A given newspaper has no obligation to print “both sides” of an argument or give space to fascist bullshit and the people who spew it. The Washington Post can be part of a free press without giving Josh Hawley — someone who implicitly supported the cause of the violent insurrectionists by raising/supporting baseless objections to the 2020 election results — space within its pages.
Republican lawmakers and leaders still make overtures to the principles democracy — after all, they haven’t (yet) banned people not registered as Republicans from voting. But Republican voters are either aching to support or already support Republican-led fascism.
I mean, the whole point of the insurrection was to depose a legally elected president-elect and put in his place the legally certified loser of the 2020 election. That’s straight-up fascist behavior.
At this point, hearing Republicans stump for full-bore fascism wouldn’t surprise me. That glorified death cult already believes elections they lose aren’t “real” elections.
Stop assuming anyone who you disagree with is conservative.
Considering the article under which these comments sit, and the tenor of your prior comment in this specific thread, maybe you can understand why I make that assumption.
I would prefer they signal nothing at all.
I’d prefer corporations be open about what they’re willing to support and what they’re willing to decry — like, say, a voting restrictions bill aimed at depressing voter turnout among Black voters. I’d prefer to know which companies I can support without generally feeling (too) morally bankrupt and (too) ethically compromised. (And I’d prefer to get corporate money out of politics so that some rich dipshit can’t buy laws that fuck over regular jackoffs.)
I would prefer to live in a world where serious conversations (and voting campaigns) are not conducted through paid advertising.
So what are you going to do about it? Because bitching on a tech blog about how Coke has more influence in politics and political discussions than you do ain’t gonna change one motherfucking thing.
Mike doesn’t write according to your preferences; go somewhere else if you can’t deal with that. And being an American, I’d like to know when an American lawmaker is being a hypocritical ass — especially when their hypocrisy could affect free speech rights.
I'm saying the words that Mike quoted didn't provide enough context to back up his assertion that Rubio was only complaining about non-conservative PR.
Then read the original column from Rubio. The context is clear: He dislikes “woke” corporate PR. And to conservatives like Rubio, “woke” means “leftist” — like the “leftist” PR move from Major League Baseball (moving the All-Star Game out of Georgia) in support of “leftist ideology” (opposing the new voting restrictions law in Georgia that will disproportionately affect people of color and thus subvert democracy across the state).
PR that signals the company's moral superiority as a way to pander to potential customers.
You mean like the “we’re real free speech services” PR of services like Gab and Parler? 🤔
See, there’s the problem with using what was once liberal/progressive terminology that has now been coöpted by conservatives (e.g., “woke”): By using it in reference to anything that you dislike, you make it mean nothing, such that it can apply to anything regardless of whether you like it. Is 8kun any less “woke” than Twitter for promising “true free speech” on its service?
Advertising works on the basis of attaching a brand to certain values. To varying extents, commercials work by signalling the moral desirability of the brands they advertise. Commercials may be more or less explicit (and effective) at doing this, but the underlying principle of advertising is based on signalling virtue.
Would you prefer they signal vice instead? Would you prefer they signal hatred and anger?
Yes, all advertising works on the idea that “our brand rules, all other brands suck”. No one disputes that. But marketers get far, far, far, far, far more mileage out of “our brand rules, come enjoy our brand” than with “our brand rules, fuck you to hell if you think otherwise”.
The fact that we take moral cues from people selling us crap is a problem, and just because it's Marco Rubio pointing this out doesn't make that any less true.
But it does make Marco Rubio — a politician who has most likely accepted large donations (and policy suggestions) from some of the same corporations about which he now complains — a hypocrite.
Essentially, we can't use emoticons of any sort here
You can, but you have to use the proper escape character for Markdown (the backslash) when necessary. For example: I have to use three backslashes for the shrugging emoticon to parse right.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Alternative solutions include using an emoji known for marking irony/sarcasm/humor (e.g., 🙃) or, as I started doing a while back, using a tilde before punctuation. I promise that it always works~.
Cruelty requires either an act that inflicts suffering or enjoyment in the suffering and degradation of others. Mocking a person for their last name — reducing their existence and their humanity to a punchline for the sake of a cheap laugh, possibly due to bigotry — is cruelty. A child bullying another child in a way that never becomes violent but still destroys the self-esteem of the victim is also cruelty.
Humor borne from cruelty is only funny to the similarly cruel. To everyone else, it’s called “being an asshole”. Yes or no: Do you still wish to defend that “office humor” as “inconsequential”?
Is it hypocricy if they believe the use of encryption is only good for covertly conducting in criminal and terroristic activity but they use it anyway?
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
And now we wait for Old 45 to shittalk Section 230 on a website protected by Section 230.
On the post: Salesforce Asks Appeals Court To Say It's Protected Under 230; After Its Own CEO Said We Should Get Rid Of 230
Benefitting from a law and asking it to be changed in a way that further benefits you, on the other hand…well, that’s just straight-up bullshit.
On the post: The Washington Post Thought It Might Be Nice To Provide Free Book Marketing To Insurrectionist Josh Hawley
A given newspaper has no obligation to print “both sides” of an argument or give space to fascist bullshit and the people who spew it. The Washington Post can be part of a free press without giving Josh Hawley — someone who implicitly supported the cause of the violent insurrectionists by raising/supporting baseless objections to the 2020 election results — space within its pages.
On the post: The Washington Post Thought It Might Be Nice To Provide Free Book Marketing To Insurrectionist Josh Hawley
Republican lawmakers and leaders still make overtures to the principles democracy — after all, they haven’t (yet) banned people not registered as Republicans from voting. But Republican voters are either aching to support or already support Republican-led fascism.
I mean, the whole point of the insurrection was to depose a legally elected president-elect and put in his place the legally certified loser of the 2020 election. That’s straight-up fascist behavior.
On the post: The Washington Post Thought It Might Be Nice To Provide Free Book Marketing To Insurrectionist Josh Hawley
At this point, hearing Republicans stump for full-bore fascism wouldn’t surprise me. That glorified death cult already believes elections they lose aren’t “real” elections.
On the post: Rep. Lauren Boebert Decides To Streisand Parody Site Making Fun Of Her, Threatens To Take Legal Action Against It
Nah, I think he’s too much of a cow-ard to do that.
On the post: Senator Marco Rubio: Speech I Disagree With Is Pollution
Considering the article under which these comments sit, and the tenor of your prior comment in this specific thread, maybe you can understand why I make that assumption.
I’d prefer corporations be open about what they’re willing to support and what they’re willing to decry — like, say, a voting restrictions bill aimed at depressing voter turnout among Black voters. I’d prefer to know which companies I can support without generally feeling (too) morally bankrupt and (too) ethically compromised. (And I’d prefer to get corporate money out of politics so that some rich dipshit can’t buy laws that fuck over regular jackoffs.)
So what are you going to do about it? Because bitching on a tech blog about how Coke has more influence in politics and political discussions than you do ain’t gonna change one motherfucking thing.
On the post: Senator Marco Rubio: Speech I Disagree With Is Pollution
Mike doesn’t write according to your preferences; go somewhere else if you can’t deal with that. And being an American, I’d like to know when an American lawmaker is being a hypocritical ass — especially when their hypocrisy could affect free speech rights.
On the post: Senator Marco Rubio: Speech I Disagree With Is Pollution
Then read the original column from Rubio. The context is clear: He dislikes “woke” corporate PR. And to conservatives like Rubio, “woke” means “leftist” — like the “leftist” PR move from Major League Baseball (moving the All-Star Game out of Georgia) in support of “leftist ideology” (opposing the new voting restrictions law in Georgia that will disproportionately affect people of color and thus subvert democracy across the state).
On the post: Senator Marco Rubio: Speech I Disagree With Is Pollution
You mean like the “we’re real free speech services” PR of services like Gab and Parler? 🤔
See, there’s the problem with using what was once liberal/progressive terminology that has now been coöpted by conservatives (e.g., “woke”): By using it in reference to anything that you dislike, you make it mean nothing, such that it can apply to anything regardless of whether you like it. Is 8kun any less “woke” than Twitter for promising “true free speech” on its service?
Would you prefer they signal vice instead? Would you prefer they signal hatred and anger?
Yes, all advertising works on the idea that “our brand rules, all other brands suck”. No one disputes that. But marketers get far, far, far, far, far more mileage out of “our brand rules, come enjoy our brand” than with “our brand rules, fuck you to hell if you think otherwise”.
But it does make Marco Rubio — a politician who has most likely accepted large donations (and policy suggestions) from some of the same corporations about which he now complains — a hypocrite.
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
wow, this is some gotdamn fractal wrongness
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
You can, but you have to use the proper escape character for Markdown (the backslash) when necessary. For example: I have to use three backslashes for the shrugging emoticon to parse right.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Alternative solutions include using an emoji known for marking irony/sarcasm/humor (e.g., 🙃) or, as I started doing a while back, using a tilde before punctuation. I promise that it always works~.
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
Cruelty requires either an act that inflicts suffering or enjoyment in the suffering and degradation of others. Mocking a person for their last name — reducing their existence and their humanity to a punchline for the sake of a cheap laugh, possibly due to bigotry — is cruelty. A child bullying another child in a way that never becomes violent but still destroys the self-esteem of the victim is also cruelty.
Humor borne from cruelty is only funny to the similarly cruel. To everyone else, it’s called “being an asshole”. Yes or no: Do you still wish to defend that “office humor” as “inconsequential”?
On the post: Basecamp Bans Politics, An Act That Itself Is Political
Actually~, the correct term for that act is “vice signaling”.
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
Well of course you can cite that sort of thing, Mike. 😁
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
Every accusation, a confession…
On the post: Anatomy Of A Bogus DMCA Scam Run By A Plagiarizing Website
Yes, it is: Turn the DMCA takedown system into a notice-and-notice system that operates under the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.
On the post: Boris Johnson's Phone Number Leaks: Turns Out He Uses End-To-End Encryption... While Trying To Ban It For Everyone Else
No, but it does come off as a confession…
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
Not an answer to my question.
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
Your hate doesn’t answer my question…in the way you think it does, anyway.
Next >>