@TFG, sorry mate, you're misinformed. If you're quoting Virginia law, slaves could be freed by a witnessed deed and could escape the ban on remaining in the state for more than a year (or face re-enslavement) if they could get a character reference. It has never been illegal to free slaves, but there have always been ways to make this difficult (manumission was restricted to persons over the age of 18 and under 45 as long as they were healthy). Excuse my pedantry.
I agree with the rest of your post as it reflects my own position.
What Chris says. I used to follow the prohibitionist line till someone asked me whether I wanted to solve the problem, or at least manage it more efficiently, or just put on the appearance of doing so. Then he pointed me to Portugal's approach. From that day on, my attitude changed, as it always does when I'm confronted with evidence I can't kick over. Legalise, tax, and regulate. Treat the more obviously dangerous stuff as a health issue.
As another commenter has pointed out, nobody ever croaked it from a marijuana overdose, while alcohol poisoning kills 6 people a day in the USA, mostly men. There's not a corresponding binge culture where weed is concerned.
I still don't like it, but if prohibition and scaring kids straight actually worked, I'd support those approaches. As it is, I'll support the method that's proven to actually work.
Uh, guys? "Baby Trump blimp" totally happened. Yes. we make fun of Trump and all the other nutters because their antics lend themselves to criticism. "Those on the left" are just as prone to making fun of and ridiculing people as those on the right.
Anyone whose heroes are being lampooned for behaving badly should take their lumps and stop whingeing about it.
Random digit dialling gets around ex-directory and do not call. I suppose you could make it illegal but how many times have any of us mis-dialled and called some random person by accident? Such a law would have to be very narrowly crafted.
"If Twitter kicks me out, they've deplatformed me."
That's actually true.
Please explain what this means. There are plenty of other "platforms" out there no? Why not use one of them?
You just explained it yourself. Let's not be conflating "deplatforming" with "Censorship." They're different things.
If the platform were forced, by the government, to host your speech - wouldn't that action be socialism?
No. Please can we also not be conflating "Socialism" with "totalitarianism?" While certain socialist governments have indeed been totalitarian, the record on the Right has been no better. Remember Pinochet? I do.
I'm sure if someone paid someone who was judgment-proof or terminally ill to flood google with lies about say Masnick, or one of his attorney buddies, to where no one could be sued for it, they wouldn't call it "pretending."
A troll did this to me for free. I didn't sue, I used the troll's posts as evidence that it was trash talk and not credible. The posts came down on all but one platform. Even Hamilton has given up trying to use it against me since it doesn't stick. Why? Every time he links it, my rebuttal comes up too.
^This. Mind you, even if you have screwed up so completely you fear you might never be able to show your face online again, there are things you can do to paint yourself in a better light.
Start by apologising for the thing you did wrong.
Start a blog and contribute to other websites stating what you've learned since then and how you've moved on.
Do good things or make the kind of blog posts that paint you in the light you want to be seen in.
If someone calls you out for your past, you have all of that behind you. Don't be defensive, acknowledge it and be courteous to win the person over. In that way, people who see your past can also see your present and this can help to move you to a better future.
You do know that people unfamiliar with a case will look it up, don't you? Especially when we know it's a troll doing Lisa Bloom's dirty work for her. Weinstein was the bad guy, you tool!
It's not a free ride to ensure that all voices are on equal footing in a debate. If someone's "property" claims to be neutral territory with open debate, censoring people, even white supremacists, is inconsistent with that.
It's nobody's job to ensure an equal footing for any voices in a debate. Drop the strawman and be honest; you have no problem with racism and the abusive behaviours that result from it. In fact, you want a burning cross on every front lawn, don't you?
If you're being deplatformed, your comments hidden, and told to shove off, this is the conclusion to be drawn:
Mene, mene your arguments have indeed been taken on board; Tekel they have been carefully considered and found unworthy; Uparsin your account will be shut down so off you sod to WhateverChan or other unpopular platform where the rest of us don't have to hear your nonsense.
Bear in mind that mad racists don't have anything new to bring to the table and there is no discussion to be had with them. They think they're superior (why??) and don't want to play nicely with the rest of us. What debate can possibly be had with such people?
They whine because they know that they can't get anything like the income and reach by setting up their own platforms as they can by leeching off others. But, people like zof will whine about it being unfair that nobody wanted to do business with 8chan (a site that was a pariah because of all the mass shootings they helped inspire) than examine why their own behaviour is so toxic to others.
There are platforms such as Gab that will host extremist speech but they're not popular because most of us like to present ourselves as reasonable, decent, live-and-let-live people.
The Right's solution to the lack of reach is to get their advocates to present their views as mainstream. Sadly, this seems to be working.
Extremists aren't interested in examining why their behaviour is toxic because they like being toxic and demand that we all join them in their toxicity. I'd rather have them fenced off in their own hellholes and out of my sight.
What SDM says. Deplatforming is simply the removal of the soapbox. The entity removing the soapbox acts unconstitutionally when acting as an agent of the government. When Twitter does it, tough tizzy.
**"If Twitter kicks me out, they've deplatformed me."
No more than you've been made homeless when the bar you've been causing fights in bars you.**
@PaulT, you're both right.
btr1701 is right about being deplatformed. This doesn't, as you pointed out, mean there are no other platforms to use. He's also right that when Twitter does it, they're acting within the protections of the 1st Amendment in that they can't be forced to host unwanted speech, and right again by stating that if the government does it, they violate the 1st Amendment. Yes, we can force the government to host unwanted speech, i.e. us complaining about them.
^This. The man could have said no to the "invitation." He didn't. Had he done so, there would have been some whingeing by politicians, the same kind of whingeing that occurred when Zuck didn't show up to Parliament. No extradition warrant was issued. No SWAT team showed up at his door.
Yes, t'other guy is not American or particularly powerful, but he's also not worth the bother of sending that kind of firepower after. if 8Chan shut down because he felt some pressure, whatever. It wasn't the kind of "Close it or you go to jail" pressure that can actually shutter a website.
The needs of these people can be pretty complex, especially if they're old, disabled, or have pets. Not every hotel can accommodate these people, and they're not obliged to take in people they consider to be bums. Meanwhile, the shelters are apparently not "pest-free." So it's either a hotel that's not obliged to take you in or probably won't, or a cockroach motel of a shelter.
Proper housing that meets their needs is what's required -- and what works. It tends to pay for itself when the newly housed job-ready people find work and pay rent. The people with more complex needs will always be a drain on finances but it's cheaper to house them according to their needs than jail them or leave them until they need emergency care -- on the state's dime.
On the post: Washington Court Says Local Pot Dealers Can Hang Up Christmas Lights That Spell 'POT'
Re:
They won't face that if the stuff is legal in the state, AC.
Taking it out of state where it's still illegal, however... that's gonna hurt.
On the post: Washington Court Says Local Pot Dealers Can Hang Up Christmas Lights That Spell 'POT'
Re: Re: Inarguably think of the children
@TFG, sorry mate, you're misinformed. If you're quoting Virginia law, slaves could be freed by a witnessed deed and could escape the ban on remaining in the state for more than a year (or face re-enslavement) if they could get a character reference. It has never been illegal to free slaves, but there have always been ways to make this difficult (manumission was restricted to persons over the age of 18 and under 45 as long as they were healthy). Excuse my pedantry.
I agree with the rest of your post as it reflects my own position.
On the post: Washington Court Says Local Pot Dealers Can Hang Up Christmas Lights That Spell 'POT'
Re: Re:
What Chris says. I used to follow the prohibitionist line till someone asked me whether I wanted to solve the problem, or at least manage it more efficiently, or just put on the appearance of doing so. Then he pointed me to Portugal's approach. From that day on, my attitude changed, as it always does when I'm confronted with evidence I can't kick over. Legalise, tax, and regulate. Treat the more obviously dangerous stuff as a health issue.
As another commenter has pointed out, nobody ever croaked it from a marijuana overdose, while alcohol poisoning kills 6 people a day in the USA, mostly men. There's not a corresponding binge culture where weed is concerned.
I still don't like it, but if prohibition and scaring kids straight actually worked, I'd support those approaches. As it is, I'll support the method that's proven to actually work.
On the post: Alabama Lawmakers Think The Time Is Right To Make Assaulting A Cop A 'Hate Crime'
Re: Re: Re: Techshit are a bunch of Lefty A-holes
Uh, guys? "Baby Trump blimp" totally happened. Yes. we make fun of Trump and all the other nutters because their antics lend themselves to criticism. "Those on the left" are just as prone to making fun of and ridiculing people as those on the right.
Anyone whose heroes are being lampooned for behaving badly should take their lumps and stop whingeing about it.
On the post: When We Fail To Understand Privacy As A Set Of Trade-Offs, Everyone's 'Solutions' Are Unhelpful
Re: Re: Solutions
On the post: Whistleblower Accidentally Demonstrates How Much Of The TSA's Security Efforts Is Pure Theater
Re: Re:
I can find no reference to these allegations online. You're not making stuff up, are you?
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare they
They get deplatformed and sent whining on their way to Gab, etc.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If Twitter kicks me out, they've deplatformed me."
That's actually true.
Please explain what this means. There are plenty of other "platforms" out there no? Why not use one of them?
You just explained it yourself. Let's not be conflating "deplatforming" with "Censorship." They're different things.
If the platform were forced, by the government, to host your speech - wouldn't that action be socialism?
No. Please can we also not be conflating "Socialism" with "totalitarianism?" While certain socialist governments have indeed been totalitarian, the record on the Right has been no better. Remember Pinochet? I do.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re:
The Rose McGowan thing backfired and Weinstein got excoriated for it. All Weinstein's fault.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re:
I'm sure if someone paid someone who was judgment-proof or terminally ill to flood google with lies about say Masnick, or one of his attorney buddies, to where no one could be sued for it, they wouldn't call it "pretending."
A troll did this to me for free. I didn't sue, I used the troll's posts as evidence that it was trash talk and not credible. The posts came down on all but one platform. Even Hamilton has given up trying to use it against me since it doesn't stick. Why? Every time he links it, my rebuttal comes up too.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
^This. Mind you, even if you have screwed up so completely you fear you might never be able to show your face online again, there are things you can do to paint yourself in a better light.
Start by apologising for the thing you did wrong.
Start a blog and contribute to other websites stating what you've learned since then and how you've moved on.
Do good things or make the kind of blog posts that paint you in the light you want to be seen in.
If someone calls you out for your past, you have all of that behind you. Don't be defensive, acknowledge it and be courteous to win the person over. In that way, people who see your past can also see your present and this can help to move you to a better future.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re:
Rose McGowan was telling the truth, sonny Jim. And she produced the evidence. Here it is again. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/rose-mcgowan-tells-of-harvey-weinstein-s-efforts-to-silence-he r-a4269431.html
You do know that people unfamiliar with a case will look it up, don't you? Especially when we know it's a troll doing Lisa Bloom's dirty work for her. Weinstein was the bad guy, you tool!
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: How dare they
It's not a free ride to ensure that all voices are on equal footing in a debate. If someone's "property" claims to be neutral territory with open debate, censoring people, even white supremacists, is inconsistent with that.
It's nobody's job to ensure an equal footing for any voices in a debate. Drop the strawman and be honest; you have no problem with racism and the abusive behaviours that result from it. In fact, you want a burning cross on every front lawn, don't you?
If you're being deplatformed, your comments hidden, and told to shove off, this is the conclusion to be drawn:
Mene, mene your arguments have indeed been taken on board;
Tekel they have been carefully considered and found unworthy;
Uparsin your account will be shut down so off you sod to WhateverChan or other unpopular platform where the rest of us don't have to hear your nonsense.
Bear in mind that mad racists don't have anything new to bring to the table and there is no discussion to be had with them. They think they're superior (why??) and don't want to play nicely with the rest of us. What debate can possibly be had with such people?
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: How dare they
Nobody is trying to deplatform Twitter.
8chan wasn't deplatformed, it was shuttered. Deplatformed people can speak elsewhere. It's different to and separate from censorship.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: How dare they
They whine because they know that they can't get anything like the income and reach by setting up their own platforms as they can by leeching off others. But, people like zof will whine about it being unfair that nobody wanted to do business with 8chan (a site that was a pariah because of all the mass shootings they helped inspire) than examine why their own behaviour is so toxic to others.
There are platforms such as Gab that will host extremist speech but they're not popular because most of us like to present ourselves as reasonable, decent, live-and-let-live people.
The Right's solution to the lack of reach is to get their advocates to present their views as mainstream. Sadly, this seems to be working.
Extremists aren't interested in examining why their behaviour is toxic because they like being toxic and demand that we all join them in their toxicity. I'd rather have them fenced off in their own hellholes and out of my sight.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What SDM says. Deplatforming is simply the removal of the soapbox. The entity removing the soapbox acts unconstitutionally when acting as an agent of the government. When Twitter does it, tough tizzy.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
**"If Twitter kicks me out, they've deplatformed me."
No more than you've been made homeless when the bar you've been causing fights in bars you.**
@PaulT, you're both right.
btr1701 is right about being deplatformed. This doesn't, as you pointed out, mean there are no other platforms to use. He's also right that when Twitter does it, they're acting within the protections of the 1st Amendment in that they can't be forced to host unwanted speech, and right again by stating that if the government does it, they violate the 1st Amendment. Yes, we can force the government to host unwanted speech, i.e. us complaining about them.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re:
^This. The man could have said no to the "invitation." He didn't. Had he done so, there would have been some whingeing by politicians, the same kind of whingeing that occurred when Zuck didn't show up to Parliament. No extradition warrant was issued. No SWAT team showed up at his door.
Yes, t'other guy is not American or particularly powerful, but he's also not worth the bother of sending that kind of firepower after. if 8Chan shut down because he felt some pressure, whatever. It wasn't the kind of "Close it or you go to jail" pressure that can actually shutter a website.
On the post: Abbott Laboratories Sends Heavy-Handed Copyright Threat To Shut Down Diabetes Community Tool For Accessing Blood-Sugar Data
Re:
Ad I've said before ad infinitum and ad nauseam, "Get patents off medicines and medical equipment now!"
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gentlemen, I looked up the case in order to see if BTR or the rest of us is correct. This is what I found:
https://laist.com/2018/09/11/the_court_case_that_forced_oc_to_stop_ignoring_its_homeless.php
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/02/santa-ana-intensifies-efforts-to-address-homelessness/
https:/ /www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2019-07-24/settlement-ends-18-month-battle-su rrounding-orange-county-homeless-lawsuit
The needs of these people can be pretty complex, especially if they're old, disabled, or have pets. Not every hotel can accommodate these people, and they're not obliged to take in people they consider to be bums. Meanwhile, the shelters are apparently not "pest-free." So it's either a hotel that's not obliged to take you in or probably won't, or a cockroach motel of a shelter.
Proper housing that meets their needs is what's required -- and what works. It tends to pay for itself when the newly housed job-ready people find work and pay rent. The people with more complex needs will always be a drain on finances but it's cheaper to house them according to their needs than jail them or leave them until they need emergency care -- on the state's dime.
Next >>