"The guy is some kind of genius, that's for sure."
It's not genius, it's sociopathy. We're all capable of thinking up horrible, shitty, selfish things to do, we just know not to do them because the negative effects on others outweigh the positive effects on us. Trump literally doesn't think that way. He only thinks about his gain, nothing else. Even things he does for others are only because he benefits too.
I'm not even saying this just to insult him, it's a verifiable fact based on decades of behavior, and it's why it's so dangerous for him to be in a position of such great (but not absolute) power.
"Same as the Dems and everyone in this country..."
No, just no. There are shit people on both sides and there always have been, but the modern incarnation of the GOP has taken taken this sort of behavior to a whole new level. There is simply no genuine 'both sides' argument to be made here.
Twitter also isn't a publisher or broadcaster that is actively deciding what content to produce and provide. It has users that make those decisions, and they're legally protected because of that.
"The consequences for them showing illegal content should be in line with the consequences for CNN doing the same."
No, the user that posted it should be. It shouldn't be hard to understand this.
"I missed what this had to do with anything in the article."
It's always a good idea to check why you miss the point of someone's comment before shooting your mouth off at something who possibly knows more about the topic that you.
Re: Re: Re: Everyone is armed so everyone is a threat.
How is it a strawman? You can't claim there isn't a strong connection between the rampart availability of guns and the police's fear, justified or not, that anybody could shoot them at any time. Hard to see the safety benefit of that.
No, their cowardly decision to not step in and stop what they clearly knew was against both the law and department regs is proof of moral failings. This cop is just as shit as Branch.
Your hypothetical highlights the hypocrisy at play here. The police claim flashbangs are "standard procedure coz we was scared, no big deal", but can you imagine the violence, both physical and legal, that would befall anyone who threw a flashbang at police? If you survived the inevitable hail of gunfire, a charge of using a deadly weapon against LEO's would be the minimum you could expect.
"He was doing exactly what his training instructed him to do."
His obviously terrible training should not be enough to overpower that part of most people's psyche that stops them from wanting to kill people. That fact that he immediately walked wordlessly over the body and worried more about opening the door than the life he'd just taken shows that part was not present. He strikes me as a bit of a psychopath (the medical definition, not the pop culture one).
That was my thought. The way he was ranting and screaming it seems pretty obvious he'd decided several minutes before pulling the trigger that he was going to kill Shaver, he just needed a tiny sliver of 'justification'.
I'm honestly not sure who's worse, the cop, his trainers, or the jury.
"If you accept the premise that Youtube has full control over the content it allows on its platform, there is no such thing as a "bad call". they can ban whatever the hell they want."
That is completely false. The point of the article is that some of YouTube's actions are arguably bad for society as a whole, such as making it harder to educate the public on how to protect themselves against hacking. Just because they're entitled to do something doesn't mean they can't be legitimately criticized for it. That makes the rest of you comment equally false.
I can attest to this. I was talking about work to a colleague when he ran into the rear end of another car in heavy traffic. Not really my fault but I did feel a bit guilty.
"Do you mean “independent artists who make a name for themselves without relying on corporations to do it for them”? Because I would rather have them doing their thing, even if I dislike it, than be force-fed bland corporate slush because independent artists had to be sacrificed on the altar of copyright."
Couldn't agree more. A quick check of the 80 YouTube channels I'm subscribed to shows about 90% of them to be independent creators that wouldn't have been able to do their thing under legacy systems. Personally I find their content is considerably more entertaining and informative than broadcast dreck, which I rarely watch any more as a result.
And yet Ken's writing does distinguish him, and many people enjoy reading it. You're welcome to say more, but you already look like a complete blowhard so...
On the post: Dealing With COVID-19 Requires Radical Transparency In Research Results; China Is Going In The Opposite Direction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Barely masked antitrumpetry
"The guy is some kind of genius, that's for sure."
It's not genius, it's sociopathy. We're all capable of thinking up horrible, shitty, selfish things to do, we just know not to do them because the negative effects on others outweigh the positive effects on us. Trump literally doesn't think that way. He only thinks about his gain, nothing else. Even things he does for others are only because he benefits too.
I'm not even saying this just to insult him, it's a verifiable fact based on decades of behavior, and it's why it's so dangerous for him to be in a position of such great (but not absolute) power.
On the post: Two Senators Sold A Bunch Of Stock After Being Briefed About COVID-19; While Telling The World Things Were Going To Be Fine
Re: Re:
"Same as the Dems and everyone in this country..."
No, just no. There are shit people on both sides and there always have been, but the modern incarnation of the GOP has taken taken this sort of behavior to a whole new level. There is simply no genuine 'both sides' argument to be made here.
On the post: Supreme Court Says It's OK For Border Patrol Agents To Kill Mexican Citizens As Long As They Die In Mexico
Re:
You have to be a pretty sick fuck to justify putting ten bullets in a kid for throwing rocks.
On the post: Trump Campaign Files Laughably Stupid SLAPP Suit Over A NY Times Opinion Piece
Re:
"It seems to be the new Leftist boogieman these days. Russia, Russia, Russia."
You mean the US's principal geopolitical adversary since the end of WW2? The one that many American's used to be reflexively paranoid about?
On the post: Arizona Legislator Wants To Strip Platforms Of Section 230 Immunity If They're 'Politically Biased'
Re: Re:
"Twitter isn't special."
Twitter also isn't a publisher or broadcaster that is actively deciding what content to produce and provide. It has users that make those decisions, and they're legally protected because of that.
"The consequences for them showing illegal content should be in line with the consequences for CNN doing the same."
No, the user that posted it should be. It shouldn't be hard to understand this.
On the post: This Week In Free Speech Hypocrites: 'Free Speech' Supporter Sheila Gunn Reid Gleefully Sues Someone For Calling Her A Neo-Nazi
Re: Godwin's Law
"...this Dave Barrett fellow rightfully lost."
First, he didn't lose, he settled, which is often the way that costs you the least amount of money no matter how strong your position is.
And second, care to explain how this is "rightful"? Do you really think successful legal bullying by a censorious hypocrite is a good outcome?
On the post: Bob Murray, Who Sued John Oliver For Mocking His Support Of Trump's Plan To Bring Back Coal Jobs... Files For Bankruptcy
Re: Re:
"I missed what this had to do with anything in the article."
It's always a good idea to check why you miss the point of someone's comment before shooting your mouth off at something who possibly knows more about the topic that you.
On the post: Cop Peforming A Welfare Check Kills Woman By Shooting Her Through Her Own Backyard Window
Re: Re: Re: Everyone is armed so everyone is a threat.
How is it a strawman? You can't claim there isn't a strong connection between the rampart availability of guns and the police's fear, justified or not, that anybody could shoot them at any time. Hard to see the safety benefit of that.
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Qualified Immunity For Transit Cop Who Arrested A Journalist For Taking Pictures Of EMS Personnel
Re: Re:
No, their cowardly decision to not step in and stop what they clearly knew was against both the law and department regs is proof of moral failings. This cop is just as shit as Branch.
On the post: Court: No Immunity For SWAT Team That Hurled A Flash-Bang Grenade In The General Direction Of A Two-Year-Old Child
Re: How about a trade?
Your hypothetical highlights the hypocrisy at play here. The police claim flashbangs are "standard procedure coz we was scared, no big deal", but can you imagine the violence, both physical and legal, that would befall anyone who threw a flashbang at police? If you survived the inevitable hail of gunfire, a charge of using a deadly weapon against LEO's would be the minimum you could expect.
On the post: Cop Claims His Shooting Of An Unarmed Man Gave Him PTSD, Walks Off With A Medical Pension
Re:
"He was doing exactly what his training instructed him to do."
His obviously terrible training should not be enough to overpower that part of most people's psyche that stops them from wanting to kill people. That fact that he immediately walked wordlessly over the body and worried more about opening the door than the life he'd just taken shows that part was not present. He strikes me as a bit of a psychopath (the medical definition, not the pop culture one).
On the post: Cop Claims His Shooting Of An Unarmed Man Gave Him PTSD, Walks Off With A Medical Pension
Re:
That was my thought. The way he was ranting and screaming it seems pretty obvious he'd decided several minutes before pulling the trigger that he was going to kill Shaver, he just needed a tiny sliver of 'justification'.
I'm honestly not sure who's worse, the cop, his trainers, or the jury.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: The Case Of YouTube And 'Hacking' Videos
Re: Re: Wait a second...
"If you accept the premise that Youtube has full control over the content it allows on its platform, there is no such thing as a "bad call". they can ban whatever the hell they want."
That is completely false. The point of the article is that some of YouTube's actions are arguably bad for society as a whole, such as making it harder to educate the public on how to protect themselves against hacking. Just because they're entitled to do something doesn't mean they can't be legitimately criticized for it. That makes the rest of you comment equally false.
On the post: Man Wins Legal Battle Over Traffic Ticket By Convincing Court A Hash Brown Is Not A Phone
Re: Re: Re: There is a difference
I can attest to this. I was talking about work to a colleague when he ran into the rear end of another car in heavy traffic. Not really my fault but I did feel a bit guilty.
On the post: James Comey Offers Up Half-Assed Apology For Being Such An Asshole About Encryption
Re: Or maybe ...
"The Mueller-investigation just concluded officially that Comey's idea about Russian interference has been a ginormous waste of time and money."
So you're taking the Trump admin approach here? Just state the exact opposite of what the report actually concluded?
On the post: Starz Really, Really Doesn't Want You To Know That TorrentFreak Wrote About Leaked Shows, Or That Anyone Tweeted About It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is it censorship when I can still read your braindead drivel? You whine like a stroppy 4yo.
On the post: The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Thriving, Almost Entirely Because Of The Internet
Re:
"Do you mean “independent artists who make a name for themselves without relying on corporations to do it for them”? Because I would rather have them doing their thing, even if I dislike it, than be force-fed bland corporate slush because independent artists had to be sacrificed on the altar of copyright."
Couldn't agree more. A quick check of the 80 YouTube channels I'm subscribed to shows about 90% of them to be independent creators that wouldn't have been able to do their thing under legacy systems. Personally I find their content is considerably more entertaining and informative than broadcast dreck, which I rarely watch any more as a result.
On the post: Getty Images Sued Yet Again For Trying To License Public Domain Images
Re:
And yet Ken's writing does distinguish him, and many people enjoy reading it. You're welcome to say more, but you already look like a complete blowhard so...
On the post: Three Lessons In Content Moderation From New Zealand And Other High-Profile Tragedies
Re: Re: Re:
"It's not FREE speech if it costs money to moderate."
Come back once you've learn how words can have different meanings referring to completely different concepts.
On the post: Three Lessons In Content Moderation From New Zealand And Other High-Profile Tragedies
Re: A lot of snowflakes here
Obvious troll is obvious.
Next >>