If David Cicilline Gets His Way; It Would Destroy Content Moderation
from the consequences dept
Last week we looked at the various antitrust bills written by House Democrats (though with Republicans co-sponsors conjured up at the last minute with an assist from Rupert Murdoch), and noted that none of them seemed likely to really solve the problems of internet consolidation. The crown jewel bill comes from Rep. David Cicilline, who is spearheading this entire antitrust effort. We discussed some of the problems with his bill last week, but a closer reading suggests that it would also create a disaster for content moderation. The bill reads:
It shall be unlawful for a person operating a covered platform, in or affecting commerce, to engage in any conduct in connection with the operation of the covered platform that—
(1) advantages the covered platform operator’s own products, services, or lines of business over those of another business user;
(2) excludes or disadvantages the products, services, or lines of business of another business user relative to the covered platform operator’s own products, services, or lines of business; or
(3) discriminates among similarly situated business users.
This language is clearly designed to target things like Google offering its own local reviews and listings rather than Yelp's or TripAdvisor's. And there are reasonable arguments to be made that a company like Google maybe should just use its own search ranking algorithm to see whether or not users prefer those 3rd party listings to its own.
But... the overly broad language in the Cicilline bill seems likely to have massive unintended consequences regarding content moderation in ways I don't think Cicilline would support. Indeed, for unclear reasons, an early draft of Cicilline's bill had more limiting language on part (3) above, such that it only covered "material" discrimination over services involving "the sale or provision of products or services." But the final language is much more broad and says it's an antitrust violation if there's "discrimination among similarly situated business users."
But here's the thing that people who have no experience with content moderation never seem to realize: everyone who is on the receiving end of a moderation decision they disagree with, insists that they are being treated unfairly compared to some other "similarly situated" user, even if the reality (and context) suggest otherwise. But by saying that it's an antitrust violation to discriminate between "similarly situated" business users, that's going to make those claims become particularly legally fraught.
That's going to open up a massive loophole regarding content moderation. Let's take a few examples, starting with Parler. As you may recall, Parler was kicked off AWS for hosting, and also kicked out of both the Google Play Store and the Apple iOS App Store (though it has since returned to the App Store).
Parler sued Amazon, claiming it was an antitrust violation, which got laughed out of court. But, if Cicilline's bill becomes law, suddenly this becomes an open question again. Parler could easily argue that the removal was discrimination under the definition of the bill. After all, a key point in Parler's lawsuit was that Amazon treated Twitter differently than it treated Parler.
And, under the definition in (3), Parler could say that Amazon discriminated against it as compared to the "similarly situation business user" Twitter.
This might not impact Parler's lawsuit specifically, since enforcement of Cicilline's bill falls on government entities rather than private parties, but it opens it up to "any Attorney General of a state," and I can pretty much guarantee that there are a bunch of state AGs who would happily step in and claim that these moderation efforts against Parler violated the law.
But it goes even further than that. Suddenly Twitter banning Project Veritas or Facebook shutting down events created by Infowars would raise the same questions. And all they'd need to do is find a friendly state AG to take them on.
In short, this antitrust bill would open up a huge loophole for propaganda or garbage fire websites that were banned (or even just diminished) to claim it was an antitrust violation, because they were treated differently than "similarly situated business users."
Just think of how the PragerU lawsuits against YouTube would appear very different under this bill as well.
It seems odd that a Democrat like David Cicilline would want to put in place an antitrust bill that would make it open season for Republican propaganda outfits, and their supportive AGs, to force social media companies to not just host, but to promote, their content (not doing so might be seen as "discrimination" compared to similarly situated websites), but it seems like that's what he's done. Perhaps that's the compromise that it took to get a Republican co-sponsor on board, but it's hard to see how this is a worthwhile trade-off.
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: antitrust, competition, content moderation, david cicilline, discrimination
Companies: amazon, apple, facebook, google, parler
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Isn't that a ban on (among other things) innovation? Or in fact any change that doesn't provide equal or worse valuation for the host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This seems to ban new market entrants. Since any new product that secures any market share would naturally disadvantage the "products, services, or lines of business" of their competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there anything more Republican than forcing people who disagree with them to host speech they don’t want to host?
…okay, there is the anti-abortion thing, but still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just how do you list hundreds of equivalent businesses without apparently discriminating against some due to their position in the list? Or, how do you list all state Attorney Generals without putting one at the bottom of the list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put the names side by side in an Excel spreadsheet. That way, there is no bottom. 🙃
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was going to say go with the empty set: "There are NO state AGs (and it's illegal for there to be any)"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All right, be pedantic, listing them sideways still has a first and last entry, and the person in the last place can still act all aggrieve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But then some will complain that you placed them on the left, and others about being placed on the right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is the plan of totalitarians - everybody is guilty you just choose who to enforce against for control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And when they run out of “undesirables” to punish, they’ll eventually turn inward and punish those who aren’t “loyal enough”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Use a Mobius strip! That way there is no beginning and no end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or just a circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so disney or youtube will have to host comments ,or videos from extremist pro nra supporters or anti vaxxers if it has any website that has user comments or ads ,
this almost destroys moderation completely also section 230 says services have a right to moderate and remove content.
if someone posts a pro vax ad theyn must also host antivaxx content
it,ll be very hard to block spam if this law go,s through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'We're both selling ads but you only kicked me off, so...'
(3) discriminates among similarly situated business users.
Oh yeah, I can't possibly see that one being abused to hell by dishonest individuals to argue that kicking them off when the platform hasn't kicked every other business off constitutes discrimination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no subsection (f)(4)(i)-(iii).
Now in (g)(4)(B)(i)-(iii).....but then, it's not referenced in main text
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True, but then again, I don't see anywhere in TFA that either section, or their contents, are referenced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who doesn't want spam on every forum
Without content moderation, piracy, porn and spam would be rampant. I mean, if that's the universe they want...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having read the Bill itself (as linked) to research a response above, I found this particular tidbit interesting;
[from Section 2, subsection (f), paragraph (3)]
Seems to me that someones wants to codify a way to more easily pierce the corporate veil, no?, But horrifically, it states "any compensation", not just some random percentage keyed to how much money the CEO made per the actual offense. That's stupifying right there. Like as in, every CEO would immediately shutter all possible places where one or more persons could post.... as in, post anything - blog responses, advertisements, lists, anything at all. Thus quoted each and every CEO: "Not in my wallet you don't!"
Thus rendering the Internet null and void after barely reaching nascent adulthood. Sad. JUST. FUCKING. SAD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A stack of bills using Clayton Act as s way to force -- SEC. 4. BUREAU OF DIGITAL MARKETS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gonna recycle a previous comment because it's relevant again here:
There was this shithead troll on Ars who edited his own posts into false accusations against Ars's moderation.
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=39571969#p39571969
It's almost as pathetically transparent as Woody thinking that typing others' names onto his comments would fool anybody.
Ot trolls there and here on Techdirt hallucinating conspiracies against them for being identified as trolls by the community.
Some Ars commenters show that these kinds of trolls show child-level intellects:
50me12 wrote:
I used to moderate a popular gaming forum. It was astonishing / maybe a little horrifying how often people's reaction to any action by the mods was something to the effect of "out to get them". The user always felt that they clearly had reasons for their actions / were justified, and they were unable to believe / understand that the moderator might also have reasons for their actions, aside from 'bias' or whatever random verb they selected. 99.99% of situations where someone went off about how the mods were out to get them, they were just full of it. Human nature can be a pain.Starke replied:
I moderate chat for a twitch stream. There's a bot that posts a warning every 15 minutes not to backseat game. It's the same message every time. We had a kid in chat who went off on the bot, telling it to shut up and leave him alone. The streamer ran out of patience for it and banned them after the third time. I read the ban appeal where this kid's defense was basically, "Nightbot started it," and, "was saying mean things about me."And here we have Woody keeps ranting about how the automated spam filter is doing its job correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End of Adverts
"(1) advantages the covered platform operator’s own products, services, or lines of business over those of another business user;
(2) excludes or disadvantages the products, services, or lines of business of another business user relative to the covered platform operator’s own products, services, or lines of business; or
(3) discriminates among similarly situated business users. "
REALLY?
So a person can not advert or support 1 product over another? That a spammer can over run a sight because we DONT like his products, and he gets Kicked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Sisyphean
It shall be unlawful for a political representative, or any allied lobbyist, to engage in any conduct in connection with the operation of political representation that—
(1) advantages the political representative's own policies, voter access, or personal situation over those of another political representative; (2) excludes or disadvantages the policies, voter access, or personal situation of another political representative relative to the political representative's own policies, voter access, or personal situation; or (3) discriminates among similarly situated political representatives.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are sites that have altered entire niches by allowing only certain advertisers.
We do have antitrust laws, do we not? Just apply those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How likely are the bills to pass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Very likely. The bills are for American Law and the American Public, and will be heard in front of American judges in American courts. They are not intended for the tiny band of commie intellectual lepers (mostly foreigners) that frequent this site.
I understand why you clueless idiots don't like it, but look at it this way:
You support the idea that black and sexually confused people should get special treatment, right? You're big advocates of that, because of the historical abuse suffered at the hands of straight white people. That seems fair (to you), right?
So, just imagine that every business is a different color with a different sexual orientation. That's pretty close to the actual truth. AND, imagine it was AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate against people of different color or different sexual orientations. That would be a good thing, right?
It's a "rainbow coalition" argument against discrimination. You're actually FOR that, right? Right?
Isn't it amazing that Techdirt is the only forum in the universe where asking the question "Right?" marks you as a troll. You guys are so funny!
1000:1, you racist bigots that discriminate against any opinion but your own will hide my comment. Any takers? See you in court (in the future).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Given Hamilton's support, it's about as likely to succeed as Shiva's lawsuit against Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Context suggests that by "sexually confused," you mean "not heterosexual cisgender." Sounds pretty bigoted of you.
No. They shouldn't get special treatment. They should get identical treatment. Not better, not worse than "straight white people."
But this bill isn't talking about every business, is it? It has no problem at all with big media/telecom advantaging its content over other businesses by zero-rating its own offerings, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, you might be right, because I don't know what "not heterosexual cisgender" means. What does that mean? Is that English? I looked it up:
denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex.
"this newfound attention to the plight of black trans folks by primarily cisgender allies is timely and necessary"
Wow, learn something new every day. Cisgender. It is a word after all. Birth sex is another new concept, as if your sex can change. BOOM! You're a new sex. Not male, not female, something that comes from your imagination. That's also interesting and novel, I'm not sure how to respond to that, it's outside of any experience I've ever had, or care to.
I wonder how all these ideas relate to the article and bills at issue.
Happy to see you didn't hide my comment, though. That's good news, that you allow people to write and read differing opinions. Another new leaf for you guys, good for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also think it might be a bit misleading to describe your sex "at birth". It's not really birth that defines your sex, it happens when your DNA is first manufactured inside your mama (or maybe test-tube). That's right, isn't it? You can always fully ascertain someone's sex by examining their DNA, I think that's true. Maybe it's not, I would be happy to examine a reference that says otherwise.
"Sex. The simplest thing DNA can tell you is whether someone is male or female. Apart from some very rare cases, that doesn't even involve looking at their DNA sequence - all you need to know is whether they have X and Y chromosomes (making them male) or a pair of Xs (which makes them female)."
What you think and what you feel are a different than what you are. You are male or female, assuming you consist of organic human matter with DNA.
I'm still confused about "cis gender". No, I'm not confused about MY gender, I'm clear about that. I'm wondering why anyone else confused about THEIR gender. Usually they know. I mean, I like to see how people dress and act, it's GREAT FUN to look at people, sometimes even to burst out loud laughing, that's my favorite. You can dress like a lady, you can talk and walk like a lady, wear lipstick, high heels, thongs, the whole 9 yards. Doesn't mean you ARE a lady, or I can't laugh out loud when I see you.
I mean, in Texas, that we usually do. Where are ya'll from? Another planet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you sure there are only two sexes?
Why does it matter how a person dresses or who they want to have sex with, and what is accomplished by your attempts to ridicule them because they don't fit into your worldview? The only reason it's "unusual" now anyway is because a few thousand years ago some people got it in their heads (most likely out of fear and/or a desire to control others) that people with different body parts should be treated differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is your question in blue? Yes, I am sure there are only two sexes, in the same way I am sure people usually have two legs. Not everybody does, of course, war veterans, for example, may have lost a leg. Same goes for two eyes, two ears, one nose, all the common features of people. At for least people I know, that live in Texas. Two sexes here, that's about it.
It doesn't matter to me how people dress (at all!), I just like to laugh. I like to laugh right out loud, openly and often. You should try it sometime. Python boots in my courtroom make me laugh. Men in lipstick make me laugh. This site makes me laugh.
Yes, Texas culture is a bit unique, you've probably heard the expression "That's totally Texas!", meaning CRAZY. We're not so crazy, not more than many other people, anyway. We just like to sit and laugh at total strangers and friends alike, it's kind of a local custom. Ask any Texan what they and they love about Waco and they will likely list a few items: brisket, football, higher speed limits, tacos and kolaches. And laughing at other people! We love that here.
But when someone wears Python Boots in MY COURT, I guarantee you I will have a BIG O Belly Laugh. I laugh just thinking about it.
Same for men in women's clothing, or men with makeup. Not so much for women in men's clothing, that usually means they're hard working ranch hands or attorneys or such. Some of those ladies look FIERCE, and that's just fine with me. One is funny in a useless kind of way (men who look like ladies), and the other one (reflecting a serious work ethic) worthy of a little respect and consideration. I'm guessing that you're more of the former and less of the latter. Am I right?
Read the Bible, that might help you.
I'm not bigoted, I think everyone can do anything they want. One time I even saw a dog that could walk on two legs and sing. I laughed at that, too. Here's a fierce looking woman: https://www.sheppardmullin.com/jayers
Clearly a lady, but check out the jacket. Very masculine, no? Don't mess with her, she's serious! I just love it when she comes to my court, even more than the dancing dog that could sing. She's amazing!
See? I'm open minded. How about you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Been there, done that. Too much hate and BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no greater hate than “Christian love”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Christians to the lions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Read the Bible, that might help you."
Which one? The political hack job the papacy cobbled together in the 15th century out of the most politically expedient old texts they could piece together from roman annals, fragments of decaying aramaic script, old greek gossip writs and whatever they could steal from persian zoroastrianism?
Or the bad and woefully amended translation thereof called the King James Bible?
"I'm not bigoted"
Says the guy who just spent several posts demonstrating that scorn and laughter is all he has to spare for those who are different.
Not just ignorant of science, also doesn't know english, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would actually suggest the source documents of the New Testament and pre editorial Old Testament. Such as the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls And NHLI, ed. 9 with Apx of the Aramaic fragments. The latter addition to it showing the Christian source of the Koran. Along with the various oils and new testament writings that never made it into most tomes. Such as the writings of the Jewish Mystics who deeply appealed to the Gnostic movement.
Intriguing collection for anyone actually interested in development of the religious stories if multiple beliefs. How they were combined to become a single tract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Religious stories are great as parables, moral lessons or fables. It's when people decide that not only are they the unvarnished truth, but they override everyone else's interpretations, that we get into trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The number who still do that is diminishing every day. Part of why I point to the older writings.
The mystic writings of the Jewish schism, period of 150bce-150ce, are a prime source library for the multiple apocalyptic history tomes.
One of which, Revolution of John, made it into the Bible.
To call the bible a guide for morals; wtf. We have god supporting genocide, infanticide, homicide, slavery, rape?
Beyond that we have the Judges (lawmakers/courts) holding people responsible for the actions of others, killing unborn children because the mother was “unclean”, (how’s that anti-abortion cause holding up), mandating slavery, and justifying forced incest!
Morality in the Old Testament is non-existing. In the Nee Testament it only applies to when the leaders want it to.
Hardly A guide to life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Morality in the Old Testament is non-existing. In the Nee Testament it only applies to when the leaders want it to. Hardly A guide to life."
Ethics in the old testament are nonexisting. Morality is subjective. It might have made sense a few thousand years ago when they'd barely gotten around to categorizing under what circumstances a member of the tribe would be allowed to brain another member of the tribe for their herd of livestock.
"To call the bible a guide for morals; wtf. We have god supporting genocide, infanticide, homicide, slavery, rape?"
And incest, looking at Lot. The full set of "dont's".
It's a sad fact where religion is concerned that if you're taught from childhood to disbelieve the evidence of your own eyes you end up adult for whom compartmentalization is a natural state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Ethics in the old testament are nonexisting. Morality is subjective."
Most of both testaments are find when taken as allegory, cautionary tales and so on. The problem in the modern evangelical sense is that not only do some people take them literally, they'll cherry pick according to the argument. They'll use Noah and Genesis to explain why evolution can't be real, but run away when you ask them to defend their god killing most of the planet when people annoyed him or why God forbade the tree of knowledge. They'll dive straight into Leviticus when attacking gay marriage, but run away when you point out the less savoury things in the other verses in that book. They'll claim to follow Jesus, but always seem to ignore his lessons about treating foreigners and neighbours in certain ways, and the message within him ejecting moneychangers from the temple.
"It's a sad fact where religion is concerned that if you're taught from childhood to disbelieve the evidence of your own eyes you end up adult for whom compartmentalization is a natural state."
The good thing is that evangelical type religions seem to be on the downturn. The bad news is that those people start following Trump and Q instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Intriguing collection for anyone actually interested in development of the religious stories if multiple beliefs. How they were combined to become a single tract."
Well, they were carefully vetted by the priestly scholars tasked to collate the definitive Word Of God. The main criteria appears to have been "And don't put anything in it which will allow the peasantry to challenge the current order".
I am constantly amazed that there is a world faith assembled under the equivalent of a 15th-century propaganda pamphlet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Part of what makes the Dead Sea Scrolls interesting, to those who read the full library and not just the compilation translations, is the non-theological documents.
The temple scroll, the rules scroll, etc.
You can see how the Christian leaders modified localised Jewish law.
Later documents like the Arabian recovery, which also shows how Christians used localised law and beliefs to create the Koran via an easily deciphered combined language; Arabic was an earlier attempt at the same target as Esperanto.
Reading the recovered books and poems of religious beliefs is much like reading the reconstruction of the lost Homeric works.
It makes the story both more complete and far more fantastic from Christos making clay and sand birds fly on the sabbath, to spiting his teacher (A source for the scene in the Omen II of Damion vs the teacher), to killing those in the town.
You can also clearly see why a governing body looking for power and control would chose to ignore some of those texts. We can be propping up a man who chose to slay the townspeople for spiting him.
“And those who called him sorcerer, He looked at them, and they fell”
A passage that has very close variants in the Life of Jesus, Gospel of Mary, works of the Christ, —>
The bible in most of the current forms already has irreconcilable errors on dates, generations, lineages, quantity…
It already is impossible to logically consider it accurate. Add the far more entertaining sources and expunged doctrine and you get a fare more enjoyable fable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think stile is accurate. As much as co-opt.
Somewhere like the old Microsoft adage: embrace, extend, extinguish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any scientific arguments for there being more than two biological sexes? If so...What are their scientific basis and definitions, defined by whom, how and when? How do they fit into the basic biological human reproductive cycle and strategy? (you know, the whole reason for, and basis of, biological sex) How do they relate to the nature of human sexual dimorphism? What are the biological evolutionary advantages (and disadvantages for that matter) of having a third biological sex?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, you seem very insistent and concerned for someone replying to a post where the answer to the first few questions is linked to already in that very post. Is there something you need us to help with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"all you need to know is whether they have X and Y chromosomes (making them male) or a pair of Xs (which makes them female)."
So, as long as you ignore people with XXY chromosomes (or XXYY or XXXYY), Turner syndrome or Trisomy X, hermaphrodites, intersex individuals, etc.,etc. then everything is really simple? I know you invent fantasy versions of the world so that your mind can deal with facts, but the real world is more complicated.
As usual, you try to sound clever, but all you do is announce your ignorance. Try learning some actual facts, I find that educated people are often not as angry, bigoted and hateful as you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see, your considered retort is "I know you are but what am I?". Are you 5?
Boys are boys, girls are girls, and aliens from another planet are neither. I understand that. You want to focus on the exceptions, rather than the OVERWHELMING RULE that boys are boys and girls are girls. Up to you, it's a free country. Not sure that's true for where you're from, but I'm an open minded person. I can accept your ideas. Watch:
OK, Mr. Exceptions. You focus on the exceptions if you like.
And by the way, I'm not angry, bigoted or hateful. Ever see the statue of Buddha with a big belly laughing out loud? That's me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I see, your considered retort is "I know you are but what am I?". "
No, my retort was that you ignored a lot of evidence to come up with your false dichotomy, and that when that pesky reality comes in the real world is much harder than your fantasies.
But, keep up the game of pretending to be right while announcing how wrong you are about everything. Your response to mine really helps illustrate it.
"You focus on the exceptions if you like."
Yes, I will focus on the minorities you seek to subjugate through your hatred and ignorance. The fact that people like you don't like the fact that they exist should not cause them to be stripped of equal rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"false dichotomy" "pesky reality", "stripped of equal rights", uh, what?
Do your arguments sound as Soviet to you as they do to me?
Try laughing more, it's good for the soul. Reading the bible is good, too. Try that much? I'm guessing no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I prefer non-fiction. Maybe you need to try some of that too, since you apparently don't know what adult words mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not the original poster you were replying to.
Most of those are conditions usually labeled intersex conditions. ("Inter-" a prefix literally meaning “between”) As in in-between the two biological sexes. No matter how many semantical games are used, it doesn't change scientific reality.
Wait, so any exception, no matter how rare (and all the disorders and defects you are talking about combined, are very extremely rare. <1%) invalidates the rules now? No exception! So humans are not in fact naturally able to see, hear, walk and pretty much anything else. What about two arms and legs? Because exceptions like those happens all the time! Under this argument, they couldn't be classified as abnormal or exceptions to the rules, but instead part of some new nonsensical description of the basic abilities and nature of humans. That's where fallacious "logical reasoning" like this leads. Ideology has no place defining or redefining scientific facts.
It's the pretty much the height of irony to hear someone defending these kinds of purely ideological beliefs with accusations of "ignorance."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Wait, so any exception, no matter how rare (and all the disorders and defects you are talking about combined, are very extremely rare. <1%) invalidates the rules now?"
The "exception that proves the rule" doesn't work in science. Einstein chose to ignore the quantum realm while he was fixing the known problems with Newton's physics, but that didn't mean they didn't exist, just as the known problems with Newton still existed while people chose to ignore the places that were unknown before relativity was suggested.
I don't care how uncomfortable or unusual certain people are to you, they still exist, and should be treated accordingly. If they didn't choose their physical form, they should not be punished for it.
"It's the pretty much the height of irony to hear someone defending these kinds of purely ideological beliefs with accusations of "ignorance.""
Prove to me that nobody outside of the standard gender norms exists and that nobody outside of the standard XX/XY structure exists. Until then, I will defend those people against abuse from people like you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The simplest thing DNA can tell you is whether someone is male or female."
It really can't...and that you think it does speaks volumes about your grasp of biology - or lack thereof.
DNA isn't a blueprint, it's a set of suggestions. Nothing more.
"What you think and what you feel are a different than what you are."
And only if you think society needs to treat people differently based on their biology does that matter. So your argument is either utterly void or just confirmation that you're a bigot.
"I'm still confused about "cis gender"."
Not our fault you don't know how to STEM. "Cis" causes no confusion in anyone who knows basic high school science - or who knows how to google.
"I mean, in Texas, that we usually do. Where are ya'll from? Another planet?"
I was going to be nice and NOT point out that outing yourself as a village yokel from the ass-end of a nation about to slip into third world status might not be the brightest of ideas, Baghdad Bob, but you do you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why refer to yourself as a plural? Because you think the voices in your head are real people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“you racist bigots”as ever your projection is front and center.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh, hard to say offhand. Both parties have people gunning for 230 but for diametrically opposed reasons and with contradictory goals(one wants less moderation, the other wants more), something which should act as a huge roadblock were it not for the fact that the primary purpose of such bills is almost certainly nothing more complex than PR stunts most of the time, such that what they would actually do is given a much lower priority than what they are claimed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh, you don't say. Huh. "diametrically opposed reasons" with "contradictory goals" that are "nothing more complex than PR stunts".
Are you sure?
You're not American, are you? We take laws (and God and Judges) more seriously here.
But to each their own. I'll bet you're from Estonia. I went there once, Tallinn, I think, nice country, friendly people, and a few lone crazy protesters. They sounded just like you, but they were talking about the Duma, I think. Otherwise almost a word for word repeat.
Am I right about that? You from Estonia? I'm from Texas! I love it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And why not? After enjoying the 2021 Texas power crisis you guys seem to be having fun with levee systems. Well done!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/texas-levees-hurricane-trump-wal l-b1862898.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's almost impressive, that wall had already been a stupid PR stunt for gullible fools but even then they somehow managed to make it even more boneheaded by scrapping parts of a flood and hurricane mitigation system to build it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"After enjoying the 2021 Texas power crisis"
Year ain't over yet...
https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/06/14/ercot-asks-texans-to-reduce-electric-use- after-issuing-conservation-alert/
We've seen how a power grid that's isolated and unmaintained for political reasons operates in cold weather. Now, let's see how it copes in the summer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember when you used to be from Massachusetts? Or did you forget like you forgot to take your meds again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think maybe this should apply to ISPs, not web sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As always it's most telling how for all the furor aimed at 'reigning in' online platforms when it comes to applying any regulations to ISP's you get nothing but deafening silence from the same politicians who were so in favor of regulations moments before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re-enable Net Neutrality and the associated parts! that would be an easier way forward! why make life so difficult when an easier way forward is so obvious? if this prick wants recognition, get by being sensible, putting forward a bill that'll benefit all, especially the Internet, that's where more business is done than anywhere else today and is getting more popular and used by the minute!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If David Cicilline Gets His Way; It Would Destroy Content
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s quite simple
“it open season for Republican propaganda outfits, and their supportive AGs”
It would also make it open season for Democrat propaganda outfits like CNN, MSNBC, WaPo to continue on eternally as well. It offers a mandate for sites like Parler to host Democrats no mater what fake nonsense they spout. It would protect the ability to spread lies wide enough to disrupt information cycles away from anything they don’t want to have a focus on.
So yes, Republicans can continue to spread a combination of truths and slanted but technically accurate; Democrats can continue to spread blanket fiction, in more places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s quite simple
[Proyects facts diametrically opposite to reality]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190117/15361941413/splinters-our-discontent-review-netw ork-propaganda.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Breaking the news:
https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-News-Exposing-Establishment-Corruption-ebook/dp/B08LDW29XN
Let ’s paraphrase what Mike Godwin states:
Taken as a whole this is a well sourced book. It sets on paper what many Republicans, Libertarians, and others have said for a while. For over the last decade American media has quickly slid to the American “left”. Following Clinton’s 2016 loss many media outlets have slipped into propaganda. Reputable companies will still issue corrections, eg NYT, after the fact.
A law like this would allow Democrats to say what they want on any platform, just as much as Republicans on conservative platforms.
It’s not hard to see why a Democrat would be happy about forcing Parler, FoxNews, etc to host their propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
A book written by the editor-in-chief of Breitbart, a well-known source of lies and Republican propaganda (but I repeat myself). Hard pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Prove a single time they posted lie. Prove a single time they posted anything inaccurate and didn’t fix their error with a correction or retraction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
"Prove a single time they posted anything inaccurate and didn’t fix their error with a correction or retraction"
What I find amusing is that you always include this caveat, presumably since it excuses the "lie on the front page, apologise a few weeks later on page 23" tactic so common among certain types of tabloids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Are your referring to the NYT run the headline fact check it later methodology? The MSNBC methodology?
Or are you just upset they’re right more than wrong (like the NYT). He, at least both newspapers actually retract their false stories with page 23 statements.
That’s a better track record than WaPo who won’t retract anything without threats of litigation.
Still pushes long debunked nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Whataboutism is not a defense of your own source's problems, nor is your binary instance on pretending that anyone who disagrees with you watches or reads your perceived enemies. I don't give a shit what WaPo does in your mind, as I pay less attention to them as I do to what your echo chamber does.
In reality, mistakes are made and honestly apologised for. Some places use it as a propaganda tactic to fool the weak minded into supporting positions they wouldn't normally support if they only saw the truth of the matter. You seem to congregate to places best known for the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
“ In reality, mistakes are made and honestly apologised for. ”
Like the NYT, BB, Etc.
“ Some places use it as a propaganda tactic to fool the weak minded into supporting positions they wouldn't normally support if they only saw the truth of the matter. ”
Like WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, ABC etc.
See: I agree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
I love the way that the response to me telling you about how you're being manipulated and ignoring the actual point is to repeat the propaganda I was telling you about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
That’s just it. It’s not propaganda any more than any other news source.
The difference being my choices all correct mistakes when they happen. Often quite boldly, not hidden away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
A sample:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Fall River Was founded and set up by a native born family.
“ UPDATE: Consistent with our subsequent coverage of the California wildfires, this story has been updated to clarify that Jesus Fabian Gonzales is not suspected of the recent Sonoma County fires that killed 40 residents.
The U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) issued a detainer request on the Sonoma County Jail for Jesus Fabian Gonzalez, who was arrested Sunday on suspicion of arson in Wine Country fires.”
Posted shortly after the press release from the SD.
“ The "establishment media ignored" President Donald Trump’s Fourth of July event.”
Dedicated coverage time, factually correct
Nice try, you got two factual stories and an error that was quickly corrected. Correct at the HEAD OF THE STORY! Not buried elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
There's a difference between founding and building. Fall River as it stands today was largely built by immigrants, not its founders. Just like how John Stevens is considered to be the founder of the American railroads, but he obviously didn't build them.
Agreed, but the interesting thing was that many who took that breitbart-article and ran with it have deleted their coverage. No corrections, just straight up removals.
If you ignore something, you ignore it. You don't coverage at all, nada, zip, zilch. Now tell me if the "establishment media" didn't write or say one word about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The right wing side of American politics/media has slid into the acceptance and even propagation of lies and mistruths and conspiracy theorist thinking as modern American conservatism breathes its dying breaths. Right-wing politicians and pundits and “reporters” flatter the prejudices of their intended audience because feelings-before-facts thinking gets better ratings than facts-before-feelings reporting. This approach leads to people not giving a damn about facts, not even bothering to provide evidence of their claims because the claim “feels right”, and…well, basically, it leads to the Big Lie–fueled insurrection of the 6th of January.
If you want to blame something or someone for the “leftward” shift in American media — the shift towards checking facts, towards challenging those in power instead of appeasing them, towards treating queer people like people instead of disease-carrying vermin or freaks of nature to be gawked at — you can lay the blame at the feet of modern American conservatism and right-wing media. Nobody would have (much of) an issue with Fox News if it didn’t knowingly embrace the role of the propaganda arm for the GOP and Donald Trump at the expense of its integrity as a(n alleged) news organization. I mean, at least a “leans right” centrist version of Fox News that actually tried to be a serious journalistic outfit wouldn’t employ a bigot like Tucker Carlson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In reality, his perception that the media has shifted "left" is because he gets virtually all his information from Breitbart and Rupert Murdoch and has been programmed to believe that anything else is controlled by Democrats (yes, he'd actually said he believes this).
Meanwhile, the rest of the planet operates on the actual political spectrum, where virtually everyone on the American political "left" is centrist at best, and people he supports are outright fascists. He's unable to deal with the same reality as the rest of us, because when he ventures outside his echo chamber , he believes that documented reality is a liberal conspiracy to attack him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
lostinlodos has quite handily proven the Network Propaganda book's claim that the Fox-Breitbart nexus builds a unique cultlike religious following that distrusts factual sources for no other reason than they were told to by the orthodoxy:
Believing that all fact-backed sources are leftist lies for no other reason than he gullibly swallows the right's pure projection uncritically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“All”
Some.
Of the multiple printings I read each day, currently, only 3 out of 16 are either BB or Murdoch.
Another is the NYT. The rest are non-political.
Most people who live in the US do so as a choice. Why do so many try to come here? Legally or not?
Many of us don’t want to be like the “rest of the world”.
“ conspiracy”, no. Just unappealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Of the multiple printings I read each day, currently, only 3 out of 16 are either BB or Murdoch."
Which is strange, since when I challenged you to name the sources you get you information from you listed 60% Murdoch rags, Breitbart and the NTY, which you then said you don't believe a word they print so that doesn't really count. Sure, you listed a bunch of niche publications, but in terms of your national and international news sources, you stated you stick to the places that are confirmed to push the laughable fictions you keep repeating here
"Most people who live in the US do so as a choice"
Some don't. There's a reason why US backpackers in Europe and Asia often pretend to be Canadian.
"Why do so many try to come here?"
Some of it's brain drain related to Silicon Valley and other places where you're the place to go because it's a way to start a lucrative career if you're educated enough (or white enough to get away with overstaying visas). Some because you bombed and destabilised their homelands to the point where they'll die if they stayed where they are and you're the nearest place where they won't be killed on sight. There's a wide variety of reasons between.
"Many of us don’t want to be like the “rest of the world”."
You might like it more if Murdoch wasn't lying to you about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Along with Fox, NYT, And BB,
I get Decrypt, Tech Dirt, MacWorld, 9to5Mac, DreadCentral, GoreZone, OperatingSystemDaily, Ring Side News, Smilezilla, tFreak, The Daily WTF, T-Spot, Tom’s.
I also get Ars long form articles once a week. And NYP headlines but rarely actually read them: there’s something wrong with their feed settings. I get a hard copy NYT on Sunday and Wednesday. And the WSJ on Monday. Japan Times Sunday on Monday.
And a few other monthly, like Command Q and Linux Magazine. Horror Hound. Freedom From Religion Foundation’s monthly physical.
I occasionally listen to the CSPAN radio shows. Which are apolitical by host. And my local WGN all-day-news. Which is majority local.
That’s hardly a bubble.
Given the 3 primary print sources, despite leanings, NYT, BB, and WSJ all tend to be factual and correct error quickly, I don’t see a problem with having 3 opinions.
Especially 3 very differing opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That’s hardly a bubble. "
It's pretty clear from your discourse around here that what you do is to go with Fox and Breitbart, then filter everything else you read from the skew provided by the first two sources.
You'd get a better impartial view from international media, even al-jazeera or CGTN, whose viewpoint on US internal affairs are usually painstakingly accurate except when it directly concerns their topics of interest.
Decidedly so if your takeaway is that the US media has turned "leftist" when the reality is that it only looks that way because the Overton window has been shifted so far to the right that these days eisenhower and even reagan would be considered centrist-right democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You'd get a better impartial view from international media"
Or at least a mixture of different sources. Bear in mind that this is a guy who thinks that Fox of all places is centrist, and that before I pointed it out to him he though that he had a wide range of input because he read the WSJ, NYP and watched local Fox (I had to point out to him that those are all Murdoch properties).
It's like talking to someone in the UK who thinks they have a range of views because they read The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Express, then gets angry when you point out that they're all right-wing shitrags with a track record of lying to their readers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Along with Fox, NYT, And BB,
I get Decrypt, Tech Dirt, MacWorld, 9to5Mac, DreadCentral, GoreZone, OperatingSystemDaily, Ring Side News, Smilezilla, tFreak, The Daily WTF, T-Spot, Tom’s."
So, you get your general news from the Murdoch/Breitbart echo chamber, then subscribe to a bunch of blogs based on niche subjects that interest you. That doesn't really support your point, given that you've already stated that you don't look at any source outside the US for any perspective and you've rejected other sources as being Democrat agents.
You claim to not be in a bubble, but then claim that part of the the reason you're not is because you read a wrestling blog. I suppose that when you're firmly entrenched in Murdoch land, the WWE plotlines might seem realistic, but that's not something that most people would agree with.
" I don’t see a problem with having 3 opinions"
What's laughable is that you've already stated that you reject pretty much everything in the NYT out of hand because they're "alt left", and you think that Breitbart and Murdoch are interested in actual journalism. You're not getting "3 different opinion", you've picked sites that confirm your biases and a single random source that you can claim is opposed to them despite you rejecting every idea they have before you've read them.
You'd be more convincing if, when you decide to opine on any particular subject, you didn't parrot right-wing talking points and outright fictionalised versions of events ranging from the hot coffee issue to the insurrection. You claim to be impartial, but your takes on most important subjects tell us otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ the WWE plotlines might seem realistic”
Actually I prefer Big Japan, more variety. Plus death matches. Always liked CZW for that reason. And who could forget ECW.
Its just a physical version of the Young and the Restless, with more violence.
you've already stated that you reject pretty much everything in the NYT out of hand because they're "alt left",
I didn’t call NYT specifically, alt left.
I’ve constantly praised them for correcting errors.
I called WaPo, the Atlantic, Mother Jones, the Progressive, alt left.
“ Agreed, but the interesting thing was that many who took that breitbart-article and ran with it have deleted their coverage. No corrections, just straight up removals.”
And that’s the same reason I tend to not read anything further right than that. Note left of the NYT.
At least I can trust those three sources to correct mistakes. Quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Actually I prefer Big Japan, more variety."
I don't really care which form of scripted entertainment you favour, I was just commenting on the fact that including a bunch of entertainment and tech blogs in your reading list doesn't support the idea that you're not getting your actual news from a bubble.
"I didn’t call NYT specifically, alt left"
You know that I can search and quote what you've actually said, right?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210425/11430846679/florida-governor-signs-law-that-punish es-protesters-protesting-denies-them-bail.shtml#c1194
"I called WaPo, the Atlantic, Mother Jones, the Progressive, alt left."
Yes, you throw around the meaningless term that was invented as a "no you!" retort when people started to realise that the "alt right" term coined by Richard Spencer was a deliberate attempt to rebrand white supremacism and neo-Naziism into something more palatable in general conversation. It doesn't have any other meaning other than a way to try using labels to attack people instead of their actual words and actions.
"And that’s the same reason I tend to not read anything further right than that."
Also very little to the left of it either, though I'm not sure what's further right unless you're going to venture into Stormfront territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, ok. A missing word (my fault). “Moved” should be befor “alt”. I’d forgotten I made a mistype there. Since (almost?) every other post I praise them for being quick to fix errors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, so I suggest you be a little more exact with your wording, as I can only react to the things you actually said, not the things you will later retroactively decide you meant after being called out on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, can’t edit posts and then forgot about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, again, if you've not corrected yourself then I can only go on what you actually said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Carlson is a commentator. He’s in the same class of showmanship as Maddow.
I’m not a fan of his in general, though he can be funny at times.
It’s not my fault some people take him completely seriously. The same level of (lack of) intelligence is required to accept RM as honest reporting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Carlson is a commentator. He’s in the same class of showmanship as Maddow."
Again, the interesting trend with you people. You can't defend the despicable hatred of the people you align with politically, you can only go "what about....". Meanwhile Carlson's lawyers are quoted in court as saying that no reasonable person would ever take him seriously, yet I've never seen Maddow in a situation where she wasn't armed with facts in her defence. Maybe you have a citation to back yourself up for once?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He’s also a racist asshole. But I guess you can overlook that because he makes you go ha-ha-ha every once in a while, huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
In another thread you have admitted that what you want is the ability to shout at people who do not want to listen to you. Just because you are saying it politely does not change the fact that you are demanding the ability exercise the hecklers veto to silence those you oppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
In the physical world you can legally do so. Stand outside.
That what protestors do. Use public property to protest an action or decision, to publicly display a thought, etc.
Or are you also against BLM walking through the streets after midnight with a bullhorn yelling wake up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Given the reasons why BLM marches, I would donate them a bigger bullhorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
So it’s ohkay then to be disruptive as long as you agree. But not if you don’t?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Wrong, it is not OK to support bigots and racists, as their end goal is a society where they divide society into superior and inferior people, and almost all the noise about censorship, and that they should be allowed on the big social media platforms comes from racists and bigots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
"In the physical world you can legally do so."
Unless you're trying to protest black people dying when Trump wants to do a fake photoshoot with a bible he's never read, then the tear gas comes out. Insurrection attempts are fine, though.
"Or are you also against BLM walking through the streets after midnight with a bullhorn yelling wake up?"
Does he live where that's happening, or does he maybe feel that temporary discomfort is worth saving some innocent lives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Oh your funny in your bubble. There was no tear gas. The protestors were being moved out before any discussion on trump walking to the church the protestors assaulted and burned the day before.
“ You can't defend the despicable hatred of the people you align with politically”
I don’t align with him. I never did. It’s you who can’t separate agreeing with specific points and agreeing with the entirety.
Your all or nothing A/B view is the reason people like yourself can’t understand how people like Obama and Trump, Generally outsiders, get elected. Be it the AON Dems or the AON Republicans.
The difference between Obama and Trump in how they handled their carriers was Obama eventually became a partisan player and Trump didn’t.
The world is not binary. Especially politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, there was.
So the timing of Trump walking to a church he’d never been to before and holding up a book he’d never read before for the sake of a photo-op was purely coincidental to the timing of the crowd being moved back, huh?
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don’t trust in coincidences.
[citation needed]
If you donate to/vote for a Republican known for anti-queer bigotry and pro-racist leanings only because you agree with them on economic issues, it doesn’t matter if you disagree with their other bullshit. You’re still trying to put them in a position of power where they can act on that other bullshit and harm marginalized people. You can say “well I didn’t give them money and vote for them to do that”, but you still gave them money and voted for them regardless. At that point, you have to take responsibility for the fact that you tried (regardless of the success of that effort) to put a bigot into a position where they could turn their bigotry into the rule of law.
(Me? I don’t have to worry about that specific variant of this problem because I don’t vote for Republicans.)
For once, you’re right — Trump didn’t become a partisan player. He was a partisan player from the get-go. Obama had to become a partisan player because Mitch McConnell, in his unnerving zeal to stop the first Black POTUS from being anything close to successful, prevented anything Obama wanted to push through Congress from getting through.
You love to bitch about partisanship, Lodos. Funny, then, how you also seem almost ecstatic to support the political party that is all about partisanship at all costs — including government shutdowns and a refusal to investigate an insurrection against American democracy (that was carried out in the name of the guy you voted for).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was CN gas, not CS.
It was deployed by local police before the visit by the President was discussed
“citation needed]”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/fire-set-at-historic-st-johns-church-during-prote sts-of-george-floyds-death/2020/06/01/4b5c4004-a3b6-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html
“If you donate to/vote for a Republican known for …”
I didn’t vote for Tucker Carlson nor donate to him.
~Career
“He was a partisan player from the get-go.”
Not remotely. The majority of the seated Republicans when he came in were never-Trump.
He engaged with everyone.
“including government shutdowns “
That’s what happens when people don’t negotiate. How many times did this happen under Obama, bush, Clinton,…?
That’s not something Trump created. It’s been an aspect of the federal government for quite some time.
“investigate an insurrection against American democracy (that was carried out in the name of the guy you voted for).”
A) a violent uprising against the authority. Didn’t happen. They we’re not armed and not violent.
Far less so than Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Minneapolis, DC, etc.
They did far less than than any of the BLM riots. By choice.
B) Trump did not once call for violence. Not once for insurrection. He spent his term condemning all violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:ality don’t care about your revisions
If your argument hinges on the technical definition of CN vs CS tear gas it’s pretty much obvious to everyone your garbage argument has run out of gas.
Or keep going I like watching a self inflicted rain wreck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:ality don’t care about your revisions
One is a civilian crowd control option. One is a military option.
Neither the military nor Trump had any involvement In it regardless.
Granted average people don’t understand the difference, but if you’re going to report on a gas being used, be accurate. Tear gas is a weaponised control device.
And saying tear gas spreads fear throughout the uninformed circles.
What was used was a mild irritant less powerful than (most of) the key chain sprays sold at the corner store.
Then again they couldn’t get the facts right about who used gas so I can’t really expect them to figure out what was used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s still tear gas either way. Your pedantry isn’t making your point any stronger.
And what do you think they were trying to do with the protestors — help them throw a rave?
Again: It’s still tear gas.
Get a better argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:ality don’t care about your revisions
"Tear gas is a weaponised control device."
Yes, which is why people are opposed to it being used to disperse peaceful protesters in order for a pathetically staged photo op. Weird how the same thing wasn't used against violent protestors breaking into the Capitol with the stated intent of murdering their political opponents and blocking democracy, although that would have been way more justified.
"they couldn’t get the facts right about who used gas"
Weird, you're nitpicking about the type of gas, nobody's question which stasi members were using it. Are you claiming that someone else used it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Again: I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don’t trust in coincidences.
I stand corrected, thank you for the citation.
By your own admission, you voted for Donald Trump. I rest my case.
Yet they voted in line with him anyway because of partisan politics. And Trump rarely tried to negotiate or compromise in good faith with Democrats — any time he didn’t get exactly what he wanted from them, out came the preschool playground insults aimed only at Democrats. (Sure, he aimed a few at Republicans, but he saved his greatest ire for Democrats because “own the libs at any cost” was and currently still is the GOP mantra.)
Two shutdowns happened under the presidency of Bill Clinton. Both shutdowns were related to his veto of Republican-penned appropriations bills, which he vetoed because of objections to funding cuts that would’ve affected education, the environment, and public health. The shutdowns lasted a total of 26 days between the 14th of November 1995 and the 6th of January 1996.
One shutdown happened under the presidency of Barack Obama. This one occured as a result of a disagreement between the Republican-led House and the Democratic-led Senate towards the contents of the 2014 Continuing Appropriations Resolution bill — primarily, the funding for the 2013 Affordable Care Act. The shutdown lasted 16 days.
In the Obama and Clinton shutdowns, blame fell largely on the GOP.
No shutdowns happened under the presidency of George W. Bush.
He wasn’t able to stop it from happening twice under his watch, either — and the second one was the longest shutdown in U.S. history, to boot.
Yes, that’s what it was: a violent uprising against the legitimately elected President-elect and those tasked with the Constitutional duty of confirming the results of a free and fair election. What, did you think they were chanting “hang Mike Pence” for shits’n’giggles?
You may want to rethink that assertion.
I mean that.
That isn’t exactly an argument in your favor, seeing as how paramilitary white supremacist organizations like the Proud Boys were in attendance that day. You’re basically saying that they didn’t get “too violent” because they didn’t want to look like a bunch of…well, I think you can guess how the Proud Boys would end that sentence.
The following are quotes from Donald Trump himself; they come from his speech on the 6th of January, just before the insurrection:
Now, I’m sure you’re going to mention all the times he brought up marching peacefully and whatnot. Don’t bother; I’ve skimmed enough of the transcript to know those parts exist. Instead, I want you to read each of those quotes, and notice some of the verbs/verbal phrases he uses: “stop”, “save”, “fight”, “take back”, “get tougher”, “show strength”, “protect”. Then look at the overall gist of those quotes: “we’re fighting to stop the steal”, “we have to get tougher on the fraudsters”, “we’re here to save democracy”, “we need to do something about this”.
He isn’t explicitly calling for violence, no. But between his planting the idea that his “patriots” must stop the steal by showing strength and doing “something” about the Democrats/“weak Republicans” to save the country, his talking for months about how the election would be fraudulent only if he lost, and his continual(ly rebuked) efforts to overturn an election he lost both electorally and popularly, those quotes — his words — become a form of his mob boss–esque stochastic terrorism. He didn’t need to directly call for violence; all he needed to do is make his wishes known and let his followers do the rest.
Take a bunch of people who have already been manipulated by right-wing media and Donald Trump into believing the election would be/was stolen. Tell them that the literal last line of defense against the stolen election is a Vice President who has already sworn himself to the duty of his office (i.e., to confirm Joe Biden as the President-elect). Gin them up further by referring to them as true patriots, telling them to toughen up and show strength, and implying that they alone can save American democracy itself. What do you get as a result of all that?
You get an insurrection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL... he used a different type of gas to attack protestors, so the opposition to him gassing protestors doesn't matter? Fascists really are funny when they're flailing pathetically and don't have real power. Long may that continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Trump had nothing to do with the use of riot control canisters. It was the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He had everything to do with the pathetic photo op that the police was clearing the way for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Trump had nothing to do with the use of riot control canisters. It was the police."
Heydrich didn't, by that same argument, have anything to do with Auschwitz and Eisenhower, by the same logic, nothing to do with Operation Overlord.
Trump decided he wanted a photo op and had the streets cleared to obtain that photo op. Whether he gave the order to directly have the protestors cleared out or just turned to the side and said "Will no one rid me of these troublesome people...?" is beside the point when he was the guy in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bear in mind that in this conversation about a peaceful crowd being dispersed with tear gas to clear the way for a photo op, his main complaint is about the use of the word "tear", not the "peaceful crowd being dispersed with gas to make way for a photo op" part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"his main complaint is about the use of the word "tear", not the "peaceful crowd being dispersed with gas to make way for a photo op" part."
That is indeed the truly revealing part about where he's coming from; the way he comes out in the defense of a US president on a topic which concerns a peaceful demonstration being broken up by violent police in at all.
Strictly speaking the breach of all western convention here should be the way the highest office holder decided to spontaneously take a walk and needed armed thugs to clear the city first. Previous presidents either just reinforce their security detail or carefully fence off the decided venue beforehand. But Trump needed a show of force.
And in the end that's what being defended here. The "Strong" man.
As clownishly emulated by Cadet Man-Child Bonespur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Trump had nothing to do with the use of riot control canisters. It was the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So where exactly does the chain of command defending the Capitol end, in your opinion? I'm just asking so that in the non-zero chance that another insurrection attempt from you people has to be put down we know how far away from the decision to use force to stop you is from the president. We wouldn't want to accidentally run into double standards where you pretend Trump has nothing to do with the violence under his administration while Biden was supposedly micromanaging it, after all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
" There was no tear gas."
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-church-visit-angers-church-of ficials
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-dc-wire-religion-politics-15be4e293cdebe 72c10304fe0ec668e4
I'm sure you'll provide examples of fiction writers stating that it didn't really happen, but I'll be interested to see if you stumbled across any reliable sources in your usual escape from reality that I can verify in some way.
"I don’t align with him. I never did."
You've stated that you voted for him, which obviously means that you aligned with him.
"The world is not binary. Especially politics."
Yet, your view is so binary that you believe that anyone who doesn't follow Murdoch's lead is paid by the Democrats...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
"There was no tear gas."
And you claim to take in "sources" other than Breitbart and Fox? Weird how even white house sources don't dispute the use of tear gas but you keep parroting Carlson Tucker.
Even the attorney representing the D.C. Metropolitan police admitted - in public - that the police used tear gas at Lafayette square.
I think that when the lawyer for the accused party confesses to an act, in the US especially, that generally means that what is confessed to is considered a fact beyond any dispute. Except if you're a GOP bullhorn willing to exculpate Trump by denying factual reality. Like, for instance, Breitbart and Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Again, let's say he's right and Murdoch and Brietbart accidentally told the truth for once. That doesn't excuse the actual issue at hand, it just means that the tactics were slightly less likely to result in serious injury.
It's like watching someone defend a guy accused of killing people with a bladed weapon and objecting to the use of the word "machete", when they actually used a meat cleaver. Sure, you might be technically correct, but you're probably focussing on the wrong issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
Another point, I have not heard a lot of noise from BLM aligned people about being thrown of of the big social media sites, while that is a complaint made by the far right. It wouldn't by any chance indicate the difference between fighting for human right, and fighting to enslave or eliminate some groups of humans, would it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
I've not heard of any specific examples, which is interesting since you'd think that the people whining about being kicked off for homophobic abuse, white supremacist behaviour or spreading fatally dangerous misinformation about the pandemic would latch on to examples that the "left" would rally behind. Maybe their racism outweighs their opposition to social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet, when it comes to cyberspace, you’re on the side of the people who want compelled hosting of speech — regardless of whether you like that fact. You defend their opposition to 230, you defend the idea that Twitter should be forced to host speech, you defend the idea of “moderation is censorship” no matter how much that idea might come back to bite you on the ass. Their side is your side, and your side doesn’t seem to care who gets silenced so long as your side gets to yell as loud as they want on any platform they want without consequences.
And if you think I’m exaggerating or lying, remember: You voted for Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://i.imgur.com/eXRuXcr.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s quite simple
"In the physical world you can legally do so. Stand outside. "
Sure. and people who don't want to listen can walk away. And if you're shouting loudly enough to disrupt private spaces, you can be told to lower your voice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s quite simple
Well you sort of tried, in a low effort kind of way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]