I said credible sources. You should’ve searched the official DSA website for its platform - a search which led me to find a first draft of the 2021 platform for the DSA. The draft contains only three instances of the word “border”; in all three instances, the context is not “open borders”, but “border enforcement” and the militarization thereof. (A similar situation occurs with “immigration” and “immigrant”, and both “open” and “immigrate” aren’t found anywhere in the document.) Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut, for the sake of making sure I don’t hurt your fee-fees by talking only about “credibility” and “bullshit”, I took a look at the document you linked to. Turns out, it’s part of a list of resolutions approved for debate at the 2019 national convention — not an official voicing of support for “open borders” by the organization as a whole. While I did see a tweet or two saying DSA delegates voted in support of that specific resolution, it doesn’t appear to be a major plank of the DSA platform (judging from that 2021 draft), and those delegates don’t speak for all members of the DSA. This is what happens when you look for official/credible sources instead of going with “junk food” news that makes you feel good by playing to your biases: You learn some actual facts.
We didn’t need one consolidated agency before 2003. I don’t see why we need one consolidated agency now, especially since ICE is so militarized and violent that abolishing it would probably save lives (though I’m not sure you’re all that concerned about those lives…or that you think they even deserved to be saved).
That’s how we have the system we have today: Thinking greater enforcement, stronger enforcement, more violent enforcement is what’s needed. You want to curb immigration from Central and South American countries? Here’s an idea: Tell the U.S. government to stop fucking around in/destabilizing those countries.
And yet, you seem awfully supportive of politicians who would rather let people die than approve of “socialist” healthcare. Where’s the Obamacare replacement plan that Trump and his Congressional ass-kissers promised, again? 🤨
Other countries have shittier defamation laws than the ones in the United States. For what reason should the U.S. “open up the libel laws” (as a politician I’m sure you support once put it) and make basically anyone responsible for defamation if they so much as read the defamatory speech?
230 doesn’t harm individuals or businesses. People do. Go after them. If you can’t find them, tough shit — but being angry at that fact is no reason to attack people, tools, and companies who aren’t responsible for defaming you.
If the goal was to stop infringements upon a patent then you obviously go after the company violating it, stopping it at the source, the only reason to go after the customers is because they are more likely to pay out rather than be dragged through the courts where even if they 'win' they'll still be out far more than they would have if they folded and paid the extortion demand.
Copyright Lawyer: Where did you learn to do this?
Patent Lawyer: …
Copyright Lawyer: WHO TAUGHT YOU TO—
Patent Lawyer: You, okay?! I learned it from watching you!
Prove, with links to credible news sources, that AOC (or any other Democrat) has called for a “totally open borders” mandate while in office.
We had immigration and customs enforcement well before we had Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Note the capitalization, lest you think I’m repeating myself.) Abolishing ICE isn’t a “radical” idea; the agency is only 18 years old.
While I’m here: I support border control with reasonable limits on immigration, compassion for victims of human trafficking and refugees of fascist governments, and the dissolution of ICE (and its brutal, borderline fascist policing tactics). Does that make me “far left”? No. The U.S. doesn’t have a “far left” — unless you count people asking for radical changes to existing, conservative-friendly systems as “far left”. I mean, shit, you probably think Medicare For All is some socialist “far left” pinko commie bullshit…even though its implementation would put the U.S. in line with every other developed nation in the world.
the Democrats were so mad at Trump they chose to elect a personal barely mentally competent
The Republicans were so mad at “the libs” that they supported another barely mentally competent old white man to the point of armed insurrection. Not really lookin’ good for your “side”, fam.
I don't recall anyone actually going so far as to outlaw the choice.
Sexual orientation isn’t a choice, but your “it’s all just an act they can choose to drop any time they want” bigotry aside…
No, nobody wants to outlaw being queer per se. (Not anyone with any semblance of power to make that happen, anyway.) But criminalizing homosexual acts (e.g., oral and anal sex) between two consenting gay adults was, in part, one of the reasons the U.S. had enforceable sodomy laws on the books until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. The point was — is — to keep gay people out of polite society so those offended by the existence of gay people can pretend those people don’t exist.
And not for nothing, but maybe look up the often-failed “kill the gays” bill in Uganda…and who is largely responsible for getting the Ugandan government to take up that bill in the first place. (Hint: American conservative Christians did that shit.)
if forcing acceptance of a lifestyle upon society is wrong in one direction … that same thing should be wrong in the other direction as well
You don’t have to accept the “lifestyle” — you have to tolerate the fact that queer people exist. Being one of those people, I can say this: We’re allowed to exist without your fucking permission.
You don’t have to be queer. Nobody is going to force you to be queer. Queer people aren’t looking for your approval — we’re striving for the ability to live in society without having to worry about being unable to access the same civil rights as everyone else.
On the flip side, conservative Christians love trying to force queer people into being heterosexual/cisgender. “It’s just a phase,” they’ll say. “It’s against God’s design,” they’ll claim. “They’re broken souls who need to be fixed,” they’ll reason. And before you know it, some poor soul locked away in a “conversion ‘therapy’ ” camp by well-meaning-yet-bigoted parents is hanging themselves out of guilt and shame. (Which, to the people running those camps, is a success story — one less queer person in the world, after all.)
Queer people don’t need your approval, and we don’t need you to be queer. We need you to accept only one thing: We’re here, we’re queer, and we deserve the exact same right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you have.
It is possible to disagree with being LG[BTQ]
No, it isn’t. To disagree with someone being queer is to disagree with someone existing. Being queer isn’t a fucking choice, or else you could point to the exact moment where you voluntarily made the willing and informed choice to be heterosexual and cisgender.
the pro side is often just as binary as the other, not recognizing or acknowledging this fact but instead demanding total acceptance whether a person wants to give it or not
As I said: We’re not looking for your whole-assed acceptance. We’re looking for the right to live openly in society without being beaten to death, tortured into being “normal”, or being denied civil rights based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Queer people don’t need, and shouldn’t have to ask, for permission from anyone to do that — and that “anyone” includes you, too.
forcing their belief upon others
The “belief” you’re so worried about is simple: Queer people deserve the same civil rights as you and the right to live in society without being punished — socially, physically, or psychologically — for being openly queer. Ask yourself this: For what reason are you afraid to accept that belief when people who espouse it aren’t even asking you to be queer?
It doesn’t help when the alt-left (far left, progressive movement) is specifically calling for just that.
Show me proof of any sitting politician in the United States has ever called for open borders. (That’s b-o-r-d-e-r-s, no “a”.) Also, show me proof that any sitting politician in the United States is part of a “far left” movement. Also also, show me proof there even is a “far left” movement in the United States.
do you admit that the progressive AOC Squad is not representative of the party as a whole?
When has anyone here ever said otherwise? And yes, the so-called Squad are outliers in the Democratic Party precisely because they aren’t a bunch of middling centrists.
There is zero reason for a vaccinated person to wear a mask.
As someone who is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, I have three good reasons (and one mediocre reason) for wearing a mask despite having gotten the jab:
I don’t want to potentially catch the disease; no vaccine is perfect
If I catch the disease, I don’t want to spread it to others if I can avoid doing so; masks help with that
I don’t want to potentially catch the common cold, the flu, and other such diseases that spread in similar manners to COVID-19
Maybe I like how I look in a mask
Don’t assume you speak for every vaccinated person when you make claims like that, Lodos. Because you better fucking believe you don’t speak for me.
Brainy, having run out of actual arguments or facsimiles thereof, has resorted to mocking words and letters that other people use. He attacked me as being “un-American” or some shit because I use vowels with diaresises in words like “coöperate” instead of setting off the prefix with a dash (“co-operate”). It’s sad, is what it is.
When both sides arrive at a similarly awful conclusion (e.g., “230 bad; repeal 230 now”) regardless of the path they chose to get there, both sides deserve criticism. Making good points alone isn’t reason enough to ignore bad conclusions drawn from those points.
Techdirt seems to love both-siderism when it comes to treating both the Dems and the Republicans the same whenever a hearing on Big Tech or Antitrust happens.
You say this as if one side or the other deserves no criticism in regards to such issues. They both deserve critcism. Question and criticize authority, even — and especially — if you agree with it.
Find a rich motherfucker willing toss away all scientific morals and ethics, then find enough scientists willing to do the same for the sake of making shitloads of money. Although I’m pretty sure that’s how we end up with the Umbrella Corporation… 🤔
One person says vaccines, while not perfect, are the best defense against COVID-19 and the best way to get the pandemic under control. Another person says vaccines are tools of Satan, the Illuminati, and Bill Gates meant to control, track, and…I’unno, sterilize millions of Americans.
Under a neutral POV, the fact-based view is treated as equal to a view based on no facts at all. Under a neutral POV, both sides should — must — be given equal weight or else one side would be “favored” over the other. Under a neutral POV, facts are irrelevant so long as there are “two sides to every story”.
“View from nowhere” journalism isn’t journalism — it’s a cover for letting bullshit artists get away with their grift under the guise of “hearing both sides”. Fact-based journalism will always be biased…towards the truth, as best as we can discern it. You can’t separate bias from journalism because someone must decide what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check. If you want “neutral” journalism, you’re shit out of luck.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
I said credible sources. You should’ve searched the official DSA website for its platform - a search which led me to find a first draft of the 2021 platform for the DSA. The draft contains only three instances of the word “border”; in all three instances, the context is not “open borders”, but “border enforcement” and the militarization thereof. (A similar situation occurs with “immigration” and “immigrant”, and both “open” and “immigrate” aren’t found anywhere in the document.) Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut, for the sake of making sure I don’t hurt your fee-fees by talking only about “credibility” and “bullshit”, I took a look at the document you linked to. Turns out, it’s part of a list of resolutions approved for debate at the 2019 national convention — not an official voicing of support for “open borders” by the organization as a whole. While I did see a tweet or two saying DSA delegates voted in support of that specific resolution, it doesn’t appear to be a major plank of the DSA platform (judging from that 2021 draft), and those delegates don’t speak for all members of the DSA. This is what happens when you look for official/credible sources instead of going with “junk food” news that makes you feel good by playing to your biases: You learn some actual facts.
We didn’t need one consolidated agency before 2003. I don’t see why we need one consolidated agency now, especially since ICE is so militarized and violent that abolishing it would probably save lives (though I’m not sure you’re all that concerned about those lives…or that you think they even deserved to be saved).
That’s how we have the system we have today: Thinking greater enforcement, stronger enforcement, more violent enforcement is what’s needed. You want to curb immigration from Central and South American countries? Here’s an idea: Tell the U.S. government to stop fucking around in/destabilizing those countries.
On the post: If There's A Defamatory Review On Yelp, Is It Google's Job To Hide It?
Other countries have shittier defamation laws than the ones in the United States. For what reason should the U.S. “open up the libel laws” (as a politician I’m sure you support once put it) and make basically anyone responsible for defamation if they so much as read the defamatory speech?
On the post: If There's A Defamatory Review On Yelp, Is It Google's Job To Hide It?
230 doesn’t harm individuals or businesses. People do. Go after them. If you can’t find them, tough shit — but being angry at that fact is no reason to attack people, tools, and companies who aren’t responsible for defaming you.
On the post: How A Camera Patent Was Used To Sue Non-Profits, Cities, And Public Schools
Copyright Lawyer: Where did you learn to do this?
Patent Lawyer: …
Copyright Lawyer: WHO TAUGHT YOU TO—
Patent Lawyer: You, okay?! I learned it from watching you!
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Prove, with links to credible news sources, that AOC (or any other Democrat) has called for a “totally open borders” mandate while in office.
We had immigration and customs enforcement well before we had Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Note the capitalization, lest you think I’m repeating myself.) Abolishing ICE isn’t a “radical” idea; the agency is only 18 years old.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
The Republicans were so mad at “the libs” that they supported another barely mentally competent old white man to the point of armed insurrection. Not really lookin’ good for your “side”, fam.
On the post: Rachel Dolezal's Copyright Follies: Sues CBS For Copyright Infringement In Case That Won't End Well
This case has about five different levels of WTF-ery that I don’t even want to try to unravel. 🙃
On the post: As The US Press Withers, Glorified Marketing Aims To Take Its Place
Sexual orientation isn’t a choice, but your “it’s all just an act they can choose to drop any time they want” bigotry aside…
No, nobody wants to outlaw being queer per se. (Not anyone with any semblance of power to make that happen, anyway.) But criminalizing homosexual acts (e.g., oral and anal sex) between two consenting gay adults was, in part, one of the reasons the U.S. had enforceable sodomy laws on the books until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. The point was — is — to keep gay people out of polite society so those offended by the existence of gay people can pretend those people don’t exist.
And not for nothing, but maybe look up the often-failed “kill the gays” bill in Uganda…and who is largely responsible for getting the Ugandan government to take up that bill in the first place. (Hint: American conservative Christians did that shit.)
You don’t have to accept the “lifestyle” — you have to tolerate the fact that queer people exist. Being one of those people, I can say this: We’re allowed to exist without your fucking permission.
You don’t have to be queer. Nobody is going to force you to be queer. Queer people aren’t looking for your approval — we’re striving for the ability to live in society without having to worry about being unable to access the same civil rights as everyone else.
On the flip side, conservative Christians love trying to force queer people into being heterosexual/cisgender. “It’s just a phase,” they’ll say. “It’s against God’s design,” they’ll claim. “They’re broken souls who need to be fixed,” they’ll reason. And before you know it, some poor soul locked away in a “conversion ‘therapy’ ” camp by well-meaning-yet-bigoted parents is hanging themselves out of guilt and shame. (Which, to the people running those camps, is a success story — one less queer person in the world, after all.)
Queer people don’t need your approval, and we don’t need you to be queer. We need you to accept only one thing: We’re here, we’re queer, and we deserve the exact same right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you have.
No, it isn’t. To disagree with someone being queer is to disagree with someone existing. Being queer isn’t a fucking choice, or else you could point to the exact moment where you voluntarily made the willing and informed choice to be heterosexual and cisgender.
As I said: We’re not looking for your whole-assed acceptance. We’re looking for the right to live openly in society without being beaten to death, tortured into being “normal”, or being denied civil rights based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Queer people don’t need, and shouldn’t have to ask, for permission from anyone to do that — and that “anyone” includes you, too.
The “belief” you’re so worried about is simple: Queer people deserve the same civil rights as you and the right to live in society without being punished — socially, physically, or psychologically — for being openly queer. Ask yourself this: For what reason are you afraid to accept that belief when people who espouse it aren’t even asking you to be queer?
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Show me proof of any sitting politician in the United States has ever called for open borders. (That’s b-o-r-d-e-r-s, no “a”.) Also, show me proof that any sitting politician in the United States is part of a “far left” movement. Also also, show me proof there even is a “far left” movement in the United States.
When has anyone here ever said otherwise? And yes, the so-called Squad are outliers in the Democratic Party precisely because they aren’t a bunch of middling centrists.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
As someone who is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, I have three good reasons (and one mediocre reason) for wearing a mask despite having gotten the jab:
I don’t want to potentially catch the disease; no vaccine is perfect
If I catch the disease, I don’t want to spread it to others if I can avoid doing so; masks help with that
I don’t want to potentially catch the common cold, the flu, and other such diseases that spread in similar manners to COVID-19
Don’t assume you speak for every vaccinated person when you make claims like that, Lodos. Because you better fucking believe you don’t speak for me.
On the post: Unofficial Amiibo Guidebook That Was Essentially Advertising Nintendo Products Gets Nintendo'd
Brainy, having run out of actual arguments or facsimiles thereof, has resorted to mocking words and letters that other people use. He attacked me as being “un-American” or some shit because I use vowels with diaresises in words like “coöperate” instead of setting off the prefix with a dash (“co-operate”). It’s sad, is what it is.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
But they weren’t.
On the post: Parler Was Allowed Back In The Apple App Store Because It Will Block 'Hate Speech,' But Only When Viewed Through Apple Devices
lol you think the democratic party is leftist
they’re barely centrist
On the post: As The US Press Withers, Glorified Marketing Aims To Take Its Place
When both sides arrive at a similarly awful conclusion (e.g., “230 bad; repeal 230 now”) regardless of the path they chose to get there, both sides deserve criticism. Making good points alone isn’t reason enough to ignore bad conclusions drawn from those points.
On the post: As The US Press Withers, Glorified Marketing Aims To Take Its Place
You say this as if one side or the other deserves no criticism in regards to such issues. They both deserve critcism. Question and criticize authority, even — and especially — if you agree with it.
On the post: Parler Was Allowed Back In The Apple App Store Because It Will Block 'Hate Speech,' But Only When Viewed Through Apple Devices
So what?
On the post: Parler Was Allowed Back In The Apple App Store Because It Will Block 'Hate Speech,' But Only When Viewed Through Apple Devices
Ten bux says you’d be overjoyed if Twitter was subjected to the same treatment Parler received, and all “because of leftist politics”.
On the post: Parler Was Allowed Back In The Apple App Store Because It Will Block 'Hate Speech,' But Only When Viewed Through Apple Devices
I don’t get why they’re angry — they still have 4chan and 8kun, so they can spread bigotry and hate there all the live-long day.
On the post: Senator Wyden Tells The DOJ It Needs To Stop Going After Journalists During Leak Investigations
Find a rich motherfucker willing toss away all scientific morals and ethics, then find enough scientists willing to do the same for the sake of making shitloads of money. Although I’m pretty sure that’s how we end up with the Umbrella Corporation… 🤔
On the post: As The US Press Withers, Glorified Marketing Aims To Take Its Place
One person says vaccines, while not perfect, are the best defense against COVID-19 and the best way to get the pandemic under control. Another person says vaccines are tools of Satan, the Illuminati, and Bill Gates meant to control, track, and…I’unno, sterilize millions of Americans.
Under a neutral POV, the fact-based view is treated as equal to a view based on no facts at all. Under a neutral POV, both sides should — must — be given equal weight or else one side would be “favored” over the other. Under a neutral POV, facts are irrelevant so long as there are “two sides to every story”.
“View from nowhere” journalism isn’t journalism — it’s a cover for letting bullshit artists get away with their grift under the guise of “hearing both sides”. Fact-based journalism will always be biased…towards the truth, as best as we can discern it. You can’t separate bias from journalism because someone must decide what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check. If you want “neutral” journalism, you’re shit out of luck.
Next >>