Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 6:51am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ultimate Test
"Censorship such as the facebook rittenhouse support ban, Joe Rogan episode blacklisting, congressmen getting censored, as well as numerous smaller content creators."
So, in order you list, as examples:
1) Tasteless hero worship by self-confessed "proud chauvinists", bigots and racists, of a 17 year old would-be vigilante who drove into state lines with an unlawful AR-15, was accosted by and shot to death a mentally ill person, then ran at another person and his girlfriend with weapon high prompting another fracas and shooting, then finally shot the paramedic who tried to interfere?
2) Joe Rogan using his platform of influence to provide suicidal advise against the concensus of the expert medical community?
3) Congresspeople telling people the california wildfires were caused by Jewish space laser, which is admittedly among the weirdest anti-semitic assertion I've heard.
4) Smaller content creators, right. Tell us of these "conservative views" they were censored over.
"The speech that triggered the censorship was perfectly legal..."
Yeah, I can believe that. Calling some black man a <N-word> or ranting about the protocols of the elders of zion is perfectly legal under US law.
But that wasn't what we were asking, Koby. Being an asshole is also legal. And no one argues when you toss an asshole out of your house. So. Please. Give us just a few examples of what caused them to get blocked.
"...even if someone felt insulted, it never warranted a takedown."
So when someone walks into your house and insults you that doesn't mean you tossing them out is warranted? đ
Damn, Koby, you've turned into some real life Monty Python skit there.
"It's up to you to defend the censorship, because I don't."
No one needs a defense for tossing an asshole out of their own property, Koby. Only in alt-right la-la land is that even a question.
And we all take note of your assertion that you don't believe in the concept of property ownership.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 6:27am
Re: Re: Re:
"...then we should definitely do something about those African countries where they commit genocides every other day. And muslim ones where there is death penalty for gays. And other 3rd world places where they do not value life as christians do. How was that called? Oh yes. Crusades."
Ah, you're talking about amnesty, doctors without borders, the various humanitarian efforts etc? You have a strange definition of "crusade", eh?
"I do not fear my government to take "ideas" from China. It must be because I have much more respect for my fellow citizens (and governors among them) that you seem to have for yours."
Apparently you're not an american - because the alt-right over there seems to have copied the ultra-authoritarian playbook down to a T.
I have a lot more faith in my government not to emulate China because we keep our eyes on it and don't slack. It's a disaster when we get lower election participation than 80%. In the US a mere 60% is a high point - which already points to a failing democracy.
And, point of note. The US, in a dumbass move around the 80's, gave manufacturing away to China and so like it or not, China sits on the US jugular. If the US wants to reverse that situation they'll just have to do what China did - tank their economy for thirty years in order to eventually come out the winner. As a result they have a lot of influence today. Caring about how they do things today is about as sensible as caring how the US did things way back in 1950.
Because, in case you missed that bit in history, when the US was still top dog the rest of the world followed suit. Eventually. And now...China is in that seat.
"I still favor the option of leaving every nation alone and deciding how they rule their own citizens..."
In the end it all boils down to Fuck You, Got Mine, right?
We had those over here as well, until that bohemian corporal came along in 1932...at which point they found out that not caring about other people just means that when the bad guys come for you, you stand alone.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 6:02am
Re:
"The control they exert over communications has been successful in preventing a lot of what is happening in the western world concerning conspiracy theories and fake news (replacing with govt sanctioned fakes but alas it is a success in tackling the fakes they don't like)."
So instead of random misinformation from umpteen sources we're talking about a cohesive misinformation campaign intended to memory-hole all the shortcomings of the national government holding the violence monopoly. Gosh. In case you missed the memo on this, that is so much worse.
"The places that successfully evade these attacks almost always use authoritarian measures and the ones that fell prey end up ruled by authoritarian right-wing regimes. How do you make it in a democratic way?"
By picking the way the rest of the world does it maybe? So far you've cherry-picked some pretty awful examples of "democracy" to compare China with. As in countries with a very shaky grasp on that principle from the get-go.
"I'm not saying the Chinese are right but I am questioning how can a nation protect its own sovereignty, autonomy in face of this information warfare?"
Strange question. If I didn't know better I'd start thinking you were a pro-china shill gaslighting people. Because no national sovereignty or autonomy is threatened by a horde of trolls spreading disinformation - that nations democracy is.
No, seriously. The democratic way to proof a nation against dangerous nonsense is to ensure a high degree of education in the population and retain humanitarian principles in the legislative effort - by keeping money out of politics and make sure every citizen is encouraged to educate themselves on the topics and vote. Like most of the EU member states do it.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 4:40am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ultimate Test
"So once again, Koby the Coward, are you going to give specific examples of this anti-conservative bias: What conservative have been "censored" and what speech prompted this action?"
You know he isn't going to answer that. If he did he'd first have to own up to racism and bigotry being a "conservative" viewpoint today. All he has is conflation and false premises. Like every other alt-right shill who tries to imply civil rights and democracy are "leftist".
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 2:13am
Re:
"What I don't get is why should anyone do anything to change how the Chinese government treats... Chinese citizens."
Because your own government is watching and some in it are thinking "Hmm...that actually appears to work...".
In the long run caring about everyone profits you as well. Unless you want to stand there at the end and go "First they came for the socialists, but I did not care, for I was not a socialist...".
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 2:08am
Re: Re: The USA is truly, undeniably, utterly evil.
Definitely a chinese shill, paid or not. There are plenty of cases where you can argue China is in the right rather than wrong but "Valis" is the only one to completely fly off the handle and try to exculpate China over Xinjiang and Tibet.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 1:57am
Re: Re: Re:
"My issue is that I donât see how we solve the gun culture issue without removing the ease at which people who are legally barred from owning guns are able to set up a purchase on sites like Armslist, and the ease at which people can buy guns in general."
I'm not usually the guy to take Lostinlodos in defense, but it seems you're both on board with this. He's stated outright multiple times he's in favor of regulations and restrictions. The US is in a bad state in many ways and one of them exemplifying this topic is the ease to circumvent a state ban on gun purchases. I'm not sure what to tell you. Where I'm from a "gun" is understood to be a professional tool you obtain only as needed for which you need to put in the work and evaluation before a license is granted. Not a toy, a cultural icon of toxic masculinity or a mythological "item of power".
"...in the long run, remaking our gun culture to be more like Switzerlandâs is something that can only help as we make our way toward implementing better social programs."
Unfortunately that's the cart before the horse. You'll never get meaningful restrictions in place before the mindset is already in place. To quote a youtuber I love hearing talk about this stuff (Beau of the fifth column), to change society you don't change laws. You change thought.
Until you've got the social problems licked and the majority of americans start believing they don't need a gun - because that's no longer the answer to every problem - you've got exactly zero odds of getting effective regulations in place. Give or take a Tinker's Damn.
"Itâs like⊠the kind of super-American bullshit that Grand Theft Auto lambasts, where you can buy guns online through a simple process, is something that exists. That needs to change."
Oh, I agree. It just isn't happening until you've already managed to break the back of the mythology. Social change first, then you can start thinking about effective gun legislation.
For the logic behind this, see the prohibition era. You'll never make the people give up on what they think they need. You have to make them stop thinking they need that thing first.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Dec 2021 @ 1:43am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"A well aimed 5.56 will deter a wondering bear. "
OK, can't let that pass. If you have to shoot an animal you either kill it or see it hale - because just wounding an animal isn't just a cruel way to kill, it means you end up with that predator in a psychotic state of rage until it dies. I kinda doubt a .22LR salt shotshell round is going to do more than piss of that bear.
...Well, it might, bears are unpredictable. A few years back in these parts the papers had a case where an old granny in Romania had been mauled by a bear after going out and beating it with a broom to get it out of her garden. When the journalist, flabbergasted, asked her WHY she'd try to beat a bear with a broom her answer was It always worked before".
Even so if you're in Bear country and in the risk of having to kill one, 7,62mm/.30-06 is the way to go.
"And again outside of hunting my preference for deterrence is rock salt. Hurts like hell, stops a generic attack. And has more consistent results than tasers. "
I maintain once more...probably not. Salt hurts like hell. And does nothing to someone who is high or just angry enough. Electric current, otoh, doesn't rely on someones mental state, it just locks the muscles up. I'd argue that if they are unarmed the sight of the actual firearm causes greater deterrence than whatever its loaded with.
"It also does nothing for societal gun crime. Mass (loosely) shootings get the attention, but they a only a tiny fraction of firearms victims."
There's a lot of statistics to unpack there. The sparse facts of 40k dead a year and 24k of those being suicides, combined with the comparison graph of US gun homicide visavi that of other countries already provides a lot of flavors of fscked up to discuss.
The real tragedy of rampage killing would be the way they strike, I think. The long-time abusive husband comes off as no surprise when he finally shoots his s.o. or child. The child playing with dads or moms unsecured firearm is an expected tragedy of poor parenting. But "go to school, came home dead" is just not what you should expect, even in a place where gun safety is held in casual contempt by many.
"We need to address the problems that lead to gun violence. "
The likely answer being a lot more socialism. Roll back reaganism until politically you're back in the 50's when it comes to how taxes are allocated. Hopefully without the concomitant unionization of the US workforce producing another Hoffa.
But that's going to be a tough sell in a nation which has enshrined "Fuck You, Got Mine!" as part of their cultural identity by now.
"But Iâm just as disenchanted with the pro corporate breaks the Dems look for in corporate giveaways in any plan that is is intended for âsocialismâ. "
That I can understand. The only socialism you people have in the body politic is Bernie. And he had to join the democrat big tent just to make sure the vote among sane people wasn't split between the dems and him.
The irony here is that the golden years of the US the republicans all keep harping about and the MAGA movement was - ostensibly - around...was founded on nothing more than FDR's New Deal and a whole lot of socialism pushing resources and opportunities into the bottom layers of society.
Then came Reagan and his invention of the "Welfare Queen" - and it's gone downhill ever since because that's where the foundation was laid for the corporate giveaways growing ever larger to this day. Trickle-down "economics" in action.
"They may not directly tax the poor but where Republicans use top to bottom trickle down wealth (bull) the dems use trickle down taxing. And that DOES happen. And fees and taxes hurt the poor for more than the rich."
I got nothing but "Only In America" to tell you. Politically you people painted yourself into a corner where one party will always have the vote of the fascists, Klansmen, neo-nazis, bigots, and the badly educated looking for a strong no-nonsense voice offering solutions simple enough they can wrap their heads around it. And the other party doesn't really have to meet a higher standard than "Not stark raving mad".
You guys need three things desperately;
1) Money out of politics. Seriously. Put hard limits on the total amount of campaign funding any candidate is allowed to receive, from any source. Make like europeans and build a state fund which subsidizes any party polling sufficiently high with a base amount sufficient to get the message out.
2) Abolish the first-past-the-post bullshit vote count and implement ranked choice voting as the standard for every election.
3) Make the vote about the party and their platform rather than the individual - which gets rid of the cult of personality I'd call a disease in the US by now.
That'll end up with you getting more than two parties, for a start, and that means some actual competition in politics. Sure, the lobby will still be able to act but at least the politicians coming in don't come with investors A, B and C holding purchase receipts for them.
Even so.
The dems may indeed carry more water for wall street.
But the republicans are right now trying to make sure no one who dislikes them gets to vote at all or get that vote properly counted. One of these things is not like the other.
You don't have a bad option and a worse option here. You've got a bad option and the option to never again get to make the choice.
Where I'm from...we've seen this shit before. The weimar is crumbling and the Beer Hall Coup went down on jan 6. Try not to repeat history, please.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2021 @ 7:28am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Though admittedly, they're really all the same angle. There's a consistent belief that chipping away at legal protections online will somehow bring back the golden age of "guilt upon accusation" that copyright fanatics desperately masturbate to."
It's why I like to compare the copyright cult to the medieval church. Life sure was good when you could point to someone not of the licensed priesthood reading That Book out loud and have them burned at the stake or declare the printing press an anathema because it'd put all the monks copying books out of business...
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2021 @ 7:23am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
"From my understanding prior to 230 and back to the compuserve era a platform had to pay to fight liability concerns."
Which shouldn't even have been a thing given that basic telecommunications laws in almost every other nation already covers mere conduit and intermediary liability. The US is notably lacking here which is why 230 is that one good thing to come out of the shit-show which was the Communications Decency Act.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2021 @ 7:21am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
"So, it sounds like a platform could be willfully ignorant and be protected?"
To be fair, that's how every conscientious messenger service works. The mailman doesn't get to read your mail and so has no idea what is exchanged. This saves their hide if what is carried turns out to be an envelope full of drugs or plans for the assassination of the next president.
You could argue that this platform had expectations that a lot of trades were illicit. You certainly could. You could argue a moral dimension. But legally you don't have a leg to stand on if good jurisprudence is observed.
Mere conduit is as dual use as dual use gets. And one of its uses is a vital necessity for democracy and a free society to exist in the first place.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2021 @ 7:17am
Re: Re: Not trolling
"The reality here is the site is a form of digital flea market. You donât sue the market for the legal transactions of sellers and buyers. "
I'm not exactly sympathetic to armslist but..."Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!", as it were.
Assigning intermediate liability is dangerous. Sure, if someone knowingly assists in crime there's reasonably a law against that. But nine times out of ten when people discuss intermediate liability it turns out to be about shooting the messenger who keeps carrying unpalatable messages. Or trying to make the power company pay for "enabling" hackers by providing electricity.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2021 @ 7:09am
Re:
"Theyâre anti-government gun fetishists of the most ludicrous stripe. I donât think they deserve protections."
Ahem.
They deserve the same protections everyone else gets. The real issue is elsewhere. Sure, they do their part to feed the appetite for their products...but the problem is that in the US it isn't the ready access to guns which is the problem.
Look at switzerland. More guns than in the NRA's wet dreams. Fewest gun-related murders on the globe, or at least among the bottom five.
Look at Mexico City - among the most draconian gun laws around. So high a gun murder rate it's comparable to civil war zones in the third world.
The problem in the US is the culture. Violence and killing is normalized. Part of the national identity. The solution to every problem. The cure for all ills. The drug of choice against feeling small, frustrated or angry.
And in a nation so bereft of social safety nets there's a large pool of frustrated, angry and deprived people.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2021 @ 6:57am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"You believe in the liberal elite plan to force everyone off their own land and into cities where a consistently rising tax rate will forever pull down anyone who breaks loose. Until weâre all literally 100% dependent on the federal government hand outs and are enslaved to a collective commune of forced labour for all but the very elites who a pushing to make that reality. "
I think it's shit like that which makes people stop taking you seriously. 90% of what you describe is just "corporate america" and the people working to help expand indentured serfdom are found equally in both parties.
Secondly...take it from someone who lives in a thoroughly socialized nation with a 33% tax rate. I get a lot more out of my money than you do. Our systems work. Can you really, hand on heart, say the same? Especially so given that in your country corporations become the primary beneficiaries of what socialism your tax money obtains.
How come the rest of the world seems to be mainly happy about living in nations heavily into socialism and the doom predictions of US conservatives have - in all cases - failed to manifest?
At some point there, the debate of genuine left (socialism) vs genuine right (libertarianism) just turned into a debate where the talking points of US republicans started boiling down to, in reality, "No, we are so hopeless as a nation we can't do ANY of that shit the rest of the world succeeded in".
Because I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing a bunch of US politicians discuss any of a hundred watered-down versions of things which have been reality where I live for about half a century or more, and find some misbegotten moron quacking out that "If we implement ANY of these things the sky will fall, we'll all be impoverished, the nation will fall into anarchy, communist dictators will arise and enslave all our children. And Killary will eat your sons brain and sell your daughter off to Kazakhstan brothels!!!"
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2021 @ 6:44am
Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"Why should my family face off against a 1000+ pound carnivore looking to eat us with no defence while we sleep next to the lake. Why must I resort to sticks and stones?"
Whoa there, Kemo Sabe.
Hunting rifles is one thing. And I'm for damn sure you aren't going to be pissing a big ol bear off with a few rounds from a 5.56mm armalite whatever.
And in Sweden, Germany...most of Europe save for perhaps switzerland...talking about a "firearm" will in nine case out of ten refer to a 30-06/7,62 mm hunting rifle.
In the US the debate will be about an AR-15 nine times out of ten and the topic be yet another senseless string of murders.
"And why am I not hiding under the bead shaking over the rifle?"
Well, if I lived anywhere in the US I'd be afraid of any rifle except possibly the aforementioned 30-06. Because that one, at least, has a good chance of not being in the hands of some nitwit.
The issue is context. And the context is that in the US guns will kill. Because there is no dual use for nine out of ten firearms sold. Nor in nine cases out of ten a viable utility for self-defense. What you've got in the US is that a gun lands in the wrong hands and the sad sack of neuroses it's ended up with listens to the mythology and shoots up a school rather than lives out the rest of their life refining the latest conspiracy theory.
I'd argue that in the US the gun kills. Because only there is the mythology that using one is the solution to all your problems. It's become like the samurai sword of Japan, where a type of weapon is surrounded by so much malicious mythology everyone who got possession of one had a preunderstanding that it should naturally be used to kill with. And for a long time after the last civil war they had, katanas were banned. Only way they could rid themselves of the death cult aspects infesting their society.
Sure, a gun can't fire itself. Except in a few horror novels. But it can certainly convert the weak-minded and unpleasant yet generally inoffensive into menaces. Begging some nuance to that debate.
For what it's worth I'm solidly on the idea that for the most part both sides of the firearm debate are barking up the wrong tree. The way the US currently looks even if you could take away all the guns - which you can't - it won't help. Until the societal pressure which turns normal people into madmen goes away. Better social services. Health care readily available and mental health care especially. Cutting down the malicious myth - making the gun not cool, a professional tool or a regrettable necessity rather than the solution to every problem.
There are plenty of topics in the US where there aren't "two sides" to the debate - most of them being politics - but the gun debate actually does have viable arguments on both sides, and a probable compromise to be found in the middle. Just that the solution seems to be to break a mythology intrinsically tied to the more savage parts of a national identity.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2021 @ 5:39am
Re: Re: Companionononononononono
"The restless turd-dropper is just the typical rightwing nutjob."
Also the only one who seems to agree with our new Koby, LittleCupCakes.
As I keep saying, if the only person to agree with you on a forum is the demonstrated stormfront refugee, maybe that's the point where you'd want to question the logic of your arguments.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2021 @ 5:36am
Re: Re: Re:
"...and your opinion is meaningless to me."
As we did with Koby when he tried to shill the good people here, these responses aren't meant for you anyway. They're meant to highlight the parts of your commentary which is just bullshit "conservative" talking points.
If anything you donning the customary martyrdom of the wronged alt-right troll only makes this process faster.
Here's a clue. No one around here is going to believe your spiel about being a liberal when the comments you keep making are alt-right talking points no liberal, by definition, could believe in.
Well, I say alt-right but the blatant disbelief in private property could also be found in some old musty holdovers from the 70's in the truly far left. Do let us all know if that's where you're coming from. We'd at least assign you rarity value.
On the post: Twitter Admits It Messed Up In Suspending Accounts Under Its New Policy, But Policies Like This Will ALWAYS Lead To Overblocking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ultimate Test
"Censorship such as the facebook rittenhouse support ban, Joe Rogan episode blacklisting, congressmen getting censored, as well as numerous smaller content creators."
So, in order you list, as examples:
1) Tasteless hero worship by self-confessed "proud chauvinists", bigots and racists, of a 17 year old would-be vigilante who drove into state lines with an unlawful AR-15, was accosted by and shot to death a mentally ill person, then ran at another person and his girlfriend with weapon high prompting another fracas and shooting, then finally shot the paramedic who tried to interfere?
2) Joe Rogan using his platform of influence to provide suicidal advise against the concensus of the expert medical community?
3) Congresspeople telling people the california wildfires were caused by Jewish space laser, which is admittedly among the weirdest anti-semitic assertion I've heard.
4) Smaller content creators, right. Tell us of these "conservative views" they were censored over.
"The speech that triggered the censorship was perfectly legal..."
Yeah, I can believe that. Calling some black man a <N-word> or ranting about the protocols of the elders of zion is perfectly legal under US law.
But that wasn't what we were asking, Koby. Being an asshole is also legal. And no one argues when you toss an asshole out of your house. So. Please. Give us just a few examples of what caused them to get blocked.
"...even if someone felt insulted, it never warranted a takedown."
So when someone walks into your house and insults you that doesn't mean you tossing them out is warranted? đ
Damn, Koby, you've turned into some real life Monty Python skit there.
"It's up to you to defend the censorship, because I don't."
No one needs a defense for tossing an asshole out of their own property, Koby. Only in alt-right la-la land is that even a question.
And we all take note of your assertion that you don't believe in the concept of property ownership.
On the post: Chinese Government Is Building A Surveillance System That Will Target, Track Foreign Journalists, Students
Re: Re: Re:
"...then we should definitely do something about those African countries where they commit genocides every other day. And muslim ones where there is death penalty for gays. And other 3rd world places where they do not value life as christians do. How was that called? Oh yes. Crusades."
Ah, you're talking about amnesty, doctors without borders, the various humanitarian efforts etc? You have a strange definition of "crusade", eh?
"I do not fear my government to take "ideas" from China. It must be because I have much more respect for my fellow citizens (and governors among them) that you seem to have for yours."
Apparently you're not an american - because the alt-right over there seems to have copied the ultra-authoritarian playbook down to a T.
I have a lot more faith in my government not to emulate China because we keep our eyes on it and don't slack. It's a disaster when we get lower election participation than 80%. In the US a mere 60% is a high point - which already points to a failing democracy.
And, point of note. The US, in a dumbass move around the 80's, gave manufacturing away to China and so like it or not, China sits on the US jugular. If the US wants to reverse that situation they'll just have to do what China did - tank their economy for thirty years in order to eventually come out the winner. As a result they have a lot of influence today. Caring about how they do things today is about as sensible as caring how the US did things way back in 1950.
Because, in case you missed that bit in history, when the US was still top dog the rest of the world followed suit. Eventually. And now...China is in that seat.
"I still favor the option of leaving every nation alone and deciding how they rule their own citizens..."
In the end it all boils down to Fuck You, Got Mine, right?
We had those over here as well, until that bohemian corporal came along in 1932...at which point they found out that not caring about other people just means that when the bad guys come for you, you stand alone.
On the post: Chinese Government Is Building A Surveillance System That Will Target, Track Foreign Journalists, Students
Re:
"The control they exert over communications has been successful in preventing a lot of what is happening in the western world concerning conspiracy theories and fake news (replacing with govt sanctioned fakes but alas it is a success in tackling the fakes they don't like)."
So instead of random misinformation from umpteen sources we're talking about a cohesive misinformation campaign intended to memory-hole all the shortcomings of the national government holding the violence monopoly. Gosh. In case you missed the memo on this, that is so much worse.
"The places that successfully evade these attacks almost always use authoritarian measures and the ones that fell prey end up ruled by authoritarian right-wing regimes. How do you make it in a democratic way?"
By picking the way the rest of the world does it maybe? So far you've cherry-picked some pretty awful examples of "democracy" to compare China with. As in countries with a very shaky grasp on that principle from the get-go.
"I'm not saying the Chinese are right but I am questioning how can a nation protect its own sovereignty, autonomy in face of this information warfare?"
Strange question. If I didn't know better I'd start thinking you were a pro-china shill gaslighting people. Because no national sovereignty or autonomy is threatened by a horde of trolls spreading disinformation - that nations democracy is.
No, seriously. The democratic way to proof a nation against dangerous nonsense is to ensure a high degree of education in the population and retain humanitarian principles in the legislative effort - by keeping money out of politics and make sure every citizen is encouraged to educate themselves on the topics and vote. Like most of the EU member states do it.
On the post: Twitter Admits It Messed Up In Suspending Accounts Under Its New Policy, But Policies Like This Will ALWAYS Lead To Overblocking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ultimate Test
"So once again, Koby the Coward, are you going to give specific examples of this anti-conservative bias: What conservative have been "censored" and what speech prompted this action?"
You know he isn't going to answer that. If he did he'd first have to own up to racism and bigotry being a "conservative" viewpoint today. All he has is conflation and false premises. Like every other alt-right shill who tries to imply civil rights and democracy are "leftist".
On the post: Chinese Government Is Building A Surveillance System That Will Target, Track Foreign Journalists, Students
Re:
"What I don't get is why should anyone do anything to change how the Chinese government treats... Chinese citizens."
Because your own government is watching and some in it are thinking "Hmm...that actually appears to work...".
In the long run caring about everyone profits you as well. Unless you want to stand there at the end and go "First they came for the socialists, but I did not care, for I was not a socialist...".
Niemöller's story does not end well.
On the post: Chinese Government Is Building A Surveillance System That Will Target, Track Foreign Journalists, Students
Re: Re: The USA is truly, undeniably, utterly evil.
Definitely a chinese shill, paid or not. There are plenty of cases where you can argue China is in the right rather than wrong but "Valis" is the only one to completely fly off the handle and try to exculpate China over Xinjiang and Tibet.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re:
"My issue is that I donât see how we solve the gun culture issue without removing the ease at which people who are legally barred from owning guns are able to set up a purchase on sites like Armslist, and the ease at which people can buy guns in general."
I'm not usually the guy to take Lostinlodos in defense, but it seems you're both on board with this. He's stated outright multiple times he's in favor of regulations and restrictions. The US is in a bad state in many ways and one of them exemplifying this topic is the ease to circumvent a state ban on gun purchases. I'm not sure what to tell you. Where I'm from a "gun" is understood to be a professional tool you obtain only as needed for which you need to put in the work and evaluation before a license is granted. Not a toy, a cultural icon of toxic masculinity or a mythological "item of power".
"...in the long run, remaking our gun culture to be more like Switzerlandâs is something that can only help as we make our way toward implementing better social programs."
Unfortunately that's the cart before the horse. You'll never get meaningful restrictions in place before the mindset is already in place. To quote a youtuber I love hearing talk about this stuff (Beau of the fifth column), to change society you don't change laws. You change thought.
Until you've got the social problems licked and the majority of americans start believing they don't need a gun - because that's no longer the answer to every problem - you've got exactly zero odds of getting effective regulations in place. Give or take a Tinker's Damn.
"Itâs like⊠the kind of super-American bullshit that Grand Theft Auto lambasts, where you can buy guns online through a simple process, is something that exists. That needs to change."
Oh, I agree. It just isn't happening until you've already managed to break the back of the mythology. Social change first, then you can start thinking about effective gun legislation.
For the logic behind this, see the prohibition era. You'll never make the people give up on what they think they need. You have to make them stop thinking they need that thing first.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"A well aimed 5.56 will deter a wondering bear. "
OK, can't let that pass. If you have to shoot an animal you either kill it or see it hale - because just wounding an animal isn't just a cruel way to kill, it means you end up with that predator in a psychotic state of rage until it dies. I kinda doubt a .22LR salt shotshell round is going to do more than piss of that bear.
...Well, it might, bears are unpredictable. A few years back in these parts the papers had a case where an old granny in Romania had been mauled by a bear after going out and beating it with a broom to get it out of her garden. When the journalist, flabbergasted, asked her WHY she'd try to beat a bear with a broom her answer was It always worked before".
Even so if you're in Bear country and in the risk of having to kill one, 7,62mm/.30-06 is the way to go.
"And again outside of hunting my preference for deterrence is rock salt. Hurts like hell, stops a generic attack. And has more consistent results than tasers. "
I maintain once more...probably not. Salt hurts like hell. And does nothing to someone who is high or just angry enough. Electric current, otoh, doesn't rely on someones mental state, it just locks the muscles up. I'd argue that if they are unarmed the sight of the actual firearm causes greater deterrence than whatever its loaded with.
"It also does nothing for societal gun crime. Mass (loosely) shootings get the attention, but they a only a tiny fraction of firearms victims."
There's a lot of statistics to unpack there. The sparse facts of 40k dead a year and 24k of those being suicides, combined with the comparison graph of US gun homicide visavi that of other countries already provides a lot of flavors of fscked up to discuss.
The real tragedy of rampage killing would be the way they strike, I think. The long-time abusive husband comes off as no surprise when he finally shoots his s.o. or child. The child playing with dads or moms unsecured firearm is an expected tragedy of poor parenting. But "go to school, came home dead" is just not what you should expect, even in a place where gun safety is held in casual contempt by many.
"We need to address the problems that lead to gun violence. "
The likely answer being a lot more socialism. Roll back reaganism until politically you're back in the 50's when it comes to how taxes are allocated. Hopefully without the concomitant unionization of the US workforce producing another Hoffa.
But that's going to be a tough sell in a nation which has enshrined "Fuck You, Got Mine!" as part of their cultural identity by now.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"But Iâm just as disenchanted with the pro corporate breaks the Dems look for in corporate giveaways in any plan that is is intended for âsocialismâ. "
That I can understand. The only socialism you people have in the body politic is Bernie. And he had to join the democrat big tent just to make sure the vote among sane people wasn't split between the dems and him.
The irony here is that the golden years of the US the republicans all keep harping about and the MAGA movement was - ostensibly - around...was founded on nothing more than FDR's New Deal and a whole lot of socialism pushing resources and opportunities into the bottom layers of society.
Then came Reagan and his invention of the "Welfare Queen" - and it's gone downhill ever since because that's where the foundation was laid for the corporate giveaways growing ever larger to this day. Trickle-down "economics" in action.
"They may not directly tax the poor but where Republicans use top to bottom trickle down wealth (bull) the dems use trickle down taxing. And that DOES happen. And fees and taxes hurt the poor for more than the rich."
I got nothing but "Only In America" to tell you. Politically you people painted yourself into a corner where one party will always have the vote of the fascists, Klansmen, neo-nazis, bigots, and the badly educated looking for a strong no-nonsense voice offering solutions simple enough they can wrap their heads around it. And the other party doesn't really have to meet a higher standard than "Not stark raving mad".
You guys need three things desperately;
1) Money out of politics. Seriously. Put hard limits on the total amount of campaign funding any candidate is allowed to receive, from any source. Make like europeans and build a state fund which subsidizes any party polling sufficiently high with a base amount sufficient to get the message out.
2) Abolish the first-past-the-post bullshit vote count and implement ranked choice voting as the standard for every election.
3) Make the vote about the party and their platform rather than the individual - which gets rid of the cult of personality I'd call a disease in the US by now.
That'll end up with you getting more than two parties, for a start, and that means some actual competition in politics. Sure, the lobby will still be able to act but at least the politicians coming in don't come with investors A, B and C holding purchase receipts for them.
Even so.
The dems may indeed carry more water for wall street.
But the republicans are right now trying to make sure no one who dislikes them gets to vote at all or get that vote properly counted. One of these things is not like the other.
You don't have a bad option and a worse option here. You've got a bad option and the option to never again get to make the choice.
Where I'm from...we've seen this shit before. The weimar is crumbling and the Beer Hall Coup went down on jan 6. Try not to repeat history, please.
On the post: Even As Grifters Insist Otherwise, Courts Know That Social Media Are Not State Actors Because Of Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Though admittedly, they're really all the same angle. There's a consistent belief that chipping away at legal protections online will somehow bring back the golden age of "guilt upon accusation" that copyright fanatics desperately masturbate to."
It's why I like to compare the copyright cult to the medieval church. Life sure was good when you could point to someone not of the licensed priesthood reading That Book out loud and have them burned at the stake or declare the printing press an anathema because it'd put all the monks copying books out of business...
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
"From my understanding prior to 230 and back to the compuserve era a platform had to pay to fight liability concerns."
Which shouldn't even have been a thing given that basic telecommunications laws in almost every other nation already covers mere conduit and intermediary liability. The US is notably lacking here which is why 230 is that one good thing to come out of the shit-show which was the Communications Decency Act.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
"So, it sounds like a platform could be willfully ignorant and be protected?"
To be fair, that's how every conscientious messenger service works. The mailman doesn't get to read your mail and so has no idea what is exchanged. This saves their hide if what is carried turns out to be an envelope full of drugs or plans for the assassination of the next president.
You could argue that this platform had expectations that a lot of trades were illicit. You certainly could. You could argue a moral dimension. But legally you don't have a leg to stand on if good jurisprudence is observed.
Mere conduit is as dual use as dual use gets. And one of its uses is a vital necessity for democracy and a free society to exist in the first place.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Not trolling
"The reality here is the site is a form of digital flea market. You donât sue the market for the legal transactions of sellers and buyers. "
I'm not exactly sympathetic to armslist but..."Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!", as it were.
Assigning intermediate liability is dangerous. Sure, if someone knowingly assists in crime there's reasonably a law against that. But nine times out of ten when people discuss intermediate liability it turns out to be about shooting the messenger who keeps carrying unpalatable messages. Or trying to make the power company pay for "enabling" hackers by providing electricity.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re:
"Theyâre anti-government gun fetishists of the most ludicrous stripe. I donât think they deserve protections."
Ahem.
They deserve the same protections everyone else gets. The real issue is elsewhere. Sure, they do their part to feed the appetite for their products...but the problem is that in the US it isn't the ready access to guns which is the problem.
Look at switzerland. More guns than in the NRA's wet dreams. Fewest gun-related murders on the globe, or at least among the bottom five.
Look at Mexico City - among the most draconian gun laws around. So high a gun murder rate it's comparable to civil war zones in the third world.
The problem in the US is the culture. Violence and killing is normalized. Part of the national identity. The solution to every problem. The cure for all ills. The drug of choice against feeling small, frustrated or angry.
And in a nation so bereft of social safety nets there's a large pool of frustrated, angry and deprived people.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"You believe in the liberal elite plan to force everyone off their own land and into cities where a consistently rising tax rate will forever pull down anyone who breaks loose. Until weâre all literally 100% dependent on the federal government hand outs and are enslaved to a collective commune of forced labour for all but the very elites who a pushing to make that reality. "
I think it's shit like that which makes people stop taking you seriously. 90% of what you describe is just "corporate america" and the people working to help expand indentured serfdom are found equally in both parties.
Secondly...take it from someone who lives in a thoroughly socialized nation with a 33% tax rate. I get a lot more out of my money than you do. Our systems work. Can you really, hand on heart, say the same? Especially so given that in your country corporations become the primary beneficiaries of what socialism your tax money obtains.
How come the rest of the world seems to be mainly happy about living in nations heavily into socialism and the doom predictions of US conservatives have - in all cases - failed to manifest?
At some point there, the debate of genuine left (socialism) vs genuine right (libertarianism) just turned into a debate where the talking points of US republicans started boiling down to, in reality, "No, we are so hopeless as a nation we can't do ANY of that shit the rest of the world succeeded in".
Because I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing a bunch of US politicians discuss any of a hundred watered-down versions of things which have been reality where I live for about half a century or more, and find some misbegotten moron quacking out that "If we implement ANY of these things the sky will fall, we'll all be impoverished, the nation will fall into anarchy, communist dictators will arise and enslave all our children. And Killary will eat your sons brain and sell your daughter off to Kazakhstan brothels!!!"
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"Why should my family face off against a 1000+ pound carnivore looking to eat us with no defence while we sleep next to the lake. Why must I resort to sticks and stones?"
Whoa there, Kemo Sabe.
Hunting rifles is one thing. And I'm for damn sure you aren't going to be pissing a big ol bear off with a few rounds from a 5.56mm armalite whatever.
And in Sweden, Germany...most of Europe save for perhaps switzerland...talking about a "firearm" will in nine case out of ten refer to a 30-06/7,62 mm hunting rifle.
In the US the debate will be about an AR-15 nine times out of ten and the topic be yet another senseless string of murders.
"And why am I not hiding under the bead shaking over the rifle?"
Well, if I lived anywhere in the US I'd be afraid of any rifle except possibly the aforementioned 30-06. Because that one, at least, has a good chance of not being in the hands of some nitwit.
The issue is context. And the context is that in the US guns will kill. Because there is no dual use for nine out of ten firearms sold. Nor in nine cases out of ten a viable utility for self-defense. What you've got in the US is that a gun lands in the wrong hands and the sad sack of neuroses it's ended up with listens to the mythology and shoots up a school rather than lives out the rest of their life refining the latest conspiracy theory.
I'd argue that in the US the gun kills. Because only there is the mythology that using one is the solution to all your problems. It's become like the samurai sword of Japan, where a type of weapon is surrounded by so much malicious mythology everyone who got possession of one had a preunderstanding that it should naturally be used to kill with. And for a long time after the last civil war they had, katanas were banned. Only way they could rid themselves of the death cult aspects infesting their society.
Sure, a gun can't fire itself. Except in a few horror novels. But it can certainly convert the weak-minded and unpleasant yet generally inoffensive into menaces. Begging some nuance to that debate.
For what it's worth I'm solidly on the idea that for the most part both sides of the firearm debate are barking up the wrong tree. The way the US currently looks even if you could take away all the guns - which you can't - it won't help. Until the societal pressure which turns normal people into madmen goes away. Better social services. Health care readily available and mental health care especially. Cutting down the malicious myth - making the gun not cool, a professional tool or a regrettable necessity rather than the solution to every problem.
There are plenty of topics in the US where there aren't "two sides" to the debate - most of them being politics - but the gun debate actually does have viable arguments on both sides, and a probable compromise to be found in the middle. Just that the solution seems to be to break a mythology intrinsically tied to the more savage parts of a national identity.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Totally without merit
All true. Yet not relevant.
On the post: Josh Hawley Thinks We Should Break Up Twitter Because He Doesn't Like The Company's Editorial Choices
Re:
"Twitter is one company that really provides one service, how do you split the baby?"
It's pretty clear where Hawley is coming from. As per usual he's just proclaiming his allegiance to his base.
On the post: Twitter's New 'Private Information' Policy Takes Impossible Content Moderation Challenges To New, Ridiculous Levels
Re: Re: Companionononononononono
"The restless turd-dropper is just the typical rightwing nutjob."
Also the only one who seems to agree with our new Koby, LittleCupCakes.
As I keep saying, if the only person to agree with you on a forum is the demonstrated stormfront refugee, maybe that's the point where you'd want to question the logic of your arguments.
On the post: Twitter's New 'Private Information' Policy Takes Impossible Content Moderation Challenges To New, Ridiculous Levels
Re: Re: Re:
"...and your opinion is meaningless to me."
As we did with Koby when he tried to shill the good people here, these responses aren't meant for you anyway. They're meant to highlight the parts of your commentary which is just bullshit "conservative" talking points.
If anything you donning the customary martyrdom of the wronged alt-right troll only makes this process faster.
Here's a clue. No one around here is going to believe your spiel about being a liberal when the comments you keep making are alt-right talking points no liberal, by definition, could believe in.
Well, I say alt-right but the blatant disbelief in private property could also be found in some old musty holdovers from the 70's in the truly far left. Do let us all know if that's where you're coming from. We'd at least assign you rarity value.
Next >>