Respect for others is akin to faith in a higher power. When you lose that respect for others, you can easily end up as part of a society that slaughters 6 million innocent men, women and children, like Nazi Germany.
First off, we’re talking about two different levels of respect: the basic respect afforded to every human on a fundamental and largely unconditional level, and the kind of respect given to those we put higher than that. The latter must be earned.
Second, while I am a Christian, I don’t think that faith in a higher being is anything like respect for others. Also, plenty of Nazis and neo-Nazis were/are Christian and did believe in a higher being.
I’m sorry, but you never said how any of what you said had anything to do with those with low income.
As for “critiquing the ‘cancel culture’ on display here”, a) people have the right to critique that critique; b) nothing you said actually criticized “cancel culture” at all by any definition; and c) what is the “cancel culture” that is “on display here” which you’re referring to?
Also, isn’t it hypocritical for you criticize others merely for criticizing something—anything, really—especially while you also profess to be criticizing “cancel culture”?
I’d just like to point out that you have said nothing about what, if anything, your girlfriend has done for those with low income, that this is the first you even suggested such a thing at all, that writing about wrongs is an important part of doing something by spreading awareness, and that writing stuff is part of that “good-faith disagreement”.
Are you unfamiliar with the following scientific facts?
Some people with XX chromosomes have male primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.
Some people with XY chromosomes have female primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.
Some people have neither XX nor XY chromosomes but instead XO, XXX, XXY, or XXX chromosomes.
Some people with male primary sex characteristics develop female secondary sex characteristics.
Some people with female primary sex characteristics develop male secondary sex characteristics.
Some people have a mix of male and female primary sex characteristics.
Some people have a mix of male and female secondary sex characteristics.
Some people lack some primary and/or secondary sex characteristics for either gender.
Transgender people (even before any sex-changing or hormone-replacement procedures are performed) have been found to have brains far closer to that of the gender they identify with than the sex they were assigned at birth.
Going through sex-change operations and/or hormone replacement therapy is often recommended for transgender people, and it is virtually always recommended that they present as the gender they identify as and that family and friends try to accept them as they are. This is far better for their mental health in the long-term and does no real harm.
How about these bits of reality?
Transgender people have high rates of suicide and depression based either on bullying/harassment for being transgender or on not being allowed to transition.
In most cases, a transwoman presenting as a woman is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a ciswoman while they’re dressed.
In most cases, a transman presenting as a man is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a cisman while they’re dressed.
Due to the previous two facts, unless you’re their doctor or having sex with them, you should never know whether or not someone presenting as a woman was born male or female.
A number of transgender people today were actually born with partial and/or complete sex organs for both sexes or were of nonexistent or indeterminate sex at birth and were simply assigned a sex at birth arbitrarily by doctors, often with surgery and frequently without the parents’ knowledge or consent. Basically, doctors would make (sometimes educated) guess as to the infant’s sex and would often be wrong.
Sex and gender, while often correlating well, aren’t exactly the same thing.
These are all facts. They may not all be “common-sense facts,” but common sense isn’t all that common, anyways, and science and reality don’t really conform very well with common sense to begin with; many absolutely true facts are counterintuitive.
As for your definition of “transphobic”, you forgot that one of the comments at issue equated transition treatments with conversion therapy, which is far from being a scientific fact, reality, or a common-sense fact. It’s also not exactly borderline.
But let’s set that all aside for a moment. You ask whether or not we’re saying people should be banned from a privately-owned platform like Twitter by the owners of said platform for making such comments. That’s not necessarily what is being said. We’re saying that corporations like Twitter should absolutely have the right to ban people for making such comments regardless of whether we personally would do so, and that those people are not entitled to be able to say whatever they want on a privately-owned platform like Twitter, certainly not without consequence. There’s also the fact that it’s hardly surprising that people would be banned for making such comments, and I’m not all that sympathetic to them, but that’s separate. The point is that if you don’t like it, show your lack of support by using a different platform or by simply not using Twitter.
Well, you very nearly did, but you forgot to make it a reply to this comment, so it looks like you just posted the definition of “trademark” for no particular reason.
But what you mean is "tuned to the success of the Talented rather than the Loser class".
If you measure success by only looking at the most successful and not the failures or even the merely somewhat successful, then your results are going to be heavily skewed. Setting morals and ethics aside, you’re not going to get accurate or holistic data that way.
And, bringing morals and ethics somewhat back in, the whole point of a democratic/republican government is to do what’s best for the nation as a whole, not just what’s more convenient for the top 1% or the top 0.1%. So again, when measuring the success of something, you have to take a holistic approach and look at both the successes and the failures. Doing otherwise would be burying your head in the sand and not addressing real problems.
For the record, although this has nothing to do with the article, it was explicitly elicited from a regular here, polite, plausible, and appears to be in good faith. I personally don’t think this comment should have been hidden.
As for you, Mr. AC, I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are just new here and ignorant of what we as a community generally expect on this site from commenters. The line you crossed was that what you had to say at the start had nothing to do with this article in particular or even the general topics addressed within it. Please try to stay on topic.
I’m sorry, but what does this have to do with the article here? This article is about the FCC, Ajit Pai, the Trump administration, the pandemic as it affects America, Lifeline, Native American tribal lands, and broadband. Nothing to do with China, Taiwan, or your late wife/girlfriend.
And while I’m at it, a few other things:
Why did you feel the need to mention you were “very tall”?
What about “whining and complaining” suggests this is a “strange place” that has “no morals”?
You know they’re just dreams, right? Your girlfriend/wife isn’t actually talking to you in your dreams every night. And even if she was, I would find it far more odd that a) she feels the need to complain about this site’s morals and/or complaining and b) you still feel the need to come here and talk about it.
While different Chinese and Taiwanese people will have different morals from each other to some extent, “traditional Chinese morals” are generally quite different from most American moral systems. We value freedom of speech and the press in particular and individual freedoms in general far more than “traditional Chinese morals” do, for example. I mean no disrespect for your late girlfriend/wife, the Chinese, Taiwan, or women in general, but why you seem to think the morals and opinion expressed by the ghost of some random (to us) Taiwan-born Chinese woman should have particular weight for us baffles me.
In all fairness, Ayn Rand was more of a libertarian or utilitarian. Most conservatives have probably never read much—if any—of her work (not that I blame them; that stuff isn’t really fun or interesting to read). I honestly don’t get why conservatives profess to love her so much considering how many positions (like re:abortion and being opposed to any regulations of businesses) she would disagree with them on. (Paul Rand seems to be the only one who seems to be largely consistent with her broader ideas.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't That Why They Left Twitter
Here's how it works according to communist collectivist approach (and, apparently, yours, Koby); Platforms abide by the rules set by the state. The consumer gets the "choice" between option A, B and C, which are all identical.
No, that’s just weak capitalism, maybe mixed with socialism. Communism means that not only are the rules set by the state but that the businesses, the profits, etc. are outright owned by the state. I think you’re assuming capitalism is the same as laissez-faire economics, but the term capitalism actually encapsulates more than just that specific system.
No, you’re talking about totalitarianism. Fascism is the extreme far right, and communism is the extreme far left. Both share totalitarianism and, in many cases, populism and patriotism as means to their respective ends, and they are actually more similar to each other in practice than they are to the moderate left and moderate right (much like the two ends of a horseshoe are closer to each other than they are to the center), but they are still on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Now, if we were to go to a 2D model that allows for libertarianism and does go off the traditional left-right model, you would have two other extremes: collectivism and anarchy. But fascism is on the 1D spectrum just fine.
Antifa - anti-fascism - isn't "left-wing". Not unless you're making the argument that fascism is an inherently right-wing stance.
Technically, fascism is an inherently right-wing stance. It’s actually the most extreme end of right-wing stances. That’s not to say that anti-fascism is necessarily left-wing per se or that all right-wingers inherently support fascism, but fascism is a right-wing ideology.
On the post: FCC's Assault On Low-Income Broadband Program Is Making The COVID-19 Crisis Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re:
First off, we’re talking about two different levels of respect: the basic respect afforded to every human on a fundamental and largely unconditional level, and the kind of respect given to those we put higher than that. The latter must be earned.
Second, while I am a Christian, I don’t think that faith in a higher being is anything like respect for others. Also, plenty of Nazis and neo-Nazis were/are Christian and did believe in a higher being.
On the post: FCC's Assault On Low-Income Broadband Program Is Making The COVID-19 Crisis Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think you understand what words mean or know anything about American history.
On the post: FCC's Assault On Low-Income Broadband Program Is Making The COVID-19 Crisis Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a privately-owned forum. No one—both you and myself included—is entitled to be able to say anything here, and certainly not whatever we want.
Also, since anyone can still read the hidden posts with little effort, no one is actually being censored or silenced here.
On the post: FCC's Assault On Low-Income Broadband Program Is Making The COVID-19 Crisis Worse
Re: Re: Re:
I’m sorry, but you never said how any of what you said had anything to do with those with low income.
As for “critiquing the ‘cancel culture’ on display here”, a) people have the right to critique that critique; b) nothing you said actually criticized “cancel culture” at all by any definition; and c) what is the “cancel culture” that is “on display here” which you’re referring to?
Also, isn’t it hypocritical for you criticize others merely for criticizing something—anything, really—especially while you also profess to be criticizing “cancel culture”?
On the post: FCC's Assault On Low-Income Broadband Program Is Making The COVID-19 Crisis Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’d just like to point out that you have said nothing about what, if anything, your girlfriend has done for those with low income, that this is the first you even suggested such a thing at all, that writing about wrongs is an important part of doing something by spreading awareness, and that writing stuff is part of that “good-faith disagreement”.
On the post: More Disputes Over Trademarked Area Codes. Why Is This Allowed Again?
Re: bullying.
Question: why should a number that is associated with a geographic area that many people live in be able to be trademarked to begin with?
Also, how “he[] enforc[es] his rights to his brand and trademark” is a fairly important detail you’re ignoring here.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re:
Are you unfamiliar with the following scientific facts?
Some people with XX chromosomes have male primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.
Some people with XY chromosomes have female primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.
Some people have neither XX nor XY chromosomes but instead XO, XXX, XXY, or XXX chromosomes.
Some people with male primary sex characteristics develop female secondary sex characteristics.
Some people with female primary sex characteristics develop male secondary sex characteristics.
Some people have a mix of male and female primary sex characteristics.
Some people have a mix of male and female secondary sex characteristics.
Some people lack some primary and/or secondary sex characteristics for either gender.
Transgender people (even before any sex-changing or hormone-replacement procedures are performed) have been found to have brains far closer to that of the gender they identify with than the sex they were assigned at birth.
How about these bits of reality?
Transgender people have high rates of suicide and depression based either on bullying/harassment for being transgender or on not being allowed to transition.
In most cases, a transwoman presenting as a woman is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a ciswoman while they’re dressed.
In most cases, a transman presenting as a man is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a cisman while they’re dressed.
Due to the previous two facts, unless you’re their doctor or having sex with them, you should never know whether or not someone presenting as a woman was born male or female.
A number of transgender people today were actually born with partial and/or complete sex organs for both sexes or were of nonexistent or indeterminate sex at birth and were simply assigned a sex at birth arbitrarily by doctors, often with surgery and frequently without the parents’ knowledge or consent. Basically, doctors would make (sometimes educated) guess as to the infant’s sex and would often be wrong.
These are all facts. They may not all be “common-sense facts,” but common sense isn’t all that common, anyways, and science and reality don’t really conform very well with common sense to begin with; many absolutely true facts are counterintuitive.
As for your definition of “transphobic”, you forgot that one of the comments at issue equated transition treatments with conversion therapy, which is far from being a scientific fact, reality, or a common-sense fact. It’s also not exactly borderline.
But let’s set that all aside for a moment. You ask whether or not we’re saying people should be banned from a privately-owned platform like Twitter by the owners of said platform for making such comments. That’s not necessarily what is being said. We’re saying that corporations like Twitter should absolutely have the right to ban people for making such comments regardless of whether we personally would do so, and that those people are not entitled to be able to say whatever they want on a privately-owned platform like Twitter, certainly not without consequence. There’s also the fact that it’s hardly surprising that people would be banned for making such comments, and I’m not all that sympathetic to them, but that’s separate. The point is that if you don’t like it, show your lack of support by using a different platform or by simply not using Twitter.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re:
You thought that was a sexual thing? How dirty your mind is.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re:
I don’t think that means what you think it means.
On the post: More Disputes Over Trademarked Area Codes. Why Is This Allowed Again?
Re: Oxford says it is
Well, you very nearly did, but you forgot to make it a reply to this comment, so it looks like you just posted the definition of “trademark” for no particular reason.
On the post: FCC's Assault On Low-Income Broadband Program Is Making The COVID-19 Crisis Worse
Re: Re: Because it does
If you measure success by only looking at the most successful and not the failures or even the merely somewhat successful, then your results are going to be heavily skewed. Setting morals and ethics aside, you’re not going to get accurate or holistic data that way.
And, bringing morals and ethics somewhat back in, the whole point of a democratic/republican government is to do what’s best for the nation as a whole, not just what’s more convenient for the top 1% or the top 0.1%. So again, when measuring the success of something, you have to take a holistic approach and look at both the successes and the failures. Doing otherwise would be burying your head in the sand and not addressing real problems.
On the post: FCC's Assault On Low-Income Broadband Program Is Making The COVID-19 Crisis Worse
Re: Re: Re:
For the record, although this has nothing to do with the article, it was explicitly elicited from a regular here, polite, plausible, and appears to be in good faith. I personally don’t think this comment should have been hidden.
As for you, Mr. AC, I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are just new here and ignorant of what we as a community generally expect on this site from commenters. The line you crossed was that what you had to say at the start had nothing to do with this article in particular or even the general topics addressed within it. Please try to stay on topic.
On the post: FCC's Assault On Low-Income Broadband Program Is Making The COVID-19 Crisis Worse
Re:
I’m sorry, but what does this have to do with the article here? This article is about the FCC, Ajit Pai, the Trump administration, the pandemic as it affects America, Lifeline, Native American tribal lands, and broadband. Nothing to do with China, Taiwan, or your late wife/girlfriend.
And while I’m at it, a few other things:
Why did you feel the need to mention you were “very tall”?
What about “whining and complaining” suggests this is a “strange place” that has “no morals”?
You know they’re just dreams, right? Your girlfriend/wife isn’t actually talking to you in your dreams every night. And even if she was, I would find it far more odd that a) she feels the need to complain about this site’s morals and/or complaining and b) you still feel the need to come here and talk about it.
On the post: Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From 'We Allow Everything' To 'We're The Good Censors' In Days
Re: Re: "less insane"
In all fairness, Ayn Rand was more of a libertarian or utilitarian. Most conservatives have probably never read much—if any—of her work (not that I blame them; that stuff isn’t really fun or interesting to read). I honestly don’t get why conservatives profess to love her so much considering how many positions (like re:abortion and being opposed to any regulations of businesses) she would disagree with them on. (Paul Rand seems to be the only one who seems to be largely consistent with her broader ideas.)
On the post: Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From 'We Allow Everything' To 'We're The Good Censors' In Days
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't That Why They Left Twitter
No, that’s just weak capitalism, maybe mixed with socialism. Communism means that not only are the rules set by the state but that the businesses, the profits, etc. are outright owned by the state. I think you’re assuming capitalism is the same as laissez-faire economics, but the term capitalism actually encapsulates more than just that specific system.
On the post: Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From 'We Allow Everything' To 'We're The Good Censors' In Days
Re: Re: Right wing / Left wing and Fascism
Fascists have a strong history of hating communism. Again, you’re confusing fascism with totalitarianism.
On the post: Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From 'We Allow Everything' To 'We're The Good Censors' In Days
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you’re talking about totalitarianism. Fascism is the extreme far right, and communism is the extreme far left. Both share totalitarianism and, in many cases, populism and patriotism as means to their respective ends, and they are actually more similar to each other in practice than they are to the moderate left and moderate right (much like the two ends of a horseshoe are closer to each other than they are to the center), but they are still on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Now, if we were to go to a 2D model that allows for libertarianism and does go off the traditional left-right model, you would have two other extremes: collectivism and anarchy. But fascism is on the 1D spectrum just fine.
On the post: Parler Speedruns The Content Moderation Learning Curve; Goes From 'We Allow Everything' To 'We're The Good Censors' In Days
Re: Re: Re:
Technically, fascism is an inherently right-wing stance. It’s actually the most extreme end of right-wing stances. That’s not to say that anti-fascism is necessarily left-wing per se or that all right-wingers inherently support fascism, but fascism is a right-wing ideology.
On the post: How An NYPD Officer Can Hit A Teen With His Car In Front Of Several Witnesses And Get Away With It
Re: Re: 'After careful review by myself I have found that I'm in
WTF are you talking about?
On the post: Rather Than Attacking Section 230, Why Aren't Trump Supporters Angry About The DMCA That's Actually Causing Issues?
Re: Re: Diseases
?
Next >>