Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
from the these-things-might-be-connected dept
Everything is bigger in Texas, even the act of unconstitutional spitting on the 1st Amendment. We've already talked about the blatantly unconstitutional bill, HB20, that picks up where Florida's already-declared-unconstitutional bill leaves off, and makes it even worse. Well, that bill was voted on Friday and Texas Republicans approved it by a vote of 76 to 44.
But, as Adam Kovacevich noted on Twitter, some Democratic legislators wanted to make sure that the Republicans supporting such a gross infringement of the 1st Amendment were on the record for what they supported. So they introduced amendments to carve out the "must carry" rules for Holocaust denialism, terrorist content, and vaccine disinformation. And Republicans made sure to reject all three amendments, thereby explicitly admitting that with their bill they want to make sure that websites are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism.
Now, to be clear, all three of those things are (mostly) protected under the 1st Amendment. But so is the right for a website to remove them and not be associated with them. Anyway, 73 Texas legislators said that websites should not be able to takedown "vaccine misinformation." Literally, that's what they voted against:
And, reading the amendment on terrorist content, it appears that no website will be allowed to remove ISIS-promoting content any more, which is an interesting choice by Texas Republicans.
And then there's the Holocaust denialism bit. Social media sites will have to include it as well. I'm kind of surprised that the legislators introducing this amendment didn't also do one explicitly about "critical race theory." Now that really would have tested things. After all, this very same Texas legislature that, earlier this year, passed an equally unconstitutional bill that says teachers in Texas can't openly talk about America's racist past.
And, I guess that is at least consistent. You must post stuff denying the holocaust, but suggesting that there is systemic bigotry? Well, that's beyond the pale.
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, content moderation, critical race theory, free speech, hb20, holocaust denial, racism, social media, terrorists, texas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Texas lawmakers passed a law that prohibited anyone who boycotts Israel from receiving government contracts, and also tried to use said law to deny people access to disaster relief. Texas Lawmakers are also fine with holocaust denial... Republicans, y'all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These must be some of those “censored conservative opinions” that certain commenters keep yammering on about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Save It For The Water Cooler
If you work for someone else as a speaker, your job is not a free speech platform. If you work at a tech support call center, you will probably get fired for proselytizing religion instead of fixing customers' problems. The employers get to set the curriculum in the classroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, Koby—are vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism some of those “conservative opinions” you keep saying are being censored from social media? Because actual conservatives seem to think so, given the article.
If those aren’t the “conservative opinions” you keep saying are being censored, what are those opinions? Be specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Yet neither has to do with this bill. While you're here, answer this: why is your right to speech more important than my right not to associate with your speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
You are the one taking proactive action. You lose on the tie-break on the non-aggression principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
But it was right there in the title, and talked about in the second to last paragraph. It was designed as a counter argument to the bill, so it's okay for us to talk about it. Determining classroom curriculum is not an attack on free speech, while mandating must-carry provisions is an extension of free speech. Many states currently provide for greater protections than those listed in the constitution.
One of the nifty things about social media is that you get to choose who you follow on social media. If you don't like what someone is saying, you can choose not to listen to it. On the other hand, deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate. Censorship still interferes with the association aspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those people can still associate with that speaker—somewhere else. For what reason should the law force a privately owned interactive web service to host legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
And if being booted from Twitter for vaccine disinformation/terrorist content/Holocaust denialism was censorship, you might have a point.
But it’s not.
So you don’t.
Also: What specific opinions are you worried about being censored from social media? Be specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
On the other hand, deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate.
You're a one-trick pony with this bullshit, aren't you?
Same bullshit argument. Every. Fucking. Time. It's as if you're not programmed to say anything else.
Let me predict what you'll do next, asshole...
Not answer Stephen. Again.
Go silent when confronted with the fact that what you're saying is bullshit.
Continue to whine like the bitch you are about being kicked off private property for your 'conservative views,' which we've already surmised is a metaphor for 'being a fucking asshole.'
Sound about right?
Let me tell you, no matter how many times you repeat it, you're still getting kicked off Facebook and Twitter, to which I say "Great! Don't let the door hit you on your entitled ass on the way out!"
Parler, Gettr, and Frankspeech (someday) do the same thing to liberal thoughts on their platform. Which is both hypocritical and kind of an oxymoron, since any non-conservative' on those platforms is only there to get your panties in a wad. You know, to own you simple-minded little snowflakes.
So enjoy this article that has the balls to answer the question you won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Wrong again!!
Alex Jones has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. But guess what, he still has followers. He has his own site and the fucking fools who want to follow him are more than able to do so.
Just because he's not on social media, doesn't mean people can associate with him.
So are you really this fucking stupid, or do your Russian handlers provide you with these comments to post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Where's that fucking edit button when I need it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
I'm thinking the Russian trolls are smarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Jones is always a fun example when people try bringing him up about "deplatforming". Jones hasn't been "deplatformed" - he still owns his own platform. In fact, his platform predates virtually every mainstream modern social media site that he and his drones whine about being kicked out of.
All that's actually happened is that there was a brief period where he wasn't restricted to only the people stupid and hateful enough to go to him directly, and he's now sad because he realises how small his actual community is, and how hard it is to grift from that shrinking number of people. He still has a platform, and nobody's trying to take it away - he just wants the free audience numbers, and that's not something that anyone has a right to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
(... deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate. Censorship still interferes with the association aspect.)
SEE THE REGIME HAS NOT THE POWER TO SILENCE THE DISSENTERS TOTALLY!!
THIS IS THE PROOF CENSORSHIP IS GOOD!
the tone of your post is reserve for those who don't write b****hit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
(Wrong again!!
Alex Jones has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. But guess what, he still has followers. He has his own site and the fucking fools who want to follow him are more than able to do so.)
SEE THE REGIME HAS NOT THE POWER TO SILENCE THE DISSENTERS TOTALLY!!
THIS IS THE PROOF CENSORSHIP IS GOOD!
(I misquoted in the previous post. if mods can please delete it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
If you can still say it somewhere, and the government isn’t punishing you for saying it, it’s not censorship. And no, privately owned social media sites are not the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
HEY LOOK! I'M STILL AT THE PHASE WHEN I BELIEVE THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ONE CENSORING THEN IS FINE!
I'M ARE UNAWARE THAT CANDIDATES FOR AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES ARE GOVERNMENT, CORPORATIONs, AND RELIGION. AND THEY WORK TOGETHER MOST OF THE TIME.
vote for Big government that makes sneaky sneaky laws tailored to support oligopolies and verticistic monopolies until people have to through the intended private corporations to do anything. that gets fat over corporation bribes.
slowly boil the frog by enacting growing restrictive company policies. deflect all criticism becuz is a private company! climax. et voilà get to live in totalitarianism.
you not the government guys are making their job of screwing us ever more damn easy than normal.
C. hello dear senator, it's me!
S. again! what do you want now!
C. could you please make a law to damage my competitor? thank you.
S. and what do I get in exchange?
C. mmmmm, I will censor for you, things that the government cannot censor.
S. ok. deal
-
Is fine getting slammed in the Gulag, if the caretaker is Facebook, not the government?
-
hello! I am a representative of the electrica&water&gas company we heard by the phone company that you talked shit about the wrong person with your mom on the phone the other day. too bad! we are cutting off your water, electric, and gas supply.
you can get water at the river, lit a pit fire, and bask in the sun, so is not you haven't other options.
no, you cannot blame us, sir, we are a private company, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
are you on drugs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that a rhetorical question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
when the wise man who do know that government can use corporations and loopholes to censor dissent
meet the unaware man who does not know, and thinks only government direct censoring is bad.
the unaware men say "are you on drugs"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When the man who claims to be a wise man because he “knows” things that are not in evidence calls the men he meets “unaware” because he believes they don’t “know” and that they think something they don’t actually believe…
…that man is shown to be quite the fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Now when the speaker can go to another platform,, and anybody who wishes to follow their speech can follow them on that platform, without leaving other platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
"without leaving other platforms"
That's always a good thing to stress - unless you're like Koby and his friends, being kicked off every place they've been too offensive to other users or where they were refusing to follow the rules, most people can use any number of social media platforms they wish. Most people already use 2 or 3 at least, and there's nothing to stop you using a new one if someone you really want to follow uses it. Then, you don't have to switch permanently, you can keep your old ones.
The thing keeping most people using specific platforms is a combination of laziness and network effect, not any monopoly like the kind Koby imagines. The harsh reality for him is that nobody wants to follow him to other platforms - in fact, they cheered when he was kicked out of the other ones, because those platforms were doing what they asked for when they did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Almost all social media companies today enjoy larger market shares in their respective niches than either Standard Oil or Bell Telephone did at the time of their breakup.
A legal monopoly is not the same as the literal etymological definition of monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By definition, no monopoly can exist if more than one social media company enjoys a large market share. Mono implies one, and if we have more than one large social media company competing with each other…well, even you can’t square that circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shill Deffinition
"By definition, no monopoly can exist if more than one social media company enjoys a large market share. Mono implies one, and if we have more than one large social media company competing with each other…well, even you can’t square that circle."
By your paid shill definition if Widget Globo Inc. owns ever widget factory, and every widget store in the world, and a single person is making widgets in their garage and selling them in Toledo Ohio then Widget Globo Inc. is not a monopoly.
Can you not see how stupid this is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shill Deffinition
I wasn’t aware that all but one of the social media sites were run by a single person per site out of their garage and were only available within a single city per site.
So, which is the only social media platform not run by a single person out of their garage only available within a single city? Is it Facebook? Twitter? Parler? Gab? Gettr? MySpace?
Well, which is it?
All of these, as far as I can tell, are run by a corporation itself run by multiple people out of actual offices, all of them are available across the country (or even in other countries), and all of them are online social media platforms. The amount of success each has may vary, but they are all still competing in the same market in the same geographic locations, so clearly none of them are monopolies by any stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motherfucker, do you really think I’m paid to waste my time like this? You must be out of your goddamn mind.
Nope. Not even remotely my logic.
See, here’s the thing you’re not getting: Twitter and Facebook are competing against each other as much as they’re competing with every other social interaction network—LinkedIn, MySpace, the Fediverse, Discord, and dozens of others. To turn either Twitter or Facebook (or any other social media service) into a monopoly, you would have to define “social media” in such narrow terms that the phrase could only ever apply to one service.
But in your example, Widget Globo absolutely is a monopoly despite the existence of the single person making widgets in their garage. That’s because Widget Globo can effectively muscle that person out of business with the smallest amount of economic pressure.
What you’re doing is conflating a genuine monopoly of a single company in a single industry with a faux monopoly of multiple companies (again, mono implies one) in a broad field of communications services that no one company truly dominates on its own. Your logic, and thus your argument, is flawed bullshit.
Please try to present an argument that makes sense in reality next time. Mocking you for your ignorance and SovCit tendencies is getting boring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Niche is a pretty weird was to describe two of the biggest and most profitable industries in the world. Well unless you arebeing a disingenuous twatwaffle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Yes, if you define the categories narrowly enough, they are each a monopoly. But that isn't how antitrust law works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Except it is if it specifically bans the reporting of relevant facts by subject matter experts. How do you teach history if you ban the teaching of history?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Or even more important, how to you prevent proving George Santyana was correct, if you don't have a way to learn history?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
They can associate over GETTR, email, or even gasp A TELEPHONE. They could even get "old school" and write letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
They could even go to a PUBLIC SPACE. OWBED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Not the ones owned by private entities, though. Starbucks won't serve their NeoNazi forms, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
You still defending ISIS and pedophiles? OR is that too mainstream GOP for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
"deplatforming is about preventing others who DO want to associate with a speaker from being able to associate"
No, it's not. They're free to associate anywhere they want - just not on the property of people who told them they're not welcome on that property. Go and take your white supremacist buddies where they are welcome, nobody's stopping you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Or you can choose not to host it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Tell that to John Thomas Scopes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Businesses should not be meddling in politics or social matters, and thus should be forced to be neutral on all such matters (whether by hosting everything in a content-neutral manner, hosting nothing political or social, or by exactly reflecting existing community opinions).
If you want to engage in politics in your personal capacity, that's fine, but if you want liability shields, ability to offset input taxes, and so on, you should be required to protect the public interest. Realistically, your small business is not particularly important, but there has to be a sharp dividing line that can't be eroded or worked around by Facebook or Fox or whoever, so its better not to make an exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Better idea, we could not blatantly violate the first amendment and property rights of a bunch of people by telling them that they have to be 'politically and socially neutral' on any platform they set up and instead will host everything if they allow that sort of content at all, forcing them to either muzzle their users more than they wish to or host content they really don't want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
It was a bad idea to stretch the first amendment from applying to private individuals to applying to corporations (whether by deliberately misreading "the right to peaceably assemble, to petition the government" or by deciding the corporate veil only works one way).
It is impossible to have a meaningful democracy when you need billions to "speak" as loudly as Fox or whoever else. Forcing businesses to be neutral is a necessary part of the solution (spending caps for individuals is the other part).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two questions.
How would using the law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech, especially in cases where someone doesn’t want to host a given kind of speech, solve whatever problem you think that would solve?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One Question
"Two questions.
How would using the law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech, especially in cases where someone doesn’t want to host a given kind of speech, solve whatever problem you think that would solve?
How would you feel if you were forced by law to host speech you didn’t want to host—e.g., pro-Klan propaganda—on a service you own and operate?"
Why do you keep insisting that Mikes strawman lie is anything but a lie?
"law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech"
The law does no such thing, no matter how much Mike lies about it. Mike is not a lawyer and he really should be careful how much he blathers with 'this is my job so I know it' he is dangerously close to practicing law without a license.
HB 20 simply sets a procedure for appeal and curing which is common in contract law.
States have a vested interest in such regulations because they don't want their courts burdened with contract disputes.
The way TOS are written today is 'neener neener neener I can do what I want and you cant do shit about it' this inherently sets up a situation that burdens state courts because their is no remedy outside of suing for breach of contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One Question
It’s not a strawman if there are actually people who claim this.
Being wrong doesn’t make it a lie, no matter how ridiculous you may think the claim is.
It’s not even remotely close to practicing law without a license. Stating an opinion or fact about the law with regards to an issue to the general public—without more—is not and has never been the unlawful practice of law. You don’t have to be a lawyer to make public claims about the law or a particular law. He also doesn’t “blather[] with ‘this is my job so I know it”. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
It is common for contracts to set out a procedure for appeal and curing. It is not common to for the government to require a procedure for appeal and curing to be in any contract that doesn’t involve the government or a government function.
But that’s exactly what this bill would do! It would burden their courts with contract disputes. By contrast, §230 does remove many alleged contract disputes from courts, along with many other issues.
This is technically true, but that’s largely to prevent an issue with contract disputes. That said, Facebook and Twitter do have mechanisms for appealing a moderation decision.
No, because by writing the TOS in such a way that your content can be removed for any reason (or maybe even no reason at all) and not providing any opportunity for an appeal or curing, there is no way that the platform holders could possibly breach the contract, so there would be no remedy by suing for breach of contract, either. Such a lawsuit would be completely without merit on its face (assuming the TOS is written as broadly as you claim), and it would be dismissed very early on.
By contrast, requiring contracts to have an appeal-and-cure provision would make it far easier to be able to sue under breach of contract and get past dismissal, plus lawsuits over contracts that don’t contain the necessary clause. You have it completely backwards.
Also, on a related note, I don’t think it matters much to the courts whether it’s a state claim for breach of a law vs a state claim for breach of contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
It was a bad idea to stretch the first amendment from applying to private individuals to applying to corporations
If corporations were entities entirely disconnected from any humans that might be true(of course that would open up a whole host of other issues) but as it is they're owned by people who have first amendment rights that apply to their property and more specifically how they run their property.
It is impossible to have a meaningful democracy when you need billions to "speak" as loudly as Fox or whoever else. Forcing businesses to be neutral is a necessary part of the solution (spending caps for individuals is the other part).
Strange then that it worked out fine before social media when only a handful of companies had large platforms in the form of newspapers and tv stations and you had no right to use those platforms to speak either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its called the FIrst Amendmen
You are, like most MAGA idiots, forgetting that businesses also have First Amendment rights. Public interest is legally speaking a very high bar to override Constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its called the FIrst Amen
And if they wish to remove themselves from the public control they need only remove their property from the public interest. When an individual makes the conscious and willful decision to put their property to the public interest they submit their property to pubic control for the public good.
I may own my truck. But the moment I make the willful decision to start driving for uber and lift I have submitted my property to the pubic interest and surrendered to public control. If I wish to regain full control I need only stop driving for uber or lift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its called the FIrst
Do me a favor, the next time you order an Uber, ask the driver to get out of his car, then, get in the drivers seat, and drive away. You know, the driver must have submitted his car to public interest and surrendered it to public control, that must mean you can take it for hours on end for your own uses.
Are you really that fucking stupid, Mr. I have 20 college engineering degrees that you think opening a business to the public means you have ceded all control of your private property to the public at large?
If I were you, I would ask for your tuition money back, because you didn't learn anything and are still fucking stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its called the FI
My states passenger carry regulations which includes uber and lift is about 7 pages long and that is pretty standard for most states.
Again you are an ignorant petulant child. Just because you don't see the pages of regulation doesn't mean it isn't there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its called th
So you are saying that you are allowed to take somebody's vehicle once they start driving for Uber because they have "surrendered [their vehicle] to public control"
Damn you have no fucking clue about private property rights! Fucking idiot.
Are you going to beat me up now? You are so strong, and smart, and boy, I am so envious of you and everything you have told us about yourself. I am here trembling in my boots that you are going to come beat me up. And I also feel like such an imbecile not have 50 college degrees like you, and having not been a super star college sports ball player. I feel like such an inferior person than you.
But you want to know what, I have a bigger penis than you!!! You fucking piece of shit loser who has to puff himself up online to make his life have some worth.
Why haven't you responded to my original question about showing proof that Rubin was suspended specifically because of his comments about booster shots.
And you know what, you are still, and always will be , a whiney little bitch with a small penis!!!
Fucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its calle
"So you are saying that you are allowed to take somebody's vehicle once they start driving for Uber because they have "surrendered [their vehicle] to public control"
I'm saying that if I put my property to public interest I subject myself to "public control" as the courts have put it which is just another word for government regulation. Just because you don't see the pages and pages of regulation someone offering a service operates under does not mean it does not exist.
I'm going to use the legal terms like "public control" correctly
"When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control."
~Cheif Justice Morrison Waite 1877
If you dont know what it means ask. Don't assume for yourself that you know the meaning. You are not that smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a sharp dividing line;its c
The please school me. Tell me what private property rights one loses the moment they decide to become an Uber driver? You talk about this "regulation", show me what it says. Tell me how much control I loose over my vehicle as an Uber driver.
Either put up or shut up, your babbling ignorant fool. It's amazing to me that the smarter people try to project themselves to be, the dumber they actually are.
Nobody here actually believes a word you say as you have been proven completely wrong on so many topics, 95% of your posts just get flagged as trolling. As that's what you are, a garden variety internet troll. And not a very good one at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
That's an alarming question. If you need to ask it, maybe your own rights to your free speech should be curtailed so you can learn the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
How do you mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
If you work for someone else as a speaker, your job is not a free speech platform.
No extrapolate 'work for someone else' to Facebook & Twitter, unless you want to argue that they somehow work for us...fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Save It For The Rest Of The Basement Dwellers
And if you're constantly wrong about everything people will make fun of yo' dumb ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
The employers of a public school teacher are the school district. The district reports directly to the voters, as the board members are elected officials. The state government passing a law about curriculum subverts that employer/employee relationship, bypasses the voter's choice for who defines the district curriculum and substitutes state level officials who were chosen for their ability to run a government and uses them as a proxy for the voter-employer, rather than use the local officials chosen for their ability to manage an educational system as said proxy.
Explicitly, the state legislature defining classroom instruction is not the employer defining the cirriculum, but the state. That may be good to establish broad principles but the law in question proscibes not broad prinicples but requires teachers to walk very fine lines, requiring that any discussion of current events actively avoids talking about how the racism of the past (which they must talk about, by law) continues to affect the modern day (like the origins of the drug war in responces to the civil rights movement, in particular the Voting Rights act of 1965 and the Civil rights act of 1968). Or how modern US penal systems directly descend from the use of Jim Crow to reestablish slavery in the only legal form remaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
"The employers of a public school teacher are the school district. The district reports directly to the voters, as the board members are elected officials. "
That's a big misunderstanding of what school boards are. School boards are established by the state legislatures and only exist from the authority delegated to them from the legislature to the local school board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Do some research. Many school boards are extensions of county authority, not state. DeSantis is currently getting a lesson on this very subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That’s cute, that you think DeSantis can learn things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know, but we still have to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
That sounds so very strange that I should like to hear of the state where this is the case. Certainly in Florida, which is the one with which I am most familiar, the school boards are creatures of the state, provided for in the state constitution, and having taxing authority independent of the counties. I have seen similar in several other states, and none where the counties have authority over the schools.
In some cases the school board and county will agree to use the same district lines, but that is a choice the entities make at their option.
As creatures of the state, rather than of the county, school boards in Florida have certain inherent powers and duties. DeSantis, though a goof, may find it difficult to overcome the constitutional autonomy of school boards in order to dictate local mask policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Damn son. No wonder you think a public house is literally a house for the public if you think that's how basic local government works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
"Damn son. No wonder you think a public house is literally a house for the public if you think that's how basic local government works."
A public house was early government mandated rent controlled housing. To supply enough low rent housing the government would require that anyone who wanted to serve alcohol/food also provide low rent rooms in order to be licensed.
In short the state leveraged licensing authority to create low rent housing. I'm sorry that you are too ignorant to not know that there is a huge difference between a 16th century public house and a modern pub.
Its sad that you actually think you won that argument. Dunning Kruger I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
The reflection is strong with this one…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
For those who might be confused by that statement,here is the Wikipedia link for public house. It is different to public housing which is what chozen (to be an idiot) thinks it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’ll have to forgive Chozen; he’s one of those “sovereign citizen” (SovCit) assholes, which means he thinks driving and travelling are two different things and gold fringe on a flag means maritime law applies to non-maritime settings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And don't forget that he thinks the white outline around a stop sign means it's optional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ha ha, oh wow, there’s one I honestly haven’t heard before
you get an insightful vote for that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Damn, I was going for a funny vote! Can I have one of those instead?
One of these days, I should register and use an account here as there are people like you with whom I enjoy the banter. Especially when it comes to dragging the resident critics a.k.a idiots like Chozen and Koby.
Although, on the converse, I purposely change my writing style, tone and tenor in order to not be so easily identified as one of the common ACs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don’t worry; I gave you both. 😁
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Well, I’ll play mediator here.
A public house, lodging house, was once a thing. They usually had a bar.
And in that idea they date back to the mid 6th century in China
But public house (lodging) and public house (pub/bar) have long since separated. No one logically refers to the public house as a housing unit anymore.
Actually, few use the term public house outside of historical academics.
There are still pubs in the US where you can spend at the bar and get a room for free. If you spend enough. But for traveler's it’s termed bar and board. The opposite of bed and breakfast.
You spend on food and drink. Sleep for free. And out by dawn. Regardless of sobriety. (Actually the few I’ve tried let you stay later for a fee).
They were common in the wagon days and became real popular with wagon-by-rail period.
But it was never the idea of public housing we have today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
"I may not necessarily agree with the Trumpsuckers on techdirt but by golly I'll devour their dicks if it makes them feel better after Stephen Stone hurt their fee-fees" - Lostinlodos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Well some back story. Dolt over here was throwing everything he could think of to say that you have some kind of constiutional right to forcefully trhow someone off your property when you recind their invitation.
I said no, in almost all states that is battery. Dolt started throwing every example he could think of until he made some stupid reference to a "public house." I'm like wow I haven't heard that term since I last read John Milton.
Moron over hear goes 'ah got you a public house is a pub' he is that stupid. Im like "no its not, pubs evolved from public houses." But Dunning Kruger over here is too stupid to know he is stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
To start, you should learn how to spell you fucking idiot.
Actually, you are fucking wrong again. It originally started with a comment of yours stating that it was un-American to kick people off social media.
I responded that people have been kicked out of "public houses" for being assholes since the beginning of this country. I specifically used the term "public house" as that was the term used for a "pub" back in the early days of this country. And it still is used today, there are at least a dozen pubs in my town that have "public house" as part of their name.
You then responded about how I know nothing of "public housing" and how hard is to evict somebody, yada yada yada... You then went on a long tirade about evictions, public housing, etc, etc, etc.
Out of everybody here who reads the comments, you were the ONLY person that thought the term "public house" meant "public housing" in the sense of government owned property.
Yes, a public house of times past quite often offered rooms to let for travelers, etc. Today we would call that an "inn". But that in no way makes it "public housing" as you were describing.
On the other comments, I commented that I owned a restaurant with my wife, and we "reserved the right to refuse service" to anybody and if we wanted to, we could kick anybody out that we wanted (other than the case of discriminating against protected classes; race, religion, sex, etc.).
You then responded that we needed a hired security professional with a state issued license in order to have somebody removed from the restaurant. And again, everybody else here laughed at you.
Next, you made a comment that a person, once legally allowed to enter a private property, can not be removed when asked. I pointed out that you have no idea how trespassing laws work. Once you tell somebody, who was once "legally" invited / allowed into your private property, that they are no longer welcome, if they do not leave, that is trespassing. Every state has laws that allow you to use force, if needed, to remove a trespasser. Some states will even allow you to shot somebody for trespassing. But you still insisted that only "backwards states" such as Texas have laws like that.... mainly because I spent 5 seconds on google and that was the 1st law I found.
You show your ignorance of the law constantly here, everybody else mocks you because of it. And you keep coming back, doubling down on your ignorance, proving to us all that you have no idea about that which you speak.
And now, since I have managed to keep trolling you, you have showed your true colors. Mr. I am 7 foot 50, weigh 350 pounds, was a college athlete, have 80 degrees, and basically think you are superior than everybody else here.
All I can say is that everybody here mocks you, we all realize that you are an idiot, you know nothing of private property laws. You still to this day double down on your stupidity of confusing a "public house" with "public housing", your ignorance of private property laws, and now that you think you need to puff yourself up online, we all now realize how small of a man (or woman for that matter) you actually are.
The thing that makes me laugh the most, is you keep coming back, and you keep getting smacked down, put in your place, and everybody is basically laughing at you for the things you say.
Also, you have never answered my question you fucking whiney little bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Setting aside the fact that you’re mostly wrong here, let’s talk about the whole “battery” thing and pretend that’s true.
Okay, so that means that there are limitations on the means that can be taken to remove a trespasser and/or who can do the removing. It doesn’t put any conditions on whether someone can remove a trespasser by some means, nor does it in any way restrict whether or why a person can be declared a trespasser to begin with or whether or why that trespasser can be removed once they are declared a trespasser.
When we’re saying “kick someone out” in these discussions, the “how” they are kicked out is immaterial to the point we’re making. Unless you’re willing to claim that having your content or your account on an online platform like a social media site suspended, deleted, banned, or removed is battery (or even assault), the limitations on “how” the removal may take place that you’ve mentioned don’t really apply to such platforms at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now tell us what you REALLY think texas republicans...
'Teaching that racism exists is terrible, divisive and makes the racists feel bad so that's right out! Now about those 'the jews had it coming, sometimes terrorists have a point and vaccines are the mark of the beast and cause autism' posts that social media must host...'
Always nice when politicians slip up and tell everyone what they really think even if it's all sorts of disturbing(if not in any way surprising at this point) that 'pro-holocaust, pro-terrorism and anti-vaxx-in-the-middle-of-a-gorram-pandemic' are apparently top priorities of things to not just protect but enshrine as untouchable positions for texas republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now tell us what you REALLY think texas republicans...
You forgot to mention statues of confederate soldiers is "history"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sadly
these are perfectly consistent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope
It's my lawn, so I decide who can stay on it... get your own lawn if you want to let 'anyone' do 'anything' and let them do it there, but you're not gonna tell me to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
Unfortunately texas republicans just passed the legal equivalent of 'If the KKK and/or neo-nazis decide to camp out on your lawn and you try to kick them off they can sue you for doing so', so apparently in texas it's not your lawn if certain bigots and/or nutjobs decide to make use of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
Yeah, but I’m pretty sure in Texas you’re also allowed to shoot anybody on your lawn if you get the urge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope
Just as a disclaimer, I am not advocating shooting somebody on your lawn, I’m not urging anybody to shoot somebody on your lawn, and I don’t intend to shoot anybody on my lawn if I ever move to Texas. Unless, you know, they need shooting. But I think that’s the legal standard there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
If these freshly entitled assholes effectively take over my lawn, I'm charging them rent, and it won't be cheap.
Having the Sheriff run them off for speech I don't like, that's now gonna be a tough sell. Having them evicted for failure to pay rent, that's a slam-dunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope
That's a very good point you've made, Sumgai. I haven't time to do the research right now, but is there anything in Texas law to stop FB, et al, from simply applying an increasingly-chunky rental fee to users it deems undesirable?
Even arguing against something like that would seem tricky for the supposedly pro-business Republicans. I mean, the government forcibly setting rates for non-essential private businesses to charge their customers? Their speechwriters would be dying from aneurysms in droves.
I could well be wrong, but it sounds an awful lot like an excellent plan to me. >:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope
Well, never underestimate the ability of Republicans to twist logic in whatever way is necessary to support their position. They already changed their "position" on whether a sitting President gets to nominate a SCOTUS associate justice. And they intend to impeach Biden if they hold the House or Senate after the 2022 mid-term elections. And let's not forget how deficit spending is good if done by a Republican-led House/Senate, but bad if done by a Democrat-led one.
For better or for worse, until they lose badly in national legislative elections, and probably state-level as well, they aren't going to learn their lesson. And even then, maybe not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope
Not so slam dunk with the moratorium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
A social media site with millions of users is not "your lawn" and you will never realistically own one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
Property rights doesn't disappear just because you happen to allow other people to use your property under certain conditions, ie my property/lawn, my rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
I also am unlikely to own the lawn of the Stetson mansion. That does not mean that the owner is under some special obligation to allow me to stand on his lawn and shout offensive propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they just really want to project marginalized groups.
/s
TBH I would really really like for Holocaust denial-ism, terrorist content, and vaccine disinformation to be the off springs of marginalized groups (that is: I think people pushing those should be marginalized because other, non-crazy humans do not want to be associated with their shit).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure I know what you meant to say, but I'm also sure that you actually nailed it one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh How Time Flies
A little over a month ago Dave Rubin was suspended on Twitter for spreading vaccine misinformation.
The misinformation was saying that boosters were coming.
You are a hopeless shill Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh How Time Flies
Get trespassed out of the public house again bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh How Time Flies
And then they said it was an error and removed it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1421134022273503238
Actually kind of pathetic that Twitter caved. He said "vaccines which are clearly not working." That's disinformation, much like your dishonest post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh How Time Flies
Nice way to cherry pick what he said.
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/dave-rubin-twitter
So if we break down his tweet, there are many things that he said that could have given him the suspension, and most likely it was his statement that the vaccines are "clearly not working".
So, where is your specific proof that he was suspended because of his specific statement about the booster shot? And if you have no proof, how do you expect us to believe anything else you have to say?
Also, you have been spewing your delusional nonsense (public house vs public housing; trespassing laws don't exist; defamation laws in general) long enough to know that Mike's most prevalent statement is that content moderation is impossible to do at scale and there will always be mistakes made.
How does this instance of Dave Rubin lie outside of anything that Mike has ever written about? (Even though there is some clear cut misinformation about the vaccine not working)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Oh look its the idiot that doen'st know the difference between a 16th century public houase and a 21st century pub. Also doesn't know the difference between a consitutional right and a legal privlage.
I said in my very first post that it varies from state to state but the general rule is you cannot forcefully remove someone from your property if they have not used force against you. Your ass must have searched every single state codes to just find the exception Texas. Stupid stupid stupid!!! A leftists having to praise Texas law which is an exception not the rule.
And inst a constitutional right its a legal privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Projection, thy name is Chozen/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
No matter what you say about public house and trespassing laws, you are wrong.
Also, nice way to avoid the larger request of my comment:
As well as the following:
Let me guess, you have no good faith answer so decided not to respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Just what I though you fucking whiney little bitch!
Also, do me an experiment, go into your local public house and start yelling racial slurs and other derogatory remarks, and tell me how long it takes before before you are forcibly removed by somebody who doesn't have some fictitious license needed in your fantasy world to kick somebody out of their privately owned business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Well Im a big dude. 6'2" 250lb former college athlete. I'll beat the piss out of you. You are the kind of person who needed get the @#%^ kicked out of them more when they were a kid.
I've worked security at establishments where some nut job was doing exactly what you describe. You cool the individual, call the cops and try your best to lead them too the door. Until they engage in physical violence you cant physically throw them out, in most states got to keep adding that caveat in there or morons like you will cite Texas/Alabama or some other backwards ass law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
We got ourselves an Internet Tough Guy here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Anybody who thinks they need puff themselves up online like you just did, all suffer from the same thing.... small penis syndrome.
You may be able to beat me up, or I may be bigger and tougher than you, we'll never know. But what I do know, I got a much bigger cock than you do!
And because you still refuse to answer my original question about proving what you said, that still makes you a little bitch, you whiney little bitch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"And because you still refuse to answer my original question about proving what you said, that still makes you a little bitch, you whiney little bitch!"
I answered you question little man because working security is how I made money on the side in college because the NC double assholes wont let scholarship athletes have jobs. Bouncing is a great cash money job that lots of athletes do in college to make side money behind the back of the NCAA.
Now as I said in retort to the original claim that there exists some kind of Constructional property right to engage in physical someone to remove them from your property is a misconception. There is no such Constructional right and in most states its illegal.
You can only engage in force if the other person has engaged in force first. Its not an issue of trespass. Yes they may be trespassing if you have told them to leave but you still have no property right to physically kick them out. That is battery. You have to call the cops or have someone with state approval like licensed security throw them out.
Now the states do individuals legal privilege to do such like the aforementioned licensed security, which is the case in almost all states, or a backwards ass state like Texas may grant a legal privilege in their law, but a legal privilege isn't the same as a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
The question asked:
Your first “answer”:
First of all, that does not answer the question. At all. What does that have to do with Dave Rubin?
Second, in most states, the law says that the amount of force used to physically remove someone from your private property that they have no ownership of must be proportional. In most of those states, it is considered a right, not a privilege, to use proportionate force to remove a trespasser. Maybe that wasn’t the case in your state, but that is neither here nor there for several reasons.
Third, you talk about “backwards ass states like Texas” as if they don’t count, but we’re specifically talking about a Texas law here.
Fourth, you’re only talking about the amount of appropriate force to remove a trespasser, not when, why, or how you can declare someone a trespasser or whether that trespasser can be removed from the premises at all by someone.
So this claim:
is wrong (in most states) and irrelevant here. I mean, when you kick someone off your platform, you aren’t physically kicking them out, so there’s no issue of battery at all. This isn’t a discussion of how to remove someone from the property once the decision is made that they are to be removed. This is a discussion of how or when to make the decision to remove them at all by whatever means are legal, necessary, and/or appropriate. So, any laws in place regarding how to exercise the right to have someone removed from your property are completely immaterial here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Let me guess, you're the kind of chap that also thinks that they need a "force multiplier" like Michael Drejka did. What the fuck is it with high school jocks who think it's insightful as shit to boast about their glory days? That's not confidence. That's insecurity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"You are the kind of person who needed get the @#%^ kicked out of them more when they were a kid."
Whereas you appear to be the kind of immature loser who never learned that when you resort to physical violence, you already lost the argument. Doubly so, the kind of loser who thinks that boasting about his physical prowess online impresses people rather than makes them laugh at what a pathetically small man they are?
"I've worked security at establishments"
Oh, is that why you came up with the idiotic fantasy that professional security is required for any small business to enforce their rules? You want your old job back, and your current hobby of whining like a little bitch online isn't giving you the roid rage high you crave?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look out, guys, we got a badass over here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Well Im a big dude. 6'2" 250lb former college athlete. I'll beat the piss out of you. You are the kind of person who needed get the @#%^ kicked out of them more when they were a kid.
Ooooh! An Internet tough guy!
Go fuck yourself, douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Yep. That sounds like the typical jock bully. Bib muscles, small brain.
See tang do tang.
See nerd beat nerd.
See food eat food.
Aka: monkey see monkey do.
How many of you got throughout school because people like me did all your assignment?
I’m in tech. What’s your job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
LOL!!!
You, tech... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
Ok, you may be in "tech" but that doesn't give you any credibility as to your smarts.
For example, in this comment of yours, one post over, you open by basically admitting you have no idea how markdown works and how to do a quote on this site.
Oh, and for fun, here is me schooling you on how to properly do block quotes with markdown on this site.
It appears that I would have been the one doing your assignments.
At least you are useful for a good laugh, and laughing is a very healthy thing to do!! (BTW, that link points to the Mayo Clinic.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Whelk, when people use anonymous I have no idea which one I’m directly replying too.
But the comment was about the big man kicking the crap out of someone.
That said:
>how to do a quote on this site.
Yep, this site’s markup is a bit different than most I interact with.
If you are mr/mrs athlete feel free to answer the job question.
I’m a security researcher and bug hunter.
I’ll wander into repair and service at times but generally like to stick to code.
That I didn’t go hunting for what specific command to use in replace “quote” when the other markup commands I’ve used here worked doesn’t reflect anything more than my lack of interest in not using “ ” for quotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
What I need to do know is remember to break between using the > command. Lol.
Hey, we all make mistakes. I admit them then they’re noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Oh, that was a reply to chosen. Not you. Guess I’m not the only one to stumble into mistakes, eh anni?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Mistakes are made, you are learning, and at least you will attempt to defend your stance and statements.
Unlike other critics here who drop piles of bull 💩, only to disappear when called out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Anonymous
I agreed and expanded, pointing out people who first move to arse kicking tend to have lesser academic ability.
Gladiators rarely make good senators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Although given the amount of effort Lodos puts in to lick the feet of Trumpkins... that's not a high bar to clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Roman_history#1st_century_BC
Ohkay, they weren’t always called gladiators. But men who fought, who were slaves, and who could be freed with the option of citizenship via wins.
I know of 4, 3 were to be elected, one did become one.
We have a consoler who hired mercenaries to kill his opponents pre election.
We have a legate who poisoned a senator to take his spot, who was then killed by another freed fighter before taking his seat.
And one who was arrested for bribery.
And Titus Novus, who became a senator at the end of the republic and fled his seat for Northern Egypt to return to fighting.
Gladiators don’t make good senators. Not that most of senators were all that good of their own doings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time
I was responding to the same AC post you did, not to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How T
Oh,
Lol! My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"Yep. That sounds like the typical jock bully. Bib muscles, small brain."
That sounds like a typical millennial talk shit and threaten battery
"tell me how long it takes before before you are forcibly removed by somebody who doesn't have some fictitious license needed in your fantasy world to kick somebody out of their privately owned business."
And when I tell you that I will kick your ass if you try, you run to the teacher. You made the origional threat. I'm only telling you what will happen if you try.
Your generation is a joke.
I got a good anecdote for that too because I was just in Hawaii. Millennial surfer came over top of me. I paddled over to him asked him what the hell he was thinking, he talks a bunch of crap about kicking my old ass.
Like all Gen-X I tell him
'You and me on the beach now!'
I paddle back to the beach and the kid stayed out for 2 hours refusing to come in.
Your generation are nothing but cowards. You talk a bunch of shit and when challenged you run and cry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"I’m in tech. What’s your job?"
Professional engineer with a masters in electrical engineering, triple bachelors in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Computer Science.
You?
I'm not surprised you work in tech? Most "tech" act like spoiled children. That's why they say they want TOS to be legal contracts then bitch moan and complain like the brats they are when those contracts are regulated like any other contract. Which is this thread in its entirety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Damn, your CV keeps growing every time someone calls your bullshit out. If you keep this up, you will the polymath of the millennium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Projection, thy name is Chozen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
I’m a bit past that. Lol. Maybe a decade ago I could have run to myself? Given class engagement is part of a (most) masters program.
My generation gave you home computers, advanced video games,
The internet, and this very site. Sure, I was still a kid when games started to be a thing… you know, pong. But I was an adult in the workforce for the biggest tech era.
Your projecting.
AS in information technology
BS in computer science,
AD in applied mathematics
BS in applied mathematics
MS in theoretical mathematics.
Currently I’m a bug hunter. But I have a short attention span and have bounced around for decades.
Most engineers act like silver spoon gods.
Uh, given I support legal teeth for tos I think your mixing up posts too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"My generation gave you home computers, advanced video games,"
Your generation? Since you are saying my generation and not our generation I have to take that statement as meaning you are a boomer.
And I hate to break the news to you but if you are a Boomer your generation didn't do shit.
If you actually look, I mean actually look what you will see is a generational black hole.
You wont see many boomers in the big names of the 20th Century tech boom. You will see a lot of Greatest Generation, and Silent Generation at the start, and then a lot of Gen-X.
The boomers are a black hole. Thats one of the reasons the 70s were such a bad decade economically. The boomers had big plans but then they got high and fumbled the ball. It wasn't until the mids 80s early 90s when generation X got old enough to pick up the ball and run with it that things started moving again.
Just look at the names.
Kahn and Creff - TCP/IP - Silent generation
Cooper - Mobile Phone - Silent Generation
Zuse - Programable Computer - Greatest Generation
Baer - Videogame Consul - Silent Generation
Tomlinson - e-mail - Silent Generation
Sutherland - GUI - Silent Generation
Johnson - Touch Screen - Silent Generation
Easton - GPS - Silent Generation
Masuoka - Flash Memory - Silent Generation
Russle - Optical Disk - Silent Generation
Yokozawa - Laptop - Silent Generation
Sorry I just have stop
If we go chronologically we just end up with the great mid to late 80s early 90s young Gen-Xers we all know about.
The only 2 real exceptions are people like Gates and Jobs but in a way they rode a wave Gen-X created. They had controlled the PC market for close to 2 decades before Gen-X made the market boom by giving a use for the PC that everyone wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
And I am 6'40", weigh 260 pounds, was heavyweight boxing champion, all-pro linebacker, all-star pitcher, championship winning forward, best goalie ever, and to top it off, leading dancer on Dancing with the Stars!
I am also a surgeon, a lawyer, professional electrical, mechanical, civil and industrial engineer, I have 10 bachelors, 8 masters, an MD, JD, 5 PhDs not to mention my 3 post-docs in animal nutrition. I have been mayor in 10 major US cities, plus 3 more in Europe. I hold 8 passports from various countries due to me being such a perfect specimen of the human male.
First, nobody believes you, nor does anybody care.
Second, you must have a very low self-esteem to feel the need to puff your self up like this, online, to a bunch of internet randos.
Third, people like you always suffer from small-penis syndrome.
Fourth, you are still a fucking idiot that doesn't know the difference between a public house and public housing.
Fifth, you are still a fucking idiot that doesn't understand how trespassing laws work.
Sixth, you still haven't answered my original question, what proof do you have that Dave Rubin was suspended for the very specific reason that he mentioned booster shots.
Seventh, you are still a whiney little bitch who feels he needs to puff himself up online so people might thing he is both a big tough guy who is also smarter than everybody else.
Eight, fuck off you whiney little bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Actually he didn’t answer my question either.
A person at a conveyer belt fitting plugs is technically an engineer. So is a garbage man. Not that they’re any less of a job, but they’re hardly top level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"A person at a conveyer belt fitting plugs is technically an engineer."
The ignorance if this site never ceases to amaze me. If someone is a PE having passed put in their time as an EIT and passed the NCEES national exam for their field of engineering.
You show that you have no life since you don't know this. Like how Stephen T. Stone quickly revealed that he is a millennial loser who's never owned any property living in his parents basement because he didn't know what a plat map is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flie
Engineer is the same level of generic as psychology.
Or, admittedly, mathematics.
My statement is factual. Even it it stings. You failed to qualify your level of position initially.
That’s on you, not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time
Damn, I hate the fact that I mostly don't like your positions, but comments like this make me like your comments like this.
I will still mock you for being a Trump supporter, but I like your ability to talk shit when it's appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How T
I just don’t like fake bastard cowards.
I’m not a people person.
I spent the first 15 years of my life bullied. Until one day I had enough, punched back. Beat the shite out of the kid, literally, pulled the emergency bar an the back door of the bus and shoved his arse out. Also literally.
it was a red light
My first run in with the police… as a squad happened to be behind the bus.
Never had another run in with him though.
I spent freshman year of high school dealing with a prick math teacher who coached football. Who was forever piss off that I didn’t give a fuck about his class and spent time with the nerds/losers in the back of th room playing with tech. He’d fling chalk stick at my ear. Fucker had great aim. But I always showed him up. Perfect correct answer every time.
I got my second suspension when I told him “it’s not my fault I’m smarter than you”. I really did mean it just as I said it.
I understand the many tech hero’s who dropped out. School pissed me off to no end.
But unlike jock idiots, I don’t have a god complex.
I personally just want to be left alone in general. But don’t trot out bull credentials. I’ll skool you every time.
I do what I do and I’m good at it. I’m sterol and can’t have kids. So honestly I don give a single fuck what happens in 2100. My family line is ending at myself and my sister.
Good luck to everyone else.
I just want a happy fruitful life before I become fertiliser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh H
Deepthroating a guy responsible for much of the administrative machinations that encouraged the spread of COVID-19, instead of fighting it, is not fruitful by any stretch of the imagination. But whatever helps you sleep at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time
"Professional engineer" is not on the same level as "engineer." If you call yourself a "professional engineer" you have to be licensed in a NCEES field of engineering.
If you dont the state board will fine you for practicing without a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flie
You’re not helping your case.
I’m A+, Net+, iNet+, an CISB certified.
That means nothing.
A lawyer who passed the bar exam is a good study.
I passed the MCIS, MCST, MCSI, HPCT, and CSIS test. You?
Come back and brag when you have Cisco, Microsoft, and HP under your belt.
Want to put your name on the line? I will pay for your tests for Cisco and HP if you pass.
I stand by it. Look up my name on Bing, I’ve paid for dozens who managed to pass the Cisco and HP tests.
The Cisco and HP tests are the hardest to pass in tech world wide.
They cover everything from vac tube mainframes to quantum computing.
Come back with a complete set from those two companies and I’ll happily send you a certified teller’s cheque.
We need more competent tech in this country!
Want proof, take a look at my history at AOL, SuperBay, Git, Boardsort, Tfreak, and Tom’s.
The money is good. I may not make much, but my family inheritance is large enough to play a bit in Philanthropy.
Which is what i use it for.
Prove your claimed degrees are more than derail box paper.
Pass one and I’ll prepay and register you for the other.
FYI, the HP test passes less than 10 per 500.
So honestly: good luck.
I spent a fortune failing that ever-changing test before finally passing it.
Here’s a hint, learn IPX, 8086, ARM, and AMD64 assembly.
Unix, MACH, DRIVe, and Windows.
Dbase, Fman, SQL, Pearl, Pascal, C/+/#/++/D…
BBSCode, HTML, XML, and RTF
TEX, Wiki, and Hops markup
Having a Mac is a plus as you can boot camp Darwin for the real bare metal Mach experience without building from scratch.
Learn it, love it, lead it!
🎉
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Wow, you must be what, 150 years old?
10 bachelors. Assuming 3 at a time, and finishing in 3 years per set:
We’re at 9 years there. I figure you took that 10th GBD while getting your first to masters so that’s another, let’s push, 3 years.
7 masters in 12 years? Possibly?
So 24 now.
3-5 on MD if you pass certification.
Those residencies and fellowships add a decade.
37 years?
5 PhDs in 10 years, and 3 for the JD.
50 years!
And 40 years as mayor! Overachiever!!!
I’ll assume some crossover in politics with those PhDs.
So if you started post Ed at 10 like the genius you obviously are, you’re over 90. Add Europe and you are what… 95?
I like math! Hehe 🙃
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Mr. Lost,
I think you are fucking ass-backwards in your political convictions and support of the Trump fucker.
But unlike others of your ilk, you at least stand up and (attempt) to defend your indefensible ass-backwards views.
But also unlike others of your ilk, comments like this make me realize that you actually aren't really as whacked out as your ideals would make me think you are.
I will always attack your Trump centric ideals, and I will be rude while doing so, calling you a fucking idiot when you are defending those Trump centric ideals.
But a comment like this, makes me glad you are here, you realize that my fucking idiot comments are nothing but hyperbole, and you still come back and drop some great comments (sometimes... ok.. rarely)
Anyway I like math too, but I do have one correction to your math. Many of my math / engineering curriculums allowed me to take master's level class that counted as both masters and undergrad credits. So with that in mind, you can take about 3 years off your calculations. 🙃
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flie
Ah, hell. I made a mistake.
But again, I majored in theory. Not practical math.
But I wrote two published theories in school. One for an applied achievement credit masters (theoretical science) on the premise of faster than light travel,
The other on the historical significance of 7 and 9.
Both are free on scribd.
I constantly reply I don’t fit any party proper.
Don’t take my gun. I like wild food. Be it squirrel or possum or elk. It’s all good to me.
Don’t tax me more. I’m a disabled vet, on SS, and fall under the poverty level.
And living on the outer rim of Chicago I suffer from the “progressive” taxes.
And make too much to pay nothing and not enough to pay for everything.
Mainly because I’m good at what I do. There isn’t a system today I can’t compromise, eventually.
Bug bounties create quick windfalls that lock out SSD payments.
But o generally fall into the standard non-progressive camp for Dems.
I am not, have never been, and never will be, a Republican.
If you didn’t know I voted for trump you’d never guess I was one to do so outside of political discussion.
I came here, for tech coverage. Somewhere it became political.
Generally, though, I’m all for legitimate discussion. I’m more open minded than any Republican you’ll likely come across.
I just dislike rude name calling as the first and only reply.
I’m also far more worldly than most Reps or Dems. I really do have Japanese residency permission. Something very difficult to qualify for.
I have close friends around the world.
Simply put, I hate the Clinton family. I can not ignore we’re on the wrong side of Ukraine’s genocide of ethnic Russians.
And I firmly believe the physical evidence that Biden has dementia.
The other choice in both cases was trump.
That’s all the more there is to it.
My defence, is nothing more than for the good things he accomplished. Every president has good and bad.
Trump is far better than Carter was.
You may hate him, like I hate Clinton, but you can’t deny he did good things , not in good faith.
The positive/negative ratio is opinion. But again, at least it wasn’t another Carter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time
But damn you will snap your disabled veteran back in half to make the bad fee-fees go away on their behalf.
Ah, the "at least we didn't get Hilary Clinton in 2016" argument. I thought the team you supported was supposed to be winning. What the fuck is with all this lowering of the goalposts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
It's not difficult to imagine.
Millennials these days burn themselves out with plenty of bloated qualifications because "market forces".
Hustle culture is an even bigger thing for them than it was for Gen-X. At the very least when Gen-X hustled it generally paid off. When millennials hustle these days you can't even get most people to spit in their general direction, unless the stars align on the 31st of June.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flie
"Millennials these days burn themselves out with plenty of bloated qualifications because "market forces"."
I didn't burn myself out at all. Carefully selected the school that gave me an offer with the best engineering program. The program was a 5 year double major program which was perfect for me because I intended to redshirt my freshman year and had no intention of playing professionally so I was going to be in school for 5 years anyways.
I chose computer science and computer engineering as my double major. There is a lot of overlap between computer engineering (CPE) and electrical engineering (EE) in terms of classes. By my junior year I found that I liked the EE classes better, especially power systems, I also saw the brick wall that was coming for "Tech" even before the 2001 market crash. Power was simply a better field for the long term. I carefully looked at the major requirements and saw that if I chose the right electives, classes that count for both CPE and EE, I would only be 3 300 level classes from also completing the requirements for a EE. So I finished my double major in 5, paid for 1 semester out of pocket after my scholarship ran took the remaining 3 EE classes and got my EE in 5 and a half. I graduated with 3 degrees in 5 and a half years and not a penny of debt.
I've worked in power systems my entire life since graduating. I never spent a day in my life working in "tech" despite the other 2 degrees. But they are extremely helpful as that plays such a large role in the industry today with computer controls taking over what used to be analog.
After a few years I just started taking one to two night classes a semester until I got my masters. It was really cool hybrid management/engineering program. So you take a high level engineering class one semester and a regulatory law class the next.
Its not so Hustle culture its just having better foresight and planning. If you look at the sharp increase in diagnosed personality disorders amongst millennials, generation narcissist they have been called, its not hard to see why they suck. People with personality disorders are poor long term strategic thinkers. They can be brilliant short term tactical thinkers but they always screw themselves in the long game.
That inability to do what I and other Gen-X did and just set a solid long term plan and stick with it is why Millennials are such failures. A millennial would think it takes like 10 years to get 3 degrees because that is what it would take them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time
You cashed in on a trend. Big whoop. These days you don’t plan for anything, not when lecturers are telling you to forget stocking in a job for more than two, three years because volatility and uncertainty is how the world works these days. A plan is useless when your boss tells you “fuck you, got mine” and tosses you out with no acknowledgment or progression.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. One glance at international trends, particularly in developed economies will tell you enough. Businesses demand First World workers and pay them Third World salaries while spouting the same tired tropes like you that everyone else after your generation is a bum that has to be treated like garbage. The one upside is that eventually, your usefulness as a patsy will run out too, like Jack Ma and his “996 working schedule” advocacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Whens the last time you actually saw your dick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Your wife will get upset if you keep talking to her boyfriend like that.
The last time I saw it I was wiping it off on your pillow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
About 12 minutes ago. Drank to much vodka, had to pee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"Oh look its the idiot that doen'st know the difference between a 16th century public houase and a 21st century pub.'
Don't be so hard on yourself bro. That's our job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh How Time Flies
Dave Rubin? I chuckled when he gawked at Joe Rogan for telling him that construction without any regulations just won't work and that his libertarian approach is total bullshit that would result in chaos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
In what world do I have to agree with everything anyone says if I'm to agree with them at all. I'm not a leftist moron. I know this is a hard concept for someone such as yourself to grasp. You clearly have no sense of self so being an individual onto yourself is a hard concept for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
You still haven't provided any sort of proof that Rubin was suspended specifically for talking about booster shots. Why is that?
Whiney little bitch. Going to come beat me up now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The scary thing is that any lawsuit over this would go to the Fifth Circuit....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Read the Act
Mike you are simply lying. I read the act. The bill establishes a process for removing content and persons. The additiosn are attempts to create exceptions that let Big Tech ignore the process.
"Sec.A143A.006.AACONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter
does not prohibit a social media platform from censoring expression
that:
(1)AAthe social media platform is specifically
authorized to censor by federal law;
(2)AAis the subject of a referral or request from an
organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual
exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse
from ongoing harassment;
(3)AAdirectly incites criminal activity or consists of
specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group
because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin
or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge; or
(4)AAis unlawful expression.
(b)AAThis chapter may not be construed to prohibit or
restrict a social media platform from authorizing or facilitating a
user’s ability to censor specific expression on the user’s platform
or page at the request of that user."
Notice that these exceptions are only for criminal acts. Not this subjective bull. The site can take down whatever subjective bull it wants but it has to follow a process.
"ec.A120.103.AAREMOVAL OF CONTENT; EXCEPTIONS. (a)AAExcept
as provided by Subsection (b), if a social media platform removes
content based on a violation of the platform’s acceptable use
policy under Section 120.052, the social media platform shall,
concurrently with the removal:
(1)AAnotify the user who provided the content of the
removal and explain the reason the content was removed;
(2)AAallow the user to appeal the decision to remove the
content to the platform; and
(3)AAprovide written notice to the user who provided
the content of:
(A)AAthe determination regarding an appeal
requested under Subdivision (2); and
(B)AAin the case of a reversal of the social media
platform’s decision to remove the content, the reason for the
reversal.
(b)AAA social media platform is not required to provide a
user with notice or an opportunity to appeal under Subsection (a) if
the social media platform:
(1)AAis unable to contact the user after taking
reasonable steps to make contact; or
(2)AAknows that the potentially policy-violating
content relates to an ongoing law enforcement investigation.
Sec.A120.104.AAAPPEAL PROCEDURES. If a social media
H.B.ANo.A20
7 platform receives a user complaint on the social media platform’s removal from the platform of content provided by the user that the user believes was not potentially policy-violating content, the
social media platform shall, not later than the 14th day, excluding
Saturdays and Sundays, after the date the platform receives the
complaint:
(1)AAreview the content;
(2)AAdetermine whether the content adheres to the
platform’s acceptable use policy;
(3)AAtake appropriate steps based on the determination
under Subdivision (2); and
(4)AAnotify the user regarding the determination made
under Subdivision (2) and the steps taken under Subdivision (3)."
Your statement of "are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism." Is nothing more than baldfaced lie.
If the terms of service has a rule against vaccine misinformation that's fine. But there is a process they have to explain why and allow for a formal appeals process.
Im sorry mike. Maybe if your BigTech overloads didn't make a joke of contract law but BigTech is so off the rails with how they enforce their terms of service this is needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Read the Act
Techdirt's Tech and COVID is funded by one of Koch Industries' "charity" foundations.
And Techdirt has published Republican shills on their very website.
So unless Koch Industries is part of Big Tech...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Read the Act
Shhh honey... the adults are talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Read the Act
I told no lies, Chozen. I said the bill was unconstitutional, because it says how a website can and cannot moderate. That's the unconstitutional part. As we already saw in Florida (which you falsely insisted would be found constitutional).
Why are you so bad at this?
Also, I have no "bigtech overlords". I'm working to help undermine "big tech" as we speak, so if they're my overlords, they can't be very happy with my writing on how to destroy them. That would be weird.
Finally, how is "big tech" "off the rails" with "how they enforce their terms of service." Be specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Read the Act
Oh motte and baily much? You said that social media and and I quote "are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism."
Now with the motte "forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism" unable to hold to you retreat to the baily of
"I said the bill was unconstitutional, because it says how a website can and cannot moderate."
And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.
BigTech in the 90s.
'Oh we want our TOS treated as legal contracts.'
BigTech today 'Oh we meant we just wanted the upside of legal contracts like waving liability and setting jurisdiction, not the downside like state regulation'.'
Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged. If you don't want state regulation don't have a contract. The moment you have a contract you surrender to state regulation.
BigTech has proven itself incapable of abiding by even the most common of contract law. Its so bad they seldom even bother to cite the TOS when sued because they are so vague and arbitrarily enforced that they aren't worth the paper they are not printed on. But they will still try and get venue changed to Cali.
Its about time states stepped in and held this industry to some basic standards as much as they make a mockery of contract law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ergo, it dictates how websites can and can’t moderate. Man, you’re bad at this.
Whose speech do you believe Facebook and Twitter should be forced by law to host—antivaxxers, terrorists, and/or Holocaust deniers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
Oh motte and baily much?
Lol. Did you just learn that term? Because this is not that.
And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.
No. The 1st Amendment gives sites the ability to moderate how they see fit. It is not about contracts.
Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged
You are too stupid for me to go any further on this. Seriously, stop it. This is dumb even for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
Not when it infringes on 1A rights like this.
Not necessarily. Regulation of what is or isn’t a legal contract is actually quite limited.
Like what? Can you name a single instance of this?
No, it’s because of §230. They don’t need to cite the TOS in most cases because §230 protects them. (So does the 1A, for that matter.)
But, you know what? Let’s go with the whole “breach of contract” thing, just for kicks and giggles. If the contract expressly states that it can be severed by either party at any time (which most TOS does) without monetary penalty, then either party can unilaterally revoke the benefits of the contract for both parties. That’s pretty basic contract law right there. In this case, there was no monetary compensation for either party, and in booting someone off the platform, they also lose the content that person posted and any future value they may have. That’s in full keeping with lawful breach of contract. (You can only successfully sue over an unlawful breach of contract.)
It’s also worth noting that most companies use a lot of vague TOS in their contracts when dealing with stuff like this, not just Big Tech, so this is actually fairly standard in contract law, and not just in this particular industry, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Read the Act
Oh and I would also like to add Mike that you apparently favor including "vaccine misinformation" in a section in such a way as to make it on par with " preventing the sexual exploitation of children."
You are sick Mike! That you even think its appropriate to equate the two is sick!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
You are bad at this. That’s not what he said, and you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
It was ctrl+c and ctrl+v.
"websites are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism."
Mike flat out lied or is too legally ignorant to understand what he was reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
Mike flat out lied or is too legally ignorant to understand what he was reading.
This from the guy who has misstated the law over and over and over again and has repeatedly lied here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
He did say that websites are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism. No one is denying that, and I wasn’t objecting to you saying he said that.
Here’s what I was objecting to:
See, it’s the part about sexual exploitation I was objecting to, at least that Mike was somehow equating the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Read the Act
" That's the unconstitutional part. As we already saw in Florida (which you falsely insisted would be found constitutional)."
I never said that because I know how bad of a judge judge Hinkle is. I never expected Hinkle to rule any other way. He is an extreme left-wing ideologue. I did chime in when the judge Hinkle made his decision and said that I expect him to be overturned ... again ... because he is a bad judge who writes poor decisions and is using the same legal arguments he used in his last major decision that was overturned.
I also said you were being stupid taking a victory lap and not even realizing how poorly written the decision was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Texas and Republicans... 2 wrongs continue to make more wrongs. (No rights for you.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick isn't a Texan
But it's obvious he wants to bash Texans and Texas who have decided on their own how to handle their business. It's NOT Mike Masnicks business, but obviously, he wants to try and make it his business. So he writes this trash, to trash Texans. THIS ARTICLE IS TRASH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick isn't a Texan
Truth is rarely pretty. Too bad the facts back up his article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick isn't a Texan
Ummm, you do realize that there is a thing in our country called "The Constitution" and that this covers all 50 states?
A violation of the 1st amendment is the same no matter which state you live in. This is basic high school civics / government. It never ceases to amaze me at the sheer stupidity of people like you, and most of your ilk seem proud of your stupidity!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To steal a bit from early Family Guy:
Mavs suck, Astros suck, Cowboys suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick isn't a Texan
You mean other peoples' business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick isn't a Texan
He’d say (and has said) the same thing about non-Texans as well when they do the same, and he has praised Texas’s Anti-SLAPP Law a number of times, so claiming that “it's obvious he wants to bash Texans and Texas” is patently false.
As for them having “decided on their own how to handle their business”, they’re trying to regulate businesses that are principally in California (a state that Mike happens to reside in) in a way that is inconsistent with federal law (§230) and the US Constitution (1A). So, it’s not Texas or Texans’ business to regulate in this way, and it is very much Mike’s business to criticize it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I haven’t read the full bill yet but one thing jumps out as an excellent decision:
“Notify the user who provided the content of the
removal and explain the reason the content was removed”
I’m not sure the wording is exact enough. A user should know exactly what rule was broken by what part of the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with that is that it is useful to bad faith actors who are looking to game the system. And, frankly, the majority of people who are going to be moderated... tend to be bad faith actors looking to game the system.
Either way, REQUIRING that info (even if we agree it would be useful) is blatantly unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don’t know about “ blatantly”.
Looks to me like a breach of contract situation. You agree to be bound by the tos when you register. As such, you have a binding contract.
And if the state want’s to add a specific requirement for exercising contract law… I don’t see that as a problem.
Even in at will contracts, be it employment or a social media service, how is a state mandate of how notification must be made a violation of the constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doing so would turn every moderation decision—hiding content behind a warning of some sort, deletion of content that violates the ToS, even suspensions and bans—into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated. How often do you think Twitter moderators would do their jobs if the higher-ups at Twitter knew every such act could land the company in a courtroom? How often do you think bad faith actors would abuse and eploit such a system for their own benefit?
Requiring moderation decisions to have a legal component baked into them would grind moderation on social interaction networks to a halt. I know you’d love that, considering how you think deleting even a single letter from a single post is the kind of unconscionable and horrific censorship that should be stopped by any and all means necessary, collateral damage be damned. For everyone else, watching assholes flood a service with spam and porn and racism and queerphobia because said service would prefer not to deal with the courts every time it moderates would be…less than pleasant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Doing so would turn every moderation decision—hiding content behind a warning of some sort, deletion of content that violates the ToS, even suspensions and bans—into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated."
Then TOS are not a contract and cannot be treated as such. The very companies that pushed for law that allowed TOS to be contracts now want TOS to be exempt from the rules of contract law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Doing so would turn every moderation decision … into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated. “
I don’t see how that would be the outcome if proper notification is given. The bill makes the action quite limited, removal.
Hiding isn’t removal moving isn’t removal. Deletion is removal.
“How often do you think bad faith actors would abuse and eploit such a system for their own benefit?”
All of them. But they do so today anyway.
“Requiring moderation decisions to have a legal component baked into them would grind moderation on social interaction networks to a halt. “
Again, I don’t see that. We’re only talking about removal. The most extreme version of moderation.
“I know you’d love that, considering how you think deleting even a single letter”
Considering I made clear I have no problem decimating a post by removing letters, or converting them to another form, …
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You said it yourself: “contract law”—the key word there being “law”. Yeah, most trolls probably wouldn’t go through with any actual legal threats, but dipshits like Marjorie Three-Names and Devin “I Hate Cows” Nunes absolutely would. So would someone who could find a lawyer/legal outfit willing to help the aggrieved play martyr for a sociopolitical cause. To say such things wouldn’t—or couldn’t!—happen under the system you believe should be in play is, at best, underestimating the power of grievance politics.
You’re on the side of adding a legal component to content moderation; what form the moderation takes is ultimately irrelevant to that fact.
Tell me you’re a censor without telling me you’re a censor. (Under your “any and all deletion is censorship” logic, anyway.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I delete delete something, the poster will always know exactly why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well: I screwed that post up, oops 😅
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(An FYI for the future: When you quote text, you have to put an empty line between the quoted text and your own for the Markdown formatting to work right.)
If you think that won’t be appealed/challenged/whatever by people with a big enough bankroll and the desire to become a martyr—all in search of a loophole that can be abused to their benefit—you’re deluding yourself.
The rules of a given social media service are often clear enough that anyone who doesn’t know how they broke the rules has to be lying. Hell, when I got popped by Twitter for using an anti-queer slur in the context of mocking anti-queer attitudes, I absolutely understood why I got suspended despite my contextual usage of the word.
Anyone who reads the rules and doesn’t understand how to stay within them is better off posting at 4chan’s /b/.
If such an act of law changes the landscape of the Internet in ways even you would consider unappealing—possibly even disastrous—you will have no one else to blame for your pushing for such change but yourself.
No, it’s been removed. Moderation isn’t censorship because nobody is required to host someone else’s speech and nobody has a right to make others host their speech. Again: A vast difference exists between “we don’t host that here” and “you can’t say that anywhere”. Don’t bitch at me if you can’t understand that difference.
Yes or no: If I kick someone out of my home for insulting my family, should I be forced by law to tell them why I kicked them out? Hell, should I be forced to post a list of rules for visitors to follow while they’re in my home?
And that’s why I don’t support adding a “let’s involve the legal system” component to content moderation: It opens up whole new avenues of abuse that can’t and won’t be as easily closed as a change to a Terms of Service document closing a loophole in those rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They do so now. Just they do so over deletion and not the reason.
Well, again I’m focusing on the moderation line of the bill. Not the entirety…
But under that alone there’s no significant change.
yes yes, I know. You like a much more narrow definition of censorship.
Ideally you would tell them why yourself. Should you legally have be required? Again, mixed feelings. It’s something you should do of your own accord.
But that’s different from tossing a person who states “vaccinations have harmful side effects and aren’t as reliable as we were told” and saying you broke the rules by.
Unfortunately as it stands now it’s too easy for people to abuse moderation.
There’s nuance in moderation. And the larger companies ignore it completely. All too quickly we embrace key word computer removals.
Your case is a fine point. You should not have punished.
But too often deletions happen that make zero sense to the poster. With not understanding of why they get tossed for a repeat violation.
There is a difference between being legal and being correct.
If nothing else I like to look for a positive in every law. Here I can at least see a positive.
When I first clicked the lint to The TX bill the latest version wasn’t yet posted. It is now. So I’ll read it and see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is it different from me kicking someone out of my home for saying something I don’t like? Because that’s what moderation bans are: the owners of private property kicking out someone who said/did something on said property that the owners didn’t like.
Adding the legal system to the mix might introduce some friction in that regard, but it would also open up whole new avenues for abuse that could ultimately affect all social media services.
Yeah, yeah, content moderation doesn’t scale. Tell me something new.
No, I absolutely should’ve been (and was!). I blatantly broke the rules. Context shouldn’t always be a “get out of Twitter jail free” card.
Asking for transparency about such situations is fine. Demanding it be a legal mandate? Not so much. Especially since, as has been pointed out, all that will do is encourage the worst kind of rules lawyering from the worst kinds of people.
And when it comes to moderation, “being correct” is irrelevant to “being legal”. Even mistaken moderation is legal under Section 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well that's definitely not true. For example, the recent kerfuffle over mysterious moderation decisions by Twitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I said “often”, not “always”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That happens anyway.
But all a site has to do to toss the case is show the letter they supplied as to the cause of removal. Case dismissed.
It’s not any harder a burden case wise than to show up and say 230 case dismissed.
On the other hand it does create a notice of act that could be used to help guide people not looking to game the system, the majority, with how to express themselves within the rules.
Sometimes valuable change requires acts of law.
Much of the positive change in this country wouldn’t have happened without acts of law.
When the post is removed? It’s been censored from the location it once existed in.
Sometimes censorship is necessary, even if I don’t like it. An act I’ve admitted elsewhere I’ve actively done myself in moderation.
You act within the confines of the rules of the location.
Be it the law of the nation, the law of the town, or the law inside the local bar or web site: when punished for breaking a law (rule) you should be informed of what law (rule) you broke.
I have mixed feelings on appeal. I believe there is a limited right to defend one’s self, but also see an easy case for a new form of abuse.
If I delete delete something, the poster will always know exactly why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike is a paid shill. His job is to keep out basic common law from applying to social media. His entire livelihood is built on keeping social media the wild wild west when it comes to regulatory law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't try to invoke that sovereign citizen nonsense, boyo. out_of_the_blue gave us plenty of practice with that shit, mostly because the one defining feature of sovcits is that they have no idea how to explain what common law means when asked.
Weren't you Trumpers bitching about net neutrality because you wanted less government regulation, and you cheered after it got killed off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Evidence?
I don’t think you understand the first thing about common law. Hint: It doesn’t contradict anything Mike has said in this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pot meet Kettle!
Mike, I now this is hard for you but attempting to add "vaccine misinformation" to a section reserved for the most heinous of criminal activity "child sexual abuse" and "direct threats of violence" is specifically intended allow 'bad faith actors to game the system.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You didn't read the proposed law then?
The section you refer to is the section that explicitly determines what can be moderated without liability, any other type of legal content confers liability if moderated - ie moderating posts about Nazi ideals and Holocaust denials means someone can sue the site.
The law is so stupidly written that it explicitly defines what can be moderated "legally". And here's the kicker: There where no other place else to add amendments of what content can be moderated without liability. You grasp onto something out of context so you can use the old litany of "think of children" as an attack. We are all familiar with that tactic, it's commonly used by people who are dishonest and stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Majority of people who break the law are bad faith actors looking to game the system too. Yet we still require courts to specify what act(s) broke what law(s) instead of just passing judgment from a black box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intersting
" The problem with that is that it is useful to bad faith actors who are looking to game the system. And, frankly, the majority of people who are going to be moderated... tend to be bad faith actors looking to game the system.
Either way, REQUIRING that info (even if we agree it would be useful) is blatantly unconstitutional."
Very interesting admission here. Given that people in Tech like Jack Dorsey have a history of listening to you I dont think you want to be saying this part out loud. To imply that Tech TOS are deliberately ambiguous to prevent "bad faith actors" from 'gaming the system' is a very very very serious admission.
I've screen shotted and forwarded this onto Robert Barns and a few other high-profile lawyers who like to sue BigTech. I'm sure they will love to hear that Mike Mansick admits that BigTech's TOS are written ambiguously on purpose as would any judge in a BigTech case.
Its just a nice little piece of evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sure you did
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh I'm sure they sent those screenshots to a bunch of lawyers just like they reported Mike and TD to the police for being meany stupid-faces as they said they would in the past, and I'm sure the recipients this time will give that super-duper damning evidence just as much weight as the police did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Lawyer (to judge): Your honor, Mike Masnick states that "Big Tech" has purposely ambiguous TOS! That means I can sue Twitter for banning my client.
Judge: Who the fuck is Mike Masnick, and what law states that TOS can't be written ambiguously?
Lawyer: I don't know what law. BUT it's Mike Masnick, you know, he runs Techdirt and that's what he said!
Judge: What the fuck is Techdirt? Do you have any actual facts based in law to show this court?
Lawyer: Yes, I have this screen shot that some rando name Chozen forwarded to me that shows Mike Masnick from Techdirt says that "big tech" has ambiguous TOS.
Judge: So what law is Twitter breaking by banning your client?
Lawyer: You know, the law that says TOS must not be ambiguous, and since Mike admits they are, they broke the law.
Judge: Section 230 protects Twitter's moderation decisions regardless of what their TOS states. Also, approach the bench as I am going to bitch slap you for bringing up such a ridiculous argument that sone guy who runs an internet site said that TOS are purposely ambiguous.
Judge: Closer.... Closer..... <WHAM>
Seriously, you really think you are some self-important righteous person. Reading that you have taken a screen shot and forwarding it to some lawyer....
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahah
<takes a breath>
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha hahahahhahahahahahahah
I am sure Mike and Twitter are shaking in their boots right now because you sent a screen shot to some lawyer.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
wait a sec.... can't stop laughing
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
You remind me of a playground bully, who, when you get called out on your stupidity, you have to start making statements like that. "I have written down the time and date you called me stupid and I am forwarding it to the teacher"
You do realize, that every time you make a post, you just keep proving to all of us what an idiot you really are.
Also, you still haven't answered my question on your proof of why Rubin was banned you whiney little bitch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Man, and here I thought John Smith's threaten to publicly press release and rape all the users of this site for four years was as low as you could go with baseless, toothless threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting
"Judge: Who the fuck is Mike Masnick, and what law states that TOS can't be written ambiguously?"
Mike Mansick is the founder of the silicon valley think tank The Copia Institute. His writitngs are easily provable to have influenced the decision of BigTech executives such as Jack Dorsey. See attached exhibits relating to his "Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech" paper and its subesquent adoption by Twitter and other big Tech Platforms.
Judge: I see there is a prima facscia case that the defendents do both listen to him and act on his recomedations.
Lawyer: Correct your honer.
Judge: "what law states that TOS can't be written ambiguously?"
Lawyer: Uh judge here is the syllabus from your contract law 101 class. Scholl down to week 2. Three things void a contract. 1) The parties are not legal persons. 2) There is no meeting of the minds, contract is ambiguous. 3) Violation of public policy.
Judge: Oh yeah sorry I'm getting old and I've been listening to too many ignorant millennials on the internet.
Judge: "Section 230 protects Twitter's moderation decisions regardless of what their TOS states. Also, approach the bench as I am going to bitch slap you for bringing up such a ridiculous argument that sone guy who runs an internet site said that TOS are purposely ambiguous."
Lawyer: In its response Twitter has cited its terms of service here here and here as they always do. Especially their motion to move venue to California. The ambiguity voids this contract. Furthermore all section 230 immunity decisions must be done in good faith. The admission that the TOS are deliberately written ambiguously is evidence of bad faith so section 230 immunity should be stayed until after discovery.
Judge: Agreed case may move forward in this jurisdiction. After discovery we will revisit section 230 immunity. Motion to dismiss under section 230 denied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Let's just start with your first statement, just to show the sheer idiocy of it:
That's not how any of this works in court.
What the fuck does that have anything to do with an actual court case in front of a Judge. Court cases are about law, not what some Internet site author writes about.
Please point to any court precedent that has been set that is comparable the situation you just described. I'll wait....
You are so fucking bad at this, it's almost tiring constantly bitch slapping you like this. Again, every time you post a comment here, you show just how fucking stupid you really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m not typically prone to ragging on people specifically for their spelling. That said: For someone who likes to act like they’re smarter and stronger and just plain better than everyone…
…I have to wonder if you wrote this post while having a mild stroke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On all GRE tests engineers score damn near dead last in the writing section. If an engineer has impeccable spelling he isn't a very good engineer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As an engineer, I call bull shit!!!
I may not be exceptional at spelling, but I spend the time to look up my misspelled words so that I can correct them. My browser / OS / text box marks words as misspelled and I make sure everything is spelled correctly before submitting.
Also, I find it hard to believe you are an engineer, as one of the prevailing characteristics of a highly educated engineer is being a perfectionist. Just think about building a bridge and you misspelled something critical enough to cause a catastrophic disaster. Or designing plans for a high rise building. Or building the electronics for the next manned space mission and you don't take the time to make sure you spelled everything correctly.
Good engineers don't make mistakes, spelling or otherwise. Mistakes made by an engineer can easily lead to death and destruction.
If you are so unconcerned about making simple spelling mistakes, how many people have died because of your engineering mistakes, if you even are an engineer.
Considering you have puffed yourself up here to make yourself appear as somebody who is super tough, and super smart, most people that feel the need to do so, are the complete opposite of what they claim to be.
And you still haven't provided proof as to why Rubin was banned. you fucking whiney little bitch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lots of engineers I know have excellent spelling, so that’s flat out wrong.
But that aside, if you’re such a bad speller, try using autocorrect or a spell checker or something. It’s not that hard. Smartphones often have them on by default, and PC internet browsers usually have an option for it, too. They’re not perfect, mind, but they should catch things like “subesquent” at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, unless you on iOS Dev beta 15.
Where autocorrect does what the hell it wants.
but since I’ve never meet an electrical engineer that wouldn’t run at the sign of code … it doesn’t matter.
in reality I could technically call myself a professional engineer as well. I’m ASE certified and added a guidance and control engineer certificate.
Here’s the reality, I can plug my phone or laptop in and tell you what is wrong. Then I say take it to a mechanic. Lol.
In other words my family and our friends, tell a quality mec, skip the $75 diagnostic and ‘fix this, this, and this, only’.
I have no clue how to fix it or why it needs to be fixed.
;)
I have two Microsoft engineering certificates. That also allows the term Professional engineer.
TLDR: the word engineer means nothing alone. Even when you stick professional in front of it.
No single group has complete control over every use of “professional engineering”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Well, unless you on iOS Dev beta 15.
Where autocorrect does what the hell it wants"
This is why proofreading is important - just read what you typed before pressing submit, and correct whatever is wrong. It only takes a moment, and ensures that your message is clear. Unless you're hammering out comments without thought or care to their accuracy, this isn't a problem.
"I have two Microsoft engineering certificates"
I've met plenty of such people during my career who have them because they studied a braindump-style site and don't even understand what the answers they memorised mean, let alone anything that wasn't on the exam. They're usually the people who get hired because they ticked the right boxes for HR, then get fired a month later because they though that rebooting a production server in the middle of peak business hours was the only solution to a minor caching error. So, I'd take that claim with a pinch of salt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scroll up.
I was picking on Chosen, not bragging.
I was picking on the use of “professional” as anything special.
Or that some mechanical or electrical group is going to have me arrested for using the term.
And I agree, and stated above, passing the test doesn’t mean crap.
He stuck his 15 foot tall 500 pound 90% muscle 2 foot appendage self out as being a “professional” engineer.
Like that makes him god.
I’m a “professional” too. I don’t trot it out every other comment because it means nothing.
What means something? I have 30+ years of practical field experience. Given he has 350 different degrees and is 300 years old and spent 295 of them in school, I’d say I’m a bit better off.
Don’t forget his father was a Celtic Warrior and his mother was a Valkyrie and they created the US from dust and farts.
His grandparents were gods and etc etc etc . 🤮
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Irrelevant. Masnick has no other association with Twitter except as a user, and Twitter has no affiliation with The Copia Institute, so anything Masnick has to say cannot be used as evidence against Twitter.
You also haven’t proven that he is the founder of The Copia Institute or that he still is associated with the Institute in any meaningful way.
So what? That Twitter’s decisions can be influenced by Masnick doesn’t prove that anything Masnick says regarding Twitter is material or relevant to the case against Twitter.
Masnick was neither the first nor the last to make such a proposal, nor does this prove that Masnick’s statements on Twitter’s TOS are admissible evidence against Twitter.
One instance is not evidence of a trend, and that still doesn’t make what he said about TOS admissible evidence in a case against Twitter, making that whole thing irrelevant to begin with. Unless Masnick was personally and directly involved with the decision or was an employee or executive of Twitter, nothing he says can be used to prove a case against Twitter.
You not only can’t spell, you also can’t count. “No meeting of the minds” and “contract is ambiguous” are two separate things. Additionally, you forgot one other basic thing that voids a contract: no consideration.
As for “contract is ambiguous”, that doesn’t actually void a contract. It does require a judge or mediator to decide the most reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous clause based upon a variety of factors, but it’s not enough to render the clause void.
In fact, you’re even conflating finding a particular clause void and finding the entire contract void. Just because a particular clause is void doesn’t make the entire contract void.
The legal persons thing is obviously inapplicable since you can’t have a lawsuit if any plaintiffs or defendants are not legal persons.
As for “meeting of the minds”, that isn’t necessary in this sort of clickwrap contract, as has been decided in multiple court cases. All that is necessary is that both parties willingly and knowingly agreed to the terms.
Finally, as for public policy, that is rarely used to void a contract (aside from “choice of venue” clauses, but that is generally severable from the rest of the contract and so doesn’t apply here). Generally, it’d have to involve actually censoring someone (not just moderating content on their platform or kicking off or suspending users from using their platform) or something really huge. None of those would apply to the parts of TOS involving what content can be moderated and such, so this wouldn’t void the contract as it relates to moderation decisions.
I don’t think you know much about millennials. For one thing, I’m barely a millennial (on the older side), and I know that Mike and Stephen, at least, are significantly older than me, so they aren’t millennials.
You also haven’t cited a law or case in support of your claim that TOS can’t be written ambiguously, just the syllabus of an imaginary course taken by the imaginary judge in this imaginary case. Imaginary things are not evidence. Also, if they’re old, how would you even get the syllabus for the specific class they took when they were in law school? Are you trying to make your imagined scenario sound ridiculous? Because if so, you’re succeeding.
Actually, they rarely would in a motion to dismiss that invokes §230 and/or the 1st Amendment, and those issues would trump any issues involving the TOS, so that would be irrelevant.
Again, that doesn’t matter if they’re not citing the parts that relate to moderation but just the ones regarding proper venue. Which venue is proper has nothing to do with the application of §230.
At best, even if you’re right about it being ambiguous (rather than vague or broad), and even if ambiguity was sufficient to void a clause in a contract (which it usually isn’t), that would only affect the clause regarding reasons for being removed from the service, not the venue. Most likely, even granting the same, it would only void the ambiguous parts within the TOS, not the entire thing.
Plus, it’s irrelevant to the §230 inquiry whether or not the contract is void or not. And if it is void, that basically means you can’t use the service anyways, so… What is the point?
Finally, the TOS are written broadly, not ambiguously. The issue isn’t that there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the plain text; the issue is that the TOS are written to cover a large amount of content and that Twitter can enforce them at its own discretion. And ambiguity doesn’t void a contract to begin with.
Incorrect. As I’ve said before, the good faith requirement only appears in part 2(A), and it doesn’t apply to part 1, which is the most used part of §230, including for immunity for moderation decisions. As such, even bad faith moderation decisions are often immunized.
No, it is not evidence of bad faith.
First, again, Twitter or one of its employees, executives, or representatives would have had to make that admission, not some third party. Such an “admission” coming from anyone but Twitter is inadmissible evidence. That something Mike wrote on a different topic may have (or even definitely did) influence at least one of Twitter’s decisions not related to this lawsuit or the events being sued over doesn’t make what he said on this subject admissible evidence regarding Twitter’s state of mind on this subject and thus has no bearing on this lawsuit at all as it relates to Twitter.
Second, the “admission” is that TOS are written broadly, not ambiguously. As I stated earlier, those are two very different things.
Third, that wouldn’t be evidence of bad faith with regards to whether §230 protects Twitter here. For one thing, the question is whether or not the moderation decision itself was in bad faith, not the writing of the TOS. Additionally, deliberate ambiguity (or broadness) in a TOS is not evidence of bad faith because it is feasible that both parties wanted that ambiguity (or broadness) or knowingly and willingly agreed to it.
Fourth, again, the ambiguity/broadness would only affect that one term. If Twitter cites any unambiguous or specific clause in support, that one is ambiguous or broad is immaterial.
Finally, courts typically interpret “good faith” as it applies to part 2(A) of §230 quite broadly, so it is very difficult to prove bad faith on such a claim.
That’s not how it works. Again, you’re focusing on part 2(A) when most motions to dismiss involving §230 (including most that are about moderation decisions) cite and are decided on part 1, which does not have a good faith requirement. Additionally, the contract is neither void due to supposed ambiguity nor evidence of bad faith to begin with, so discovery is unnecessary to resolve the applicability of §230 immunity.
We weren’t arguing about choice of venue, and you barely even mentioned it outside of saying that Twitter mentioned it in its motion to dismiss without saying anything else. So, as far as this discussion goes, it’s irrelevant, but you also haven’t presented a case to support it.
If this happened, it would likely be overturned on appeal, at least under the scenario you imagined and presented. Of course, few judges would ever make such a claim, so that’s kinda a moot point. It is also highly unlikely to make it past summary judgment even if it made it that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Intersting
For what reasons do these lawyers sue big tech?
And of all these lawyers who like to sue big tech, how many of them actually win their cases?
Also, you must provide proof of their courtroom wins, in the form of a judge's ruling that can be independently verified before anybody will believe you.
And at least one has to have the name "Robert Barns" (whoever the fuck he is) as one of the lawyers involved.
I'll wait.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Of what??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Very interesting admission here. Given that people in Tech like Jack Dorsey have a history of listening to you I dont think you want to be saying this part out loud. To imply that Tech TOS are deliberately ambiguous to prevent "bad faith actors" from 'gaming the system' is a very very very serious admission.
For someone who so into accusing other people of logical fallacies, you sure do a lot of your own. I didn't say that they create their TOS to be ambiguous. Can you not read? I said that the issue of requiring a full and detailed explanation for each moderation decision helps bad faith actors. Which is accurate.
I've screen shotted and forwarded this onto Robert Barns and a few other high-profile lawyers who like to sue BigTech. I'm sure they will love to hear that Mike Mansick admits that BigTech's TOS are written ambiguously on purpose as would any judge in a BigTech case.
Lol. I mean, seriously, thanks. I'm having a tough week and this literally gave me a huge laugh. Please do share it as widely as you can. Especially with lawyers like that. You really made my day.
I said earlier that you're easily too stupid to be responding to, but this takes it to entirely new levels of stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Like I said and you edited out, its a nice "little" piece of evidence. As Tim Pool said to Jack on Rogan grains of sand make a heap. You aren't the only think tank wonk who has argued that specificity is bad and ambiguity is good. That is a quite part you don't want to say out loud. It's a nice little piece of evidence to go into a much larger file. Keep supplying the grains of sand Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Look out boys, Chozen's got a list! Just like average_joe, John Smith, out_of_the_blue, and all the other easily offended fucknuggets angry at Mike Masnick for not kissing their footprints and sucking their cocks without protection. I'm sure the world is shaking in terror over what some meathead jock who's way past his prime thinks about someone else he regards as garbage. Or is the part where you run back to Trump's defunct Twitter clone for some orange man headpats?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence of what? A larger file for what purpose? I mean, do you think you’re gonna send him to jail or Hell or fuckin’ Siberia with your obsessive documenting of things he says?
You probably think you sound like a bona fide badass. You actually come off as a limp-dicked pissant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a piece of evidence that "Chozen" is actually someone specific we all know, who once again is pretending to be something they're not. (someone with law knowledge)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah. All evidence points to the idea that Chozen is simply the new identity of a long term troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And this is why there are so many libel suits against BigTech in their moderation practices now. California think tank wonks like you think its okay to libel people in the act of moderation.
'This MD's video was banned and his account was suspended for posting medical disinformation.'
Thats libel. And YouTube FB etc shouldn't have immunity to libel people under the cover of moderation.
P.S. You have no evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not how defamation law works, Chozen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is how the law works. However, with clauses in the TOS that attempt to force venue in Cali, California judges will bend heaven and earth to protect big tech. This is changing rapidly and more and more judges in other jurisdictions are refusing to allow jurisdiction to be moved to Cali because they know how stacked the deck is.
There is a legal sea change going in in the rest of the country as it pertains to BigTech TOS, section 230, etc. and I know you feel it.
Like I said 10 years ago it was just 'section 230. Dismissed!' More and more judges across the nation are allowing big tech cases to move forward and not dismissing under section 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it is not. The bar for defamation is very high. Calling something “disinformation” is a statement of opinion, which means it’s not defamatory.
Incorrect. The reason they try to have the venue in California is, at least in part, because of California’s strong anti-SLAPP law, one of the strongest in the country, which makes it much easier to dismiss meritless cases about speech early on and to get legal fees paid if you prevail.
And yet it hasn’t changed the results of those suits in terms of who prevailed at all, so that goes against your earlier claim.
As far as judges are concerned? Not at all. They still interpret §230 to give interactive computer services like social media platforms broad protections regarding moderation and hosting, they haven’t ruled against TOS except on jurisdiction, and the defendant tech companies still prevail more often than not.
As far as local and state legislatures and executives? Yes on §230, but they don’t actually matter because of the Supremacy Clause. I haven’t seen anything about TOS that doesn’t involve §230.
As far as Congress goes? Yes on §230, kinda. There is a deadlock on the issue because Republicans’ reasons for wanting it gone are exactly the opposite of and incompatible with Democrats’ reasons. There are also those who are hesitant to make any changes to §230. So until they can agree on what changes to make, they don’t matter, either.
As far as the federal executive branch is concerned? It doesn’t matter. They’re bound by the law as it is, too.
Not really. The only times judges do do so, they generally are overturned on appeal. There hasn’t really been an increase in cases getting past §230, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is how the law works.
No. It is not. Not even close. You've already admitted both in writing and in what you say that you have an active Googler's knowledge level of the law -- meaning that you misunderstand fairly basic concepts and engage in motivated reasoning to pretend the law says what it absolutely does not. Your lack of knowledge and experience in how courts actually work shines through. You are an ignorant fool, acting over confident to cover your very clear ignorance.
California judges will bend heaven and earth to protect big tech.
Lol. This just proves you know fuck all about how the courts work. This is not how any of this works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many of those have gotten past an initial motion to dismiss, if even that far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh!
Evidence of what?
Bad faith, duh!!!! If the author of the contract intentionally makes it ambiguous that is evidence of bad faith and unfair dealing. And as said before to get around section 230 you need to show evidence of bad faith.
And remember this is civil court. Its not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its preponderance of the evidence 51%-49%. So a wonk like Mike and other arguing for bad faith and unfair dealing is important with civil court's lower standard of proof.
The more statements you can show from people like Mike who work in and around tech arguing for ambiguous contracts the more the preponderance of the evidence shifts to the plaintiff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Duh!
Lol. Dude, keep it up. This is funny shit. PLEASE make this show up in court so I can laugh even harder at it.
This is not how any of this works. I mean, I know you're hilariously and totally ignorant of the law -- as your earlier comments have made clear, but watching you flail about here is just so silly. But, at least it confirms for me that you're who I thought you are. Welcome back to the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Duh!
It's amazing to me how many people want to hate-fuck this site!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
Especially considering that this site's critics do nothing but point out the dwindling traffic stats, but somehow still poses enough of a threat they had to rally around Shiva Ayyadurai's suit to get everyone to suck him off... And failed.
You'd think if these goatfuckers had such a slamdunk case they'd have brought it by now, but these guys have the lukewarm brain temp of the 2nd Amendment fans who attempted the Jan 6th joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
The moment they file their lolsuit, they'll soon be on the hook for their victims' legal fees and damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Duh!
After discovery Mike. Lets see your contracts. Lets see which Tech companies are paying you for you opinion. Lets see those opinions and what you tell those tech companies.
Hell you are running around on your blog saying that Tech TOS and the TOS enforcement shouldn't be specific because specificity can be abused by bad actors. At the same time you also brag about your influence within BigTech. Your big mouth, and the big mouth of other Wonks for contract like yourself, is at the very least providing the evidence needed move to discovery.
After discovery the judge can decide to dismiss or not. If you haven't noticed this is happening more and more. More and more judges are denying motions to change venue to California, and allowing the process to move forward. 10 years ago this was unheard of where it was just 'section 230 dismissed!' the legal tides are changing and I know you feel it.
So lets open the books Mike. Lets see how much influence you have and how much BigTech listens to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
Discovery for what?
And of everything you just spewed out in the quoted sentences, you used the word "opinion." Do you have no understanding of the 1st amendment and that opinion is 100% protected.
My opinion is that you are a goat fucker. Sue me bitch!
Also, you still haven't provided proof that Rubin was banned for talking about booster shots, whiney little bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what, an imaginary lolsuit you filed in SovCit court?
Let’s see who’s paying you to spout their opinions first.
And? He’s right about TOS enforcement: hyper-specific rules will only lead to a cycle of rules lawyering and enacting even more hyper-specific rules. Keeping some rules vague, and purposefully enacting a “we can figuratively bop you on the head for basically any reason that isn’t prohibited by anti-discrimination law” clause, is the best way to guard against excessive rules lawyering.
Again: For what?
Once more with feeling: For what?
Name at least five cases within the past five years where this has happened and the cases weren’t eventually tossed out for lacking on the merits. I’ll wait.
Plaintiff argues that “the legal tides are changing” in regards to defamation cases against “Big Tech” in relation to moderation decisions. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition. The Complaint is summarily dismissed.
Okay, so…I guess I gotta be the one to ask: Why the actual godforsaken donkey-fucking hell do you care so much about Mike Masnick? Did he insult your father’s brother’s cousin’s nephew’s former roommate one time twenty years ago or some shit? You’re coming off as an obsessed troll in need of some serious treatment for mental health issues, and frankly, your schtick is less “ha ha, oh wow” and more “please get some help” now.
I know this is rich coming from me, but seriously: Log off the Internet and go touch grass for a few hours, then go get some professional help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
You know, I agree with specific tos. Despite the difficulties that has. If you don’t have enough people to moderate hire more.
But your running around, at 10 foot tall 400 pound chest thumping with your 12 pack abs calling people names and threatening to fight… you again, look like the school yard bully. A spoiled child of an adult with daddy issues in dire need of a hard spiked paddle spanking.
Can you seriously not hid a discussion without name calling and temper tantrums?
Maybe it’s time to change your diaper?
Amazon ships for free for prime members.
Or are you just hungry?
I can Uber you some food if you want.
Maybe I should just call ems. Anyone who can spew so much shite has an obvious digestive issue.
Seriously. You’ve some real issues to look into. Such as why are you here. I engage and try to learn and understand. Agree or not in the end.
You just fight. Your lonely huh.
I’ll order you a stuffed pig. Or an elephant. Hell, both. You just need something to cuddle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
I said the exact same things before Mike did, and I have no affiliation whatsoever with any social media company at all.
Additionally, on what grounds would you sue him over? You can’t force him to give up any evidence you want unless you already have good evidence to link him to the defendant (or is the defendant) and can articulate how the evidence would help your legal case.
And no, the proportion of cases where §230 is asserted such that it fails to persuade the judge and does not get overturned on appeal has not substantially increased over the past decade or so. And whether or not the rule in favor of defendants’ jurisdiction arguments is completely irrelevant when discussing §230 and moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!
Hey John Smith. You know what discovery means, right? It means putting a name and face on the guy who called Masnick's wife a whore and his kids shitstains. So... By all means, go ahead. Your lawsuit is four years overdue since you promised to rape every Aspie on the site anyway. I think the judge will be very keen to see the new champion of all things Trump and copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Duh!
Is this... is this anti-dirt? Or anti-Mike, I forget what he called himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Duh!
No, it is not. There is nothing in contract law that says you can’t have ambiguous terms, and it certainly doesn’t help prove bad faith.
Only regarding part 2(A). Part 1 also protects moderation decisions to a large extent and doesn’t require good faith.
Preponderance of the evidence, yes. 51%-49%? No. Preponderance of the evidence generally requires more than just barely-more-than-even. It’s lower than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, sure, but that’s basically saying it’s lower than 99.999%.
What some unaffiliated third party says has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. It also has no bearing on a motion to dismiss, which is about questions of law, not fact.
Again, no. Only those directly affiliated with the defendant matter on this, but even so, ambiguous clauses are far from sufficient evidence of bad faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Duh!
If the author of the contract intentionally makes it ambiguous that is evidence of bad faith and unfair dealing
I just want to emphasize here, that this is not how any of this works, and more importantly, there is nothing "ambiguous" about every terms that has a clause along the lines of "if we believe you have violated our rules, we may remove your content" and every such website has such terms.
Chozen is trying to (1) misrepresent what I said and (2) pretend that what I did not actually say somehow invalidates contracts. Both points are wrong.
I did not say that they make the terms purposefully ambiguous, because they do not. I was responding to someone who talked about whether the NOTIFICATIONS (not the rules) would be specific about what was violated. And I noted that that's a scenario where there are problems with being too specific in explaining the reasons for the takedown because it enables dishonest assholes (such as Chozen) to use that info to try to continue to be a bad actor.
That is wholly different than the question of whether or not the terms of use themselves are ambiguous (they are not -- every site has the right to remove any content they themselves deem inappropriate for the site).
And the rest of Chozen's nonsense is just bad faith trolling from an extremely bad faith troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Correct, this bill in no way forces an social media to host any content. It simply requires some basic standards for enforcement of their TOS which are legal contracts and therefor fully under the jurisdiction of state law. The state has every right to put some basic rules for social media TOS, just as they do for rental agreements, professional contracts, business contracts etc. etc. etc.
Paid shills like Mike have one goal and that is to keep social media the wild wild west where basic our common law doesn't apply.
Despite Mikes intentionally false headline "Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism" the bill in no way forces any site to host "Holocaust Denialism." It simply sets out some basic standards for content removal, appeal, and basic right to cure.
The section of the bill the democrats tried to amend to add their pet issues is strictly for overt criminal activity specifically child sexual abuse and direct threats of physical violence.
This is the sick mindset of people like Mike. Someone like Mike so blinded by their own ideology does not see how adding "Vaccine Misinformation" to a section reserved for the most heinous of crimes like child sexual abuse, makes a mocker of the seriousness of child sexual abuse.
Mike is fundamentally sick if he thinks that is at all appropriate.
As said before I'm a gifted athlete. I still coach my respective sport and I have had to deal with this kind of pet issue craziness form people like Mike. In many states across the nations schoools have TAD polis, that stands for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. The problem with such polices is that they treat them the same because an anti-tobacco lobby is so powerful. You end up with a system that treats vaping the same as it treats meth.
This reduces the seriousness of hard drugs in the kids minds. It also hurts enforcement because you have administrators focusing of vape pens when you got some kids addicted to meth.
This has happened to me you have 5 players being suspended for up to 30 days for vaping while you got a kid addicted to meth and the admin wont do anything to save the kid because "Its only his first TAD offense." His god damn spleen was shitting down and we couldn't get the school to step in at all.
This is the specific evil that Mike is advocating for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are free to point what other section in the bill pertains to allowed moderation where you can amend the text with what types of content can be moderated without liability (hint: there is only one section, 143A.004).
Ooh, the "outrage". Now, how about you stop being a dishonest asshole and instead improve your reading comprehension skills.
Only dishonest assholes that doesn't understand what they read think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You are free to point what other section in the bill pertains to allowed moderation where you can amend the text with what types of content can be moderated without liability (hint: there is only one section, 143A.004)."
And its all criminal activity exceptionally heinous criminal activity, not "vaccine misinformation."
One of these things is not like the others, not like the others, one of these things is not like the others.
You are so dumb Sesame Street is too advanced for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
many websites included the famous big ones, leave their rules purposely ambiguous to maximize sweeping deletion potential.
in short, is much easier to delete some unwanted posts by keeping ambiguous rules, and is more arduous for the victims of an unfair ban to claim innocence.
plus for the same reason with ambiguity, you can leave it on your website infringing posts but made by a political party you favor, that otherwise, you would have to strike down if more clean rules were in place.
in short “Notify the user who provided the content of the removal and explain the reason the content was removed” occur because rules aren't enforced evenly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please point to any such instances of posts being left up because they were made by a political party they favor?
Oh wait.... The Zuk was very chummy with Trump back when he was pres, so it's probably true that he leaves plenty of right-wing posts up which would clearly violate FB's policies.
Just look at the daily list of their top posts:
Oh wait.... I thought that "Big Tech" was just a bunch of leftists trying to bring down the conservatives by having an anti-conservative bias.
Oh wait.... the cognitive dissonance needed to make both those statements true is going to make my head explode like a blipvert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
so you want some example of double standards for my claim? and precise too? ok, I'll post you some examples then. I will not provide sources so I'll stick with high-profile cases mostly. you have to do research by yourself.
Youtube: 1 month ago Youtube banned Sky News Australia, the channel was then reinstated by youtube when the channel agreed to delete all video critiques of President Biden and more.
Twitter & co. After Trump was banned by ALL social media in January, rumors that he could open an account on Parler emerged. the app was promptly requested to "purge its extremist content" or face expulsion. Parler refused and was expelled by ALL app stores and kicked off the servers it was located. a list of 100 hateful tweets was provided as "proof" of hateful content. Supporters of Trump on Gab have affirmed they have archived at least 100 millions of Twits that falls in the category of hate speech. the matter of banning for example Twitter from app stores is SciFi naturally.
Hunter Biden's laptop case. Twitter and other social suspended the account of one of the biggest newspapers in America deeming their hit piece as misinformation plus they made a new rule on the spot against "hacked material" :D does this apply if is Trump's taxes hypothetically if journalists never provide the source of the documents? never mind. how they determined the laptop was misinformation is not clear. meanwhile, 4chan was looking over the leaked photos of Hunter Biden with prostitutes, crack, and everything seeking incriminating material. of course, it was true and it was proven months later beyond doubt. this action alone done by the social in the electoral campaign qualifies big tech as more interfering than any Russian real or fantastic campaign.
Trump post on twitter complains about BLM looting and destruction labeled a "glorify violence".
the unending flow of posts advocating for killing cops, burn, and kill are fine. for other politicians lionizing protestors and advocating violence yep. is fine.
when twitter Ceo was subpoenaed by the Senate and questioned why he would ban Trump but allow Iran president Rouhani to stay on the platform of Twitter posting hate speech against the Jews Twitter CEO replied that his staff applies two-weight two-measures concerning America and foreign politics. no such matter is even mentioned in Twitter rules or was mentioned before.
6 months ago a whistleblower released a video where Twitter CEO expressly state that they will keep focusing on conservatives accounts because "this is not gonna end here" this video is precedent to the Trump ban.
Using a Hidden camera a Project Veritas journalist manage to film Number 2 of CNN and the technical director Charles Chester admitting that they indulged in propaganda to get Trump out, fearmongered coronavirus, and plan to do the same for climate change. and more dirty laundry. James O'Keefe CEO of Project Veritas was banned from Twitter coincidentally afterward. motivated as "use of fake accounts". O'Keefe sued Twitter for defamation.
If you go on 4chan /pol/ board right in these days you can be lucky and find a thread commenting about how the Taliban account on Twitter is "/pol/posting" aka is posting the memes made by the /pol/ board which are extremely racist and anti jew. a random nobody would get banned quite fast for posting the same thing, but they are allowed to stay. the Washington Post made an article describing the use of Twitter by the Taliban extremely sophisticated and they got criticized for saying that despite is the norm in not heavily "sanitized" websites. Taliban on Twitter polposting are allowed to stay for now.
all other socials banned the Taliban by default without they violated even any rule.
Reddit: Reddit just yesterday banned the r/NoNewNormal subreddit, allegedly for fake staging a protest. a week ago they banned r/MGTOW subreddit for hate speech. every time this occurs like an old classic the question returns, why subreddits with open and violent hate speech against men example: r/justneckbeardthings, r/inceltears, are allowed to stay unscathed? admins have been questioned for this double standard but they went radio silent for years until they started finally to provide a reply: Admins claim they selectively decide which class of individuals are vulnerable and which no. for the admins white men are not a vulnerable class, therefore hate speech against them is allowed.
after the death of Floyd and the revolts in the streets by BLM movement, official data about crime by race and violent conduct of police toward race, was posted on various subreddits disproving some of the movement supporter claims. these posts were taken down by mods and admins alike.
community criticized the admins and made a label for the act of banning official data treating it as hate speech. community rebrand official data from now on as "hate facts".
not happy Admins subsequently institute a temporary rule: you were not allowed to submit a post where you claim a black as the aggressor. whatsoever. de facto creating a rule where a sector of the population was above the others and could not be criticized. the rule has been torn down only after criticism.
Kotakuinaction is a subreddit created by the gamers back by the time of the gamergate controversy. they are super against identity politics in their pop-culture and stuff. admins bombarded the subreddit with a crescendo of convulses extra special made rules just for them to apply regarding hate speech. Mods decided to comply with everything, sparking a schism in the community. later admins started removing posts and warning the mods for slurs against transgenders posted in the subreddit. Mods requested a list of the slurs so they can update the automod and automatically delete these posts instantly. the list of the slurs was never provided.
Look! There are precise slurs that may cause your subreddit to get banned if you use them, but they are also vacuous I cannot tell you which they are (I cannot make them on the fly If I do).
worming that vagueness boy!
Mods of the subreddit issue a blank slate ban to everything ever marginally related to transgenders to avoid losing the subreddit.
so a subreddit to criticized forced identity politics in pop-culture, when it includes transgenders they cannot talk about it at all.
Kotakuinaction2 the twin community much less politically correct is 99% of the time private and they moved or another platform entirely already. giving for granted their ban sooner or later.
In may the unfortunate Palestine Israel crisis occurred, in a strange game of mirrors the same left that for yeas called the right nazis eventually got sucked into a strong manifestation of antisemitism. it hammered left-wing subreddits and twitter aswell. despite the high amount of material that would in normal circumstances cause the ban of subreddit and accounts. this time around subreddit went out unscathed. (no sure about Twitter, I did follow this one marginally)
Payment processors: in 2012 circa Obama administration created the "operation chokepoint" initiative, formally to check and investigate over banks' deals with shady corporations at high risk of fraud and money laundering. in truth, it turned into one when the commission pressured banks and payment processors to selectively disengage which business the commission didn't like based on ideological stances. this includes: porn industry, hentai industry, firearm dealers, coal dealers. etc. any website related to these could have problems.
chokepoint has been accused to be politically driven, they denied, there were lawsuits, receipts popped out, it was no good. it was shoot down.
today it seems chokepoint is back in spirit. payment processors and banks have begun enforcing like in 2016 that businesses dealing with them also follow their moral policies clauses in the contract. after the social Gab struck some time ago they have hit the biggest Porn website Pornhub, now is the turn of OnlyFans apparently, we will see if they dodge the bullet.
in the case of Pornhub, the website has chosen to enact the most restrictive control in the world for content upload for a big website, to convince payment processors to return, yet payment processors aren't back. whatever material went on Pornhub that triggered Mastercard if real is also material that went on Facebook a dozen of thousands of times. but MasterCard doesn't cut out Facebook.
Patreon: Patreon a website born to get money for youtube creators after the adpocalypse and first political correctness wave hit youtube at one point started to apply political correctness as well demanding people to torn down visuals and images they deemed unappropriated even images not on Patreon. plus they kicked out their platform conservative pundits; Sargon of Akkad for the N-word is the most famous one. this propped many of their customers to leave the platform in protest suing Patreon. because Patreon had opted for force arbitration in their EULA, a proposition that causes them to pay all legal fees in case of a lawsuit. well, it happens that is very bad if you get sued en masse so they changed their policy stealthy with one where you cannot sue, also you cannot arbitrate :D and sued them back. they lost.
Facebook: Zuk is in an interesting predicament, Zuk doesn't give a shit really. but he has to do something after all that oligopoly doesn't build itself. on one hand, he would like to go on a banning spree, which is the easiest solution, on the other hand, his social is THE conservative boomerdome of the US, and if he goes le happy ban free his social dries up.
so he goes most by the algorithm and shooting down the most serious stuff
Facebook in December 2020 announced that their algorithm would be modified to target hate more precisely. "Facebook's proactive technology won't automatically flag posts declaring, "Men are trash," or "Americans are dumb" moving to an algorithm that will primarily target hate against "Muslim, Blackface, Holocaust denial, and stereotypes about Jews controlling the world"
2 years ago "In an effort to contain misinformation and extremism that have spread across the platforms, Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, have banned Alex Jones, Infowars, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Paul Nehlen under their policies against dangerous individuals and organizations.
Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content), and Facebook will also remove any groups set up to share Infowars content and events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson. (Twitter, YouTube, and Apple have also banned Jones and Infowars.)"
New York Post journalist Steven W. Mosher write an article in April 2020 when he merely takes into consideration coronavirus could have originated from Wuhan's lab. Facebook fact-checker, Danielle E. Anderson, later found to be an ex Wuhan lab worker, thinks otherwise. Facebook accepts Danielle's version and bans the article sitewide, the thing repeats with other journalists until someone finally calls Danielle out. well, the rest of the Wuhan lab fiasco is known.
you posted a ranking with Ben Shapiro which is quite high. not a surprise as he has millions of followers, but is not something to trigger cognitive dissonance either. you assume that it would prove the lack of double standard bias, but despite his numbers Ben Shapiro is utterly disliked in the conservatives community, they call him a sellout, controlled opposition, limited opposition, etc. and I quote 4chan:
"Ben Shapiro is mostly liked by boomers. He's pushed Facebookbe and Facebook to keep people from actually radicalizing to the right while also making the right seem like a joke to hip people in their 20s."
he is pretty much disliked over any non "sanitized" platform.
if you can verify that Facebook is indeed conservative boomerdome then there is room for doubt.
for the rest, Zuk used to hire Fact-checkers directly from Hillary Clinton electoral campaign staff you just verify the name by yourself. but now they are so many they have an entire supreme court.
this should be enough material for the claim of the double standard. less know anecdotes are also in abundance but harder to verify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could go through and debunk every one of your examples, but I quickly realized that you are posting all these examples in bad faith, with a preconceived notion that social media is biased.
I will take your first example and show how wrong you are:
Sky News Australia banned from YouTube for seven days over Covid misinformation
Sky News Australia purges several videos from YouTube after ban over Covid misinformation
Sky News Australia barred for week by YouTube over Covid misinformation
With all those headlines and their supporting articles, how can you seriously tell me that they "agreed to delete all video critiques of President Biden" with that being the reason they were suspended?
Since you were so fucking wrong on your very first example, there is no need to waste my time debunking every other one.
People like you are so far up Trump's ass that you no can no longer see reality that the rest of us can see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh I was wrong in my first example, please by all means debunk another example too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering how easy is was to prove your first statement false..... it's not worth my time to go through each one individually as I can just make a generalization that they are all wrong.
There, debunked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you’re going to start off with such a poor example in a wall of text, don’t expect people to walk through each of the other examples if you can’t be bothered to cite any sources for them.
Also, even to me, that post was ridiculously long. Like, I write lengthy posts all the time, but the only time they get this long is if I’m responding to a lengthy post, and a good portion of that length comes from quoting the original post. Next time, maybe try with just a few examples, then add more if all of them fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TLDR.
Mainly because it’s just a WOT and no paragraphing.
And it is too long I write long detailed posts, if it’s too long for me it’s just too long.
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you admit you've got nothing, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I'm wearing shoes and shirt just not pants so I'm good.'
many websites included the famous big ones, leave their rules purposely ambiguous to maximize sweeping deletion potential.
Or because they know that if they make exact rules people will be constantly rules-lawyering to argue that they didn't technically violate the rules and therefore don't deserve any punishment.
plus for the same reason with ambiguity, you can leave it on your website infringing posts but made by a political party you favor, that otherwise, you would have to strike down if more clean rules were in place.
Which politics(not party, we already know who the whiners primarily are) do tech companies have such a problem with, and be specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I'm wearing shoes and shirt just not pants so I'm good.'
An ambiguous contract is legally void. You are admitting that typical TOS are illegal contracts.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/ambiguous-contracts.html
"How Do Courts Treat Ambiguous Contracts?
Usually, if there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation between the parties, a court will allow the parties to rewrite the contract in order to resolve the ambiguity. When engaging in contract interpretation, a court might use the following to help them understand the parties’ intentions:
Common Usage: Vague words can be clarified using the common usage of the term, or the dictionary meaning. This is useful for everyday, non-technical terms.
Parol Evidence: Parol evidence refers to oral agreements that were reached prior to the formal signing of the contract (as in negotiations). In some cases parol evidence can be introduced in court, though this may vary by case
Industry Usage: Courts may have to rely on the way a word is commonly used in a particular industry. This is common for words that have a highly technical meaning specific to a certain industry or business
Prior dealings: Ambiguities can be resolved by examining how the parties used the term in the past. This is good for when the parties have had consistent interactions in the past
Reasonableness: Courts will also factor in whether one interpretation is more reasonable than another. If an interpretation leads to an impossible or unlikely outcome, a different interpretation will be favored.
Implied Meanings: A court may simply “fill in the blank” and imply that a word has a certain definition, especially where terms were left blank. However, they will avoid this if it is certain that the parties intended the contract to be silent on a certain point
Also, in most jurisdictions, ambiguous contracts are said to be resolved “against” the party that drafted the contract. The party that did not write the contract will sometimes receive the benefit of the doubt regarding ambiguities. This is because it is assumed that the party that drafted the contract may have more knowledge and bargaining power compared with the other.
Finally, courts may sometimes avoid resolving ambiguous contracts in ways that would lead to unnecessary hardship for one of the parties. This is common where one party has significantly more experience or bargaining leverage than the other."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'I'm wearing shoes and shirt just not pants so I'm good.
Do you not realize that this proves that an ambiguous contract is not necessarily legally void?
Also, there’s a difference between “ambiguous” and “vague”. The former could have one of several distinct meanings based on a plain reading of the text. The latter means the meaning is unclear or unspecific. Those are very different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are not enforced evenly in my living room, either. In my living room (or on my web site), I get to make the decisions. They are probably not the same decisions Parler or Stormfront would make.
If you want decisions compatible with Parler or Stormfront, then go to their living rooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No matter how bad the original bill was (I haven't read it), amending a blanket moderation ban with content-specific carveouts for topics the government really doesn't like certainly wouldn't have made it better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The law explicitly specifies what content can be moderated without liability concerns, moderation of any other legal content can result in liability (ie getting sued).
Sec. 143A.006. CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter
does not prohibit a social media platform from censoring expression
that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecting users' speech from massive corporations strikes me as being in the spirit of the first amendment, if current judicial interpretations say otherwise those interpretations are wrong.
The "right" of tech oligarchs to censor must be infringed to protect the rights of everyone else to speak.
Also, terrorism is just the weapon of the weak and no one bans advocacy of US militarism, which kills way more innocent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
If “yes”: Would that also include a service you own and operate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes and yes, but like most people, I'll never realistically own or operate a web service. I'm ideologically opposed to private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m pretty sure the law doesn’t let you live on public land, dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, the law doesn’t care. Private property exists, and you have the right to kick people off your property for any reason.
The 1A only restricts the government, not private non-governmental entities or private individuals. That has been the case since the amendment was ratified, and it explicitly says that it only restricts the government. It has never been interpreted otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because apparently it still needs to be said you have no right to use someone else's property to speak and therefore there's nothing for the government to 'protect' in that instance(though funnily enough your suggestion would violate the first amendment rights of the property owner you're wanting to force to host your content against their will).
Even the government which is bound by the first amendment from preventing you from speaking outside of narrow exceptions isn't obligated to provide you a platform to speak from so why do you think you're owed one that's privately owned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Freedom of speech but only for property owners is oligarchy, not democracy. Property owners constitute a small, elite minority, I'm far more concerned with the rights of the average person than the "right" of a few Silicon Valley billionaires to dictate to the rest of us.
Proudhon was right about property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Free speech as protected by the first amendment(or even just in general) applies whether you own property or not. You can speak on your property, public property or private property with the agreement of the owner but what you do not and never have had is the right to use someone else's property to speak from contrary to their wishes, and no objection to 'private property' being a thing changes that.
No matter how much I think it might improve the acoustics of my argument I don't get to use your car, lawn and/or house to hold a conference or public announcement if you don't want me to, and no amount of me crying 'free speech!' should or would change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, we don’t only give freedom of speech to property owners, so that point is moot. A homeless guy with no property can say (essentially) whatever he wants without the government getting involved. That’s freedom of speech right there.
Similarly, the homeless guy could also say whatever they like online without the government getting involved; it’s just that whoever hosts their speech can decide not to for whatever reason. That’s still freedom of speech.
Not really. Like, we have a lot of homeless people who don’t have websites or own any physical locations, but I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say they’re the vast majority of the population. I also wouldn’t go so far as to say property owners are elite. Like, the average person does own some property.
The average person also owns some sort of property in the form of a physical location or building, and they have the same right to kick anyone out of their property that “a few Silicon Valley billionaires” have to kick people off of their websites. Additionally, this same right applies identically to many other websites not run or owned by any “Silicon Valley billionaires” but are owned by other private companies, organizations, legal entities, or individuals. Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, and Amazon are not the internet.
I have no idea who or what “Proudhon” is or what they had to say about property, but it’s irrelevant because it doesn’t change what the law is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks! It’s still completely irrelevant to what the law is and has been, but that’s hardly your fault since you didn’t bring him up to begin with, but thanks.
As a side note to Anonymous, you’re quoting the so-called Father of Anarchy to support your notion of what democracy is or should be? That’s an odd choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You rarely see an idiot advocate overthrowing literally centuries of jurisprudence. But here we are. Of course you probably think jurisprudence is a special blender for prunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Centuries ago those "property rights" were mostly about defending slavery, I don't think either the John Marshall era elitists who opposed universal suffrage or the Lochner court using "private property" as an excuse to strike down anything that reined in gilded age abuses deserve all that much deference.
One can't separate private property from inequality, and the less restraint on it, the richer the rich at everyone else's expense. Very few people own the platforms on which the electorate communicates with one another, yet I still would like the ability to elect politicians who would reign said oligarchs in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then you are against the first amendment, free speech and association, and property ownership in general(and it might surprise you to learn that it's not just billionaires who own property), none of which are good looks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This person already stated earlier they're opposed to the existence of private property. Though I don't see how that comment bears on freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This person already stated earlier they're opposed to the existence of private property.
Which is a bafflingly absurd idea and has me wondering exactly how they're posting here other than perhaps making use of a public library's computer lab when they're not... camped out somewhere I guess?
Though I don't see how that comment bears on freedom of speech.
The free speech/association angle comes into play via the 'I can use your property to make you host speech you don't want to' bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Uh, no. It was also about owning land and buildings, among many other things. Non-slaveholding states supported property rights, too, at least as long as they didn’t include slaves.
I don’t see what that has to do with private property at all. One can be terrible with one aspect of law but great with others.
The Lochner court was and still is considered to be an aberration. Using it to generalize historical jurisprudence of the USSC is a gross overgeneralization.
Also, we aren’t exclusively citing any of the mentioned courts to support these notions of private property. The protections of private property and such that we are referring to have been in existence from the start and have continued throughout American history. By contrast, the issues you bring up have since been overturned in later USSC rulings or—through legislations and/or constitutional amendments—by Congress.
None of that is true. There are forms of inequality that don’t involve private property, and fewer restraints on private property doesn’t necessarily make the rich richer or anyone else poorer.
I should also note that the concept of private property has existed at least as long as laws have, and most countries today currently recognize some notion of private property.
Irrelevant. Those platforms aren’t the only means by which the electorate communicates with one another, and this isn’t about transmission of speech but hosting of speech, which are two completely different concepts. This also doesn’t change what the law says.
As long as you are a legal citizen of the country and are old enough to register to vote in your country, you can vote for whomever you want. This has nothing to do with anything else you’ve said thus far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hope to see more of this, leftists at tech companies are notorious for their censorship and deplatforming, they're zealots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[Citation Needed], who is being kicked off and why and be specific, but that aside damn what a self-own given the article, texas republicans explicitly supporting pro-terrorist content, holocaust denial and anti-vax nutjobbery in the middle of a pandemic and your first response is 'I want to see more of this!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A woman whose son died in the Kabul terrorist attack the other day was banned more or less for saying Biden is unfit to lead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'More or less' leaves a lot of wiggle room, as many artiles have highlighted moderation false positives are a thing so you'd need to demonstrate that it was a particular bit of content that brought the hammer down and she's still banned even after the matter was brought to the public eyes and lastly barring an actual link to look into that's still just a claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What service was she banned from? What was the exact wording of the post that got her banned? We need to know details if you expect us to care about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And you'd be able to cite the sources where these claims were made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whelp your name checks out at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Texas never banned teaching racism in the school. they banned CRT.
an etno-communist ideology that pursues racism again white color people, while it is wrapping itself as "teaching racism". which of course is merely a Motte-and-bailey fallacy. you must recognize these subversions of democracy and opposed them. it goes beyond political color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things.
Nobody is teaching CRT in anything but colleges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And how did they define CRT? From what I can tell, it appears they are defining it to include teaching about racism.
And if they are banning what CRT actually is, it’s not being taught below the university level, so they’re banning a practice that doesn’t exist nor was likely to exist, and isn’t even that big of a deal even if it was.
That’s not what CRT is. In a nutshell, CRT is teaching about the history of racism in the 13 colonies, the colonies under the Articles of Confederation, and the United States, as well as how that racism still has consequences today. It doesn’t blame every single white person for anything, nor does it teach anything racist. It also has absolutely nothing to do with communism.
Also, again, CRT is not being taught except in universities. Universities also teach about a number of racist and other controversial ideologies for the purposes of broadening one’s mind to understand how people thing and to learn to think critically. So, even if you were right, here, that doesn’t really make the ban good or necessary.
Uh, no, that’s just a summary of what it is. It is not false or misleading.
I agree. It’s just that teaching CRT is not a subversion of democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't know techdirt had fallen this badly, that they would blatantly misrepresent the issue of banning racial scapegoating as banning the teaching about racism. All without bothering to actually link to the law that does this, because anyone who would click the link would call them out on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can’t teach about racism without teaching who perpetrated the racism. That could be seen as “racial scapegoating” under the Texas law, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Depends on how the bill defines CRT.
If they define it as you do, they are banning something that does not exist and isn’t actually CRT.
If they define it as CRT actually is, they are banning something not being taught outside of college and that isn’t “racial scapegoating”.
If they define it as teaching about several aspects of American history involving racism, then you’re wrong on both counts.
I think they did somewhere (perhaps in an article this one links to), and they quote the portions they refer to, so I fail to see the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motte-and-bailey fallacy.
seek more details about critical race theory.
I suggest New Discourses . com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or you could read the books written by the people who developed the theory. I mean, why wouldn’t you go right to the source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have read several of them unfortunately for myself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do know about critical race theory, but I don’t think you do. All it is is examining history through the lens that racism has had a profound impact on America throughout its history. It’s just a theory, not being taught as fact, either, and only in college.
Also, you keep bringing up motte-and-bailey fallacy, but you never explain how it even applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
my reply is in this link:
https://ghostbin.com/paste/376Mh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Almost everything you wrote about CRT is false, including the idea that it is taught to children. If your child is learning CRT, congratulations, your child was accepted to law school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You really have no idea what critical race theory is, do you? It doesn’t have anything to do with communism at all, nor does it portray things the way you say. Honestly, even your portrayal of it doesn’t have any of the ideological, political, or economic aspects of communism at all, so I have no idea where you got that from.
More importantly, though, as I already mentioned, neither critical race theory nor your depiction of it are taught in elementary or middle school, or really even in high school. CRT (the real one) is taught in some (not all) universities as one way of looking at our history and current events. Also, as I said, it’s not being taught as a fact but as a theory.
And I know what a motte-and-bailey fallacy is, but what you’re doing is the inverse. Rather than taking something unpopular and dressing it up as something benign, you’re taking something benign and making it sound like something controversial.
But let’s go through this: Let’s say that CRT is as you describe. Well, that’s not being taught at all, so you’re against something that doesn’t exist. Furthermore, no part of CRT is taught before college, so banning CRT in K-12 is utterly pointless, either as CRT actually is or as you portray it.
So basically, when you say, “I’m opposed to teaching CRT in schools,” either you’re opposed to something that doesn’t actually exist, or you’re against something that is not actually controversial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, republicans are using the wrong terms because supporters of CRT willing used the same the three letters.
What’s being pushed is “culturally relevant trenching”.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere there is some good in it but so much of it is racist bull.
It’s entirely structured from the view of the worst off in the inner city, and paints the 98% as
Part of the top 1%. We are not.
It teaches racism is systemic, it is not.
It teaches white privilege, which is something for post-Ed level contemplation, not a 10 year old.
Who can’t understand nuance.
Ultimately telling kids whites are racists against all others is a good way to make anti white racists!
Parents and kids complaining about it are correct, in that children can find in it, easily, a cause for hate.
Lefties complain about “colour blindness” as a trigger or some sort of not-meaning-what-is-said thing.
Yet for the vast majority, colour blind is exactly what we all want. There is no hidden meaning to “colour blind” for most people. It’s simply that.
We should be teaching equality. True equality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you can believe that all you want. You’re absolutely wrong about that—systemic/institutional racism does exist independently from interpersonal racism—but you’re free to believe your absolute wrongness.
If you would please point to a single evidence-backed instance of any elementary, middle, or high school teaching Critical Race Theory—and I don’t mean “history” or “current events”; the evidence must confirm that the curriculum contains Critical Race Theory as it is taught in higher education—that would be wonderful. Until then: Critical Race Theory, as you (mis)understand it, is only taught in higher education.
Critical Race Theory teaches nothing of the sort. It doesn’t even try to lay the blame for systemic racism on white people; hell, people of color can uphold racist institutions without even meaning to do that. Look at every Black person who stood on the side of Donald Trump.
The criticism of “I don’t see color” boils down to extending the sentence in a way that affirms its underlying meaning: “I don’t see color, so I don’t see the experiences that people of color have to go through in a society dominated by and crafted to reflect whiteness.” A fucking pro wrestler gets that idea. Why can’t you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can’t. I haven’t found any that do. Most of what I’ve seen is the culturally relevant teaching. Full of problem limbo noted above
I don’t mis- anything. I am not disagreeing with you.
I’m not discussing critical race theory.
Other than nobody really has any way of showing how that is?
Urban life is very much urban life. Regardless of race. There’s Uber rich penthouse rats and dirt poor. And not much in between.
If racial issues exist at all it’s only part of a much larger problem in how urban systems are set up.
The rich definitely get richer.
But the poor don’t get poorer. Rather the system as designed in most Aurora continues the o chew away at the lower levels of the middle class, creating more poor.
In a system that punishes any level of success by dragging you back down, it’s difficult to escape that cycle.
There, more than any other issue, is the real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then you can fuck right the hell off with trying to say CRT—and that’s Critical Race Theory, you nosehair-splitting asshole—is being taught in any school outside of higher education.
You really are a fucking idiot. And I don’t like using that word. But sometimes it’s all I’ve got.
The people who founded this country were all white and wrote laws to enshrine whiteness as the dominant racial culture. (Three-Fifths Compromise, ring a fucking bell?) The country split in two and warred with itself over the right to own Black people as if they were a rake or a car instead of treating them like human goddamn beings. Hell, even after the slaves were freed, it took almost another fucking century for Black people to achieve on-paper legal equality.
Popular American culture has always reflected whiteness back at all other cultures—you can call it the “white gaze”, because those who study this phenomenon have done the same. To wit: Blackface was used to put Black characters in all-white stage shows and such, and those Black characters would often be one-dimensional stereotypes and used primarily for jokes at the expense of Black people.
In all aspects of American culture except sports—and even then there are still some sports that would qualify—whiteness is the “default” lens through which culture is presented. When a movie with a cast made up near-entirely of white people is released, it’s merely a movie; when a movie with a cast made up near-entirely of Black people is released, it’s a Black movie. White people take Black culture and appropriate it for their own ends—music, dancing, fashion, slang, you name it.
And before you go “well what the fuck does any of that matter?” (and I know you will): It matters because how we see people who aren’t (and are) like us in media and pop culture helps shape our idea of people in general. For the longest time, queer people were generally presented in largely negative stereotypes. It took Ellen DeGeneres sacrificing her sitcom on the altar of Coming Out Publicly to help change the perception that gay people were normal people like everyone else (save for the difference of who they dated/slept with) and didn’t deserve to be treated as jokes and bad stereotypes.
American culture centers on whiteness far more often than not. And if you don’t think that’s true, ask yourself exactly how many people of color have won an Academy Award for Best Actor/Actress/Director or how many “Black movies” have won an Academy Award for Best Picture—then compare those numbers to the numbers attributable to white people/movies with largely white casts.
Two things.
“Urban” is often racially coded language for “majority Black”, so maybe cool it with that shit and use a different word for what you mean.
Ask poor people in Louisiana if they feel any richer after Hurricane Ida passed through. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
In a system that punishes you for failure by deepening your punishment based on that single failure, it’s damn near impossible to escape. And that’s poverty in America—because someone working two full-time jobs just to make ends meet can lose their jobs, their homes, and eventually their lives if the beat-up used car they’re driving breaks down somewhere and they can’t afford repairs. Poverty, like wealth, compounds exponentially.
How do you want to fix that problem, you privileged asshole? Because unless you’re a billionaire right now, you’ll never be a few good days away from living in Beverly Hills…but you’ll always be a few bad days away from living on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That’s funny, didn’t I just say it’s not. And they’re completely different?
Maybe look into things?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culturally_relevant_teaching
And there slight differences between relevant and responsive as well, despite those actually being interchangeable.
Thanks for agreeing, if you had evidence your response would be a bit more adult-like than fu.
3/5ths? Where is that used in the last 100 years?
We won’t discuss the civil war, a main component of it accurately being slavery.
But all races are equal in the law today. So are both genders. As a society grows it casts off the old methods and progresses to a better existence. Or it dies.
An activity practically fazed out after civil rights reform.
And the entirety (or near) of the cast promoting it as such is because of white people?
Appropriate? Or adopt. And why must the culture belong to a single race? That comes off a racist to me.
Well, given that 99% of the films that won awards are absolutely crap trash…
It’s not really worth discussing at all. It’s rare for the academy to recognise good films in the first place.
Or, urban “ of or relating to cities and the people who live in them”~MRC
Urban, of or relating to a city. Ct suburban, rural.
“But the poor don’t get poorer. Rather the system as designed in most [areas] continues [to] chew away at the lower levels of the middle class, creating more poor.”
Well, that’s interesting since you have no clue where I am in life. Hint, I’m not privileged, not upper class, not even middle class.
I have plenty of solutions. You just don’t like them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have plenty of solutions. You just don’t like them.
For starters removing 100% of the federal tax code for individuals and setting a flat 10% tax.
$0-22000 0tax.
22000+ 10%.
$2000 deduction per family member or dependent in residence for head of household.
Universal SSI payment of $2000 per month. To every American citizen. Placing 100 percent of the legal population at or above the current “poverty” level.
Free universal education. Period. Any level. Free.
Just as a short start.
How to pay? Also quickly dealt with. Pull out of foreign countries. We need not maintain military around the world. We are not the world’s police force.
That alone saves nearly a trillion per year. So universal income just got paid for.
Reduce social program spending. We just handed every citizen $24,000 per year.
So we cut snap, wic, etc. they get more with universal income then the programs ever gave them.
Reset business taxes. By redoing the entire business system.
No more DBA and LLPs.
Under $500,000 you pay 10%. $500,001-$50,000,000 20%
$50,000,001-$999,999,999 35%
Above $1Bln 49%
Cut the majority of consistent foreign aid. We have no business helping others before we help ourselves.
And a new source of income: tax religious groups. Church, temple, etc. the constitution prohibits special consideration and we’ve violated the religion clause for too long.
Well on that any charitable organisation would have to have income caps for the board to qualify as a tax free charity. I’d set that at $100,000 per board member. Pay a penny more, pay your corporate taxes too.
And no tax exempt status for charities that send the majority of their focus overseas.
51% of good, money, or work, must be within the United States. To be tax exempt.
Oh, and no more closed congressional actions.
All congressional and federal judicial activities must be films and broadcast on a government station, under mandatory carry, and then. archived in a publicly accessible web site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn’t matter if it hasn’t been used in more than a century. It was part of the Founding Fathers’ vision for the country when the Constitution was ratified. And since all the Founding Fathers were white men…
Two things.
Gender is a spectrum, not a binary.
Given the number of high-profile cases of blackface coming back to haunt someone famous/in the public spotlight, you’re not entirely correct.
No, that’s because of Black culture being its own thing.
There’s a difference between appropriation and adoption. One is taking something from another culture and acting like it’s a brand new thing that the “superior” people invented. The other is working something from another culture into your own way of life while still giving credit to those who came up with it. Guess which is which and you get a No-Prize!
It doesn’t. But we don’t credit whatever white person made yoga famous in the U.S. for creating yoga. What’s not to understand about giving credit where credit is due, especially in terms of culture?
Not even remotely the point. You asked about the white gaze in American society/culture. I gave you an example of how that works. What made you so afraid to address my point on its actual merits that you had to sidestep it with “but all Oscar winners suck”?
Then say “city”/“cities”.
No shit. But it still hurt a shitload of Black families—maybe more than it hurt white families—by virtue of poverty, the racial makeup of Louisiana, and where those two paths intersect with one another. (Oh, sorry, I should’ve asked this first: Is “intersectionality” a four-letter word for you?)
No, I didn’t. You intentionally ignored how poverty compounds upon itself so you can act like poor people don’t get poorer and they’re all just a few good days away from being part of the middle class. (Spoilers: They’re not.)
You have the privilege of apparently not worrying about whether you’re a few bad days away from living on the street. I don’t even have that luxury. But hey, talk some more about how a flat tax that barely affects rich people’s bottom lines but fucks over poor people by taking more of the money they need in an acute and direct way is a good idea. I’m sure that won’t make you sound like a heartless privileged asshole~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it does. You record where we were to understand where we are and guide to where we are going.
Gender is male or female (occasionally both and theoretically none).
Gender identity is a spectrum.
The former is biology, the later is sociology.
No, and that’s a problem with the people who implement. And we should all call out when it happens.
That’s a bit of a mess.
But, the state has the right to implement regulation on medical procedures.
I don’t like it, but it istheir right.
The law doesn’t target women though, that’s a side effect of the stupid law.
But it goes counter to you idea that a black cast makes it a black movie.
As opposed to a black cast making a black movie.
Yes. But:
Again, I see no evidence of that.
Culture should be shared, and embraced.
And I see nothing wrong with adoption of customs.
Yoga came from the yogi of India. What’s your point. I don’t think any educated person thinks yoga is an American invention.
And I don’t think whatever “appropriation” of “black” culture is thought to be white culture.
If you’re thinking of something specific just say it.
You chose an asinine example.
You targeted a rich, white, male, fraternity.
One that has no business being recognised for anything.
But you call that whitewash.
The idea of “gaze” or “view” is that it’s harmful. There will always be racists. And they come from every racial background.
That this institution or that institution is racists does not equate to institutionalised racism in totality.
So what term do we use for subu%%%n since that u word has some negative connotation somewhere.
I still don’t get how the hurricane is racial.
That is not remotely what I was trying to communicate.
You still ignore the whole of the comment.
It’s not the issue of the poor, it’s the middle class constantly becoming poor.
The systems are set up in a way that doesn’t just keep people poor, but creates more poor people.
Days, no. But a few bad months….
I’m sorry you are in that position. And I mean that. Scroll down and look at the follow up. Nobody should suffer in a country of our stature.
The minimum taxable income is way too low. We’re not disagreeing on that. Taxing someone making $15000 a year is just the kind of self replicating poor machine I’m against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I didn't read through the whole comment, but the biological thing is called sex, as in "would you like to know the sex of the baby?" Gender and gender identity are the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
gender
noun
1 either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.
The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female:
~Apple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, the old lying by omission trick.
What did the other definitions in your unsourced link say (no, Apple isn't a dictionary, they have sources)? It's always very suspicious when someone cherry picks the first definition from a dictionary and it just happens to be the one that "proves" their point.
Also, language dictionaries and scientific sources often define words differently. Which context is being used in the discussion here and which in your random source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually you’re partly wrong. Apple does have a dedicated dictionary “system”, or APIs, that collect a rolling set of definitions from open source options (public domain, free publish, etc).
They don’t necessarily list the source when you highlight and click lookup.
Not on the Apple definition. Though you can scroll down to other sources.
I scrolled down past the apple definition posted above, skipping the more liberal listing from Wikipedia, which is in the midst of an edit war over science and sociology, and gave option 3 here.
But you have to scroll all the way down to the news croon to find PT, psychology today, before you find the current American movement to de binarise the term.
That’s after 4 dictionaries, Wikipedia, and a handful of translations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, like I said - weird how you left that part out of your quote to "prove" your claim, when the full definition suggests you were not completely accurate...
"Apple does have a dedicated dictionary “system”, or APIs, that collect a rolling set of definitions from open source options"
So, they're not the source. Next time, provide an actual source that a non-Apple user would be able to verify rather than acting as if they were the primary source.
"I scrolled down past the apple definition posted above, skipping the more liberal listing from Wikipedia"
Hint: if you're knowingly skipping over definitions because of your personal politcal beliefs, you're probably not picking objective sources, no matter how biased the ones you reject you believe are.
"But you have to scroll all the way down to the news croon to find PT, psychology today, before you find the current American movement to de binarise the term."
Another hint: not only do Americans not own the language, depending on what you meant by "croon", you sound like you're rejecting scientists in your quest to define the terms how you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A dictionary or thesaurus pointing out minor colloquial use doesn’t change the definition. It acknowledges a (mis)use trend in pop culture.
Question, when Rogers thesaurus reprints from Thomas, do you source Rogers or Thomas.
When the NYT runs a story from the AP do you quote NYT or the AP?
Note: Wikipedia is not an academically acceptable primary source. For any major institution.
Nor do the British. And the source of the language has nothing to do o do with the movement. Not sure why you bring it up. The de-binarise movement clearly started in the US.
…
“down to the news croon” Feed… sry touch disease.
Not at all. In fact I’m pointing out there is no academic level source listing, you have to move all the way to a piece covering the shared community association method (a psychology term) in an opinion coverage in a psychology journal before you find a first intent use of gender as anything other than binary.
Mind you the piece doesn’t confirm nor deny the application of the term. It simply discusses the mental reaffirming aspects of the subculture that has taken up the “cause”.
The reality is gender is accepted as binary in fact.
Though acknowledging that sometimes humans contain some aspects of both genders physically.
I personally don’t deny gender disassociation! Nor do I deny that it is more than a mental aspect.
The rate of hermaphroditism is actually increasing according to multiple studies (978-1-4160-3204-5)
And if the cases of true hermaphroditism is increasing and here’s little reason to believe there are not lesser level increases as well.
Unlike most in mental health fields; I’d actually be more willing to accept actual biological aspects of the ‘movement’ in their claims.
If you have a penis you’re male.
However there is evidence that a man who claims they are a female in the wrong body is not necessarily “wrong”.
If the levels of hermaphroditism have increased from less than 2% to nearly 5% (doi:10.1155/2015/598138) then it is easy to expect that the level of lesser genetic change would be the same or greater based on genetic evolutionary reactions.
I’m also not against the eventual combining of gender based facilities.
They work well across Europe and Asia.
But what is acceptable today needs to also be considered.
While waiting for society to change on its own is not a likely solution here, simply ending segregation by a pen stroke isn’t either.
Equality doesn’t equal acceptance and equality on paper rarely works out in the real world at signing.
One need only look at race twice in history to see what happens if you remove a classical standard without thought on the majority reaction.
Ending slavery without protecting rights of former slaves and ignoring white majority gave us segregation. That quicksilver became militant. Even looking at a white woman was a death sentence for a non-white.
Ending racial segregation without protective laws on majority repercussions brought racial militias! The Black Panthers, the Aryan Nation of the Republic. The Nation of Islam, etc.
Congress must act not just for freedom and equality, put protections as well.
Gradual integration may take longer, but for the safety of all it is usually the better option.
Ultimately equality should be just that. Colour blind. Gender blind.
Justice should be blind.
But signing a bill and tossing people into the den of human evil only gets violence and bloodshed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you use it as a source for your definition, you can’t then complain when someone else uses the same source for their definition.
Also, definitions for words change over time, so unless you have evidence supporting your explanation over that one, it makes no sense to exclude the newer definition from being at least as valid as yours.
This isn’t an academic institution, so who cares? As long as the article is significant enough that it gets a lot of attention, it’s generally sufficiently accurate for use in discussions like this, especially when it cites its sources.
Did it? I’m not so sure. Got a source for that claim?
Incorrect. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
I’m glad that you acknowledge that gender isn’t black and white, but that goes against your claim that gender is binary, as there is a lot of in-betweenness in there. Binary gender basically means you are either male or female but not both. It doesn’t include neither (lacking sex characteristics) or a mix of more than one. It isn’t just about whether there are other genders that can mix in with or have sex characteristics not found in males or females (unless you count lacking sex characteristics).
Agreed.
Okay…
I concur.
I mean, you’re not wrong, but we don’t really have better options.
Yes, but it’s easier to implement the full solution piecemeal to allow society to adapt to the changes. Still, you’re not wrong there.
Huh? Like, I won’t dispute your characterization of those groups, at least not here and now, but I don’t really see the causal link there or how that was preventable.
I agree with the “gradual integration” approach in principle, but isn’t that counter to what you just said? Like, the integration of blacks was gradual, too. That’s why we had segregation after ending slavery and all that.
In an ideal world, yes.
Right, so, I’m not entirely sure how you’re getting from A to B here. The bill-signing is done to remove people from an existing den of human evil. In the case of non-binary, genderfluid, or transgender individuals, they are already victims of significant violence and bloodshed. That’s kinda the issue here.
We also already have laws against violence and such, and there is no exception for where the victim failed to conform to society’s gender- or sex-based norms or anything like that, so I have no idea what additional protection would be useful here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In biological science gender is binary. Genetic crossover can create combined sexual development but that isn’t the same as a man can be a woman.
Again I’m more of the thought that this is an evolutionary movement of gender mixing.
Amphibians and reptiles as a whole have a large success rate with cross-gendering.
And it is historically noticeable in mammals.
See, I disagree. Segregation was not gradual integration.
It was separation.
Gradual integration would be first allowing it explicitly law. Without mandate. As it becomes common over time you adjust law to mandate it.
Think about hot peppers. You don’t go chomp down on a ghost pepper. You spend years building up to that point. When you reach the tolerance level and move to the full ghost pepper level you already accept it as normal. Different, a bit, but normal.
During that process you tighten the controls on hate crimes.
You raise the level of repercussions.
You move the crime to the point where it is so heavily punished even the worst of haters don’t act on it publicly.
Time helps breed out hatred and fear.
Going from a to b instantly usually gets violent resistance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s not what it means for gender to be a spectrum. Gender being a spectrum simply means that gender (or sex) among humans doesn’t fit neatly into exactly two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive categories but that shades of gray exist. As far as the biological, non-neurological, non-sociological sense of gender goes, that’s all that “gender is a spectrum” really means.
Gender being binary means that all humans fit precisely into exactly one of two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive categories of gender; there is no in-between and no non-gendered persons; certainly no gender mixing.
What you’re describing simply doesn’t fit in with the idea that biological gender is binary, but it is consistent with the idea that “gender is a spectrum”.
Just because there are two ends to the spectrum that are clearly distinct from each other, most humans are at or near the ends of the spectrum, and those who are not are basically a mixture of the two ends doesn’t change the fact that it is a spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You appear to miss my point.
The concern (to which I somewhat agree with and somewhat disagree with) is that we’re going from a state that is gender binary to one that is gender neutral at the stroke of the pen and no thought process on the consequences of it.
I think I clearly laid out I’m in the “ spectrum” camp though I didn’t use that word.
I’m talking about tossing 15 year old teenagers in a single shower in a country so dedicated to hiding sexuality and ignoring proper understanding…
What happens when a 16yo “female” boy gets a hard on in the girls locker room and discovers they’re really bi/pan/etc.
Is the school ready to deal with that. With the students, with the parents. Etc.
I’m not in any way against the goal. I fully support it. It’s about time.
But
I absolutely cry foul for the way they are going about it.
All I’m staring is I see little “thought” out into the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"we’re going from a state that is gender binary to one that is gender neutral at the stroke of the pen and no thought process on the consequences of it"
Except, we're not. We're going from the artificial assumption that gender is binary to the truth that it's on a spectrum, with the thought being that the minorities who are negatively affected by the former assumption stop being affected in that way. Same as we went from the assumption that the only real marriages were between heterosexual couples of the same race, toward a more accepting standard. I'm yet to see an actual objection to any of these that is not rooted in prejudice.
"I’m talking about tossing 15 year old teenagers in a single shower in a country so dedicated to hiding sexuality and ignoring proper understanding"
That's fun. Is anyone else talking about that?
"What happens when a 16yo “female” boy gets a hard on in the girls locker room and discovers they’re really bi/pan/etc."
What happens when you learn that gender and sexuality are not the same thing? Do you have the same problem with lesbians having the same awakening, or is the penis the thing that matters? In which case what's your opinion on gay males having the same awakening? What if that doesn't happen and the teen who identifies and presents as a straight female is forced to go into the male showers with a bunch of horny males?
"I’m not in any way against the goal. I fully support it."
Not enough to put the rights of actual people ahead of theoretical procedural issues, however...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ohkay. I get it. Let’s toss out the term since it was claimed and redefined puce side of biological science.
Sex has always been binary. Make and female.
From the basic two sexes we have hermaphroditism which is the addition of the opposite species sex parts as well.
In some species they are commonly fully operational ‘parts’ more often than not. Such as reptiles and birds. In others they are rarely. Such as mammals.
We also have transsexual. And this is where the term comes from. Amphibians and insects are commonly transsexual. The full genetic makeup of both sexes is fully there. And the sex will quickly shift and redevelop depending on environmental need.
Sexuality, on the other hand has always been semi fluid.
Prior to the Roman transition to Christianity the majority of the ‘known world’ was omnisexul and the personal choices were just that: personal. Any locked down a:b ideas were limited to small semi-nomadic tribes of the book people. Ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand.
All other major religions, then and now, range from generally blind to sexual choice (Buddhism/organic Shinto) to accepting (most first people religions/most pre HRE religions), to suggestive (Hinduism/Isem) to just stopping short of requiring (Babal, Wicca, and most polytheistic beliefs).
And that your adamant adherence to a reuse of a prior term is you own issue.
Doing so puts you immediate conflict on the terminology AND puts you at odds with your some of your own supporters!
The fact that stupid uptight book people decided to use the term from religion in law is the single and sole problem here.
Marriage is a religious act.
Like everything else the book people did in history they stole something from other people and claimed it as their own. Then get mad when it’s used outside their new definition. See eg Yule, Harvest, Eastervonder.
I believe the LGBT community is after the wrong thing and have always believed that. Whilst most of the community is looking for marriage equality I seek the de-legalisation of marriage.
I am not alone.
Oh, I’m prejudicial here! Law should be free of any and all cloud people worship.
One should not seek to join the book people but seek to remove them from law.
Not many. And that’s the problem.
This country has deeply embedded the ways of the book people in culture. In thought. In education.
Throwing the repressed into an open world of reality has consequences. And the early consequences will be brutal.
See… you cover the whole issue on your own here. You didn’t need my help. That you came up with those situations in your own mind should now give you pause to consider the method.
Sexuality, and all that goes with it, should be instructed from a much earlier age.
Contrary to book people beliefs in the real world early childhood sexual education reduces unwanted pregnancies.
If the book people thought that through we’d have less abortions which also goes to their thoughts.
A hard on or stiff nipples isn’t an issue for embarrassment: it’s a display of respect and appreciation.
The issues aren’t theoretical. They’re already seen in todays segregated system. Flipping the switch without the support system in place doubles it.
From Carter through today we have 2 to 8 year shifts and about faces in everything in this country. Do. Undo. Do. Undo.
Prior to B Clinton nearly every combat ready company in the military had a “queer country” platoon. (Nearly) everyone was respectful and life moved on. DADT destroyed that as “progress”!
And lead to administrative swings that are good for no one.
In the real world you start at the bottom and prepare for changes before making them. Not dealing with the fallout afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, marriage (by which I mean a long-term pairing or grouping of people for the purposes of cohabitation and some combination of child-rearing, reproduction, sexual activities, inheritance, and/or romance) predates the religious practice of marriage. It wasn’t always legally recognized, but it was socially recognized long before it became linked to religion. In fact, countries like Japan recognized marriage irrespective of religion for a very long time. So you really have the whole thing backwards. The idea of marriage was not originally religious in nature; the religious aspects came later. And currently, atheists can get married, so whatever it used to be, marriage isn’t defined by religion anymore.
Additionally, having marriage legally recognized confers several benefits regarding medical decisions, finances, child-rearing, ownership, taxation, inheritance, etc. That’s one of the reasons why having separate “civil unions” wasn’t going to work: the two weren’t legally equal.
If what you’re proposing is to replace the term “marriage” as defined in law with “civil union”, I mean, I guess, but there really would be no point to it, and it’d be a huge pain in the ass for no actual benefit.
On top of that, the religious definitions have differed between and within religions, so…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. I understand what your saying but it’s historically inaccurate due to linguistics.
The practice predates the term. The term, in multiple language variations has always been religious.
This is where the small minority of us on the left break away from the progressive movement.
We don’t want equality and many, including me, think the idea of gay “marriage” or atheist “marriage” is ludicrous. The fight is backwards.
The domestic partnership should be catapulted to the top and marriage should be de-legalised going forward.
The benefit is it gives the nutters back their term and they then can’t say a damn thing about what law says as to religion.
The Mormons and Muslims and whatever want their 30 wives and 30 husbands? Have at it.
But they won’t be trying to claim 30 dependents.
You solve all the negatives with one action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying gay people can't be religious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, just cut that out already!
I already admitted we’re the minority of the left.
If any are religious (many many are) I hope they some day they accept reality and cast off their the mythology of olde. But yes, just like those who force their lives into heterosexual existence of servitude to the man in the sky, so do those of the lgbt community.
That doesn’t make it right.
The government has zero ground under the constitution to recognise the religious act, even in solely reusing their terminology.
There is no betterment in striving to climb back down the ladder to the level of fantasy cloud beings floating in the sky. Why strive to degrade yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then what did you mean by stating gay marriage is ludicrous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The “marriage” aspect. The fight shouldn’t be in forcing into the religious act but stripping the legal recognition away from that institution.
Marriage is a religious practice. ‘Though I can’t use the original language here מאר is close and has always been religious.
It’s not the act, it’s the term. Congress should pass laws stripping marriage of its legal aspects moving forward: recognise only domestic union partnerships.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is ludicrous about gay people wanting to be married?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That anyone wants to such a term applied to them is saddening.
If you belong to a myth group, fine. But we should not be using that term in law.
It’s the term that is the source of the problem. Give them their term and strip it from law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But why gay people in particular? You still haven't explained that. You didn't say marriage is ludicrous. You said atheist marriage is, which makes sense if you define marriage strictly as a religious ceremony (which I won't get into). And you said gay marriage is also ludicrous. Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the majority of the book people are anti-gay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Marriage is a religious practice"
You can repeat that as many times as you like, but it doesn't make it true. Unless you're going to try arguing that atheist and other non-religious people never get married, in which case I will laugh quite heartily at your delusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh mr paulT… how you cherry pick minor sections and ignore context.
That an atheist gets married is a fatal flaw in our system. The term, having legal use, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That an atheist gets married is a fatal flaw in our system."
Your inability to understand reality is a problem, for sure, but I didn't have you tagged as a religious nut who's against basic things like marriage for people who don't believe in whatever sect you belong to.
"The term, having legal use, violates the constitutional separation of church and state."
No, the fact that there's both a civil and religious version is absolute separation. The fact that you don't like the fact that a religious couple has to file the same paperwork as everyone else is your problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
False. Marriage existed in ancient times and had nothing to do with religion. Obviously, the English term “marriage” was related to the religious practice, but other terms in other languages existed that meant “marriage” and had nothing to do with religion.
Again, I believe that the distinction you make between a domestic partnership and marriage is without a meaningful difference. They refer to the same social practice, and both use the same sort of ceremonies. Additionally, historically speaking, the idea that marriage has always been a one-man-one-woman since ancient times is simply false. It’s wasn’t even always so restricted in the Bible, which includes polygamy.
It was never their term to begin with, and since they still complained about civil unions, I doubt that that’d shut them up. Plus, several churches practiced gay marriage even before it was legally recognized, so they wouldn’t get “their” term back anyways.
At any rate, like I said, neither the concept, the practice, nor the term (in various languages) have ever been exclusively religious, so we’d be giving them something that was never theirs to begin with. Religious fanatics don’t own the term and never have. They may think they do, but they are factually wrong.
I… think Muslims max out at, like, 8 wives per person, and only the FCLDS recognizes plural marriages, but whatever. I still fail to see how anything is actually solved here. That’s already the case now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's going to be harder to find data now that gay marriage is so widely accepted, but my memory is that those opposed to gay marriage were generally much more accepting of gay civil unions. Obviously some were still opposed to gay anything, but I don't think that was even a majority, at least in the past 10 or 20 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your still missing the point! The religious resistance to the word is the problem. So strip them of their right to the practice; rather than force into their word. Strip marriage from legal recognition.
Too much of this fight is use of a word!
There is no difference between a civil union:domestic partnership and marriage in this country.
That people, place an artificial superiority to the term, is the problem.
Congress need pass a law that says:
*In order to conform with the Constitutional requirements of the separation of religion from State recognition:
Upon passage as of ##/##/#### the term “marriage” shal no longer be recognised at the federal mall level. All rights of the civil domestic partnership currently afforded to the term are fully and permanently recessed. All states shall be required to file a civil domestic partnership contract with the federal registers office if they continue to issue marriage licensing. *
All problems solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The religious resistance to the word is the problem"
Yes, and the answer to that is for those people to stick to their own business and not attack the rights of other people because they don't like the idea of secular marriage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes/no question for you.
Are you against removing the term from legal recognition when the other identical processes (civil unions, domestic partnerships) have the same legal recognition?
After that… why… explain your ye or nay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Are you against removing the term from legal recognition"
Is anyone suggesting that?
"the other identical processes (civil unions, domestic partnerships) have the same legal recognition?"
They don't, hence the push for equality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am.
Feel free to point out a legal difference in the US law. I’m not holding my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I am"
So, I'm meant to be arguing with something you invented in your own head that nobody else is even considering? No thanks.
"Feel free to point out a legal difference in the US law"
Before or after they won the battle against bigots to provide them equality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either feel free to point to anything post 1950 where there’s a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're claiming that cross-state recognition or ever international recognition for a civil partnership is the same as marriage, even for straight couples, I'm going to have to ask you to do your own research because this thread isn't big enough for the laughably huge level of evidence that you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m claiming there’s no reason it can’t be with a single bill passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then, you don't understand the complexities of the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Saying “complexities of…” is an easy excuse for not implementing change.
There were complexities in slavery, sodomy, First Nations,
Etc.
we shouldn’t hind behind that to not do the correct thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m opposed to the idea that marriage is exclusively a religious practice, so inserting a new term that is identical seems pointless to me. If the term marriage didn’t exist at all, I’d be fine with that. However, since that is not the case, I’m opposed. I think the whole thing is a waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s just it. The term domestic partnership as been state level law since the late 1700s. The idea of a civil union first crept up in the mid 1800s but is today federally recognised.
We’re not inserting anything new. Just removing something that shouldn’t be there in the first place.
I follow your idea on the term. And it’s historical use. But can you understand my reasoning based on the origin of the term?
Would this country not be best off removing anything of religious significance from law when the alternate terminology is readily accepted in legislation and judicial practice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But not at the federal level.
Incorrect. The term “civil union” is not now and never has been federally recognized.
I disagree that it shouldn’t be there in the first place, and you absolutely are inserting something new to replace what you’re removing.
No, I can’t because it demonstrates that very same origin also demonstrates that it existed in law from the start. I can follow your idea, but I can’t understand how your conclusion follows from that.
Marriage has religious significance the same way that beards have religious significance to the Amish and childbirth has religious significance to a lot of groups. They did not invent it, nor do they have exclusive ownership to it. There is nothing about the term “marriage” that is inherently of religious significance.
Additionally, the alternate terminology is not readily accepted in legislation and judicial practice.
As such, I reject the premises of the question, which makes it inherently inapplicable to this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m afraid you’re the one missing the point: It was never their word to begin with. You’re asking us to give them something they are not entitled to. As someone who loves to study language and a proponent of religious freedom, free speech, and equality, I cannot accept that.
Which is common, but it doesn’t really matter. We have a word, and some religious people think they own it and want to restrict its use. They are wrong to do so. They think tradition is on their side. They are wrong.
Uh, yes there is. During the time when some states recognized civil unions but not gay marriage, the federal government did not recognize civil unions at all, so any benefits in federal law that apply to married couples did not apply to civil unions. There was a similar problem in hospitals when it came to things like power of attorney.
Now, to the extent there is no difference between the two, there is no problem, and thus there is no point in solving the nonexistent problem.
So start there. The answer isn’t to change the language to enforce that artificial superiority, because that’s what you’re doing here.
You’ve left open a massive loophole there: states can still issue marriage licenses, and there is no requirement that states must provide civil unions the same rights and benefits as marriages. In order for your plan to not create a problem with gay rights, this has to apply equally at all levels of government.
You’re creating more problems than you’re attempting to solve, and I’m not even convinced that this would even solve the problem you’re trying to solve or that the problem is actually a problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering gay marriage is legal everywhere in the US, it's difficult to see what the problem is at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you really think this debate is at an end?
That republicans are not capable with a super majority across all three levels of government, of undoing this?
A single state just stripped away the right to remove unwanted parasitic tumours from women’s wombs.
Though the law will eventually, in all realistic likelihood, be struck down eventually, the damage until then is untold horror.
Do you really believe “marriage” isn’t in their minds as well?!!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think they would do so regardless of whether you call it “marriage”, “civil union”, or “domestic partnership”. Also, even among Republicans, there isn’t any real push to overturn gay marriage they way they want to overturn Roe v Wade.
The debate will largely continue in all likelihood, but it’s not particularly meaningful right now.
And this is a problem, but it’s also a separate discussion.
Based on the polling, it isn’t, really, at least not to the same extent. And to the extent that it is, your proposal won’t change that.
The fact is that states and Republicans have been fighting Roe v Wade pretty much from the start, but they aren’t really fighting like that against gay marriage. It is highly unlikely to happen with gay marriage. The ones who are fighting it don’t really care what you call it; most want homosexuality gone, period. The ones who support civil unions and are opposed to gay marriage will not accept having civil unions unless civil unions exclude straight couples having to have civil unions. You’re trying to reason with people who can’t be reasoned with.
On top of that, the way the court weaseled out of declaring the anti-abortion law unconstitutional couldn’t apply to gay marriage bans. The anti-abortion law only got past because it involved private action, and gay marriage is entirely about state recognition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I’m not so sure the action (of SCOTUS) is what you (plural) perceive it to be.
Looks to me, as a possibility, that rather than address a law alone without case, they opted to wait till there was a case with a challenge as opposed as a case to challenge.
It’s not a unique action in history.
Otherwise, you’re probably right.
Doesn’t change the absolute fact that we have yet another religious piece of crap smeared all over our law books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s more or less what I was getting at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More or less.
I’m not buying the MSNBC RMS version.
Actually I think this is a good thing!
When a full fledged case gets there it can be shut down without question.
A ruling on this at that point would be considered political. A ruling on an actual claim… is very different!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More or less.
I’m not buying the MSNBC RMS version.
Actually I think this is a good thing!
When a full fledged case gets there it can be shut down without question.
A ruling on this at that point would be considered political. A ruling on an actual claim… is very different!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I’m not buying the MSNBC RMS version."
Which, sadly, because that's what you label documented reality, means you won't get far with people who understand it.
Did you ever consider that maybe because you proudly reject most US media and all international media that maybe you're being misled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I read the posting from the SCOTUS documents page. Hard to be misguided by any news source when the source is the source itself.
I don’t buy this being some conspiracy theory. This is clearly thought out plan: wait for an actual case, not a challenge to the law via hypotheticals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I reject being given half a story in condescending partisan speak, by multi-billion-dollar political companies in the US. Be it FNC or MSNBC. And their room next door publishing arms. I prefer going to the source and then tracking references before I make up my mind. And that’s not always a sure thing.
I have no problem with most international news. Think I’ve been through that with you. Eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I reject being given half a story in condescending partisan speak"
You're free to provide the sources and objections any time you wish. Instead you're blathered on about atheists shouldn't be allowed to get married because of your interpretation of how a word was defined 500 years before the US was founded.
"I have no problem with most international news. Think I’ve been through that with you. Eh?"
Yes, we had a conversation about how you rejected any international link I provided to you because you weren't interested in non-US sources, which was somewhere in the middle of you babbling about how most US media is run by the Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Very CNN of you to extract a single incorrect conclusion from a larger debate.
The proper takeaway is
Nobody should recognise marriage in law.
That was because you were using international sources to cover US internal issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I posted further down below:
Marriage-merge-meage-mrgee
matrim
מאר
उद्वाह
It’s historical source comes from a religious act. That early religion dictated law is coincidental in the term’s meaning and use.
The actual uptick in general use comes following the Roman Empire turning Christian.
Prior to that they had a separate legally recognised joining rite. Which was the only recognition to the empire. Non-Roman religious beliefs like marriage were not recognised. An aid to a Prefect, a Tally, or a Censor would be called to record a separate joining beyond whatever Christians or Jews etc did.
The interesting thing here is Roman, and Greek, societies were generally very accepting of pan-sexuality. That was lost when Rome accepted marriage and de-legalised the standard joining.
What? Where? “ During the time” is past. Today? Point out a single difference other than on is tainted by 3000 years of nonsense and one has a base in law.
“ All states shall be required to file a civil domestic partnership contract with the federal registers office if they continue to issue marriage licensing.”
Nope!
No loophole. i accounted for states like Utah etc. lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. That the Modern English term stems from a religious act regarding what the law is or should be is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Also, you say it’s coincidental, but it’s not. For one thing, it utterly eviscerates your point that marriage wasn’t part of the law because this was absolutely about the law! That means that, from your earliest research, marriage was in both religion and the law. They were not separate at that time.
A distinction without a difference. Or rather, the only difference was the rite, not the practice or really the terminology.
No, it’s when they accepted Christian marriage, not marriage, period.
Okay, well, currently no one recognizes civil unions at all, so the term legally has no power whatsoever and doesn’t even exist anymore. There has never been a point in history where “marriage” and “civil union” have ever been legally equivalent. I simply went back to the last time we had civil unions at all, and they were specifically intended to be distinct from marriage from the onset, and they had different results. So, from a purely legal standpoint, they have never both coexisted and been equivalent, and there has never been a time where “civil unions” existed without “marriage” coexisting.
Yeah, that’s where the loophole is. See, that provision ensures that everyone who gets married will also be in a civil union, but (crucially) it does not require that everyone in a civil union must be able to get marriage licensing in states that continue to issue such licensing. The only thing that provision does is to ensure that all marriages recognized at the state level still get all the same federal benefits; it doesn’t do anything to ensure that everyone who gets those federal benefits also get all the state benefits that married couples do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, prior to that they didn’t have marriage. They had multiple other similar terms for similar recognition. The Christians just changed the term and applied all their restrictions to what use to be the legal method of partnering in law.
Ah, I did miss something, though not exactly what you point out:
Federal law overrules state law.
So let’s try this again:
*In order to conform with the Constitutional requirements of the separation of religion from State recognition:
Upon passage as of ##/##/#### the term “marriage” shal no longer be recognised as a legal partnership. All rights of the civil domestic partnership currently afforded to the term marriage are fully and permanently rescinded.
The practice of legal domestic partnering shall hence forth be referred to as a Civil Union and all rights previously afforded to the institution of marriage shall apply. Application is without restriction to two humans regardless of similarity or difference.
Be it confirmed, all states will transfer the practice of marriage verification to the practice of civil union verification.
All states issuing marriage licensing shall be required to issue a civil union licence with the federal registers office at the request of the married party. I here will be no time limitation on the married party’s right to federal filing and the state much submit such a filing within 10 days of request.*
Better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such a requirement should be unconstitutional, but unfortunately the courts would probably allow an argument that civil unions are an interstate commerce concern somehow. Everything else seems to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. And, ultimately, that’s just saying they had different names for marriages under different religions. That doesn’t mean that marriage originated with Christianity or religion.
It does fix the problem I found more-or-less. There may be some constitutional issues, and I’m no more convinced that this is actually helpful, but it’s the best version you put forth so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your looking at the act and I’m looking at the word.
A logical, rational, system fights to remove every and all stains of fantasy cloud people floating in the sky, from law. That includes terms that are undeniably based in religious practice, rule, and law,… !!!!!!!!
The very term is a disgusting 🤮 word! A relig[enslave the population]ous word. And anyone who claims it should be used and recognised is an ignorant fool that needs proper education—or an enemy of freedom.
“The belief that some shit god decides our faith must be eliminated. By book and law if we can. By sword if we must. For no man is free until all myth is removed from the court”~A Stone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You would have a point if “marriage” was an exclusively religious word.
But it isn’t.
So you don’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Your looking at the act and I’m looking at the word."
You're looking at a single definition of the word describing the act, and choosing to ignore everything else.
Your wilful ignorance is yet again noted, and will be used to remind everyone that you're a disingenuous moron uninterested in real conversation on future subjects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m looking at both. You have yet to present any evidence that the word is offensive to any class of people subjectively or is commonly used to deliberately offend people, nor have you shown the language used is ambiguous in context, nor have you shown that your proposed change has any practical difference in terms of its effects. Those are the only legitimate reasons from my POV to make changes to the language used in a law as opposed to a substantive change to the law.
As such, from my perspective, I fail to see how the change is actually helpful from a meaningful perspective rather than an illusory change at best.
And since I can rationally deny that the term “marriage” is based in religious practice, rule, or law, it’s not undeniable. Soooooo…. What’s the problem here?
Hey, you’re the one who said “undeniably”, so all I had to do was deny it.
I’m sorry you feel that way. Truly I am. However, by saying that, you have lost all semblance of being “rational” as you are now going for a purely emotional and subjective argument from only your opinion. This is especially the case as you appear to be alone in this.
Again, using intentionally inflammatory language without any actual point is not rational argument. I also deny the claim that “marriage” is a religious word.
Or—y’know—someone who recognizes that words change in meaning over time and in different contexts and also realizes the word is already used and recognized and so would need an actual reason to change that. Also someone who hates others dictating their language or who doesn’t believe in giving a word to people who don’t own it.
Seriously, your idea of what terms can be used in the law gives religious institutions way too much power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s partly correct. It has always been one man in the book practice. The number of wives didn’t change until the pre-nic-fathers tried to negate the the multiple levels of wives’s rights under religious law. Where the FNC then countered with the ‘right of the first’ to extend power from the male to the first wife. The ANF disagreed with handing legal power to a women at all
The ultimate decision post FNC was the Nicene fathers agreeing to a single wife and a single husband. Without addressing and still allowing the “collection” of the mistress. The Nicene group wound up the dominant group moving forward and multiple wives disappeared in the mid 500s. The mistress aspect was then addressed in the late 900s be the delegation of laws which was called to debate church laws of survival. On of those issues was the distribution of holding from the deceased wife. As the FNC didn’t update the old rules of wife to 2nd wife… then brother, then son
A large group of wealthy powerful women in the last 800s and early 900s attempted to disrupt church law by transferring holdings to offspring rather than first mistress.
Etc etc etc.
Probably not. But it cuts their argument off at the knee caps.
Muhammad had 12 overlapping.
And most practices max at 25.
What’s solved is the debate about the “sanctity of marriage”.
Even the FFRF has had extensive debates on the term. Some are on their YouTube channel.
Debating the term, they actually have a minor claim to it. They have no claim to the practice, so just turn them into the crybabies they are. Take away their sole claim to law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That’s partly correct. It has always been one man in the book practice."
Oh, I see. this is one of your "if you ignore all the evidence that proves me wrong then I'm totally right!" games...
"What’s solved is the debate about the “sanctity of marriage”."
Which has been dead for a long time. If Britney can get her marriage annulled after a few hours of doing it in Vegas, or Rudy can marry his cousin, then the sanctity of marriage is not being damaged by gay couples who have been together monogamously for 20 years finally being able to tie the knot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, my point in bringing up the polygamy thing in the Bible was to point out that religions don’t agree on the matter, and religions have changed the definition of marriage over time, so the argument by religious homophobes has no water and doesn’t merit any concessions like you propose.
Their argument never had a leg to stand on to begin with, so there are no kneecaps to cut them off at.
Look, if it doesn’t solve the problem, what’s the point?
I wasn’t sure about the exact number, but it doesn’t change my main point (not that it was that big of a deal, anyways).
No, it is not. That debate isn’t restricted to gay marriage. It’s also about stuff like adultery, divorce, gay adoption, sex outside of marriage, and a whole bunch of other things. You’ve only scratched the surface there.
Also, that ship sailed a looooooong time ago. The “sanctity of marriage” thing is and always has been illusory, at least how religious fundamentalists define it.
To be frank, I really don’t give a damn.
No, they don’t have a minor claim to the term, or at least not a valid claim to its use outside of their specific church. Like I said, throughout history, many languages have had terms for the practice with no connection to religion; none of those languages had a separate term for the same practice but restricted to religion.
They also have no claim to law for us to take away. That they believe they do is immaterial. (But if you think that that is the only claim they believe they have to law, you’re living in a fantasy world.)
You’re proposing granting something they never had to begin with in order to try to solve a meritless debate that doesn’t actually matter, and it likely won’t solve that debate anyways. I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that I don’t see that as having any actual benefits at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, none of that would be taking place in married couples when lay people aren’t getting married anymore. So it totally destroys their argument.
Considering they are the largest secular rights group in the country and one of the largest in the world, they hold weight in discussion about religion.
The primary benefit is one more step away from archaic cults having legal standing. It’s one more thing they can use in debate. Like it or not, most Republicans, and some Democrats, use the religious aspect of marriage in debate.
Strip it away and they can’t debate marriage if the law in from of them doesn’t have the term.
Wise practice is to remove as much religious claim as possible from law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How would removing legal recognition of marriage prevent laypeople from getting married? No, seriously, how?
Sure. But that’s not what this is about, really. It’s about marriage and language. As I believe I’ve made crystal clear, I believe those things are not defined by religion, so the FFRF holds no more weight on such matters than anyone else. Also, what did you say their position was? That they debate about it? So what? That they hold debates on the issue means nothing.
Most Republicans and some Democrats use the religious aspect of just about every term in debate. Marriage is in no way special in this regard. I still see no benefit in pretending they’re right when they are absolutely wrong.
Well, there is none, so problem solved. Sure, they may say they have a religious claim, but that doesn’t mean they’re right, and I see no reason to humor them by pretending they are.
Look, here’s the thing. I don’t see a meaningful problem to be solved here, and to the extent there is a problem at all, your idea won’t actually meaningfully solve the problem any better than what we already have. You can keep saying the same thing over and over again, but that won’t change anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It wouldn’t!
But
Do you really see non-religious people choosing to go to a church for a second licence/certification that has no legal weight?
I didn’t. As they don’t have one. It actually mirrors us here. People like you who want the term for it’s modern use vs people like me who despise the continued use in law due to it’s source. It’s original use.
Ideally we remove all of them. One by one. Flush religion from the law.
Tell that to them. They claim there is.
I simply state that they are not wrong, if not right either.
That’s unfortunate. Because as long as we allow items of religious significance, be it words, be it items, etc, to infect our government… we remain infected. Polluted. Dirty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Flush religion from the law."
The current law appears to be that the government doesn't get directly involved in religious ceremonies (barring that which involved child abuse, etc), and the churches don't get to dictate the lives of people who don't belong to their religion.
It seems to me that trying to enforce the Protestant definition of marriage is way more intrusion than allowing gay people to marry.
"Because as long as we allow items of religious significance, be it words, be it items, etc, to infect our government… we remain infected"
Then, I have bad news for you about many of the things your society is based on, especially if you accept polytheist societies as being acceptably religious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The terminology should be offensive to rational people. That it is not is just another sign that we are too willing to remain ignorant to the intrusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The terminology should be offensive to rational people."
Well, glad to know you won't be offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Assuming for the sake of argument that marriage does have religious origin, that doesn’t make usage of the term with its modern definition inherently offensive to rational people. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.
The fact that we aren’t offended by every use of every term with some connection to religion at any point in time is a point in favor of rational thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know several nonreligious people who attend church and who get married at a church, neither of which are necessary for a legally binding marriage today, either. So, yes, I absolutely see them doing so.
Then why did you bother bringing them up?
First off, this has been bothering me, but you keep making very basic grammar mistakes despite also claiming to be an expert on language. In this case, “it’s” vs “its”. I wouldn’t complain except you keep citing linguistics to support your point when you are apparently unfamiliar with the nuances of the English language.
Second, what you’re describing is the essentially the difference between linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism. The only difference being just how offended you are about any use in the law that goes against what you prescribe. This includes a false sense of attachment to the “origins” of words and English, some of which are factually incorrect. I find prescriptivism strongly distasteful in general, but the fact that you are trying to claim that your side is the “rational” one and the “moral” or “ethical” one is particularly appalling.
By which point your objection will be moot as no one will object to gay marriage on the basis of religion. It’s also an unrealistic idea that will almost certainly never happen. Let’s stick with reality, shall we?
Just because you say you have a claim doesn’t mean you have one. In this case, their claim to have a religious claim is factually and historically wrong. I don’t change how I word things because someone else claims that term is theirs to use as they see fit and everyone else must conform to their definition despite all evidence to the contrary.
Also, have you ever heard the phrase “not even wrong”? If they are neither wrong nor right, that means their claim is either pure opinion (and so doesn’t matter here) or irrelevant. I see no reason to change the language to conform to a point that is neither right nor wrong.
“Words of religious significance” is absurdly broad to the point that the English language could not function without them. People assign religious significance to so many mundane things that trying to exclude all of them is a fool’s errand. On top of that, you haven’t demonstrated to my satisfaction that marriage is sufficiently religious that allowing it in government somehow connects the government to religion, so the premise is still unproven.
Also, you’re sounding like a radical purist, and that is something I find even more distasteful than prescriptivism. Seriously, you’re beginning to sound fanatical about this. It’s getting to be ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because many of their members do have an opinion. Even if the organisation didn’t commit one way or the other.
Reverting dictation or autocorrect errors as I go are not a top concern for my life.
Some people-you obviously- are bothered by such minor issues. Others: not.
This isn’t general-publication-quality material. It’s a commentary on a low distribution internet article.
That AI is inconsistent at best, is well documented on this very site.
I’m not hung up on minor rules if the text is readable. And I won’t go through any great pains to fully edit such postings.
Bingo. Btw, “rational” has long been the term used by/for non-religious and irreligious thought.
Some of the largest such related publications use it in their titles. The Daily Rationalist, the Rational Times, The Rationalist; or the chain-essay Rational Thoughts on Historical Existence.
Rational thought simply refers to the scientific method as opposed to blind faith.
I stop short of that.
I have no interest in barring private belief. When you pass into that level your no difference than witch hunters.
I stop short of speech. It’s a fine line, sure; religious buildings should not be granted zoning exceptions. To don’t say it. Don’t think it.
But I’m free-speech enough to keep my hatred of religious institutions from crossing that line.
I can separate the fear and doubt that kindles religious beliefs, and the benefits of such beliefs, from the institutions of persecution that run so much of religious belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn’t go tossing around “rational” as if it’s the absolute opposite of religion/“blind faith”, son. I’m sure the Europeans who thought forcing African “savages” into generational slavery was a good thing and thought Black people were inherently subhuman also considered themselves to be “rational”.
Your overzealous anti-religious fervor doesn’t make you “rational”. It puts you on the opposite end of the horseshoe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ In politics, rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a "politics of reason" centered upon rational choice, deontology, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion”
~Wikipedia.
My use of the term in opposition to religion is far from a minor viewpoint.
It’s one of the most common uses. At least in this country.
Mind you those Europeans you consider used their faith in their book to reach those conclusions in Africa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like I said: opposite end of the horseshoe. Even a supposedly “rational” person can take their “rationality” to the level of a religious zealot—which is what you’ve been doing. You need to lighten the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which doesn’t support or detract from either of our points, making bringing them up completely pointless.
I more have an issue with the sheer number of errors that would be obvious at a glance. More to the point, when arguing about language, I personally feel one should be more careful about spelling and grammar in order to not undermine your own point.
And yes, its inconsistency is well-documented on this site, but that only demonstrates that you don’t check it at all since what you meant and what you said would be wildly different.
At any rate, that was more of an aside to begin with rather than a real point. Sure, it bothers me, but I generally avoid criticizing outside of specific situations.
Indeed they do. However, if that is the meaning you intend, your argument doesn’t really work that well tbh.
Not necessarily; lots of philosophical and logical debates are rational thought but don’t involve the scientific method at all. I’d also contend that that definition differs from the one you literally just mentioned, so if that is what you’re going with, my point still works against you. Your stance isn’t based upon the scientific method, so by your definition it is not rational.
We’re on agreement on that, then, but that’s why I only said you were sounding like a radical purist rather than going all-in on that claim.
That’s great, except that marriage isn’t owned by religious institutions, either. If anything, that makes your point more confusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’ll have to forgive Lostcause; his aggressive inconsistency is a result of his conservative ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Sex has always been binary. Make and female."
Sex and gender are not the same thing.
"Marriage is a religious act."
No, it's also a secular act and a legal act.
"I believe the LGBT community is after the wrong thing and have always believed that."
Why you dislike equality is up to you, but it's a good thing they've achieved it. For the most part, at least.
"Oh, I’m prejudicial here"
I didn't say that. I said that I haven't heard an argument against equality that isn't based in needless prejudice. You can present one if you feel I've not seen it.
"That you came up with those situations in your own mind should now give you pause to consider the method"
The method being me responding to someone who came up with a fantasy about what might happen when a trans woman is in a shower, without evidence that it's happened and without considering the opposite scenario.
"Prior to B Clinton nearly every combat ready company in the military had a “queer country” platoon"
"Separate but equal" is very problematic for obvious reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s a recent change in use, clearly and obviously not accepted by all, yet, if ever.
Maybe, but the word is not
I laid out the history of the word more than once at this site. This is a fight for you and others to give up on. I have a secondary degree in linguistics.
I’m a volunteer translator for Babel GBh, more commonly known as Babylon Software.
as well as both Abbyy and the Archive Organisation.
I specialise in dead languages as a side effect of my interest in religious history. And history in general.
It’s not equality. That’s the problem. Equality would be gender blind.
Agreed. But combined and silent caused more issues than it solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That’s a recent change in use"
No, it's not. Recently a subject of concern for the right-wing echo chamber who decided they needed another target after they were told gay people have rights, perhaps, but no scientifically. That's why there's different words to describe them
"Maybe, but the word is not"
In which dictionary?
"I laid out the history of the word more than once at this site"
Good for you, that means you can easily link to it instead of typing it out again.
But, for a linguistic expert you always seem to have a problem with there being multiple definitions of words. Either way, words are there to describe things, and the concept of marriage predates Christianity, and has meant many different things throughout history and culture.
"It’s not equality."
What is not equal about people having literally the same rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here’s a quickie for you:
https://www.liquisearch.com/marriage/etymology
That is because I hold the original origin in higher regard than modern use or misuse.
That the term marriage slipped into legal use has more to do with religious influence in government than it does the meaning of the word changing.
Again, be it granted, I seek to purge all religion from law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Here’s a quickie for you"
Hmmm... I don't see your claimed religious origin there, although it does state that the word was coined around 1250 years after Christianity (although the concept predates that).
"That is because I hold the original origin in higher regard than modern use or misuse."
So, you don't believe in the fact that colloquial language changes over time?
Which is weird since you're talking in modern English and not prior versions, and you freely use the word "gay" in its modern context and not its original context. Almost as if you're picking and choosing whatever suits you to oppose equality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
kan du forstå mig? hvis jeg valgte en tidlig variant af mit genetiske sprog, ville du ikke forstå.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have debated me enough to know language is not the sword to die on with me
Marriage-merge-meage-mrgee-
matrim
מאר
उद्वाह
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I've talked to you long enough to know that you'll dive into random non-sequitur tangents rather than accept a mistake and that despite your claims you seem to be getting most of your information from places that would not understand the language you try to justify yourself with.
"You have debated me enough to know language is not the sword to die on with me"
As ever, you fixate on an idea but don't understand why it's not relevant. You claimed the word marriage came from religion. Your citation for that said nothing of the sort, and in fact stated that the work came from 1250+ years after the main religion in the US was invented. Not that it matters, since the separation of church and state demands that the civil idea of marriage can not be affected by how offended some bigots are about same sex couples.
I'm sure if we delved into some anthropology, perhaps predating language, we'd still find concepts similar to marriage, but that's not really relevant. Other concepts under the law do not have the same recognition and power as marriage in a civil sense, so it's better to extend those protections to same sex couples than try and rewrite many other laws to introduce a separate but equal clause that always leads to discrimination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, not at all. I don’t seek separate but equal. I seek to purge the term from any legal recognition.
I seek separate and unequal. Demoting the term from all legal use.
Getting “married” should start and end in the book people buildings.
A/O: a total replacement of the term in law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, rewrite the entire law surrounding interpersonal relationships, because you're scared of allowing gay people to have the same marriage rights. I'm sure this makes sense to someone rational, but he's not in this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, more of that selective inaccurate take away.
Rewrite the whole of the law because it is based on a religious ceremony!
It has nothing to do with sexual preference. Or any other ‘not Christian’ concern.
Using the term gives them power. Gives them the ability to claim against the term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it’s based on a concept (monogamous committed relationships recognized by law) that has existed outside of religions—including Christianity—for a long goddamn time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Rewrite the whole of the law because it is based on a religious ceremony!"
No secular law is based on religious ceremony. But, your wild flailing to avoid the admitted fact that you're a homophobic, transphobic bigot is noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that supplying all non-religious people with more protection is bigoted but if that’s how you see it.
You’re still stuck on classing things togetherbased on your viewpoint no matter the circumstances.
The word has religious meanings and connotations: it should be stripped from law.
My view has nothing to do with rights or bigotry! It’s purely the goal of removing all religious views and terms, ideas, from law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that supplying all non-religious people with more protection is bigoted but if that’s how you see it."
I'm not entirely sure how destroying the concept of secular marriage because you're offended by your imagined origin of the word equals more protection, but I can see a lot of flailing to avoid the simple act of making a slight alteration to the legal definition to include gay marriage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, with the conclusion regardless of statement.
Because it isn’t “imagined” origin. It’s historical fact. That similar secular practice existed before the terminology, that the term has lost it’s historical meaning, is not a reason to hide your head in the sand.
It is the term itself that is offensive. A lowering of one’s self to the hatred and bigotry of religious practice.
It has nothing to do with sexuality for me. The word has no place in a secular society. Fall for the illusion of success if you must.
But you have in actuality lowered yourself to their level. You acquiesced acceptance of a doctrinal notion.
You can change meaning, but the source, the history, remains.
It’s quite simple. And your conclusion is laughably inaccurate.
You see the use of the term as an elevation of status to equality.
I see any recognition of the term in law as a lessening of the self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Because it isn’t “imagined” origin. It’s historical fact"
The concept of marriage predates both Christianity and the English language.
"It is the term itself that is offensive."
To you. Most other people are OK with it.
"You see the use of the term as an elevation of status to equality."
I see applying the term equally as equality. None of your nonsense has challenged that in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There’s no flailing here.
I despise the legal recognition of any terminology that has religious use. More so for terms that have a source in religious practice.
Concept and terminology are separate.
And as long as people foolishly allow such terms to be a part of our law the country remains under the influence of fantasy.
You may be ohkay with the use of the term. I am not. That has nothing to do with what my social opinions are. It’s just another way the cloud worshippers dig their claws into civil society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That removes a lot of terms from legal recognition, not just marriage. Does that mean we have to remove “speech”, “religion”, “charity”, “debts”, “forgive”, “mercy”, “judgment”, “judge”, “leader”, and so many others from the law? Those have religious use as well.
Come to think of it, “law” has religious use, too. Guess it has to go, too.
No one else shares that opinion. Most people recognize that words can, y’know, change over time, sometimes in ways that are unrecognizable compared to their source.
And, again, lots of words are just as linked to a source in religious practice that today have nothing to do with religion. Going back to the source only helps so much.
And yet you insist on linking the two as though the term “marriage” is inseparable from the concept of “religious recognition of a binding between two or more persons”.
What fantasy?
Well, no one else has a problem with the use of the term, so you might as well suck it up and deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’d give you judge in that list. It was first used as a religious term for. Religious position.
Though I/we are not after religious use. Just religious source.
Judges were of religious appointments where mediators were of legal/civil positions.
And in reality today’s reality judges, especially the lower levels, are actually mediators. They interpret the law. The jury decides the case within the law and the “judge” mediates the ruling against the law.
Ffrf.org
I’m the minority in the minority, but definitely not alone.
Gods and goddesses. Flat earth. Young earth. Creation.
Things without definite evidence.
When was the last time god sat in a whiteness chair in a court hearing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the Freedom From Religion Foundation openly, explicitly, and purposefully endorse the idea of changing laws to remove words with “religious origins”, or are you projecting a position you hold onto them for the sake of an appeal to authority?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s not what you said earlier, but my point still stands.
Precisely my point. Now if only you’d realize that marriage is no different in that regard as it relates to its usage in law…
You might as well be. You’re the only one who I’ve ever heard speak out about this outside of purely philosophical debates. You also have a far stronger reaction to the term than anyone else I’ve ever heard mention it. And I actively seek out debates on marriage, atheism, and civil rights when I get bored.
Also, as I’ve already made clear, I have limits to what I consider to be “offensive” from a relatively objective standpoint. If the offended portion of the class is small enough, I really don’t care what they consider offensive when it comes to what should be in the law. More importantly, by “offensive” I mean that it is an insult about or directly related to that class or is based upon ignorance of or misunderstanding about that class. It also can’t solely be offensive if it appears in law. At least, that’s how I’m defining it.
Just because some people take offense to a term doesn’t make that term offensive.
Use of the term “marriage” in secular law doesn’t perpetuate those things, so your point goes nowhere here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn’t be against the change of term there either. But I’m only able to die on one sword at a time. 😉
This went from debate to argument when it was thrown out to class me as anti-lgbt for being against the term in law.
In reality my goal is quite the opposite than that idea.
But to raise all domestic unions above the religious aspect with a lay term in law.
So you could, potentially, understand my premise without the need to throw me into some other group. Eh? Even if we disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That already happened when same-sex marriage was made legal nationwide: Secular same-sex marriages stand above any religious form of marriage by virtue of the government recognizing same-sex marriages even when a given religious sect does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with you, but on the specific question he asked, that’s not exactly relevant. He’s saying that his stance—even if it is completely illogical and unnecessary and wrong—is not necessarily proof that he is homophobic or transphobic. I’d honestly be willing to concede that narrow issue; not every crazy idea about marriage is based on ignorance or prejudice regarding sex, gender, or humane sexuality, and this doesn’t mean that he isn’t completely and utterly wrong in that or other stances, nor does it mean that he’s not a homophobe or transphobe. It just means he has a crazy and wrong idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I will agree that holding your position—as absurd a position as it is—is not, at least as stated, necessarily transphobic, homophobic, or biphobic. It has a number of other problems, and this doesn’t necessarily mean you are not bigoted, but I will go as far as to say that bringing up that particular stance of yours is insufficient evidence of those particular varieties of bigotry at the very least. If that was your point, I will concede that specific issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dude, FYI: I’m a queer atheist, and I’m 100% fine with the term “marriage”. You’re literally trying to convince us that we should rewrite laws for the sake of comforting your feelings. That isn’t how things work—for you or for anyone else.
Do you want to get married and call your marriage a “civil union” or a “civil partnership” or a “good ol’ fashioned country hootenany”? Go ahead and do it. But you don’t have the right to, nor do you deserve to, make everyone else do the same so you’ll feel better about it.
So please quit trying to tell everyone else here how they should feel about the word “marriage”, Lostcause. You’re not rich, famous, or weird enough to make us change our minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And fyi: I’m a bi/pan agnostic, and I am not.
And until we have the right to civil bonding with the same protection of the practice currently termed with a word of religious history, we are not equal.
The difference is you are arguing a fight for the word. We are arguing a fight for the law.
I disagree with your view, as you do mine. But we are, actually looking for the same solution. The wording is different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re being a bigger jackass than usual, Lostcause.
Even if “marriage” was a religious term in the past, the concept it represents wasn’t (and isn’t) overtly religious. Extending to queer people the secular marriage rights/privileges enjoyed by straight/cis people is equality under the law. Your being upset about the term “marriage” is a “you” problem; everyone else either doesn’t give a shit or recognizes the Everest-level uphill climb it would take to get the law changed in the way you want.
And before you go on and on about “waaaaaaaaah you don’t give a shit about atheists”, I am an atheist and I don’t give a fuck. You don’t speak for me, and you sure as shit don’t speak for all atheists. Stop acting like your feelings entitle you to make life hell for everyone else, you goddamned asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can get married if you want. I’ll shake my head and admit I can’t understand using such a term willingly.
But at the moment those of us who want a bonding that is purely and completely secular are out of luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can get married without ever once going through a religious ceremony. That you’re more worried about what to call your marriage is your problem. You don’t deserve the right to change the law for the sake of fixing your own personal bullshit—especially when the change you propose has no other purpose besides making you feel better about your explicitly anti-religious/anti-spiritual hangups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I’d imagine because it’s just a word, was never intended to offend, and isn’t inherently offensive. As I’ve said in at least one other comment, “A rose by any other name is still a rose.”
The legal process of marriage is purely and completely secular, so that’s false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No on both counts. I do not.
Though neither do you. This discussion is proof of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlike you, I don’t pretend to speak for all atheists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nor did I. I stated multiple times we’re the minority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are one person; don’t presume to speak for others, and don’t use other people’s power for your own principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"We"
Don't speak in the plural. I've not heard any other atheist attack the idea of secular marriage, and I sure as hell haven't heard one motivated by an opposition to trans and gay rights as you have in this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You’re too deluded to deal with today.
Nothing I’ve said here has any negative connotations towards sexual choices.
All I did was offer a way to legally elevate the people as a whole above the religious claims.
But you are too stuck in the thought than anything other than what you think must be bigotry.
It’s not a likely solution. But stripping a term from legal recognition would kill the argument. Sure, they’d turn around and argue they have a right to use the term. It it would make the term meaningless in law. So your priest pastor dude can give you a “licence” but legal recognition of a civil union is all the government would recognise.
Kind of hard to complain about marriage concerns in law when the government doesn’t use the term.
That is/was The point.
Every step of the way on expansion of rights under the term they have complained. So, stop using the term? Strip the term of its recognition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Nothing I’ve said here has any negative connotations towards sexual choices."
You've pretty clearly opposed the idea of gay marriage.
"All I did was offer a way to legally elevate the people as a whole above the religious claims."
Which already happens. No religious choice affects the requirements of secular marriage. Do whatever you want in your own ceremonies, but if you want it to be legally recognised you do the secular paperwork.
"legal recognition of a civil union is all the government would recognise"
...then you deal with the fact that such unions are only recognised by individual states and there's no federal standard. Then, if you create a federal standard you have the problem of them not being recognised internationally like marriages are. And so on...
"Every step of the way on expansion of rights under the term they have complained"
Yes, until they've expanded to the point where they're actually equal they will have a valid complaint. So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I’m opposed to applying the term marriage to anything legally recognised.
Sure. A federal law that eliminates the term marriage completely and institutes a national recognition of all joining in law as civil unions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Even if “marriage” was a religious term in the past"
But, of course, it's not. The concept predates Christianity. Even if it didn't, it exists in many other religions. The easiest way to deal with this is to allow religions to have whatever ceremony they see fit, but to agree with a basic secular concept of it in order to have it recognised by secular government. Bigot have tried fighting against this idea, with age, familial connection, race and now gender, but it's the perfect separation of church and state until you decide that you would rather impose your ideas on to others. The sanctity of marriage has been in freefall according to some people since at least the time that Henry VIII decided he's rather invent a new religion than be stuck with a woman who had a girl child, and I dare say that medieval mindsets should not rule our current life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it’s not. First off, “similar secular practice”? There is no meaningful difference! There never has been.
And when the modern term “marriage” was introduced to the English language, the number of English-speaking persons who were publicly neither Christian nor Jewish was essentially zero, so there would be no reason to distinguish between secular marriage and religious marriage.
You’re the only one I know of who finds the term “marriage” offensive. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, polygamists, MGTOWs, Christians, atheists… none of them ever have expressed any issue with the term. You’re trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
The notion that people like to form long-term relationships as the start of a new nuclear family? Seriously, no one can agree on the “doctrinal notion” of marriage or that such a notion is inherently present within marriage to begin with, so there’s no such acceptance anywhere but your imagination.
And it ultimately means nothing to modern usage. When we use “gay”, are we tethered to its historical meaning? Or what about “awful”? It originally meant “tending to inspire great awe” and was a positive quality to have. Does that mean that every use of it must conform to that origin? And I guess since the N word didn’t originally have any offensive meaning (it was just a word for a kind of mite/bug), that means the word isn’t an insult now?
Seriously, there is nothing about the word “marriage” as it is used today that necessarily invokes a religious connotation. None of the roots of the word “marriage” necessarily refer to religion, either. That religion was intertwined with the concept at the time and place that the term was introduced is irrelevant.
The fact is that there is no reason in the modern day to insert a new term for marriage with no connection to religion because, frankly, it’s a dumb argument. Neither side will be better off or happier with your proposed solution, and it’d be a pain to modify literally every single law that mentions marriage to fit whatever term fits your fancy. You’d also effectively be regulating language since atheists were getting married long before the gay marriage debate came up.
If you’re going to change the words of a statute in such a way that has no effective difference, then the problem with the existing words has to be either that they are ambiguous or confusing (which no one would argue is the case here) or the existing words are inherently offensive to a class of people (which isn’t the case here).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the man/woman issue.
Well, with gay, many of them are happy. But that word of itself is not of a religious origin. The transformation of the word is partly the claim that that was exactly the end result, happinesses.
as for awful: actually we’re not far from that base. Awe isn’t necessarily a positive word.
Well it is. 2 classes actually.
First is the religious claim. One that’s not without merit. As this very long chain shows.
The other is the group of people who fight against the chains religion holds over our country!
We are not majority but we are many. The same people who want “good” off our currency. That want the pre-cold-war pledge restored. That want all religious terms and displays
Removed
From public owned locations.
Clearly many are more interested in modifying laws to bring equality than removing laws with religious connotations.
And it’s obvious you aren’t worried about the concerns of atheists, let alone their agnostic supporters like my self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the Ten Commandments says “thou shalt not kill”. Should we remove all laws against murder because of their clearly religious connotations?
(What I’m saying is you’re a jackass who wants the law changed for the sake of assauging your ignorance. I’m 100% for the separation of church and state, and even I have no fundamental issue with the term “marriage”.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, guess what? Religious people don’t have any right to decide that for secular marriage, and calling it “marriage” doesn’t concede that notion.
Well, the “transformation” of “marriage” could be said to be much the same, and the word “gay” currently has no relation to “happiness”. The fact that gay doesn’t have a religious origin is irrelevant.
Currently, no. It used to have a positive connotation that it no longer has. Again, as it was used originally is completely the opposite of its modern meaning.
You seem to be missing the point. Obviously each step in the change would be rational and related to the one just before, but just because A is similar to B and B is similar to C doesn’t mean that A is similar to C.
On the contrary, it demonstrates the exact opposite. Also, no religious person is offended by having government’s use the term “marriage” in general. That’s what I mean by offensive. If it’s too context dependent, then it’s not inherently offensive to a class of people.
Not only is that group tilting against windmills but some of those windmills don’t actually exist. It’s only “offensive” to them because they unilaterally decided it was offensive because of some irrational reason with no real basis in reality.
Assuming you meant “God”, I wholly support those goals. However, that has nothing to do with marriage.
As I am an agnostic supporter of atheists (an agnostic theist, but an agnostic nevertheless), the only way you could possibly be more wrong about that is if I was an atheist like Stephen Stone or PaulT, neither of whom share your concern, either. I am very worried about the rational concerns of atheists. I am not worried about the ones they make up in their imaginations.
Tilt at windmills all you like; it’s a pointless task doomed to fail that would have no actual benefit if you succeeded, but have at it, I guess. I’ll still call you out if I feel you are wrong or haven’t demonstrated your claim, and I will also point out how dumb the goal you set is. That’s how debate works. It doesn’t make me less of an ally to atheists to not take the extremists’ side on an issue or to fight back against those extremists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless I miss my guess, I believe that your logic necessarily means that the English word “merge” also has religious origins. Does that mean we need to remove that word from the government, too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh… no?
Does it? I’m not aware of that. I’m not looking up the entomology at the moment but I don’t recall reading merge in a religious context of any regularity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, it was in your list of the preceding terms leading to “marriage”.
It’s fine if I’m wrong about that, but if I am right, it shows a significant flaw in your argument. That’s why I mentioned it.
On a completely unrelated note—and this isn’t a criticism per se but just something I find amusing—I find it funny that you ended up calling the study of the evolution, origins, and transformation of words “entomology”—which is the study of insects among other similar organisms—rather than “etymology”. Again, this one isn’t a criticism or me pointing it out for the purpose of you correcting it or anything like that. It’s a fairly common mistake, after all, it’s easy to miss, and it was clear what you intended to say from context. It’s just one I find especially amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fucking autocorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m okay with having separate showers for them. Or be less dedicated to hiding sexuality. Either is fine.
What happens when a male boy gets a hard-on in a boys’ locker room and discovers he’s really gay/bi/pan/etc.? If it can be handled there, why not in the girls’ locker room?
Also, I’m personally in favor of having locker rooms set up so that no one can see anyone’s privates.
Again, I really think this whole issue could be easily sidestepped with locker rooms set up so no one can see anyone’s privates. But if not, then there should be people who are ready to deal with that in the schools.
How are they going about it that’s a problem? Like I said, I see no fundamental difference between your proposed scenario and with having homosexual or bisexual cisgender people share a locker room with people with the same gender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The education needs to be fixed. Plain and simple.
Why are “private” private?
If we actually were to teach hotdogs and buns, dingdongs and hohos an everything that is involved in putting a plug in a socket… there’d be much less grief.
As I’ve said in the past I’m more supportive of proper education and less modesty.
We could educate out all this gender crap as a whole by focusing on total and complete honesty and accuracy.
I don’t agree with men in women’s and women in men’s.
I say educate and integrate.
No more his her, just toilet.
No more men/women. Just undergarments.
Like marriage above… to much focus on separating and too much focus on accommodating.
If your not happy hold it or piss yourself.
If your not happy keep stinking and move on.
Etc.
Stop fighting to be part of their club and just wipe out the separations.
Letting a man in a dress, as I’ve brought up multiple times, sit in a stall in a “woman’s” toilet is asking for trouble in our repressive culture.
We wind up with the dirty man and camera at the swim park.
Take away the selective protection. No gender, no sex. And no walls or doors. Good luck sitting there for 2 hours with a cam on that premise.
Waste expulsion is part of biology. There’s nothing private about it. We don’t put our dogs in a bathroom to go. They do it in the park.
And we train our cats to be private with covered boxes and the like.
We need to stop looking at it from the wrong end.
See, again all the book people morality and modesty is the reality. And the movement to force into it. The solution isn’t force. It’s to take time and do away with the method completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ll address this in full later, but I want to address this right now.
As I’ve commonly said, how would you know? Very, very few people with male parts who actually try to use the women’s restroom look any different from people with female parts who try to use the women’s restroom, so if you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing in the restroom, no one should have any trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also this needs to be called out for the anti-trans rhetoric it is. The call to switch to unisex restrooms is great, and I completely agree. What is not great is 1) calling trans women "men in dresses" and 2) suggesting that there is something wrong with a trans woman going into a stall in a women's restroom, closing the door, and doing her business. Regardless of how repressive and messed up our culture is, nobody needs to know what is under her dress. At least you're not calling for her to use the men's room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it isn’t. You fail to recognise how CSAM such as bathroom peep cams are made.
Most cases involved a male dressed as a female.
There’s a difference between someone who prefers the clothing and someone who simply plays dress up.
Right now the separation is part of the problem. And inviting variations in that separation doesn’t help the more vulnerable.
We don’t need equal access, we need to do away with separation and move to single access.
I’m accepting that the privacy aspect is part of the divide in understanding my approach vs yours. But what’s so private?
We all piss and crap. Do it and leave.
Where you approach it as “ nobody needs to know what is under her dress”
I say nobody should care. Including her.
The privacy aspect is part of the problem.
Western society is too focused on too much privacy and it has its downsides.
A good part of this problem, ignored in debate, is the bullshite privacy of sexuality.
This is also roped into the whole top-freedom movement, the right to nudity… etc.
If you don’t want to see something don’t look!
And if you do want to see, so what!
To over exaggerate it you remove 99% of the crime by going to 100% open. You’re not going to get a casual groping in a unisex environment.
You remove the crime of opportunity. Anyone who still does something Has a legitimate problem to be addressed. Not incarcerated.
—see my point here? My goal?
It extends to race and affirmative action. It extends to every cultural issue.
Stop with the separate but equal. And stop with the accommodations!
We should be fighting for pure blind equality. Not stand or sit. Nit race. Not creed. Not age. Etc.
Nothing here is anti-trans. I don’t care. It’s still artificial grouping.
Stop with the grouping.
If I want to put on a mini skirt and a tube top and dance in the rain it’s my own damn choice. And if you don’t like it sod off!
I approach everything with that mentality.
This drive still throws the children to the predators and is condescending!
Standing urinals exist all over the world for women, though especially in Asia.
There’s no need for separation. Just do it and leave.
And stop being so body protective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're saying a man puts on a dress and goes into a women's restroom to plant a camera? 1) got a reference for how often this happens? and 2) your solution to this is to have everyone just crap in public with just anyone watching? You're insane if you think that is ever going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Insane? It’s common enough across large sections of the world. Even strongly religious countries like Spain and Italy and Brazil have communal wash and bath.
Non-gendered is the world norm. And while some place have “stalls” many do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Even strongly religious countries like Spain and Italy and Brazil have communal wash and bath."
I can't speak for Italy, but the majority of toilet facilities in Spain are very much private. In fact, more private than the US because they don't have the weirdly high gap at the bottom of the stalls that seems prevalent in the US.
"Non-gendered is the world norm. And while some place have “stalls” many do not."
I'm intrigued as to which countries you're referring to here, given your misrepresentation above. Also, many countries don't have flushing toilets or urinals but essentially use a hole in the ground. I don't believe that's a preferable cultural change compared to allowing trans women use the toilet privately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My experience in Spain is limited to a single private airport so I may be off on the toilet facilities there beyond the airport: which had three separate’rooms’ all of which were a half dozen seated toilets 🚽 style with no doors, stalls, etc.
But France, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Norway, most of non-Muslim-majority east Europe, north west Asia.
The Thai-Viet countries. Southern China, and much of South America.
In each of those I used communal showers. Non-gendered toilets.
I knew that female standing urinals were growing in in Japan but I was surprised to find them as common in Russia.
Many of the non-tourist locals I’ve visited have a single shower room per floor. One to six toilets.
And I always laughed at the western tourists that wondered off the a+ path and found themselves blushing in open genderless showers.
For the locals it’s nothing. For the common visitors you quickly adapt.
The west is too fixated on bothering gender and privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My experience in Spain is limited to a single private airport so I may be off on the toilet facilities there beyond the airport: which had three separate’rooms’ all of which were a half dozen seated toilets 🚽 style with no doors, stalls, etc."
Well, my experience of Spain is much wider and when you go to pretty much any bar, restaurant, shopping mall, bus station, train station, major airport, etc., you will be faced with 2 gendered bathroom areas.
"In each of those I used communal showers. Non-gendered toilets."
I'd be curious in what capacity. I've seen such things in hostels and the like but generally not in the places locals would go. Although I admit I've not been to Asia personally.
"Many of the non-tourist locals I’ve visited have a single shower room per floor"
Yeah, I've stayed in hotel/hostals/pensions where that's what you get for the cheap price if you don't upgrade to private accommodations. But, again, locals aren't staying there most of the time unless they're on vacation, and I'm pretty sure the context of the original conversation wasn't about what tourists on a budget are doing.
"The west is too fixated on bothering gender and privacy."
Which is interesting, because the only person doing that here is the guy fixated on which bathroom trans people need to use. Everyone else seems fine with the using the appropriate bathroom for the gender they present as.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ve been following this whole issue closely for a long time. I’ve heard of absolutely no instances of a male dressed as a female doing that outside of fiction. At all. Maybe there are some in some places, but most? Definitely not.
As a disguise? Yes. However, as it pertains to bathrooms, it is a non-issue.
I have no idea what you mean by “variations in that separation”. That said, this is sounding like a cultural thing rather than a rights thing.
The issue is that if I don’t want people to see my privates, they shouldn’t see my privates. If other people don’t care if others see their privates, fine, but I fail to see why the option to keep them private shouldn’t be available.
First of all, this directly conflicts with your earlier issue regarding bathroom peep cameras. If she shouldn’t care if someone sees what’s under her dress, she should care if there’s a bathroom peep cam, either.
Second, I don’t want to force everyone to bare themselves if they don’t want to, nor do I believe they necessarily should want to. Different people are different. I don’t want to force them to abandon those differences.
I agree, but not for the same reasons. I think Western society is too focused on what happens in private.
I’m not against those things. I just believe people should be able to decide for themselves what about themselves they should keep private.
I agree with the first, but as for the second… I’m more along the lines of, “If you don’t want to show something don’t show it!” That said, if someone does show it, I agree that it shouldn’t matter if others want to look.
I guess you could say the difference is between someone looking at someone else who walks around naked and someone who flips up skirts to look, or between looking at an exhibitionist showing off and peeping on a person in their bedroom.
I’d like to see evidence of that, especially given the fact that casual groping occurs outside of restrooms and locker rooms, like on subways or at work, but for the record, I’m not opposed to having unisex restrooms and locker rooms. I just think that they should be made to allow for people to do whatever it is they’re doing in private if they wish to.
By increasing the opportunities for the crime, you reduce the crimes done in opportunity? I really don’t think you’ve thought this through. At all.
I agree. I just don’t think that works in your favor. As I said, I’m fine with unisex rooms, but I have a very different idea of how they work.
As a disabled person, I kinda need some accommodations, so I’m gonna take a hard pass on that.
Sounds nice. Absurdly idealistic with no grounds in reality, but nice.
Uh, no. See, here’s the thing. Remember when you said, “There’s a difference between someone who prefers the clothing and someone who simply plays dress up”? Yeah, there’s also a difference between being transgender and being transvestite. They are completely separate and unrelated things.
I agree that if you “want to put on a mini skirt and a tube top and dance in the rain,” that is your choice and none of my business. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with being transgender. Even if no piece of clothing was gender-specific, transgender people would still exist even though crossdressing would not.
As for the grouping, the distinction is always there. It’s just that it should only have a difference in specific contexts. I’m not against removing bathrooms or locker rooms from the contexts in which sex or gender are distinctions with a difference, but they are still groups. And there’s nothing artificial about it.
My experience with Asia is limited to Japan, and as far as I can tell, they still have separate public restrooms and baths for men and women (though there are some mixed baths that allow both men and women), and the women’s restrooms generally don’t have standing urinals as far as I can tell. I’m not against having women have standing urinals, but I’m unaware of that being common-practice anywhere.
Also, “X is common in culture/region Y” doesn’t necessarily mean we should change our culture to conform to that. It’s a good argument against claims that X can’t work at all or that X doesn’t exist, but that’s it.
I agree with the “just do it and leave” and, to an extent, “no need for separation,” but the body protective? I believe that people should have the right to be protective of their own bodies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The difference is adults vs the vulnerable minors. That’s all I was concerned with up top.
But the chance of someone getting away with holding a camera in an open layout non-gendered room… slim.
Minor correction, you won’t have people getting away with it.
My apologies, that’s not what I meant. My mum is as well.
The projection of rage is the bending over backwards to adapt to every minor difference of opinion.
Japan’s an interesting country. Kind of like the opposite of California in social practice.
But they first implemented the women’s urinal:
https://www.japan-talk.com/jt/new/7-Japanese-toilet-oddities
I’m over generalising but…
In the cities Japan tends to be more conservative in social action. It’s the outskirts, and the country, that you start to find the more “liberal” attitudes. Especially south. Onsen, toilet, shower, etc… the gender mixing is more common.
Your initial thought is correct though. It’s culture. And I’d rather change the culture. If everyone just went in, did, then left… regardless of any differences?
That’s the goal I think the move should be towards.
But again my concern for, situations, stems from security.
Due to privacy there is little to no security for the more vulnerable members of society in these “private” areas.
When you simply open the door to everyone, sure you increase opportunity, but you also increase the population. You’re far less likely to have someone get away with misuse of a camera, a hand, or a finger.
You quickly create a security net. Again, strength in numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s an interesting idea, but it’s not terribly realistic, and we would need to work towards it step-by-step. Which is exactly what I was proposing. The only difference is where the final destination is. The “modifying privacy” thing would need to happen first before we could eliminate privacy the way you intend.
That said, since we’re discussing Japan, and you mentioned the whole “not getting away with it” sort of thing, are you aware that Japan currently has a major problem with sexual harassment and such in public and nobody doing anything about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Letting a man in a dress, as I’ve brought up multiple times, sit in a stall in a “woman’s” toilet is asking for trouble in our repressive culture."
Your inability to differentiate between transvestism and transgenderism is your problem. But, your parroting of long-debunked right wing talking points is noted.
"Take away the selective protection. No gender, no sex. And no walls or doors. Good luck sitting there for 2 hours with a cam on that premise."
Your answer to there being a perv you made up in this scenario is to... supply public visibility to any perv in the area and give free shows to security guards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. Strength in numbers. The commune vs the wolf. Yes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then please point to a single evidence-based instance of any elementary, middle, or high school teaching what you call “culturally relevant teaching”. (That’s not actually a term people actually use, by the way, including the opponents to CRT (whatever you think it stands for), but I’m just playing ball to see if you have anything to back up your claims.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.teachforamerica.org/stories/how-to-engage-culturally-relevant-pedagogy
Is a good place to start.
But a largely used education pamphlet available here: https://roar-assets-auto.rbl.ms/documents/7004/Howtotalkabout%20race.pdf
Lays out some of the more, one sided, ideas.
Whatever you want to call it, it’s half-truths.
When you start to ouch people to dislike a class just because of the past and a tiny minority that still exists under rocks, doesn’t help anyone.
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2021/07/07/teaching-hate-and-revenge-high-school-crt-teacher-reveal s-the-horrible-truth-about-crt-n1459813
It was a New York school pamphlet that redirected me to the actual used terminology. Even if you don’t think anyone uses it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Article 1 is perfectly benign. It uses the “culturally relevant” nomenclature, but has no other resemblance to anything you said. It doesn’t even use “CRT” but “CRP” (the P being for “Pedagogy”), and it has nothing to do with Critical Race Theory or any of the things either you or the CRT-alarmists complain about, so it is completely and utterly irrelevant.
The pamphlet sounds roughly like one view of CRT, but it seems upper high school level or college-level based on the wording, and it—again—is about critical examination. It is not teaching that it is true, but that it is a lens that can be used. Also, notice the questions at the end, which are similar to what you’d see in a standardized test asking you to discuss a paper about an idea, regardless of the merit of the idea itself. I had to do a similar one on a pro-fascism paper, so—again—not really alarming.
The PJ Media one is typical alarmist BS. It also says nothing about anything else being said in the discussion. For all we know, when it says “this is about revenge”, they are about to tell a true story that involves revenge, not advocating revenge, and not to spread the information because of sensitive private information being discussed in the anecdote. We simply don’t have enough information to judge. I also don’t see how this involves teaching CRT to K-12. We just have the writer of the article saying it was about teaching Critical Race Theory to someone. Setting aside the fact that writer is clearly biased (they make zero attempt at hiding it), that’s so vague as to be meaningless for the purposes of this discussion. Speaking of, this doesn’t prove your claims about either the terminology or the ideas either, so, really, why did you bring this up.
And as for the New York school pamphlet you refer to, unless it’s one of the items above (which I highly doubt since none of them use the same terminology you do), I have no idea what you’re talking about, but all the evidence I do have points to that not being the “actual” terminology. Heck, the one that comes closest to your terminology (which still isn’t quite right) involves completely unrelated ideas and concepts, while the other two, which come closer to (but not quite the same as) the ideas you claim use the terminology I have heard, and one is clearly biased while the other is written by proponents of the idea and is clearly presented as something to discuss, not as a central thesis you should believe without further thought. The existence of a single pamphlet—regardless of its contents—does not prove your claims about what the “actual used terminology” is or the ideas behind them are when all other available evidence points to the opposite conclusion, including all the evidence you yourself provided, even the evidence most biased in your favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was my point up front. The republicans are taking a different but related methodology and turning it into a panic and that lessens the ability to concern ourselves with the people who are a problem vs those who teach a racial historical introspective of this country’s history
Because there are anti-white ideas out there as well. And those need to be stomped out just as much as any other racial system.
That pamphlet, is for teachers. Not the students. Btw.
And, once more, I’m not against finding racism and calling it out. I’m against the premise that the country is racist. Recognition of inequality in laws is a good thing. We can address that one by one.
Teaching that racism is the backbone of the country is just plain racist on its own.
And abs ok completely incorrect.
And while we focus on making a big campaign about what small pockets of white supremacy still exists in in this country we are ignoring a much bigger threat. One that is not racially divided.
Religion.
This country was founded by, more than anything or anyone else, the drive for religious freedom.
12 of the 14 colonial delegations accepted an agnostic declaration.
12 of the 13 states accepted an agnostic constitution.
A generic god was added for the sake of unity.
At the time it was an afterthought as 12:1 balance would keep religion out of government.
That balance is not there anymore.
Racism should be stomped on any time it is come across.
But we have a far larger issue today and it’s being ignored.
Racism will always exist. Not because any one group or class is racist but because nature is based on survival. Excluding rare cases, all fauna is prewired to believe and strive to be better than their neighbours.
We can teach and educate so as to keep that from turning into racism. And most people find that on their own.
Racism is simply a focused, learned, expansion of of the basic instinct to surpass.
And teaching children to recognise and ignore the faults of their parents, is the most productive way to simply breed the issue out of existence.
As such teaching a legitimate history of racism is a good thing. The younger the better.
The problem is the teaching itself at the moment, is both inaccurate and racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I fail to see how that’s relevant. My parents are teachers, so they’d get pamphlets in a similar format. The idea wasn’t to convince them to see things that way but to expose them to the idea so they’d be aware of it.
And, again, I find your evidence to be—at best—inconclusive as to whether that is a problem that actually exists in our education system. Perhaps there are isolated cases of it, but there are also cases of teachers teaching religion in public schools, which seems at least as harmful, and these things can and should be addressed the same way we handle any problematic teacher.
Wait, what?
That’s true, but how is that relevant to this discussion?
How do you mean? And, more importantly, what does that have to do with this discussion?
Do you mean religion? Seriously, please explain what you mean.
This is true (which is why the SC case that dismantled the protections of the Voting Rights Act was completely ridiculous). Humans are wired instinctively to favor “us” over “them”, so anyone different from them is likely to be other’d. It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is. We can mitigate the issue (or at least its effects) through exposure, education, and protective laws, but we will likely never eliminate it entirely.
Wait, what do you mean by “ignore”? Like, pretend it doesn’t exist? Because ignoring a problem tends to make things worse.
I’m certainly not opposed to that.
Again, I simply don’t see evidence of the problem you describe even existing at all, let alone in significant enough quantities that would require significant changes to address.
Now, do you have evidence that actually supports your claim or arguments to refute my assertions about the problems with the evidence you already gave? Because the only thing in your reply that pertained to what I actually said there was the brief mention about the pamphlet, and it wasn’t exactly a great point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such situations should be stopped by laws. Intelligent design is a joke. That ignores reality. Religion has zero place in public schools.
Schools are about teaching facts. And religion should be treated equally to every other myth.
Religion is a threat to freedom. Abraham instructs in racism, slavery, mass murder, genocide, …
Racism today has it’s base in slavery. And the acceptance of that institution was
Based on the Bible.
Yes. Notice that most of the white supremacy groups are existing under the guise of religion? They’re nearly all christian!
No, ignore, as in pay it no regard. Out grow your parents’ hatred.
I’ve posted multiple links to schools internal/leaked lesson plans.
The problem I have is not that they are teaching race issues, but the generic approach is the same as communism.
There’s a #name of group# behind every tree and rock.
Instruction that every white should be looked at questionably, that every law is racist, that every institution has it’s foundation in superiority… is flat out dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rather than c/p-ing everything, I’m just gonna categorize by subject.
Religion
Okay… I disagree with your characterization of religion, but fine. That is not an entirely unreasonable opinion about religion, even if it is a gross overgeneralization given that the majority of Christians—even just within America—oppose those you have a problem with.
But I’m not going to debate you on the pros and cons of religion or Christianity or atheism or anything like that. (I also agree with you on religion in schools.) I just don’t see why you brought it up in a discussion about CRT or culturally relevant teaching or whatever.
Race in schools
I agree with you about outgrowing our parents’ faults. However, you still haven’t shown evidence to support your claims about what is being taught in schools on this issue.
I already addressed the links you provided. They do not support your assertions, as I already explained. One was an article about something called culturally relevant pedagogy, which doesn’t fit any of the things you say you have a problem with. One was a pamphlet (supposedly for teachers) that includes a paper written by someone who supports something resembling what you are complaining about but that appears to be meant as a topic of discussion rather than something to be taught in the classroom as factual. The last one was an article from a heavily-biased source that is extremely suspect at best and an outright fabrication at worst.
None of them are about internal or leaked lesson plans. The first article is about a teaching philosophy, not any sort of lesson plan. The pamphlet isn’t a lesson plan but a paper with questions to provoke discussion, and even if it was part of a lesson plan, it appears to be meant to be used to teach reading comprehension or critical thinking or debate skills or something rather than teaching anything meant to be factual. The other article is from an unreliable source, but even disregarding that, it wasn’t about a lesson plan but a supposedly leaked recording of something allegedly said at one of those classes teachers have to attend to maintain their credentials.
As such, the links you provided are unconvincing. I still see no reason to believe that anyone is being taught at any school about race issues with a similar approach to communism, that us vs. them mentality, “that every white should be looked at questionably”, “that every law is racist”, “that every institution has its foundation in superiority”, or any of the other things you’re complaining about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually I’d be interested in your take on Loudoun County as a whole. As this is a bit fiery.
I’m sure it’s been scrubbed since it got leaked but a small elitist private school in New York was also a hotbed controversy for a few weeks. I’m having trouble tracking down that one now though.
But for someone who falls into the between the lines camp, we’re not talking about college students.
We’re talking about soft sponges of children.
It wasn’t hard to find this one
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6257204251001
and it makes a logical person wonder…
Is this vein approached correctly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]