What meat do you want? I write for this site regularly and I can say that I do not write with a bias against any particular party or candidate. I simply critique or discuss a particular issue at hand. It's really that simple. I'm generally critical of the subjects about which I write, but I don't pick and choose.
Friend, the number of Americans without a state ID or drivers license is AT LEAST 1% (surveys of registered voters) and possibly as high as 10% (surveys of Americans generally, registered to vote or not). Even at the low end, you're talking about MILLIONS of people.
If you want to suddenly make it illegal for millions of people to vote, you had better have a good fucking reason to do so, such as an equal number of millions committing voter fraud. Nothing like that even remotely exists....
"This is just terrible, you assume that my bitching and whining about your "quality of bias" makes me NOT on your team. Well all I can tell you is that you are wrong Mike, not the first time, won't be the last time either. I generally support TD's pieces on freedom and liberty, I just often disagree with what you think is a good solution to some of the problems like the FCC's net neutrality garbage rules."
DUDE, read what he said, because you missed it. Mike's point is that there is NO TEAM being supported here at Techdirt in terms of political parties or candidates. It's not that we don't think YOU are on our team; we don't deal in the "teams" at all. That those that love the team aspect of politics keep trying to yank us into it isn't going to work. We'll happily criticize every one from every party or ever independent as we find things worth criticizing. If it happens to be YOUR team in the crosshairs, that doesn't make us biased against them, but your reaction to it makes you biased FOR them. This is what you keep missing....
"If we make those IDs free, there's no way it can be disadvantageous to the poor."
Sure, so long as you also make it absolutely equally free to travel to where the free IDs are, make sure that everyone is equally able to take the time necessary to get one, and make certain that getting one isn't tied to anything that requires money to acquire (such as a vehicle, an address, a utility bill, etc.). Good luck actually getting THAT done....
Guys, come on. What Mike said is that if people are going to scream "Bias!" for his calling Infowars a crackpot conspiracy theory site, then those people can leave. That isn't a matter of politics. It isn't that Infowars peddles to the right wing; it's that their articles are entertainment in the form of conspiracy theories. They're no more news than is anything written by Jim Marrs or the anti-vaxxer folks. Again, those aren't matters of bias, they're matters of fact-based claims versus non-fact-based claims.
As for the posts themselves being biased against Donald Trump.....please. PLEASE. We've lambasted every candidate in this idiotic election. I will come right out and tell you that I do not like Donald Trump at all. Nor did I like his chief opponent. So, if I write a post here that criticizes our President Elect, that doesn't mean I'm biased against him, it means I found something in him worth criticizing.
And another thing: why is it that all the folks that constantly scream how everyone has a bias that always shines through can't see how their very belief in that calls into question the validity of their belief? If THEY have a bias (and they obviously do, by their own acknowledgement, since they think EVERYONE does), then their claim that everyone is biased might be a manifestation of THEIR bias, and now we're in Inception politics and I have to go throw up....
This nation didn't even burp up this idea of economic terrorism when hundreds of American bookstores refused to sell or carry the work of Salman Rushdie, because of a threat levied on him and his publisher from a foreign dictator. If you couldn't call THAT economic terrorism, nothing in this law should be worthy of the title, either....
The more popular the sentiment that you oppose becomes, the more important it is to oppose censoring it, as with all censorship."
I didn't put the passage you're responding to as well as I could have. The point I was trying to make is that true alt-right thinking is still a tiny minority in the country, and there's no reason we can't combat it with speech and win. It might be different if 98% of the country was goose-stepping around. The fight might take different forms if that was the case, but I still wouldn't be advocating for censorship.
"Wait, why is censorship an undesirable thing in all cases except "harassment"? Once you start splitting hairs about what speech should be allowed and what speech shouldn't, it's only a matter of time until the "shouldn't" category grows and grows. Why, to you, does the theory about good speech driving out bad speech apply everywhere except where "harassment" is concerned?"
I believe you misunderstood me. I didn't say that all speech that is labeled harassment is bad speech. What I said was that if Twitter decided to limit the bans to accounts it could clearly demonstrate were harassing other Twitter users, we could leave our outrage at the door. At some point, we must concede that Twitter is a company designed to incorporate as many users as it can. If a Twitter user is harassing others and causing them to cease using the service, particularly if the language used is threatening or violent, I can completely understand why Twitter would want to ban that person to foster the staying of the other users.
Bans over pure ideology, on the other hand, are a whole different animal.
"There is nothing about him that should be taken seriously. Nothing about the alt-right should be taken seriously by anyone."
Quite a suggestion about a group that had a heavy hand in electing our soon-to-be President....
"In fact, continuing to take them seriously will end up convincing them that their theatrically racist speech has actual political merit. That would be the worst conceivable outcome as it'd create actual bigots out of memeing trolls."
What I'm advocating for is the allowance of a public rebuke to them. Scorn is a wonderful antidote to idiocy, but we can't levy our scorn if the alt-right is disappeared from our conversations....
Even if that were true, Nazis too deserve their voice, and to be rebuffed by other voices, in our society. Better to have the argument in the open than to allow those voices to echo with one another, reverberating and growing....
I think you're certainly right about this, but I don't think it's limited to a single party, or even to questions about policy or politics. There is an epidemic of identity association in this country right now, where assumptions are made strictly by perceived affiliations that get shouted all over the place. Not only is this counterproductive, it's truly stupid.
Did you manage to read the entire post, particularly the culminating paragraph? Because specifically, and correctly, pointed out that minds are changed through detailed and elongated conversation, as opposed to quick citation of facts. That I'm in this comment pointing out a fact may prove his point, should you be unable to recognize your error....
"You clearly have more hope in humanity than I do. I have met many people that love the two party system. It's like they are addicted to them like crack."
Well, yes, there's that. Much like the fake debates set up currently on tv stations like ESPN, where two sides debate a question with only one right, and obvious, answer, but they setup two sides because conflict sells. I think that's happened in America, in large because of cable news on both sides of the aisle. Eventually it, like ESPN, will lose enough subscribers that they'll either change or die off.
Either way, the solution is to get rid of the aisle, or make the aisle not mean anything....
"I would personally outlaw any formation or mention of political parties within the government or public sector under threat of the revocation of voting rights and banning from public service or employment."
I think if you do that, the backlash would be terrifying. Instead, I think having a group of Americans with a pulpit hammer home the idea that party affiliation is shitty and encouraging voters to remain independent is the better way to get to your goal. Because I ultimately agree: having a two party system is largely to blame for easy and binary labels. We should encourage Americans to either have an insane number of parties, or none at all, with the latter being my preference....
"If we could get the left to stop the name calling and labeling and actually discuss policy we might get somewhere. Until then they will keep losing."
This, I think, though I'd suggest pretty much all the sides need to cease with the labeling, realize that identity politics sucks for everyone, and just start talking again. How many Republican candidates can Democrats compare to Hitler before the comparison loses all meaning. The danger is that when a Hitler comes along, nobody is going to listen. How many democrats can the Republicans wave off as "communist" or "socialist" before the comparison loses all meaning? The danger is that when a Stalin comes along nobody will listen.
We've all gotten so busy calling each other "godless", "immoral", "liars", "evil", "Nazis", and "fascists" that we've forgotten that we probably agree on 75% of public policy and we just have to work out the other quarter. That isn't even a big deal, except nobody is talking to each other any more....
Hey, genius, did I say it was okay when Obama did it? No, I did not. All I said was that the Republican Party can't blame everyone else if everything goes to shit when they control all the everythings. Nowhere did I say that the constant blaming of W by Obama and the Dems was okay.
Commenters....you want to know why we writers here react with scorn when we're accused of partisanship, when we know the accusation itself is the partisanship in question? RIGHT HERE is your reason.
"If that doesn't work, then Right can always spend the next 8 years blaming his failures on Obama, just like the Left did to Bush..."
Nope, they can't. You don't get to win both houses of Congress and the White House AND get to make SCOTUS picks, likely 2-3, AND get to blame the past for any shitstorms that occur on your watch. You do NOT get to do that....
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
If you want to suddenly make it illegal for millions of people to vote, you had better have a good fucking reason to do so, such as an equal number of millions committing voter fraud. Nothing like that even remotely exists....
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DUDE, read what he said, because you missed it. Mike's point is that there is NO TEAM being supported here at Techdirt in terms of political parties or candidates. It's not that we don't think YOU are on our team; we don't deal in the "teams" at all. That those that love the team aspect of politics keep trying to yank us into it isn't going to work. We'll happily criticize every one from every party or ever independent as we find things worth criticizing. If it happens to be YOUR team in the crosshairs, that doesn't make us biased against them, but your reaction to it makes you biased FOR them. This is what you keep missing....
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no doubt this is true. I'm quite certain there are many, many people with this same incorrect thought....
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
Sure, so long as you also make it absolutely equally free to travel to where the free IDs are, make sure that everyone is equally able to take the time necessary to get one, and make certain that getting one isn't tied to anything that requires money to acquire (such as a vehicle, an address, a utility bill, etc.). Good luck actually getting THAT done....
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the posts themselves being biased against Donald Trump.....please. PLEASE. We've lambasted every candidate in this idiotic election. I will come right out and tell you that I do not like Donald Trump at all. Nor did I like his chief opponent. So, if I write a post here that criticizes our President Elect, that doesn't mean I'm biased against him, it means I found something in him worth criticizing.
And another thing: why is it that all the folks that constantly scream how everyone has a bias that always shines through can't see how their very belief in that calls into question the validity of their belief? If THEY have a bias (and they obviously do, by their own acknowledgement, since they think EVERYONE does), then their claim that everyone is biased might be a manifestation of THEIR bias, and now we're in Inception politics and I have to go throw up....
On the post: State Senator Wants To Turn First Amendment Activity Into 'Economic Terrorism'
Nope
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re: "unless"? NO. "especially if"!
The more popular the sentiment that you oppose becomes, the more important it is to oppose censoring it, as with all censorship."
I didn't put the passage you're responding to as well as I could have. The point I was trying to make is that true alt-right thinking is still a tiny minority in the country, and there's no reason we can't combat it with speech and win. It might be different if 98% of the country was goose-stepping around. The fight might take different forms if that was the case, but I still wouldn't be advocating for censorship.
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re:
I believe you misunderstood me. I didn't say that all speech that is labeled harassment is bad speech. What I said was that if Twitter decided to limit the bans to accounts it could clearly demonstrate were harassing other Twitter users, we could leave our outrage at the door. At some point, we must concede that Twitter is a company designed to incorporate as many users as it can. If a Twitter user is harassing others and causing them to cease using the service, particularly if the language used is threatening or violent, I can completely understand why Twitter would want to ban that person to foster the staying of the other users.
Bans over pure ideology, on the other hand, are a whole different animal.
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
Re:
Quite a suggestion about a group that had a heavy hand in electing our soon-to-be President....
"In fact, continuing to take them seriously will end up convincing them that their theatrically racist speech has actual political merit. That would be the worst conceivable outcome as it'd create actual bigots out of memeing trolls."
What I'm advocating for is the allowance of a public rebuke to them. Scorn is a wonderful antidote to idiocy, but we can't levy our scorn if the alt-right is disappeared from our conversations....
On the post: Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Will Become The Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool
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: 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:
On the post: Let Them Eat Facts: Why Fact Checking Is Mostly Useless In Convincing Voters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
Well, yes, there's that. Much like the fake debates set up currently on tv stations like ESPN, where two sides debate a question with only one right, and obvious, answer, but they setup two sides because conflict sells. I think that's happened in America, in large because of cable news on both sides of the aisle. Eventually it, like ESPN, will lose enough subscribers that they'll either change or die off.
Either way, the solution is to get rid of the aisle, or make the aisle not mean anything....
On the post: Let Them Eat Facts: Why Fact Checking Is Mostly Useless In Convincing Voters
Re: Re: Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
I think if you do that, the backlash would be terrifying. Instead, I think having a group of Americans with a pulpit hammer home the idea that party affiliation is shitty and encouraging voters to remain independent is the better way to get to your goal. Because I ultimately agree: having a two party system is largely to blame for easy and binary labels. We should encourage Americans to either have an insane number of parties, or none at all, with the latter being my preference....
On the post: Let Them Eat Facts: Why Fact Checking Is Mostly Useless In Convincing Voters
Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
This, I think, though I'd suggest pretty much all the sides need to cease with the labeling, realize that identity politics sucks for everyone, and just start talking again. How many Republican candidates can Democrats compare to Hitler before the comparison loses all meaning. The danger is that when a Hitler comes along, nobody is going to listen. How many democrats can the Republicans wave off as "communist" or "socialist" before the comparison loses all meaning? The danger is that when a Stalin comes along nobody will listen.
We've all gotten so busy calling each other "godless", "immoral", "liars", "evil", "Nazis", and "fascists" that we've forgotten that we probably agree on 75% of public policy and we just have to work out the other quarter. That isn't even a big deal, except nobody is talking to each other any more....
On the post: Bad Idea From Famed First Amendment Lawyer: Press Should Sue Trump For Libel
Re: Re: Re:
Commenters....you want to know why we writers here react with scorn when we're accused of partisanship, when we know the accusation itself is the partisanship in question? RIGHT HERE is your reason.
Learn to think better, please....
On the post: Bad Idea From Famed First Amendment Lawyer: Press Should Sue Trump For Libel
Re:
Nope, they can't. You don't get to win both houses of Congress and the White House AND get to make SCOTUS picks, likely 2-3, AND get to blame the past for any shitstorms that occur on your watch. You do NOT get to do that....
On the post: Dear Eric Trump: Do Not Be Shamed Into Deleting Your Free Speech By A Dumb New York State Law
Re: wut?
On the post: The Paradox Of Trump Threatening Documentary Filmmaker While Supporting Citizens United
Re: Hahahahaha
Next >>