The article has nothing to do with any kind of firewalls at all, nor is it related to anything involving network admins. It’s about using Facebook’s services to block certain comments from third parties from appearing on their Facebook and Instagram pages. HHS and NIH are setting the parameters for the blocks, but from a technological standpoint, it’s Facebook that executes those blocks.
As such, how the content reaches Facebook’s servers makes absolutely no difference as to whether or not the content will or won’t be blocked. As long as Facebook can interpret the contents, Facebook’s filters will work on the comment at least as well as any keyword-based filter does on unencrypted communications.
This also has nothing to do with the workplace. This isn’t a case of internal communications, a case where certain communications are being blocked from exiting the workplace at all, or a case where certain communications are being blocked from appearing on computers if and only if the computer is on a particular network. This is about content sent from anywhere using any machine on any network to a service from appearing to anyone anywhere on any machine on any network due to the actions of a government agency. Workplace firewalls simply don’t work that way. They cannot block things coming from something not on the network from appearing on machines not on the network, which is what’s happening here.
I don’t think you understand what the article said. This is about blocking posts on Twitter.
Regardless of what VPN or other system you use, any Tweets will be unencrypted by the time Twitter tries to display them. If they weren’t, the things that would show up on Twitter that use such encryption would appear as gibberish.
Once the tweet, which is unencrypted, is in Twitter’s possession, then and only then will Twitter-based blocks like the keyword-based blocks mentioned in the article be applied. As such, unless you do the encryption in such a way that it won’t be decrypted when displayed on Twitter, you can’t use encryption to get around blocks on Twitter like this.
On top of that, the point isn’t whether or not it is possible to circumvent these filters. The point is whether or not the government is allowed to impose such blocks/filters in the first place. Those are completely unrelated issues.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Texas never banned teaching racism in the school. they banned CRT.
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.
[…] an etno-communist ideology that pursues racism again white color people […]
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.
[…] while it is wrapping itself as "teaching racism". which of course is merely a Motte-and-bailey fallacy […]
Uh, no, that’s just a summary of what it is. It is not false or misleading.
[…] you must recognize these subversions of democracy and opposed them.
I agree. It’s just that teaching CRT is not a subversion of democracy.
Centuries ago those "property rights" were mostly about defending slavery
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 think either the John Marshall era elitists who opposed universal suffrage
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.
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.
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.
One can't separate private property from inequality, and the less restraint on it, the richer the rich at everyone else's expense.
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.
Very few people own the platforms on which the electorate communicates with one another […]
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.
[…] yet I still would like the ability to elect politicians who would reign said oligarchs in.
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.
Freedom of speech but only for property owners is oligarchy, not democracy.
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.
Property owners constitute a small, elite minority,
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.
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.
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.
Proudhon was right about property.
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.
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.
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.
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:
you [Mike] 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."
See, it’s the part about sexual exploitation I was objecting to, at least that Mike was somehow equating the two.
That pamphlet, is for teachers. Not the students. Btw.
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, 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, 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.
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.
Wait, what?
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’s true, but how is that relevant to this discussion?
That balance is not there anymore.
How do you mean? And, more importantly, what does that have to do with this discussion?
Racism should be stomped on any time it is come across.
But we have a far larger issue today and it’s being ignored.
Do you mean religion? Seriously, please explain what you mean.
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.
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.
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.
Wait, what do you mean by “ignore”? Like, pretend it doesn’t exist? Because ignoring a problem tends to make things worse.
As such teaching a legitimate history of racism is a good thing. The younger the better.
I’m certainly not opposed to that.
The problem is the teaching itself at the moment, is both inaccurate and racist.
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.
A dictionary or thesaurus pointing out minor colloquial use doesn’t change the definition. It acknowledges a (mis)use trend in pop culture.
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.
Note: Wikipedia is not an academically acceptable primary source. For any major institution.
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.
The de-binarise movement clearly started in the US.
Did it? I’m not so sure. Got a source for that claim?
The reality is gender is accepted as binary in fact.
Though acknowledging that sometimes humans contain some aspects of both genders physically.
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).
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.
Agreed.
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.
Okay…
I’m also not against the eventual combining of gender based facilities.
They work well across Europe and Asia.
I concur.
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.
I mean, you’re not wrong, but we don’t really have better options.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ultimately equality should be just that. Colour blind. Gender blind.
Justice should be blind.
In an ideal world, yes.
But signing a bill and tossing people into the den of human evil only gets violence and bloodshed.
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.
You are saying your facts are the TRUTH while my facts are DISINFORMATION.
Isn’t that exactly what you do? Come to think of it, that describes most arguments about facts, but it especially applies to conspiracy theorists like you.
How on Earth can you accept that as an American?
Perhaps the single most important right in America is the right to free speech, including stating one’s opinions. That includes the right to say, “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re: Re: Re:
The article has nothing to do with any kind of firewalls at all, nor is it related to anything involving network admins. It’s about using Facebook’s services to block certain comments from third parties from appearing on their Facebook and Instagram pages. HHS and NIH are setting the parameters for the blocks, but from a technological standpoint, it’s Facebook that executes those blocks.
As such, how the content reaches Facebook’s servers makes absolutely no difference as to whether or not the content will or won’t be blocked. As long as Facebook can interpret the contents, Facebook’s filters will work on the comment at least as well as any keyword-based filter does on unencrypted communications.
This also has nothing to do with the workplace. This isn’t a case of internal communications, a case where certain communications are being blocked from exiting the workplace at all, or a case where certain communications are being blocked from appearing on computers if and only if the computer is on a particular network. This is about content sent from anywhere using any machine on any network to a service from appearing to anyone anywhere on any machine on any network due to the actions of a government agency. Workplace firewalls simply don’t work that way. They cannot block things coming from something not on the network from appearing on machines not on the network, which is what’s happening here.
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re: Re:
I accidentally referred to Twitter, but the same applies to Facebook.
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re:
I don’t think you understand what the article said. This is about blocking posts on Twitter.
Regardless of what VPN or other system you use, any Tweets will be unencrypted by the time Twitter tries to display them. If they weren’t, the things that would show up on Twitter that use such encryption would appear as gibberish.
Once the tweet, which is unencrypted, is in Twitter’s possession, then and only then will Twitter-based blocks like the keyword-based blocks mentioned in the article be applied. As such, unless you do the encryption in such a way that it won’t be decrypted when displayed on Twitter, you can’t use encryption to get around blocks on Twitter like this.
On top of that, the point isn’t whether or not it is possible to circumvent these filters. The point is whether or not the government is allowed to impose such blocks/filters in the first place. Those are completely unrelated issues.
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re: Re:
True, but I agree with the sentiment, and I don’t think that that was Jojo’s point.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Re:
Why did you repeat the exact same thing three weeks later?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
How do you mean?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
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.
On the post: Commentator Insists That Fact Checking Is An Attack On Free Speech
Re: Insisting
Isn’t that exactly what you do? Come to think of it, that describes most arguments about facts, but it especially applies to conspiracy theorists like you.
Perhaps the single most important right in America is the right to free speech, including stating one’s opinions. That includes the right to say, “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
Seriously, are you new to this?
On the post: China's New Youth Online Gaming Restrictions Birth Underground Workaround Industry To Defeat It
Re:
Plus, not all internet-enabled gaming devices have cameras at all. Kinda hard to do face-recognition if you can’t see their faces.
Next >>