Fair point, Norahc. And Trump's academic achievements do include Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school, from which he graduated with a bachelor’s degree in economics in 1968.
That said, he seems to be a lot more interested in making money than in carrying on the tradition of being the leader of the free world (I can't say that any more without laughing. I couldn't even say it during Obama's tenure).
This, his racism, and his narcissism make him look stupid. I don't care which team he represents, I don't approve of him. The trouble with Obama is that he can present similar attitudes in a more urbane, socially acceptable way. Make no mistake, when you've peeled off the veneer, there's not a lot of difference between them on the domestic surveillance and IPR side of things, so I don't understand why people get so invested in tribal politics. It doesn't make anything better for anyone, not even the people who expect to benefit, unless they're rich.
Meh, more like six of one and half a dozen of the other. It started with George Wallace and the Southern Strategy and hopefully here is where it'll end.
Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book; the key to beating it is to stay united. We all have something in common with that git over there who disagrees with us.
As long as there are political strategists who don't care what effect their wedge-driving has on the populace, this will continue. While they may not be creating the stories, you can bet your bottom dollar they are taking advantage of them.
In theory, combatting it with speech could win but you've got to be as noisy and dedicated as they are to be effective as many of their views are becoming considered mainstream. I mean, how many times have I been called a liberal socialist, or variant thereof, for holding moderate views? I've lost count.
I don't consider that harassment or anything (although it's damn rude!) but when these people take it into their heads to go after someone it's not pretty and there seems to be little in the way of counter-speech on their behalves. Meanwhile, the hateful messages they're spewing become normalised because "everybody" is repeating it.
Yes, I've seen that. And the dedication can be ugly to behold. I've seen people driven offline altogether, effectively censored by these people.
In one case, a staff writer for National Review was driven offline because he'd adopted an African child and the alt-right didn't like it. They went after him, his wife, and the rest of his family. How utterly deplorable!
That's hilariously wrong on so many levels. Stop. Calling. Everyone. Who disagrees with you. A socialist/lefty/boogyeman, etc. It's hard to take you seriously when you do that.
Yeah... the trouble with the echo chambers is that extremist views become a "centrist" position as far as they're concerned because that's where the consensus is in the echo chamber. I see this all the time on social media.
//If there are two points worth hammering home on matters of free speech, they are that defenders of free speech must be willing to defend speech they don't like and that the solution to bad speech is more good speech.//
but the "more good speech" solution only actually works if there's enough of it to counter the bad speech. In practice, people get targeted and harassed until they're successfully censored by people who are often more noisy, obnoxious, and committed to making such speech than the targets are.
Nobody should have to devote large chunks of their time to countering abusive gits telling lies and spreading muck. Is that really the only solution to horrible speech?
To be a target is to be alone, and unless we are willing to band together to support individuals and groups being battered online your sentiments will only ever be sentiments; they have no practical value. There's also the echo chamber problem to be addressed; what happens when you're not part of an echo chamber and not considered a protected individual or group? You're on your own, aren't you?
I've seen people pushed offline because few if any of the valiant free speech defenders were willing to come to their aid. It's not on, Tim. There has to be another way. If counter-speech is the answer, shouldn't there be some kind of service to provide it on behalf of those who are being drowned out by the volume of noise from their abusers?
Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
Citation? If it's "mostly made up," who said that and what are his or her qualifications for doing so?
I'm sick and tired of seeing vulnerable people being abused and neglected by a system that can now pretend it has no obligations towards them because it "doesn't believe in" their condition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
Yes he's biased and so am I. We're both willing to admit it. Like many Americans, we don't trust the US government to do the right thing in this situation. Given recent historical events, can you blame us?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
By that logic, yes.
But only by that logic. And given how the anti-terrorist legislation has become a catch-all for dealing with anyone the US government doesn't like, why shouldn't that sword swing both ways?
That said, the US government is doing the exact same thing to us on this side of the Pond. And it's illegal but Five Eyes blah blah national security blah blah terrorism boogeyman, etc.
I'm sick of the hypocrisy. Since Jamie Love is a vulnerable person he should be put on trial over here and if found guilty imprisoned or subject to a court order over here. I'd personally recommend house arrest with no access to the internet for X number of years. That way justice is served without making anyone look downright evil.
On the post: Cold War Documents Show The FBI Thinks It Can Be The CIA -- And The US Military -- If Just Given The Chance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That said, he seems to be a lot more interested in making money than in carrying on the tradition of being the leader of the free world (I can't say that any more without laughing. I couldn't even say it during Obama's tenure).
This, his racism, and his narcissism make him look stupid. I don't care which team he represents, I don't approve of him. The trouble with Obama is that he can present similar attitudes in a more urbane, socially acceptable way. Make no mistake, when you've peeled off the veneer, there's not a lot of difference between them on the domestic surveillance and IPR side of things, so I don't understand why people get so invested in tribal politics. It doesn't make anything better for anyone, not even the people who expect to benefit, unless they're rich.
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re: History repeats?
On the post: Yes, There's Lots Of Fake News On Facebook, But Is It Really Changing Anyone's Mind?
Re:
What Mike said, now give it a rest.
On the post: Yes, There's Lots Of Fake News On Facebook, But Is It Really Changing Anyone's Mind?
Re:
Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book; the key to beating it is to stay united. We all have something in common with that git over there who disagrees with us.
As long as there are political strategists who don't care what effect their wedge-driving has on the populace, this will continue. While they may not be creating the stories, you can bet your bottom dollar they are taking advantage of them.
On the post: Yes, There's Lots Of Fake News On Facebook, But Is It Really Changing Anyone's Mind?
Re: Dialogue is good, but...
There's your explanation. It is indeed dangerous.
On the post: Yes, There's Lots Of Fake News On Facebook, But Is It Really Changing Anyone's Mind?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're not as thick as you might think.
And as for corruption, it's not a contest but both sides have skeletons sticking out of the cupboard.
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re: Re: "unless"? NO. "especially if"!
I don't consider that harassment or anything (although it's damn rude!) but when these people take it into their heads to go after someone it's not pretty and there seems to be little in the way of counter-speech on their behalves. Meanwhile, the hateful messages they're spewing become normalised because "everybody" is repeating it.
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re: Re: Freedom for whom?
In one case, a staff writer for National Review was driven offline because he'd adopted an African child and the alt-right didn't like it. They went after him, his wife, and the rest of his family. How utterly deplorable!
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re: Re: Re: Let's at least be clear about terminology
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re: Re: The left could learn this lesson
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re: Re: Re: The left could learn this lesson
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re: Re: The left could learn this lesson
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re: Re: Re: The "C" Word
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Freedom for whom?
//If there are two points worth hammering home on matters of free speech, they are that defenders of free speech must be willing to defend speech they don't like and that the solution to bad speech is more good speech.//
but the "more good speech" solution only actually works if there's enough of it to counter the bad speech. In practice, people get targeted and harassed until they're successfully censored by people who are often more noisy, obnoxious, and committed to making such speech than the targets are.
Nobody should have to devote large chunks of their time to countering abusive gits telling lies and spreading muck. Is that really the only solution to horrible speech?
To be a target is to be alone, and unless we are willing to band together to support individuals and groups being battered online your sentiments will only ever be sentiments; they have no practical value. There's also the echo chamber problem to be addressed; what happens when you're not part of an echo chamber and not considered a protected individual or group? You're on your own, aren't you?
I've seen people pushed offline because few if any of the valiant free speech defenders were willing to come to their aid. It's not on, Tim. There has to be another way. If counter-speech is the answer, shouldn't there be some kind of service to provide it on behalf of those who are being drowned out by the volume of noise from their abusers?
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
I'm sick and tired of seeing vulnerable people being abused and neglected by a system that can now pretend it has no obligations towards them because it "doesn't believe in" their condition.
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
But only by that logic. And given how the anti-terrorist legislation has become a catch-all for dealing with anyone the US government doesn't like, why shouldn't that sword swing both ways?
That said, the US government is doing the exact same thing to us on this side of the Pond. And it's illegal but Five Eyes blah blah national security blah blah terrorism boogeyman, etc.
I'm sick of the hypocrisy. Since Jamie Love is a vulnerable person he should be put on trial over here and if found guilty imprisoned or subject to a court order over here. I'd personally recommend house arrest with no access to the internet for X number of years. That way justice is served without making anyone look downright evil.
On the post: Music Composer For 'A Clockwork Orange' Sues Australian Who Created 'A Trumpwork Orange' Parody Trailer
Re:
On the post: Music Composer For 'A Clockwork Orange' Sues Australian Who Created 'A Trumpwork Orange' Parody Trailer
Re:
I mean seriously, Carlos has a flippin' nerve!
Next >>