosystem stability. That’s a near future concern. I look down the street and I see two plastic bottles, a beer can, and someone’s McDonald’s. That’s a right now problem!
Just because I don’t subscribe to man made global warming in the hear and now, doesn’t mean I don’t consider it a potential possibility. Which means while I don’t have an immediate sky-is-falling reaction to it I’m still support working towards a solution that keeps it from becoming a problem AND takes the steps in order so we don’t cut off our legs to protect our feet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’d rip on you at length, but…
…with that sentence, you have killed the last remnants of your credibility in this discussion. And I’m bored of dealing with your bigoted ass anyway.
Go back to Parler, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That last sentence was no secret.
And this is why your glorious Biden term will without legacy. Again purely from the US political system, you’re general views are far left, now known as alt-left. And the far left can’t negotiate within it’s own party’s more centrist core; you can never expect to get anything lasting with the right of they can’t convince your own party.
When the new wave of Republicans take over the house and senate they’ll simply repeal any partisan laws. And President Pen will have a good chunk of his orders and memorandums terminated in 24 when he’s voted out of office.
This is the crap all or nothing that is the reason Americans continually swing wildly every 4-8 years on all policy.
Zero compromise on the part of the alt-left. Money, favours, and other back room deals manages to pull in enough centrist Dems to get things passed temporarily by partisanship ram-rodding.
There are lots of places Democrats like myself and Republicans can negotiate on.
The far left drive that started after Carter, of everything right now, is what two year old children do when they can’t have all their toys out at once.
Too self absorbed to recognise some is better than none. Hopefully enough logical Dems survive to work on things with the next president. But dictator Nancy has the party’s logical wing walking on thumb tacks to not get the rest of their career of actually serving the people defunded by alt left donors.
You selfish fools are the reason everyone is hurting right now.
Trump at least made an initial attempt to try to get the parties to work together.
Since the Dems were so butt hurt on Clinton loosing they refused to negotiate and we got a massive swing back the other way.
This has been going on too long and I blame the alt left, the entrenched leaders of both parties, and the propaganda machine of fake news.
Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump.
When the only acknowledgment the other side gets is no: it’s no wonder there’s so much hatred. Everyone hates something. Nobody is willing to bend.
What a joke our politics has become
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I repeat: Go back to Parler, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Think I’ll go back to Fox and NYT. I don’t use Parler.
I wonder if you’ll ever learn not all who disagree with you are Republicans.
Look around. Carefully. The Democrats are now turning against you alt-left progressives. The only reason the AOC types got a platform at all was they needed the Sanders vote to counter the Dems who voted against Clinton, and yes, for Trump.
Just remember how hard you fought against any compromise when the jackass truck runs you over too. Too bad I won’t be there to tell you told you so.
On your way down, you may want to mention to the lady in Iowa how voter fraud doesn’t exist. She didn’t get that memo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder.
I've never seen a Democrat deny the Trump dripping off his lips so hard he'd send himself to the hospital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Democrats put Trump in office. Just like Pubes had their never-Trumpers, Dems had their never-Clinton group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone who actually cared about birds, and wasn't jist guzzling Trump, would be fine with windmills, as they're already barely a rounding error when it comes to man-caused bird deaths, and around 1% of the deaths caused by fossil fuel power generation emissions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On that note, the Trump administration weaselled away penalties for energy companies whose oil pits kill more than twice as many birds per year as windmills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The biggest roadblock to marriage equality is the religious right"
This is true. The easy fix for this is to uphold the separation of church and state and not let their petty demands for segregation take hold. A generation or two later, this issue will be as uncontroversial as interracial marriage and desegregated schooling. A problem for some knuckledraggers, but normal to most people.
"When a biological man can dress as a woman and head into the women’s bathroom, it opens up the door to fakes"
When a person learns the difference between transvestite and transgender, it's a little less of a problem in the situation you imagine.
"Any ped can dress up as a man or woman of the opposite sex and head on in with the teens and preteens using the stall next door"
So, there's no danger if a person of the same biological sex does the same? Pedos don't go after kids of the same gender? Or, is this just another bit of fearmongering you've fallen for from people trying not to admit their bigotry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impact and bad execution always override good intent — every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”"
I believe he was talking about safety from other citizens or other countries. Do you have a quote about a disease that doesn't care who you worship?
"Mandating everyone use an inadequate mask is not only a violation of personal Liberty, it’s such a minor benefit I can’t justify trampling personal, and property rights for it."
Sane people understand that some protection is better than none, and the only reason for the mandate is because twats like you insist on holding superspreader church and biker events to ensure that everyone who's not a raging moron is at greater risk.
The countries not filled with people stupid enough to think that Trump will save you for communism alone have not had to take these measures.
"He wanted to protect the people likely to have problems without stomping on liberty"
Unless they were in blue states, in which case it's well documented that he wanted to withhold any aid so long as the people who did vote for him were not affected.
"And he NEVER said inject bleach into your body"
He also never had a plan to deal with the pandemic after firing the team responsible for it, gambling 500k+ American lives on the idea that it will go away magically, and leaving exactly zero plan for distributing the vaccines he fooled you morons into thinking he procured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Agreeing with the other party on some things doesn’t make you part of it."
True, but you are repeating every piece of misinformation popular with them, while attacking the basic facts given to you by people who aren't even part of American politics. It's notable.
"How many Americans got the virus based on the false statements that disposable masks could save their life?"
Not as many as the people who caught it because incredulous morons believe that shit, which is why your infection and death rates are so wildly disproportionate to countries that don't politicise and demonise basic precautions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never said I wasn’t a Trump supporter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No kidding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ that. I can't imagine how many more people would be dead and permanently scarred now if the government had to fight a multi-year battle in court to get basic emergency medical measures in place.”
Granted initially it does make sense in the short term. We know what happens when partisans block safety. Trump took steps to bar inbound flights of non-citizens from China in what would have been the most useful response to stop further contamination.
And was called racist and xenophobic.
But the constant reply to modernised countries?
How did that work out for Italy, England, India?
Etc?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Granted initially it does make sense in the short term"
I'm not aware of anyone trying to make it a long term thing past the pandemic, and the CDC is already lifting some restrictions for the vaccinated. So what's your problem?
"Trump took steps to bar inbound flights of non-citizens from China in what would have been the most useful response to stop further contamination.
And was called racist and xenophobic."
...because he failed to make the move when it would have been useful, and started making the move only after he was convinced to stop calling it a hoax. At which point, the half-assed restrictions he was trying to put in place (which only affected non-American citizens) wouldn't affect the ways the pandemic was spreading from Europe and other placed, but he was still trying to push the idea that China and China alone was at fault.
Understanding timelines and context aren't your thing, are they? This was yet another grift from a con artist trying to save his failing legacy, gambling lives and the economy on the idea that the US wouldn't be badly affected despite all evidence to the contrary, and you not only fell for it, you begged for more.
"But the constant reply to modernised countries?
How did that work out for Italy, England, India?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "reply" here, but Italy was very badly affected before people really knew the scope of the problem, along with Spain, and regularly travel from those countries caused rapid spread to the UK. All 3 countries have been widely criticised for different reasons, especially Spain and the UK which allowed spreader events that should have been cancelled to take place and taking too long to close down borders. They're paragons of perfection compared to the incompetence of Trump, but there's criticisms and lessons to be learned from each. Meanwhile, India was doing fairly well, especially for a country of its size and population, but they dropped the ball by opening up too early and allowing spread that's led to new variants.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but you're not doing it very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“… China and China alone was at fault”
Correct.
Barring Americans is a constitutional issue he chose not to deal with. Barring other Travel from China was smart.
“opening up too early and allowing spread that's led to new variants“
India didn’t open too soon. They allowed a religious event and their Gods were nowhere to be found. But you were pointing out how well other countries did compared to us. I don’t see that.
Again. The biggest death rates are all in lock down states that repealed liberty. The tightest controlled states were the ones with the most deaths. After the controls were put in place.
“ repeating every piece of misinformation popular with them”
Bleach? Fake
Masks (generic)stop you from getting covid? Fake
Virus came from Europe? Fake.
Virus jumped from an animal like a bat? Likely fake.
(Attempting to) Stopping travel from the largest population of potentially infected? Good
(Attempting to) Stopping travel from the source country? Good
Telling the people the masks aren’t protecting you? true
Pushing the fastest development of a vaccine in human history? true
The virus is less lethal than many flus for healthy people? True.
The virus was created in a Chinese lab? Likely true
China failed to inform the world about the virus in accurate and precise statements? True
What misinformation am I repeating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Barring other Travel from China was smart."
It would have been smart early on. Unfortunately, your idiot hero decided to pretend the virus didn't exist until it was too late for that to have any realistic effect.
"They allowed a religious event"
So... opened up too soon...
"They allowed a religious event and their Gods were nowhere to be found"
Neither were the ones in US and Korean superspreader events, among others. Maybe science instead of racism and superstition should be driving disease response?
"Masks (generic)stop you from getting covid? Fake"
Idiots who believe that anyone said that = unfortunately true. Risk is reduced, nobody said that anything is 100%, but wearing a non-N95 mask protects you more than going to Sturgis, despite oyur lies about masks somehow making it spread more.
"Virus came from Europe? Fake."
You don't think that after widespread infection was found in Italy and Spain that the regular flights into the very cities where the US infections were first found didn't carry the disease?
Oh, please tell us the magic forces you think are stopping that... Does your airline ticket saying "Rome" instead of "Wuhan" mean that you no longer infect people unfortunate enough to be stuck with you?
"The virus is less lethal than many flus for healthy people? True."
Typical "conservative" psychopath - sacrifice the weak and unworthy so that I don't have to do something I don't like for 5 minutes. Immunocompromised people, the elderly and sick should just die so you don't have to wear more clothes than you want to?
"What misinformation am I repeating?"
A lot, but you've chosen to neither defend the moronic positions you hold (a lot of goalpost moving in this thread, and zero citations) nor admit that the incompetent con artist that you voted for was grifting you at every opportunity, Here's hoping that competent adult leadership in the US means that we're not getting another wave sent everywhere else because you're too self-obsessed to do the most basic things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Smart early on? It less than a month from initial reporting to Shutdown of travel. At the time: no further countries had any significant case log.
The mistake wasn’t being too late, it was not shutting down more international travel as cases were reported.
Yes, science over religion. I don’t know how any of the responses to covid were racist. Unless cutting off travel m from the source country is what you call racist. I call it smart. Step in the source.
Typically: invent thinks not said”…despite oyur lies about masks somehow making it spread more”
I Never said that. Ever.
International, scroll up a few sentences.
“Immunocompromised people, the elderly and sick should just die so you don't have to wear more clothes than you want to?“
Oh, so shutting down everything is good. Everyone in their homes is good. You could have properly informed the “old and infirm” like Trump and Republican law makers did. Combined with proper mask information they could have stairs home (like most of the country was forced to anyway) or used a KN95 mask to protect from people who didn’t want to.
“ Here's hoping that competent adult leadership in the US means that we're not getting another wave sent everywhere else because you're too self-obsessed to do the most basic things.”
Sounds good. I look forward to 2024 when we can elect someone a doctor or lawyer would suggest not sign legal agreements If they were civilians. We need to wait till then for a mentally competent person. At which point you can chose who to vote for.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. Every week that passes more of the “lie are begrudgingly admitted to be, in actuality, true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Oh, so shutting down everything is good"
Again with the all or nothing fallacies. Why do you have to lie about the options when clearly presented with a middle ground?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny lol.
I’ll just reply with Washington Post, Mother Jones, NewYorker.
Take some time to look at 5 years of Democrats either lying (Russia, China, Ukraine, Iran), or being wrong (Covid source, antivirus effectiveness, Biden family).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least you’d be posting stuff from more credible sources than [checks notes] townhall.com or [checks notes again] your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that’s your source of credibility no wonder your so confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Reading comprehension is great.
I suggest you try it sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump's latest appearance puts a bullet theough the "Biden is the one with dementia" projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
^stands on 5th avenue and*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]