Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
from the politicians-aren't-a-protected-class-steve dept
I'm beginning to think that Montana Senator Steve Daines really, really doesn't like the 1st Amendment. Instead, he likes to wrap himself in a faux American flag as he pretends to be patriotic, while attempting to stamp out the rights the 1st Amendment provides to Americans. Last week, we wrote about his attempt to amend the Constitution (specifically, chipping away at the 1st Amendment), to make flag burning illegal.
This week, he decided to just spit on the 1st Amendment itself and introduce yet another unconstitutional social media moderation bill that would amend Section 230. Called the "Preserving Political Speech Online Act," the bill does a few different things, but the key one seems to be... to make politicians like himself a special protected class. Because, Senators like himself, worth over $30 million, clearly are an oppressed class.
There's some stuff about how if you take political advertisements from some candidates you have to take them from all candidates. But the really sketchy stuff is in how it modifies Section 230. It would change Section (c)(2) -- the part of Section 230 that is rarely relied upon, regarding "good faith" blocking of content -- such that the "otherwise objectionable" bit is deleted, and replaced with "threatening or promoting illegal activity." It would also remove the line that sites are protected for blocking material "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
Of course, this misunderstands the nature of both Section 230 (and how (c)(1) already protects most moderation) and the 1st Amendment, which already protects most content moderation editorial choices as well. But, then Daines has to take it a step further and make absolutely sure his bill is blatantly unconstitutional. Because it also adds in a prohibition on certain types of moderation. It says you can no longer moderate "political speech." Apparently Daines wants to make sure all Nazis are protected when they promote fascism. His bill would add in this bit of unconstitutional garbage:
PROHIBITION OF BAD FAITH BLOCKING AND SCREENING.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), it shall not be considered good faith for a provider of an interactive computer service to block, censor, or screen material on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or political affiliation or speech
Now, race, color, religion, sex, and national origin are already protected classes. Political affiliation is not. Nor should it be. And, flat out saying that you're regulating speech here should have raised all of the 1st Amendment alarm bells possible. But it did not. Because this is not a serious attempt at serious policy making from a serious person. This is grandstand culture warrioring from a silly politician with nothing better to do than rile up an ignorant, silly base.
Amusingly, there's an exemption on that stuff for a website that is "dedicated to a specific issue, policy, belief, or viewpoint." So... if you set up a site specifically for Nazis, you can now ban people who don't support fascism. But the webhost hosting the Nazi focused site, which is open generally to the public, cannot ban the Nazi website. Is that really what Daines wants?
And, left unsaid so far, is that all of this is based on a total myth that anyone is being moderated for their political viewpoints. They are not. People are being moderated for violating policies such as by spreading mis- and disinformation, harassing others, trolling others, and other such general mayhem. No one is being moderated for supporting any standard political viewpoints. It's a myth that fools like Steve Daines embrace because to admit the truth would be to admit that their most vocal supporters are ignorant rubes and assholes.
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: 1st amendment, flag burning, free speech, political speech, politicians, protected class, section 230, steve daines
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh, you know...
Even if we assume that people are being moderated for their political viewpoints, the subsequent question is simple: Which ones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, you know...
We asked the same question at the exact same time! Great minds and all that yadda yadda…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, you know...
so I'm willing to assume that somewhere, someone is being moderated for their rather plain vanilla views... I'll let that be a given.
My question would be: why would that matter?
It's a private system, they could arbitrarily change the rules to be something silly like, 'if you talk about liking a color I don't, you're banned for life'
That would be liking saying I couldn't remove a banner someone stuck in my yard; just because I didn't stop you from putting it up, doesn't mean I have to leave it up... it's my property, not the public's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, you know...
As a card carrying member of the Very Silly Party, I'd like to say Thbthbthbth!
But I can't, because I'm bein' oppressed! Er, moderated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, you know...
If they can show that internet companies are government run sure but somehow I don't think that matters to the nimby maga crowd. So they'll continue to create para-law until the lies are told enough times until it becomes the truth just like Joseph Goebbeles said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, you know...
Well, these two reps are complaining that because no venue would allow them to book it, that their free speech rights are being infringed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, you know...
…yet they did still have a place to do so…!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, you know...
... Of course they did. They can't accept that they and their messages are so toxic that no-one wants to have anything to do with them so everyone else must be to blame. Politicians have a right to a privately owned venue/platform to tell messages that will get people killed dammit, anyone denying them that is assaulting their free speech rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
There no denying the far right q turds are an issue. Now if only we can get the left to recognise the black supremacists and Antifa are as dangerous and hateful as dangerous white suprematists and Qfucks we could maybe denounce both ends and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
[From a guardian article](Lost cause, you fail to see the difference between conspiracy theories, and real conspiracies that directly harm and murder people.)
What black suprematist groups are you thinking of, as there are none making the news. If you are thinking of BLM, you are confusing those with a reason to protest with those holding an extremist views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Or in alt-right speak, "equally dangerous".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
As soon as you choose to intentionally elevate a race above another you are acting on race supremacy.
One poster brought up standardised tests. Claiming they favoured white students. False.
The favour quality education.
The probes isn’t race, it’s poor education.
The solution isn’t ignoring the test with race based admission quotas. The solution is to fire the crack pipe teachers who teach bare minimum. The solution is to fire treasures that can’t make the same purchase decisions as a suburban school 25 miles away.
Anyone, ANYone, who seeks to acknowledge and elevate one race rather than seeking colourblindness, is acting on a racist platform.
The guardian can suck my dick, btw. They didn’t watch fires burning on the horizon. I did.
They didn’t deal with violence, hijacking, looting; a mile from their home. I did.
I very much separate BLM from Antifa.
I am in complete agreement that BLM has reason to protest. But I do think they have the wrong target. Police profiling is a problem. One to address. But it’s not THE problem.
THE problem is the situation that makes such profiling accurate.
The systemic impoverishment of blue cities and the Democrat policies that create an unending cycle of never making enough.
10, 11, 12% sales tax in a city when the state is 5, or 6, doesn’t help anyone. Taxes pay the programs. People pay the taxes. More people enter the program. Raise the taxes. More people enter the program. Raise the taxes.
The systemic shite education. Hiding behind unions working towards the lowest common denominator: teachers who do the minimum required.
Get in. Sit down. Shut up. Now go away.
Schools that pay more money to a board than in supplies?
Bare minimum housing. Section- housing doesn’t help anyone when it’s a roach and rat infested hell. I’ve seen these places, no wonder they’re so angry.
When you draw 80% of a paycheque to pay for subsidised housing, and hand a family of four $1200 a month food stamps?
The “system” does nothing to really help, when it’s very design creates complete dependence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
A question for you, how many of your friends and acquaintances can the police murder before anger conttols your action when another one is murdered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Ignoring the fact we obey the law and don’t conduct ourselves in ways that would attract the attention of the police in the first place? Not many.
But I would run into stores and steal merchandise because of it.
I wouldn’t flip over cars. I wouldn’t walk in the middle of the street.
You do not fight crime with crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
People in an angry crowd do things that they would not otherwise do, especially when being provoked by police and right wing agent provocateurs. When the Portland Mayor feels safe enough to walk with and speak protestors, and gets gassed by the cops, well its obvious who is initiating violence.
Look at the number of times people have driven cars into BLM protests, and search BLM shooting, and you will get results dominated by white people shooting BLM people. It is difficult to keep protests peaceful when they are being subjected to violence.
So stop looking at excuse to ignore BLM protests, by assigning the violence they are subjected to to the BLM movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
“ driven cars into {any} protests,”
Again, get out of the street.
I don’t care what you’re protesting, be it Black Lives Matter or the suppression of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Streets are for vehicles. People don’t belong there out side of a crosswalk.
If you can’t comprehend getting run over for standing in the street you have bigger issues than what your protesting.
The problem I have with the “movement” is not the goal. It’s the actions.
Protestors being gassed by cops for not dispersing an illegal gathering is not cause to loot stores and flip over cars.
They’re also attacking the results of the system, not the cause. Bitching about police doesn’t address why blacks are the most likely to commit physical crimes in the first place.
Fix the system. Look at the the (mostly Democrat) methodology that created the issues in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
If you use that as an excuse for a deliberate violent attack, you are a sorry excuse for a human, and deserve to be labelled as a Trumpist·
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
With one exception: these people getting hit… watch the unedited videos
These are drivers trying to get where they need to go. Rioters charging at their cars and assaulting them. Panicking drivers floor it. Often into the crowd.
That’s reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
The complete opposite of reality in Charlottesville.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know
With one exception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Trumpist?
I don’t care what your protesting. Get out of the street.
Thing is trump supporters tend to yield the right of way to cars. They don’t charge them and bang on windows and doors. Climb on hood.
If they did they’d be getting hit too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
"Ignoring the fact we obey the law and don’t conduct ourselves in ways that would attract the attention of the police in the first place? Not many."
You mean like George Floyd...or any other of the dozens or hundreds of examples we've got where a man is harrassed, beaten, or killed solely due to a couple of racist cops?
When what attracts the attention of the police is the color of your skin then you posit a pretty impossible argument.
And before you run the "only a few bad apples" spiel, do bear in mind that the FBI have a study on the correlation of law enforcement job and white supremacy organization membership which makes for pretty grim reading.
As White power organizations have had free reign to recruit cops for decades there's nary a precinct in most of the US without at least a handful of Chauvins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
“ George Floyd”
A) should not have died
B) criminal suspects
3) was accidentally killed by man who knew him
“ pretty impossible argument. And before”when 8 tenths of the physical crime is committed by blacks they the likely suspect.
Rather than complain about facts how about join us centrists in doing something about the Dem bull policies that create these very criminal activities?!!!!!!?
Fuck the FBI. The same fuck bubbly inc. that spy’s on presidential candidates, falsifies wire reasonings,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
"The guardian can suck my dick, btw. They didn’t watch fires burning on the horizon. I did.
They didn’t deal with violence, hijacking, looting; a mile from their home. I did.'
Sounds like you need counseling more that you need to go out and prove how wrong you are in the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
"The probes isn’t race, it’s poor education. "
...the access to which is enormously in favor of middle-class white people. In this the trailer trash and rurals of the south share common ground with the blacks and hispanics living in the ghetto - a fair shake isn't in the cards.
"They didn’t watch fires burning on the horizon. I did.
They didn’t deal with violence, hijacking, looting; a mile from their home. I did. "
Bluntly put if the systemic response to a grievance born by an entire demographic is suppression what you get out of it is violence. To fix that situation there's only one solution; fix that grievance. Preferably to the point where non-white or poor people don't have great reason to fear the sight of a police officer.
"Hiding behind unions working towards the lowest common denominator: teachers who do the minimum required.
Get in. Sit down. Shut up. Now go away. "
Is this where I sort of have to point out - once again - that the US alone among nations has this issue? Unions certainly aren't the problem when teachers are being underpaid, understaffed, and persistently pressured not to teach factual history or science.
I like to call this type of issue a symptom. It's just the headache you get from the US as a whole being seriously ill.
"THE problem is the situation that makes such profiling accurate."
Yeah, ostracism and oppression is a self-perpetuating cycle. Once a 'hood realizes the police is out to get them the peacekeepers they start relying on will be the protection racket and the gangsters. If you can't get a loan from a bank where a white person would (Google: Timeline: Black farmers and the USDA, 1920 to present for an ugly example of systemic racism) then you need to rely on loan sharks. If your skin color alone makes it harder for you to rent or purchase housing, the disadvantaged area is where you end up. Etc.
It's the classical republican solution; Create and feed the problem, then condemn the resulting issue. The profiling was made accurate by nothing more than persistent low-intensity condemnation of skin color at many levels.
"Schools that pay more money to a board than in supplies? "
Again, US-only problem. Ironically the total tax burden on the middle-class american is higher than it is for the corresponding european middle class, so all you'd really need to do is turn a fraction of that massive wealth from the military to education and your issue would be fixed.
"The “system” does nothing to really help, when it’s very design creates complete dependence."
...and again ironically, socialized europe isn't seeing this dependency, despite on paper at least us having a far wider and deeper social security net.
At some point it might be worth taking stock on how many issues facing the US are caused by problems which every other nation in the G20 has working solutions for, and possibly consider the fact that you must be doing something fundamentally wrong if you keep standing out as that sole example of generic "No We Can't!" on every issue.
As things stand the US current trend towards social democracy is going to take a century. Whether you guys will still have a country by then is anybody's guess, particularly so as Reagan, GWB and Trump have set you back about twenty years on that road already, and shifted the Overton window of politics so far to the right the only social democrat you've got is Bernie...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Ah yes, those dastardly black supremacists who doing... what again that puts them on equal footing with white supremacists and Qnutters? Hell, who are you even talking about when you say 'black supremacists', because that's certainly a new one to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
My guess is people who advocate that black people deserve the same rights and treatment as white people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
People who say blacks deserve MORE rights than other races.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
And the 'extra' rights in question and the people calling for them would be...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminder: To the privileged, equality looks like oppression.
Similarly: If Black people were truly advocating for “Black supremacy”, they’d be espousing the kind of rhetoric that white supremacists are known for. Can anyone show me a serious example of any Black political activist seriously calling for the enslavement—or the eradication—of white people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Equality is equal.
Giving one race incentive or advantage over another purely out of race is racism.
There are militant black groups as well, you know.
Such as the Nation of Islam. Or the New Black Panthers.
I’m not versed in the culture, either race. I can only name one white group definitively. The church of the brotherhood of Christ.
But just because neither of us can rattle them off doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
And that they’re not dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Giving one race incentive or advantage over another purely out of race is racism.
If you completely ignore any history or context and assume that everyone starts out at roughly the same place and the only reason one group might have it worse is because they're just not pulling their bootstraps hard enough, sure, but by all means feel free to provide some specific examples of these 'racist' incentives or advantages so that people can see what exactly you're objecting to.
I’m not versed in the culture, either race. I can only name one white group definitively. The church of the brotherhood of Christ.
And yet you had no problem confidently asserting that white supremacists and Qnuts were equally as dangerous as the so far mythical 'black supremacists'(seriously, still waiting to hear who the hell that is) and Antifa, and then when someone posted a quote that would strongly suggest that it's not even remotely close you just brushed it aside because of a personal experience seeing some stuff get torched.
But just because neither of us can rattle them off doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
And that they’re not dangerous.
1 vs 329. If you're going to say that the two are equivalently dangerous then you'd better expect that you will be called on that and a personal anecdote is not going to cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well start with that report being both right wing extremists and white suprematists.
And what database are they looking at?
Have carried out attacks. So we’re looking at the OKC as a big chunk of that.
Let’s change the crap premise your attempting to apply by using comparative language.
How many people died in any “right wing extremists and white suprematists” protests?
Because I can come up with 50 non-repeated deaths on the first page of the Bing mobile search for “dead at protest”.
Not a great start.
Oct 2020 14 dead -guardian
Sep 9 2020 8 dead-abc
June 8 2020 14 days, 19 dead-abc
Jun 15 2021 4 dead -hts
Jun 7 2021 3 dead -cbs
Feb 21 3022 18 dead -ae
So to start with we have a bogus number in “1” and a bogus premise in lumping “peaceful protest” and terrorist acts.
So yes, pro-black racial driven crime? We’re well over 100 in 2 years. How many people were killed by any aspect of right wing protests?
I brushed aside your quote because it’s bull.
27 years vs 2.
Planned and driven terrorism vs protests.
I wasn’t talking about Greek nuts who are only considered “right wing” by news groups. Anti government isn’t right wing American politics. It’s outside of the political spectrum.
No Republican politician is calling for destruction of the American government.
As far as I’m aware no sitting Republican politician has ties to any of the “{not} right wing” groups.
Vs direct involvement by sitting Democrats with the NOI!
If you want to have a serious discussion, come back with a real report, not one thinly shielding propaganda.
Maybe the article is shite. Maybe you cut too much context.
“politically motivated”?
Define
“American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists”
Two separate categories, define “right wing”
“since 1994”
And here we’re talking about a 2 year period.
So rather than posit numbers for the same 2 years… just through the whole total out there.
Do your OWN research. A quick sears on Bing shows you that the “1” is crap. If the entire premise of your point of a quote is based on fraud… you expect me to defend anyone based on that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't believe you made me use Bing... Yeah, I just did a search on Bing with that exact phrase and while I'm seeing multiple hits for the deaths during the failed insurrection, couple hits for a protest in Cuba and rioting in South Africa I'm not seeing anything even close to what you listed, so I look forward to your links proving that 'pro-black racially driven crime' have accounted for those 100 deaths in the last two years, after which I can see what standard you're using and look for body counts for the 'pro-white' crimes though fair warning I'm currently looking at the FBI's 2019(the most recent they have listed) hate crime statistics and the anti-white numbers are a third of the anti-black ones, so comparing the two probably isn't going to go too well for the 'pro-black' side.
So to start with we have a bogus number in “1” and a bogus premise in lumping “peaceful protest” and terrorist acts.
Yeah, you might want to reread the above comments, the '1' number was specifically regarding deaths that were attributed by the dreaded anti-facists that were portrayed as some huge boogieman by Trump and others not any violence on a more general scope, so unless you can provide some evidence that that number is wrong it still stands even with your other claims.
I wasn’t talking about Greek nuts who are only considered “right wing” by news groups. Anti government isn’t right wing American politics. It’s outside of the political spectrum.
So it wasn't a bunch of republicans coming from a Trump rally that stormed the capitol just a few months back? That blasted reality must be on the fritz again...
Also if you're going to pull a 'no true X' then I can just as easily turn it around and say that no true left-wing person or group would have done any of that, and as such none of your numbers are accurate.
As far as I’m aware no sitting Republican politician has ties to any of the “{not} right wing” groups.
Remind me again which party the batshit insane Marjorie Taylor Greene belongs to?
Vs direct involvement by sitting Democrats with the NOI!
What do you know, you actually did find a black supremacist organization, though you seem to have left out the 'direct involvement by sitting democrats with them' part, gonna need that part too.
Two separate categories, define “right wing”
Per the CSIS which I believe were the ones who wrote the report the Guardian article is based on:
'First, right-wing terrorism refers to the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities whose goals may include racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority; anger at women, including from the incel (“involuntary celibate”) movement; and outrage against certain policies, such as abortion.6 This analysis uses the term “right-wing terrorism” rather than “racially- and ethnically-motivated violent extremism,” or REMVE, which is used by some in the U.S. government.7 Second, left-wing terrorism involves the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities that oppose capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism; pursue environmental or animal rights issues; espouse pro-communist or pro-socialist beliefs; or support a decentralized social and political system such as anarchism. '
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ I can't believe you made me use Bing”
Lol. I have never used Google except as maybe a tertiary attempt. If not much later than that.
Could also be I’m logged in, and have all tracking turned on. I like targeting advertising.
“Pro-black” isn’t exactly what I said. And not remotely what I meant.
The death tool from the BLM protests far exceeds any “white” or “Republican” rally, including the Antifa vs nazi Charlotte and White House riots.
FBI…hate crime.
Again your conflating different topics.
I’m talking about riots that form during BLM protests.
*greek~freak
“ So it wasn't a bunch of republicans coming from a Trump rally that stormed the capitol just a few months back? That blasted reality must be on the fritz again...”
I could, however unlikely, be wrong, but nobody in the capital riot directly killed anyone.
“ Marjorie Taylor Greene ”
A quick Wikipedia search says her alignment is Republican.
Scanning through that page I see she has a bit of a flair for drama; the covid restriction comparison to the Holocaust. Where millions of people died, the majority of those being Jews.
How quickly you forget how Democrats stumbled for weeks, just in the last few months, over the public comments of heavy dem diners from NOI.
The CSIS? I’ll leave room for causality but they’re generally a liberal driven group of late.
'First, right-wing terrorism refers to the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities whose goals may include …”
racial or ethnic supremacy; not Republican
opposition to government authority; definitely not republic
anger at women, generic to both parties
including from the incel (“involuntary celibate”) movement;
First time hearing of it
and outrage against certain policies, such as abortion
… ohkay, that’s Republican.
Second, left-wing terrorism involves the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities that
oppose capitalism, definitely dems
imperialism, both parties
and colonialism; both parties
pursue environmental or animal rights issues; mostly left
espouse pro-communist mire Republican
or pro-socialist beliefs; more democrats
or support a decentralized social and political system both parties
such as anarchism. ' more Democrats.
It will take some time to track down NOI and NBPP funding. But I’ll be back on that.
Aside:
Funny, the Trump movement, which shite on the face of bothe dems and reps, was anti global involvement. So a big chunk of that description above is already out the window.
Honestly… if we stopped getting involved in the Middle East I doubt Iran would have any interest in us.
I have no remorse or concern in saying let them just kill each other. It’s not our issue.
Since 1811 the US has played moral cop around the world. Excluding WWI and WWII up until 3017 we’ve failed in every aspect of morality.
We spent 70 years on a christian crusade against communism.
We armed the Tlb to fight Russia. They blew up NYC. Then used America arms to kill American soldiers in the following decades.
We toppled Persian and Muslim leaders who were on good terms with the USSR and installed Muslim dictators who quickly turned on us.
We spent a century overturning South American governments only to find ourselves with a humanitarian crisis of our own making.
I’m no fan of Christian imperialism.
For all your q/right hate, you miss, or ignore, the non-democrats who put trump in office.
It’s not about any of what the Reps wanted, or being against the Dems in general.
It’s hardly a secret I was an Obama election campaign member. My email @gmail, @aol, and @cs shows up in official paperwork for the campaigns.
Some of us just think we should sit in our country and mind our own fucking business. If Kill whitey and kill blacky happen to agree with something that falls into myob than so be it.
But it’s the foolhardy, the ignorant, the self obsessed, and the mentally lacking who collect those who share one idea with all who share that idea.
Apply that idea the opposite direction.
I’m a card carrying member of:
PETA
FFRF
TASCM
And
ADHTF
If my association is all that matters, than how am I not an extreme alt-left dem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Pro-black” isn’t exactly what I said. And not remotely what I meant.
That may not have been what you meant but it was absolutely what you said.
From your own comment before mine: 'So yes, pro-black racial driven crime?'
The death tool from the BLM protests far exceeds any “white” or “Republican” rally, including the Antifa vs nazi Charlotte and White House riots.
Yeah, still need to see actual numbers there and a solid link between the death and a member of the protests, additionally others have pointed out before that often enough the 'violence' was insitigated not by the protesters but by police deciding the proper response was to crack heads and/or mace faces so that will need to be taken into account as well when presenting those numbers, 'how many protests turned violent when those protesting had violence inflicted on them?'
I could, however unlikely, be wrong, but nobody in the capital riot directly killed anyone.
Five deaths as far as I'm aware and those didn't come from nowhere or were entirely on the insurrectionists' side, but my point raising that was to counter the 'no republican is anti-government' assertion you made, as they seemed to have no problem being anti-government when it was no longer them running it.
How quickly you forget how Democrats stumbled for weeks, just in the last few months, over the public comments of heavy dem diners from NOI.
Still waiting for some actual details for that but I find it difficult to expect that anything they might have said could be as damning and/or insane as MTG's ramblings.
racial or ethnic supremacy; not Republican
I didn't realize you were trying to add some humor to your comments because damn is that a hell of a joke. The modern republican party was formed on racism(I'm not exaggerating, check wikipedia for the 'Southern Strategy') and it hasn't exactly gotten much better since then.
Now to trip the spam filter
(Before you ignore that one as black/liberal check the embedded links, the quotes I'm about to post are based upon multiple other studies they link to)
From the above article:
-52 percent of voters who supported Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election believed blacks are “less evolved” than whites, according to researchers at the Kellog School of Management.
-In a 2018 YouGov poll, 59 percent of Republicans agreed: “If blacks would only try harder, they would be as well off as whites.”
-The same YouGov poll revealed that 59 percent of self-identified Republicans believe blacks are treated fairly by the criminal justice system.
-70 percent of Republicans agreed that increased diversity hurts whites.
-Republican-appointed judges give black defendants longer jail sentences, according to a Harvard study released in May.
-55 percent of white Republicans agreed “blacks have worse jobs, income and housing than white people” because “most just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty” according to the Washington Post’s review of data from the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center.
-Nearly twice as many Republicans than Democrats (42 percent versus 24 percent) believe that blacks are lazier than whites, according to the same NORC poll.
For not being a party of racism the republican party sure seems to draw in a lot of racists.
opposition to government authority; definitely not republic
Not so long as they're the ones in charge anyway, when they're not 'screw you' seems to be the order of the day.
anger at women, generic to both parties
Strange, I must have missed the time democrats gave their full-blown support to one of their own who espoused an idea similar to 'grab 'em by the pussy', ah well, can't catch everything I guess.
For all your q/right hate, you miss, or ignore, the non-democrats who put trump in office.
...The people who voted for him? No, I see and hold contempt for them them just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"But just because neither of us can rattle them off doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And that they’re not dangerous."
You can say a lot about the FBI, but not that they're somehow aligned with black people and liberals.
Yet that organizations has tried to find antifa, black extremists, and generally dangerous people for years, pressured by politicians who want to be able to tell a story of why police brutality in front of a BLM protest was merited.
Despite that pressure the only boogeymen the FBI came up with are white supremacists. Black supremacists are nonentities on the criminal danger radar.
You are literally telling us to give equal weight in fear towards the hypothetical bogeyman no one's ever seen and the fscking SA marching down the streets of Charlottesville.
That's not a sane assumption, Lostinlodos. You are comparing an AA battery to Chernobyl. A man taking a leak in a lake to a toxic waste dump. A fairy tale about the Big Bad Wolf to a factual presentation of the 6th of january insurrection.
What you bring up as a hazard is Russel's Teapot. Worse, you are positing that everyone who has been looking for the damn thing and failed to find it are blind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only thing I return to is those nazi fucks are a tiny minority that doesn’t pass 1 percent.
And I hope they all die slow flesh eating disease deaths.
May Lord Set cause their dicks to shrink and clits to grow. So that they are inable to reproduce.
May they all suffer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...THOSE people
Who is even doing that?
I mean other than the obvious right wing boogeyman living in your head for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
"Now if only we can get the left to recognise the black supremacists and Antifa are as dangerous and hateful as dangerous white suprematists and Qfucks we could maybe denounce both ends and move on.'
Now if only that were remotely true we could indeed move on. Instead we are stuck here trying in vain to explain to idiots like you that protesting is not equivalent to insurrection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Burning. Shooting. Looting. That’s not protest, that’s rioting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
You put it in the wrong order. You're gonna look stupid as shit at the next Klan rally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Not just wrong order but wrong word too. It's Burn Loot Murder dontcha know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
That’s not what I dead. At all!
“ Burning. Shooting. Looting”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
What are you talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
"Burning. Shooting. Looting. That’s not protest, that’s rioting!"
Almost all protests by BLM which ended in violence were or started out peaceful. Then cops went in heavy-handed, white supremacists drove vehicles right into the crowds, etc.
You need two things; Context and statistics. Learn to math.
I'm less concerned about the rando man in the street angry about police oppression than I am at the idea the police is acting like a third world junta.
And unlike you I know damn well that if you make peaceful protests impossible and deny redress of grievances then you make violent uprisings instead inevitable. The nation you live in was founded on the idea that when redcoats abuse the protesting citizenry, shit burns.
So, learn to be an american as well. I am - honestly - both confused and scared that the alt-right message has turned into calling the most american traits possible "anti-american" in favor of selling a message of authoritarianism, ordnung muss sein, and racist assumptions of the brown guy always being in the wrong even when all evidence suggests otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
"Now if only we can get the left to recognise the black supremacists and Antifa are as dangerous and hateful as dangerous white suprematists and Qfucks we could maybe denounce both ends and move on."
Except they're not.
You need to get a few facts from the FBI - like when they were heavily pressured to locate the dangerous antifa and the only thing they found even remotely related was white supremacists trying to false flag "antifa" firebomb attacks.
I'm sure you can find a few black supremacists around. But if they're so thin on the ground that they have never managed to make the news then it's safe to say they're not a danger.
Shit like this is why people keep coming down hard on you, Lostinlodos. You are literally advocating that sane people should raise a factually nonexistant hazard to the same level of threat as white supremacy which, according to the FBI, is the greatest internal threat facing the US. By far.
I'm honestly not worried I might get bitten by an ant if I'm standing in the middle of a swarm of angry hornets. But that's what you advocate here.
Antifa - is not a thing. If you're a "unite the right" marcher there may be antifans countermarching. You may end up in a fight. It's what they do. They don't train militias for a potential showdown with government or hoard guns for the "inevitable" apocalypse/armageddon/liberal takeover of government.
Qanon fanatics and white supremacists are dangerous. Antifa isn't unless you're toting a swastika or odal rune in public while shouting white power slogans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Lostinlodos, you must be new here. Else you’d be fully aware that Techdirt and Techdirt commenters despise White people. Especially White mothers and children. They were and still are gleeful when Ashli Babbitt was murdered. And the thought of White children being raped and murdered is arousing to them. They fantasize about genocide, and one commenter in particular has said he’s looking forward to White children being starved and shot to death. (It’s the one who is obsessed with the Third Reich.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
There’s obviously a left wing bias here.
That tends to happen when people refuse to accept anything contrary to their “news” choice as even possible to be correct.
I haven’t seen anyone trying to eat white babies yet: though the progressive tendency to make everything about race is definitely a part of some commenter’s prerogative.
The sad thing is, where I’m willing to read the “evidence” when it’s offered and weigh it in balance, when they are supplied evidence they throw it out the window because it’s not part of their media bubble.
Such bubble brained sheeple are the ones who are going to put trump right back into power.
The need to call anyone not lockstep a racist is going to explode in their face.
They already have a growing black community saying “stop using us a props”! Trump took a larger Hispanic vote than any Republican in history.
1619 is bullshite and CRT as a weapon is failing.
Minorities are starting to see the Blue brand is the problem.
The tax for services method creates a complete dependency that is inescapable.
What we are seeing now is as big blue high speeds it left the core of their base says ‘not in my name’
In time they’ll run most of us out for good.
When your largest supporters are billionaires and homeless, they’ll figure out that the country isn’t interested in their prison state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
That is the right wing you're talking about. There's misinformation on the left too, but it runs into facts and dissipates, which doesn't happen on the right. There is no left wing media bubble, at least not nearly to the extent there is on the right.
It's history actually.
It was never a weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
1619 is not even remotely accurate. The country was founded with the Declaration of Independence.
End of discussion.
The country was founded on the rights of citizens to be represented in legislation. Not slavery.
End of discussion.
CRT, as is being pushed at the current moment, declares the entire existence of our government as racist. It declares blacks are inherently victims of racism. Neither is true.
“ That is the right wing you're talking about.”
I was referring to CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, ABC.
As far as I can tell that’s not right wing.
And no, when it runs into facts it changes the “intention”, pretends that’s not what they said, or simply ignores the facts.
Examples?
Covid origin, masks, Trump denouncing racists.
It’s funny Russian collusion is still a thing, over a bank loan, when the Biden family accepted millions directly from Russia’s ruling family.
Totally ignoring the Ukrainian compromised ties. Etc.
So save it. Until you can accept fact despite who says it, you’re in a bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
You would like that, wouldn't you?
CRT, as it is being pushed at the current moment, is a right wing fantasy. The actual CRT is not being "pushed" at all, it's being taught in some law schools and graduate sociology programs and that's it. That's how it has been for years and years, and nobody had a problem with it until just recently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Then why is CRT curriculum being rolled out across the country.
It’s being, or introduced to be, included as early as middle school.
That’s not a “ right wing fantasy”. It’s fact. It has school boards fighting parents. It has school boards fighting themselves, it has parents fighting each other.
When a teacher tells a young child they are privileged because the are white, it’s wrong.
When a teacher says you must accept it or your racist, it’s wrong.
Again, it has nothing to do with what your droning on about. When you paint everyone in a group as the same your flat out wrong all of the time.
That is the problem with racial programs being rolled out across the country. Not to graduate students, but, to pre-teens!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
It isn't.
Citation, please. And not from Fox News or the like complaining about CRT, I want to see an actual school curriculum plan that includes it. And none of this vague terms that conservatives are pretending are the same thing as CRT but aren't. It has to be specifically critical race theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
Like I posted above. When called out, the term changes.
‘Not what I said’
“ it. And none of this vague terms that conservatives are pretending are the same thing”
So you want the use the 2014 liberal study name of “ Culturally responsive teaching” then?
Here’s one pro-crt article in defence: stating exactly what I said it does:
“ The theory says that racism is part of everyday life, so people—white or nonwhite—who don’t intend to be racist can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism.”
And I care that shite.
I won’t debate the other fallacies of the article. Such as not giving large loans to the poor who will never repay being racial.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05
C hanging the words in the acronym doesn’t change the intent.
Ultimately the goal is the same. You take an evil, tiny, tiny, subset of the country; you turn that subset into the system proper, and then declare the system and all who are part of it as evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know...
So as I expected, no information about middle schools teaching CRT. Because that isn't happening.
Convenient! What were we talking about earlier? Oh yeah, rejecting anything that doesn't conform to the information in your thought bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know
Lostcause is the sort of person who blame the protestors when they are attacked by cars, on the basis that they should not be on the road. Also it seems like he thinks protests are only acceptable if they do not impinge on him, or are visible enough to disturb his view of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you
No… get out of the street or get run over.
It’s nothing more beyond that.
You do not have the right to obstruct the public street any more than you have the right to obstruct, or abscond with public or private property.
You, do not have the right, to interfere in my, life. You want to have a street closed get a permit. Otherwise, get out of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you
blame the protestors when they are attacked by cars,
Only one instance of that being a driver attack. The rest are panicked drivers who are being assaulted and/or threatened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you know
What do you want. People fighting CRT, CRI, whatever other term used to hide what it is…they don’t go to CNN to complain because CNN won’t run the story. Because CNN is a part of the my-way-or-die-way news that refuses to cover anything against what their board wants.
I could point you to stories about schools in New York, Pennsylvania, California.
But you will only accept left wing media. Knowing full left wing media agrees with the attempts at this indoctrination of falsehoods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, you
What I want is a school district web site where they specify that they are going to be teaching CRT in middle schools. If it's really happening, that should be possible to find. Curriculum tends to be a matter of public record. So go to your secondary sources that are claiming this, and see what their primary sources are, if any. Either you will find the source, or discover that you have been lied to. Not that you would ever admit that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh,
Oh, like this?
http://esb.k12albemarle.org/Reference_Library/ESB_Policies_and_Regulations/Policies//ACC.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just as I expected. None of that is teaching critical race theory. Anti-racism is not CRT. Diversity programs are not CRT. Policies founded on some of the same principles that CRT teaches do not amount to teaching CRT to children. Feel free to try again, if you like. Or you might want to go back and read the article that you linked that does a pretty good job explaining what CRT is. Either you didn't read it, or it went over your head, if you think any of this stuff you just linked is evidence of teaching CRT to kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you wish to change the name.
“ Institutional racism: occurs within institutions and organizations, such as schools, that adopt and maintain policies, practices, and procedures that often unintentionally produce inequitable outcomes for people of color and advantages for white people.
Structural (or systemic) racism: encompasses the history and current reality of institutional racism across all institutions and society. It refers to the history, culture, ideology, and interactions of institutions and policies that perpetuate a system of inequity that is detrimental to communities of color.”
It’s bullshite no matter what you chose to call it.
As the instructor said
“The school’s ideology requires students to see themselves not as individuals, but as representatives of a group, forcing them to adopt the status of privilege or victimhood. They must locate themselves within the oppressor or oppressed group, or some intersectional middle where they must reckon with being part-oppressor and part-victim. This theory of power hierarchies is only one way of seeing the world, and yet it pervades D-E as the singular way of seeing the world. “
I don’t really give a fuck if you want to call that something else. It’s teaching kids white people are racist by design.
And that’s flat out wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, just not letting you get away with redefining terms.
So now you're arguing about something that actually exists! Big improvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That the American progressive left want’s to call it something different doesn’t change what it is teaching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct, and what they are teaching is not critical race theory. That isn't because they are teaching CRT without calling it that, it's because they are teaching something that isn't CRT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh,
Here’s a full lesson plan for what it’s worth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1jHdXUJusYZ94dST-kAd1K1uwpCtGGu085_j_hJ9Oi58/mobilebasic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh,
Here, we have the pdf from the former teacher at the end.
https://www.fairforall.org/profiles-in-courage/dwight-englewood-whistleblower/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but what if…
but what if the banned users' political viewpoints are to spread mis- and disinformation, harass others, troll others, and other such general mayhem? I think the previous president was one such person who had such viewpoints…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but what if…
Techdirt: “Don’t be silly! Nobody is being censored for their right-wing political opinions….”
White House spokeschick: “Uhh, ahem, yeah, we’re telling Big Tech who to censor for their right-wing political opinions.”
Techdirt: “…and it’s their right, and it’s a good thing! There are some ideas and concepts the public shouldn’t be privy to. Just do what you’re told, obey, don’t question authority.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but what if…
So you're acknowledging spreading misinformation about medical issues as a right-wing political opinion? Because that's what the White House was reporting to Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike... tsk...
Headline.
OCR fail.
I suppose we should be happy they are doing pointless shit like this rather than trying to set the stage for Trumps return as dictator for life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given Old 45’s predilictions, a lawmaker trying to pass laws like this one is also trying to set the stage for a GOP dictator. Whoever that ultimately ends up being is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not quite. Ben Sharpiro e.g. is smart enough to do way more damage than the whiner-in-chief idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Ben Sharpiro e.g. is smart enough to do way more damage than the whiner-in-chief idiot."
That's my fear by now. The Donald is an inept and vainglorious clown who surrounds himself with malicious yet inept bootlickers - and this is what makes him the less repugnant choice among other potential GOP candidates.
What we should be really leery of is that the next strongman the GOP produces may be someone with an actual aptitude for finding competent personnel and who has the courage to lead the next beer hall coup from the front. The nazis in 1933 could never have gotten anywhere if Hitler had been a lazy and cowardly self-absorbed clown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Glad I'm not the only one who saw that. Come on, Mike; "Politiicians"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe it's time we just cut out the niceties and call them what they really are: Polutions. As in, they pollute the American way of life, and the way we govern ourselves. One wonders, why aren't the environmental groups all up in arms over these pollution-spewing assholes.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'"Politiicians" (sic)'
We generally don't like to point out that Mike has a stutter. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He’s quite prone to bursting into tears like a little girl as well:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WBsxGjjnRpk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another typo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another typo?
I assume he's pretty leet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
England called, something about 'stealing from our history'
An american claiming to care so very much for the constitution, attempting to set up a system of nobility where politicians are above the constitution... you just can't make this stuff up.
As for the attempt to make political viewpoints protected speech even though two others have noted it so far given how central it is to the argument I'll just add to the pile and ask which political viewpoints, specifically, would he claim are being discriminated against?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: England called, something about 'stealing from our history'
And suddenly weird guys in masks sending a train load of explosives under the seat of power doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing from our histo
'Sfunny, I thought V did that all by himself. But what do I know....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing from our h
V arranged it, but sadly was deceased when Evey pulled the lever to send him on his way under Parliament.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing from o
Yes, but the post above mine specifically said "weird guys", as in plural. V was only one person, dead or alive. And Evey never wore a mask, nor went down the tracks heading under the Parliament building, so that knocks out the plural bit as well.
I was willing to be corrected in that perhaps some other movie might have been the point of reference for the plurality. It could still happen.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing fr
<-- weird guy in the trendy mask :)
Fawkes was a weird guy who planted gunpowder.
Depends on which telling of V's story you look at, Evey did take up the mask, kidnapped the 'good' detective, introduced herself as V, as she began the cycle over.
Lets just light the fuse and discuss it at a safe distance ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing from our h
The comic book and movie may have featured V as a lone crusader but Guy Fawkes was anything but; the catholics in england at that time being sort of an early state of IRA.
"Remember, remember!
The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot;
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!
Guy Fawkes and his companions
Did the scheme contrive,
To blow the King and Parliament
All up alive.
Threescore barrels, laid below,
To prove old England's overthrow.
But, by God's providence, him they catch,
With a dark lantern, lighting a match!
A stick and a stake
For King James's sake!
If you won't give me one,
I'll take two,
The better for me,
And the worse for you.
A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
A penn'orth of cheese to choke him,
A pint of beer to wash it down,
And a jolly good fire to burn him.
Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!
Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing from our histo
All Koby’s comments get flagged…but advocating terrorism doesn’t. Just another day on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: England called, something about 'stealing from our history'
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing from our histo
Also, "Four legs good, two legs better!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, updated for the modern era:
45 legs good, 46 legs bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How else do you expect them to keep up the grift? The republican party has turned into nothing but a grift by riling up their rubes over faux culture war topics so that can keep getting their political donations.
And the rubes are too stupid to realize that their money is essentially, just simply being stolen from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"How else do you expect them to keep up the grift?"
As you note, it's all they have left. The GOP have turned into P.T. Barnum lookalikes but forgot the greatest conman to grace the americas knew damn well that while you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time there's no fooling everyone all the time.
They've welded themselves at the hip to a slowly declining base of zealous rubes, badly educated misfits, conspiracy theorists, bigots, racists and religious hysterics.
And in order to cater to that crowd they've had to abandon any and every semblance of fact and reason. Leading to the current trainwreck of jackknifing port-a-potty haulers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which viewpoints?
Oh, you know...
The True American viewpoints, the Patriotic viewpoints, the (warning, heavy projection ahead) non-whiny, non-sniveling, trust-us-we're-more-equal-than-you viewpoints. Yeah, those viewpoints.
Or it could be (just could be, mind you) that the platforms have a heretofore-unknown Ignorance filter. If you prove that you can't learn from your peers, after a period of time you become fodder for the Ignorance filter. Seems to me that this would be just as logical an answer as any other for why certain (fill in the blank here) are getting first-hand experience with the word "consequences".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't count the number of times I have asked somebody (Koby?) to point to specific instances of somebody being moderated / banned on social media for strictly their political view points, and exactly what those viewpoints are.
Not a single time have I received a response. Not even one that could be argued one way or the other. Nothing, zero, zilch, nil, nada, rein!!
It seems to be that people getting moderated from social media (most recent high profile case, Nick "white supremacist" Fuentes) are espousing what has become mainstream conservative ideas, but to everybody else, its somebody acting like a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, bigoted asshole.
I would love for Koby to come in and tell us why he thinks Fuentes was banned from Twitter and if it fits reality or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure you can count that high - it's "more than once". If you keep asking, you're just flapping your gums to hear your jaw muscles squeak, because the results just keep on being the same (i.e. no response at all). I'll take bets that you'll be struck by lightening before you get a verifiable answer.
Hell, make that struck twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can we make it "Win the Lottery" instead?
At least that way, if it happens, think of all the money I will have won!!! And I'll share!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's golden! I shoulda thought of that one.
But like the Lowered said: "Work with me here - buy a ticket!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It accomplishes more than just talking for the hell of it, repeatedly asking the question and the silence that follows it ensures that the refusal of those crying 'Persecution!' to name just what people are being 'persecuted' for is kept front and center, showing just how empty their claim is and making it more difficult for them to control the narrative as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I would love for Koby to come in and tell us why he thinks Fuentes was banned from Twitter and if it fits reality or not."
He never will. Koby, it has been established a few times, is not here to argue in good faith. He's here to constantly parrot a single talking point in every thread related to free speech until it sticks in the hope that eventually his less smooth-spoken peers in the white supremacy community won't get tossed out of bars, restaurants and social platforms for being openly nazi any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I’m missing something… didn’t he die before Twitter was even a ‘thing’?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nick Fuentes? No, according to his wiki page he's very much alive, and banned from just about every social platform not openly associated with white nationalism.
For good and valid reason, I should think. Anyone who openly compares The Holocaust to a "Cookie-baking operation", kept positing that the only way to deal with legislators refusing to overturn the election was to kill them, and considers the term "white supremacy" an "anti-white slur" certainly wasn't booted off twitter for his merely "conservative" views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You answered your own question.
Your side (the anti-American anti-White side, aka Leftists) have redefined moderate Christian conservatives like Nick Fuentes and Gavin McInnes as “kkk nazi white supremacists”. Those guys are standard moderate conservatives. Then your side unpersons them.
I wonder if it’s such a good idea to keep pushing and pushing and pushing moderate Americans, calling them extremists, shooting their women, grooming their children for sexual exploitation… I wonder if that’s going to lead to something unpleasant for your side.
I wonder how merciful they’ll feel towards you guys when they take their country back. What do you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where does anyone get this silly notion...
...that Conservatives have ever been supporters of the First Amendment?
They have never supported free speech, and only consider the First Amendment 'that annoying thing that we haven't got rid of yet.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where does anyone get this silly notion...
And the never ending barrage of attacks on modern popular culture as long as popular culture has been a thing with protests, threats and boycots because a dance involved too much hip movements, a member of a monority appeared on TV and was portrayed like a human being, a curse word was used, a little too much skin was shown and so on and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where does anyone get this silly notion...
As long as we're not talking about actual threats of violence, that's all fine. It's perfectly consistent with free speech to use your speech to oppose things you disagree with. It's when they start using government power to crack down on speech that it's a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where does anyone get this silly notion...
“It's when they start using government power to crack down on speech that it's a problem.”
Like, for instance, the White House “flagging” wrongthink “for Facebook”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does anyone get this silly notion...
Nope. That isn't using government power to suppress speech, because Facebook is free to do whatever they want with the reports, including nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does anyone get this silly notion...
It’s still actual government pressure.
And should be denounced for the exact same reason as denouncing forced hosting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly can't come up with a good name
The "PPSOA" (Preserving Political Speech Online Act) - clearly he does not understand that bills that are meant to destroy the first amendment must also have a good acronym.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly can't come up with a good name
It's a PMLM act, that is People Must Listen to Me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modern republicans know that conservatism has no future if they're forced to tell the truth about what they want for america and the world, so any moderation of their lies is something they will fight to the death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He did Nazi that coming
All he wants is a law that says " anyone that dissDaines a politician is a nasty meany"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh!
I’ve said this before:
The only way politicians, and candidates, can ever be guaranteed complete and unimpeded access to the public is with a government created platform for just that reason.
Politicians need to stop using facetwit all together.
Putting public, as in government, communication at the will of private companies is, was, and always will be, a bad decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh!
If it were government run, there's would be censorship. Not in the pretend way conservatives squeal about when they have to obey the rules of private platforms, but naked partisan appointees would be set in place and tasked with 'how can we alter the function of this to use it against the left?' Look at the post office, look at the constant assaults on public education, look at revisionist history textbooks produced to appease Texas and the fossil fuel industry, look at what trump appointed to oversee an American overseas broadcaster... Even founded with the best intentions, it will end up a constant battleground, we don't live in a world where anything can be neutral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Duh!
Government run was the wrong choice of wording, funded is more what I intended.
Most of this country wants to be entertained and coddled. That’s what we have CNN and FNC.
Anyone who says their video programs are news is ignorant or lying.
Their article feeds tend to be ‘less’ partisan than the shows. But still have a noticeable slant.
What politicians need is a social media version of CSPAN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Duh!
§230 definitely wouldn't apply to such a thing because that would be government speech (if such a thing were to exist).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Duh!
Everything is biased in some way. That's just how humans work. The point of media literacy is to know how your news sources are biased and learning how to remain aware of that bias.
For example, CSPAN is about as close to unbiased as I can imagine but, they also don't actually provide any context about what's happening in government. So, most people just won't understand what's happening even if they watch every session. News programs on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and others do provide that context but, as you pointed out, their programs tend to be biased one way or another. Out of those three, I find that CNN is closest to the middle with MSNBC being more progressive and Fox News having gone far enough to the right that it's literally called at least one of its own programs "entertainment" in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
The unfortunate situation is there’s no ‘neutral’ interaction anywhere else.
Individual websites isn’t good enough.
The best choice is a micro post/texting service just for Congress.
Not for civilian response but for public record display of personal notes on government duty.
name (R/D/S/AC/…) (S/H/E/J)
No private takedowns, no personal takedowns.
It’s posted. Live with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
They can already post whatever they want to their congressional web pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
Oops, looks like I tripped some markup.
My point was 2 issues.
Nobody is going to read over 600 different government pages.
More importantly politicians can remove things they said right now.
What a politician says following a 9 hour debate in a drunken stupor is more likely what they really feel.
I don’t like the disappearing post idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh!
"The only way politicians, and candidates, can ever be guaranteed complete and unimpeded access to the public is with a government created platform for just that reason. "
Sounds socialist to the extreme. Positively european, in fact.
Mind you, should your government ever decide to go down that road I'm sure Sweden, Germany and the UK will be happy to provide a few tips of how to keep a tax-funded channel relatively guarded against partisan politics.
"Putting public, as in government, communication at the will of private companies is, was, and always will be, a bad decision."
For which we can only blame the US government of being lazy. Private enterprise providing free soapboxes and bullhorns to other private citizens shouldn't have become an invitation for the body politic to ride on the coattails of private success in the first place.
Nor is the fact that they've done so an excuse for that body politic to strive to curtail the freedoms of private interests so those free platforms make for a better political platform. Yet they keep trying.
It used to be the term "Only In America" meant something amazing or positive. Now it has become the above; an assertion that only in this fscked-up country could this sort of shit-show become a serious issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Duh!
I never had a problem with social constructs.
Be it Trump being banned or VP-H tweets last year cheering on violence.
Politicians need to be dumped off the public platforms and put into a government system. One where what you say will be preserved for all time permanently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Duh!
"Politicians need to be dumped off the public platforms and put into a government system. One where what you say will be preserved for all time permanently."
One caveat there; The system has to be funded by government but not under government control. Many countries employing a form of national television, for instance, have it set up in the form of a sort of trust fund with safeguards to keep the whole company structure of that news agency completely separated from the political chain of command.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help Me
So let me see if I can get this straight:
Enforcing the First Amendment on totalitarian tech monopolies is actually spitting on the First Amendment?
Clown World, Tech Dirt.
Clown World.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
go back to Stormfront
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Help Me
Keep in mind it’s more than just the speech they are deleting. There’s the whole aspect of a private site being forced to host speech they don’t like. You don’t want Biden to suddenly be posting his bullshite on Fox now either.
Right now they can delete nonsense from the administration trolls when they show up on the news comments.
What you’re asking for goes both ways.
Not only is it twitface being forced to keep up truth, you demanding for Administrative half-truths and out right lies to also stay up. Everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Help Me
The First Amendment only applies to the federal government, contractors of the federal government, state governments & their subdivisions (via the Fourteenth Amendment), and contractors of the same. Even if the various tech companies are monopolies, (given the fact that Facebook and Twitter themselves are competitors, I'm not completely on board with that assumption) they aren't subject to the limitations of the First Amendment. In fact, as the article makes clear, trying to use government power to force them to carry speech they don't want is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
I don't have the right to come to your home and put signs in your yard without permission and if I do manage to do so you are allowed to remove them and make me leave. Even if you do grant me permission to place signs in your yard, you can rescind that permission, remove the signs, and make me leave if my agreement with you allows such action. The Terms of Service of all these tech companies allow them to revoke anyone's access at any time for any reason and, in order to use their services, any of us with accounts agreed to those terms.
A simple rule of thumb for, "Is the First Amendment being violated here?" is, if a private individual or corporation says, "We don't do that here." your rights probably aren't being violated (protected groups [think sex, race, religion, etc.] make this one complicated). However, if the government says, "You can't say that anywhere." your rights are almost certainly being violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Help Me
That’s generally what I said. Lol.
The thing a few posters her who like to argue with me don’t appear to understand: if you have need to reach a goal and you must convince others of that need, approach them from within their viewpoint.
You aren’t going to convince someone who hates your opinion to change to your opinion. So: look for what it does to damage their opinion.
Compromise is key to a republic’s continuance. Finding differen Reasons for a common solution goal is a must.
Some people ignore the meaning of a word and instantly attack anyone based on the definition. When someone disagrees with you about what is or is not worth existing, find an alternative to reach your goal.
Something Republicans, Libertarians, and Social Capitalists all agree on is private property!
So talk about how that is an issue in forced hosting.
That approach changed my mind on 230.
Want to raise taxes to support social safety net projects, the right, and centre, aren’t fond of individual taxes. But we all see issues with corporate 0% payments. So go after somewhere we all agree. Mega business.
See, not so hard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Help Me
"Something Libertarians, and Social Capitalists all agree on is private property!"
Fixed That For You.
The republican's strident cry of private property looks a lot like the old soviet cry about the worker's paradise by now. It's not a good look when the party of "personal accountability and liberty" spends most of its time coming up with arguments on how to nationalize the private property of entities with open platforms or abolish the right of privacy of the citizenry én másse.
Although you certainly can't exculpate the democrats completely the party which has consistently gone balls to the wall in an effort to curtail freedoms and abolish aspects of privacy and property considerations is all GOP.
And it's getting worse all the time now that their closest approach to a political platform is a confused mess of blood and soil and trying to make it as hard as possible for citizens to vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
Knowing your not here, I ask one yes/no question.
Does your country require id to vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
Most countries require an ID to vote. The problem the US has is that there are barriers erected both to get an ID and easy access to voting which disproportionally affects poor people.
So your question can be answered, but the answer cannot be used as a comparison between countries unless all other factors relating to voting are similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
So your split is to abolish the identification as used in most of the world, rather than any “barriers” to getting the id in the first place?
Ease of access? Most jurisdictions have early voting. And elections are held on the same day every year. So planing on when and where to vote isn’t an access issue at all.
If you can’t vote in person you go to the state electoral board and fill out an absentee request form. Not that difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
This is interesting, where did I suggest that? Regardless, most other countries isn't a clusterfuck when it comes to voting, only USA and totalitarian countries.
You would think so, but the truth is entirely different. On average, a black person has to wait 50% longer in a queue to vote. Also, long queues is something that affect wage workers more than other groups. For some voters in rural areas they have to drive 1-2 hours to get to a polling station. Another thing that also affects turnout among poor people is that some districts require that the voter print out their own voting forms.
In 2020, voters in families earning less than twice the federal poverty line where 33% less likely to vote compared to families earning twice above the federal poverty line. Most of these low income voters are more likely to vote Democrat, so there is an incentive for some to make it harder for that group to vote with new rules. This isn't rocket science, there are multiple studies that have come to this conclusion, and funnily enough, there is no studies available saying that voter-fraud is widespread and new rules must be instituted to combat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
*split~solution
“ where did I suggest that?”
You didn’t, it was a Question based on:
“…but the answer cannot be used as a comparison between countries unless all other factors relating to voting are similar.“
“ On average, a black person has to wait 50% longer in a queue to vote”
And yet I’ve seen absolutely zero factual evidence that a black person must wait any longer than the white, Asian, Indian, or any other person.
The line is the line. The more people voting the longer the line.
“ long queues”
Early voting. Again most voting districts have it. If they don’t that’s not a federal issue, contact your local politicians. That’s a local issue.
“ they have to drive 1-2 hours to get to a polling station”
Factually correct though that’s beyond-rare today.
“ some districts require that the voter print out their own voting forms.”
Seriously? Ohkay, that’s bizarre!
If you’re talking about registration forms, then that’s a definite state problem. One that /does/ exist. If you’re referring to a ballots I’d need to see evidence.
“ 33% less likely to vote ”
Why? And don’t give me canned political reasons either. Actual people saying why they don’t or won’t vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
See https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.00024
See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379420300718?via%3Dihub
You should ask yourself why long queue's are predominately a thing in black neighborhoods, even with early voting. You should also ask yourself why the number of polling-stations have steadily become fewer. You should also ask yourself if this is the result of the Shelby v. Holder decision. See also Voting Laws Roundup: March 2021
Source: http://www.census.gov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
Interesting, but that report doesn’t cover what you said:
Relative to entirely-white neighborhoods, residents of entirely-black neighborhoods waited 29% longer to vote and were 74% more likely to spend more than 30 minutes at their polling place.
But the white people in the same line wait just as long as blacks.
That’s not race, that’s inadequate staffing. Not enough machines.
A quick problem that can be addressed without the ‘woe is me’ argument.
“You should ask yourself why long queue's are predominately a thing in black neighborhoods“
Because they predominantly have larger populations in the same area.
1) vote earlier in prevoting. Or wait.
2) you have 364 days to get your required documentation in order
3) to busy to vote? Prevote. Out of town? Get an absentee ballot before you leave.
4) you have 364 days to set that up.
5) an actual legitimate issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
But why is there then adequate staffing and enough machines in "white" neighborhoods, especially if the neighborhood is considered affluent?
It's been a constant problem for a bunch of elections now.
Re long queues:
Would normally mean more places to vote, not less than it use to have.
They have started cutting down the time for that.
Which is still a problem for many. Are you aware that some states mandates a government issued ID for voting? Many ID-issuing offices have really limited business hours, one extreme example is one particular office that is only open on the 5th Wednesday of every month; ie 4 days/year.
Many states still require an ID for an absentee ballot. See above.
No, in some instances you apparently only have 4 days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
“ But why is there then adequate staffing and enough machines in "white" neighborhoods, especially if the neighborhood is considered affluent”
Because over the last 22’years they tend to prevote.
“ It's been a constant problem for a bunch of elections now.”
Solution,’early voting.
“ They have started cutting down the time for that.”
Only in a minority of states. Again: state issue.
“Are you aware that some states mandates a government issued ID for voting?“
Ideally all would.
On the occasion that the person at the desk doesn’t take my id (non-id state) I make quite the show out of holding it directly in their face at eye level and pointing to my first and last name as I tell it to them, followed by ‘but since you are unable to properly read I’ve spoken it for you”.
“ Many states still require an ID for an absentee”
Great. Go get one.
“ No, in some instances you apparently only have 4 days.”
I call bull unless you can provide proof.
The reality is this is the only industrial country not having id proof.
Why?
Because privacy nut dems keep getting in the way of a National ID.
The solution is federal issued, free to gain, photo identification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
My question is are you familiar with a poll tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
There are no poll taxes in the United States.
The 24th Amendment blocked them at the National level and they’ve been barred at any lesser level since 1966 by the SCOTUS.
So I’m not following what your trying to point out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
If you understand that, then way are you asking if ID's should be mandatory to vote since you already are familiar with the answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
"Does your country require id to vote?"
Yes.
You need either some form of id - driver's license, national id, european id, or someone who does have an id who can confirm your identity. In good time before an election a voting registration card is sent to everyone with a citizen's id number with a detailed description on which voting options exist and the address to the closest election locale (usually within 1000 yards).
If the vote takes place on a weekday it's mandated by law that every employer must provide time off for employees to go and vote.
But there's a vast difference between Sweden and the US; I got my first id along with my birth certificate as did everyone else. In the US that is often not the case. You have to register to vote rather than automatically getting sent the confirmation.
Also, Sweden does not have a system of disenfranchisement. In Europe it's generally realized that one of the first ways for an authoritarian regime to consolidate power is to throw all dissidents in jail - which in the US means they lose their vote, usually for life.
In the US asking for an id means you disenfranchise a large proportion of the population. So what you first need is to make sure that everyone has an id. Which in the US is going to be a tough sell given the legacy of notables such as Hoover and McCarthy proving that the government isn't your friend.
You've got two shit options in the US, of your own making. The worse option by far is to restrict the vote further than it already is. That's a fact.
The whole issue of "voter fraud" has always been overblown and preposterous hype - If international observers and election monitors can give spurious elections in third world hellholes a clean bill of health with few caveats then the persistent chant of the GOP about voter fraud is total bullshit.
To the point where I'd have to ask the GOP why this as well is just something the US is alone among nations to be unable to accomplish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
I’m the first one in line to say registration can be problematic.
Mainly because when people have the opportunity to do so: “do you want to register to vote or verify your registration” people simply don’t do it.
I guess it’s too difficult to read your name and address and sign a piece of paper. Instead they wait till a week before the election to do so. :facepalm:
That said, we do, also, get registration cards prior to every election, by mail. It has the address for day of voting, locations for early voting, and the method to request an absentee package.
Obstacles exist, but it’s not disenfranchisement or racism that drives it. It’s laziness and stupidity.
The solution is a National ID. But omg big brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
"Obstacles exist, but it’s not disenfranchisement or racism that drives it. It’s laziness and stupidity."
Yes and no. I can name one tangible difference between the US and Sweden. If, a few weeks before election, I still haven't received my vote registration there's a - for the duration - very well manned helpdesk which will have a new one sent to you posthaste. If my id is expired I can receive an emergency issue valid for a short period with a minimum of fuss.
In the US many places have one registration office manned by two people, open 2 hours a week, to handle a city's worth of people.
It's not "laziness" if getting registered requires you to spend weeks of effort to obtain the relevant paperwork. Just saying...
"The solution is a National ID. But omg big brother."
To be fair, however, If I were an american...well, I'd apply for the ID and see no problems with it. But I'm white, middle-age, middle-class. I'm not the guy the next McCarthy or Hoover starts fishing for when the time comes to dig up scapegoats, or the one having to worry about when someone wants to make a list of "troublesome minorities".
Even here in liberal Sweden we found out, when police wanted to build a registry of minorities often involved in crime, that it took about three days for that list to be blatantly abused and ostracism of anyone with a certain ethnicity to percolate into every level of authority. If that can happen despite all the safeguards of a nation the US alt-right would consider to consist exclusively of liberal SJW's then I can only imagine the outcomne in the US.
In fact we know a little of what would happen, looking back at Hoover.
I'd say what the US needs to do is to abandon most of the safeguards against unregistered voting and fall back on the same type of voting practiced in, say, Iraq or Syria. Everyone finds a voting booth and casts their ballot, then gets one thumb dipped in some form of permanent marker.
The point is you need 350 million americans to be able to conveniently and easily cast their votes. At that point no one gives a shit if a few thousand tourists manage to cast it as well.
Your major issue with voting registration is that it's the wrong way around. You think it a privilege. It's not. It's an inalienable right. Hell, use the IRS tax rolls to determine where you send a registration card. No taxation without representation and all that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
“ the US many places have one registration office manned by two people, open 2 hours a week, to handle a city's worth of people.”
That’s almost factually correct (I think it’s one person one hour). But it misses a larger picture.
There are other places you can register to vote.
The Department of motor vehicles and if separate the secretary of states offices
The post office.
By internet.
You can call and have a form mailed to you.
“ Everyone finds a voting booth and casts their ballot, then gets one thumb dipped in some form of permanent marker.”
One problem with that great idea: thumb scans. If you can’t get into your home or office, or phone, after voting you just disenfranchised a major portion of the population.
“You think it a privilege. It's not. It's an inalienable right.”
Well, I don’t. Personally I’d like a federal ID issued at birth. Everything tied to that.
My biggest concerns with a federal election plan is fraud, which definitely exists.
And
What about states and lower that allow non-federal voting before your 18?
As far as I’m concerned if you old enough to get a job and be taxed, your old enough to vote. (14yr)
If your old enough to go into battle your old enough to vote. 16yr).
There’s many, many, locations that allow sub-state level voting much younger than 18.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help Me
Not really, as they maintain an electoral register of voters living at an address, kept up to date by a form filled in by the occupant of the dwelling. Also, when they could no longer run a local polling station, I was notified of the next nearest polling station, (3 miles away), and given the option of opting to use a postal vote for all future elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Help Me
No, you can't. Never have, never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Help Me
Oooh, how butch!
You and Masnick are like that Internet Tough Guy meme, only more effeminate and less intimidating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Help Me
So let me see if I can get this straight:
You can't, because you're either a troll or an idiot as established by your long commenting history here.
Enforcing the First Amendment on totalitarian tech monopolies is actually spitting on the First Amendment?
That's not enforcing the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment limits what government can do regarding expression. It does not limit what a private company can do. Do you not believe in private property?
The only one you can "enforce" the 1st Amendment against is the government.
So, yes, passing a law that compels the hosting of speech is spitting on the 1st amendment.
The only clown here is you. But we knew that already from your long and bizarrely ignorant comment history. Go run off back to the idiot troll village.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Help Me
Every accusation an admission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Help Me
Restless, correct. Masnick and his sycophant commenters / sockpuppets have a simple calculation. If it’s anti-American and anti-White, they declare it constitutional and good. If it’s something the Founding Fathers would approve of, it’s unconstitutional and evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Help Me
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]