Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 Jan 2022 @ 7:28am
Re:
"I dunno, rich motherfuckers like Bezos probably think of both groups in the exact same way..."
How much do you think it costs to replace a broken conveyor belt? As compared to replacing the worker attending that belt who finally walked because he was fed up with having to use an on-site bottle rather than take toilet breaks?
Answer; The worker costs a pittance to replace even if said replacement is due to said worker breaking.
A bad fit for the persistent imagery provided by US media which still blares out a message increasingly resembling the old USSR spiel of the "Worker's Utopia". Hell, with 1 in 10 americans on SNAP (food stamps), 40% of US households unable to cope with an unplanned $400 expense, and conditions worsening fast...it's at the point where you could argue the old soviet workers had it better.
From my own perspective that answer is a throwback to early 18th century where I live, because over here anything even resembling that would be a case of that warehouse shutting down. It's complete un-fscking-believable.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 Jan 2022 @ 5:27am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: millions will dump direct
"The likes of Clinton and Cheney who are top down pseudo-communists who wish to have sole control over money and dictate who gets what. The ones who are only there to get rich elsewhere."
Ok...take it from someone who is a leftist - Clinton and Cheney are about as "communist" as you and I are Martian. Given how both most democrats and all of the GOP have fed the US public a steady diet of lies where everything they don't like is "communist" or "socialist" I'm not surprised to discover that some horrifying misconceptions exist there.
I suggest a quick glance over at "The Political Compass" - google it. Cheney and Clinton - and most others close to that camp - are very hard right, by definition; They adhere to and push for retaining status quo. Honestly, I'd suggest you read up on marxism so you can at least identify what is a socialist or communist...and what is most definitely not. Spoiler alert - it won't be what you think it is.
Or, if you want an easier way than that, go to youtube and look for some guy named "Second Thought" - might be better to see how a genuine dyed-in-wool Marxist sees the world.
Another spoiler up front - the term "left" and "right" originated from the classic divide in parliaments where representatives of nobility sat on the right side and the proles on the left. The original meaning was meant to illustrate the struggle between progressive liberals and conservative feudal nobility. And it still is, I think. I don't see much of a difference between a US single mother locked to working three jobs on minimum wage and the indentured serf of the 15th century. Both have the choice of accepting horrible conditions or starving.
"The thing with Sanders was he really was after greed, not wealth. Which is why the party rigged the system to keep him out. "
Although there's a difference it's not as big as you'd think. The thing is that Sanders wanted actual change. Hence why the dems closed ranks to keep him out. Same as with Andrew Yang who was so successfully frozen out people forgot he was even standing. There are other examples.
Here's the thing I'm seeing. Your often expressed opinions are all over the place. As with Cheney and Clinton being "communist" I'm thinking the reason for that might be because as with every other american there's been a concerted effort pushed by both parties to make sure no one even knows the terminology of left-right ideologies or has any clue what those terms mean.
So i'm positing something of a challenge, if you have the time. There's a website called "The Political Compass". It has the charts of exactly where numerous politicians worldwide are on the right-left, liberal-authoritarian scale. And a test questionnaire which tells you exactly where your opinions land you. Take an hour's time and fill it out.
My suspicion is you'll end up leftwards of Bernie. If that's the case you might want to start reading up on why your opinions end up placing you where you end up.
"Because as soon as you justify silencing something you can justify silencing anything. "
You really can't.
Would you tell a bunch of hollering kids to take it outside? Or tell a guest who just said something offensive to a present relative "Sir, thank you for coming. Now kindly git"? Would the spontaneous sigh of relief or applause by other people present be something you'd disparage?
It's incorrect - and disingenious - to claim that showing an asshole the door is to be considered as the same class of action as suppression of speech.
That being the case this boils down to mere opinion. And you are getting the feedback you're getting because your opinion - by extension - means people should extend private courtesy to asshats they are not prepared to give.
As I keep saying...free speech may be a worthy hill to die on. But you climbed Hill 937 instead.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 Jan 2022 @ 4:48am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stunning
"Well the closest thing I can think of is Cannibal Children."
For the US there should be a comprehensive list of movies where the DoD extended access to facilities and military material - and some troops as backdrop - against a "minor" say in adjusting dialogue and script.
Bit harder to find the USSR PR films but there's always "The Battlecruiser Potemkin"...and just about everything else produced by Mosfilm or directed by Sergey Eisenstein.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 Jan 2022 @ 4:42am
Re: Re: Re:
"Part of my thought process in supporting a national monthly paid social security deposited minimum annual income, for every citizen, tax free, is it would give everyone an equal social starting point. "
The "citizen's salary". Yeah, that'd be Andrew Yang's platform. Personally I'd try to tie it to political engagement - as a citizen you've got That One Job. Educate yourself about candidates and Vote.
It probably says a lot how well that got pushed that even Democrats following the candidady for 2020 were often unaware that such a candidate existed.
The thing is, "citizen's salary" can even be posited as a centrist-right idea - of every citizen being a shareholder in the nation and earning dividends. Centrist-right by european measurements, of course. By the US current overton window it's so far left even moderate dems will holler about the Red Menace...
There are plenty of other side effects. If you are unemployed and on social security today, even in Sweden, most of your time will be spent hunting jobs, declaring that you're actively looking for a job to social services, spending hours every day dropping your CV at places which will never accept you just to fill your quota, etc. No time left over to start a business of your own or try to find something you actually want to do.
People who are already down and out on their luck, on the spectrum, in need of therapy or for various reasons just less able...often can't work full time straight off the bat - and fulfilling the requirements for social services are, more often than not, a harshly eroding experience in itself. At the end of which sure, the person in need gets money to live but often at the expense of their mental health. Better to just get them what they need to live up front and then get the person fixed.
We wouldn't treat machinery the way we treat broken people. Something has to change about that.
If I had to be a cynic I'd even make the call that just handing over the minimum subsistence amount would turn out not even to cost society that much - the administration around social services and determining who is in need are staggering. Most of it would be recouped by the fact that employers could remove the granted sum from salaries and hand it over in tax instead.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 26 Jan 2022 @ 4:32am
Re: Two points
"The right-wing playbook goes something like this: first, they say it's not a crime, then they say that if it was a crime, they should be able to get away with it, but then if they're arresed, then Trump will pardon them."
..and in none of the steps does it filter in that for Trump to finally pardon them other people have to believe he's still the president.
You know, I wish every malicious asshole was that casually self-destructive.
I'm thinking that if they do manage to take house and senate this year and finagle Trump into the white house in 24 the remaining 75% of the US not on their side won't know how to look at themselves in the mirror ever after. The nation will have been overthrown by a cadre of clown less attached to factual reality than Kim Jong-Un's cult.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 26 Jan 2022 @ 4:08am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That fanfare for the loss of another network."
You know how I keep saying you've got better hills to die on?
You're currently on Hill 937, trying to be a hamburger.
Imagine, if you will, that you've got a neighbor. In hos yard there's some person reenacting Orwell's "two minute hate sessions" all day long. You can barely hear him in the distance and for the last year every other neighbor of yours has complained about that guy.
Finally your neighbor tosses that guy out.
Among the loud cheering, do you really turn to the next guy cheering and tell him "His contribution is a loss to be mourned, not a gain to be celebrated!"?
If you do - the analogue of your input here right now - I predict that your remaining neighbors will all be giving you funny looks henceforth.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 26 Jan 2022 @ 1:53am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: millions will dump direct
"I’d explain the independent hatred of her, if you really don’t follow. But the fact is where it comes to some politicians—she’s one— we’d rather watch the world burn."
From what I get she's the perfect representative of the democrat side of political grift; strip away all the GOP rhetoric and red herrings and we're still left with Hillary being a repetitive liar openly changing her message to fit whatever desired narrative she thinks the public expects. That much became clear even abroad just following the high points of the 2016 campaign.
"A carefully crafted limited engagement campaign protected Biden from the public eye. Those that just wanted something else not the status quo didn’t get to see behind the curtain. "
I hate to have to tell you this but...the only reason this works is because almost every voting american is, uh, how to put this...unwilling to set aside ten minutes googling the history of the candidate. Even I know Biden's historical role, ever since he became Obama's VP - being the entrenched white old conservative moderate never making waves to counterbalance the dynamic young black man.
The problem with Biden is that although his positives count actually caring - he's empathic, acknowledged even by many of his enemies - he also has a history of Bad judgment calls and is most definitely a representative of the washington elites.
Unlike a lot of politicians this is the sort of guy you'd want as a neighbor. But probably not in charge of your city. Because his wide circle of friends include Wall Street. And he will do them favors which enable them to screw people.
I think the democrats were facing a watershed moment. Either to meaningfully embrace socialism to the point where meaningful change actually happens...or stand there surprised when recommending the US working class "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" produces a march on the Bastille rather than the usual response.
I don't know what to tell you. As bad as some democrats may be, the next republican candidate will be worse. It'll either be Trump or someone less inept. The world might not burn but the US you'll live in after a GOP victory in 22 and 24...is not going to be one where your national charter has any meaning anymore.
At the same time more democrat victories will just put you guys further on your knees unless by some miracle the 2024 DNC rolls out Bernie as the candidate and gives him both house and senate to play with. That would take for the democrats to realize that these next few elections are likely to be about their actual lives rather than their careers though, so I'm none too sanguine about that.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 26 Jan 2022 @ 1:13am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"‘It has finally come to pass’"
Because both the author of the OP and a great many people here are feeling a sense of relief that DirectTV no longer honors OANN with their business. If the guy who kept holding loud klan rallies in the next city block was finally evicted by his landlord I wager most of his neighbors would cheer over it. And no sane or sensible person would object to the outspoken opinion of the community. This is no different.
Implying that it is means you're making assumptions out of context. Sure, the headline does imply, very strongly, that Karl isn't exactly a fan of OAN. That, in my book, is just the author of the OP making his viewpoint visible from line one.
I don't have to respect the intolerant, liars, frauds, bigoted or racist. In fact, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is pretty explicit I must not. I don't have to encourage their ability to effectively spread their message. What I must do is to not tolerate government making it impossible for them to speak anywhere.
If a group has made itself so impossible that the only place left for them is to plant their soapbox in the wilderness where audience is scarce then that is just the consequence of their choice to be assholes.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 26 Jan 2022 @ 1:01am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It’s without real meaning if one’s defence stoops at what is generally acceptable."
It's not, really. Popper's Paradox of Tolerance applies to every principle.
Both the UN universal declaration of human rights and the US constitution set up a number of inalienable rights. Every such right has exceptions. And no right can be used to override a right held by another. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins.
You have the right to liberty...except that in daily life you are constrained from exercising that right in a thousand different ways, for instance. And you can be incarcerated which is, no doubt about it, an infringement of that right.
You have the right to be secure in your property. Except if public interest compels the state to confiscate said property; Two words, Civil Forfeiture. Ironically far harder to do to people in the far more socialist countries than it is in the US.
You have the right to speak. But the people you'd speak to have the right of association. If what you say is considered appalling by the majority they are not obligated to entertain you further in the places where they gather.
"But to do so with meaning, you must defend all speech. No matter how repugnant. "
And we do. Should Biden come out with a public order making OANN's blithering unlawful we would all react with extreme concern. Hell, I do live in a country where "hate speech" is a legal barrier and I'm having serious concerns about that, even if it's based on the principle that allowing someone to incite violence against a minority is an infringement on the rights if said minority. It's one of those balancing acts where the cure comes awfully close to the harm done by the disease.
However, and pay attention here, no one is obligated to applaud and encourage fiction, fraud or bigotry. For sane people to say "Thank Cthulhu those grifters are off the air" is only a negative assertion if the reason the grifters are off the air is because their presence was made illegal. In any other case that's just my opinion. Feel free to counter that with your own opinion - but if you do so leaning on the principles of Free Speech then I'm calling that Strawman Rhetoric.
"We have freedoms in literature because people fought for Canterbury Tales and Lady Chatterly."
If we want a real controversial there I still think Nabokov's "Lolita" stands out as the still very much valid balance between "Yeah, this is problematic" and "Um, Free Speech?".
There's a line in sand drawn here. If we absolutely must defend the right of all opinions to be heard where we gather then that is a principle which effectively renders it impossible to have an opinion. And that principle, if applied to human society, becomes the living argument of Popper's old Paradox.
"As you side on what you think is an acceptable limit… I remind you of the Blacklist of the Cold War. Be careful where you draw your lines. "
You mean the one where government, applying the violence monopoly saw fit to disincentivize the reading of certain books?
THAT has no relevance on the topic of "We don't say that here. Go elsewhere."
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 26 Jan 2022 @ 12:31am
Re:
"You mean something like 1% of people in a country owning more wealth than all of the remaining 99% combined?"
I mean exactly that.
There's an old joke that if you begin studying economics you may go in a capitalist but will emerge a socialist. It's not all that exaggerated because once you start looking at market economics you find they can only produce one end game unless seriously curbed.
At the same time there are no realistic alternatives if you want an economy at all - which is in any non-post scarcity society a no-brainer.
I kind of feel sorry for Karl Marx at times. He wrote one of the best summaries of market economics of all time - Das Kapital, still required or recommended reading in any economics class worldwide - looked at the end game (which the current US is approaching) and apparently went nuts in desperation and wrote The Communist Manifesto. Also a brilliant work except the assumptions it makes on the ability of humans to be perfect.
It's become a recurring theme. If you want a detailed and accurate description of why a US worker is worse off today than their parents and their parents were worse off than their grandparents, why the minimum wage today gets you far less than in times past and how a lot of people have to hold down three jobs to support themselves only when 50 years ago a single breadwinner could support a family of four with cash to spare...go see a genuine marxist. They know.
Unfortunately the solution they prescribe isn't functional until we've got Star Trek replicators...
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Jan 2022 @ 3:02am
Re: Encrypted drives and Compliant Passive Citizens
"Anyone who says "I have nothing to hide"..."
I like the old example given by Rick Falkvinge, founder of the first Pirate Party; *"He who says he has nothing to hide, ask him if he'd object to using a toilet in a see-through cubicle on the town square".
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Jan 2022 @ 3:00am
Re: Re: Sense of smell
[Edit]
Typo; "The same way some people have historically been "able to tell" someones criminal inclination by measuring the bumps on their skull or how they similarly "could tell" the actor with the hooked nose playing a moneychanger would turn out to be the villain."
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Jan 2022 @ 2:53am
Re: Sense of smell
"Do you think they can smell child sex abuse from a car going the opposite direction at speed with the windows up?"
Sure they can. The same way you people have historically been "able to tell" someones criminal inclination by measuring the bumps on their skull or how they similarly "could tell" the actor with the hooked nose playing a moneychanger would turn out to be the villain.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Jan 2022 @ 2:32am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: millions will dump direct
"Your not far off. But there’s also the group that would never vote for HRC. Ever! "
That explains a lot, really. I honestly don't get the hate for Hillary personally. The DNC candidate for president is almost invariably just a smartphone casing. Aside from the color and pattern there's no functional difference between the actual politics pursued by her, Biden, Buttigieg and Yang.
"But for the Sanders block it wasn’t that he wasn’t “given” the election but that the DNC literally made sure he could not get it. Not once but twice."
...because Bernie is a social democrat. Or at least that's what europeans would call it - and how actual US marxists refer to him, no matter that he's operating under a democratic socialist banner. Honestly I sometimes wonder if there's any clearly defined word in politics americans won't butcher and redefine just for the sheer hell of it.
I don't know what to tell you. I can see pretty clearly to which extent "classic" republicans end up marching in lockstep with democrats when it comes to blocking any actual progress, leaving the difference in rhetoric being the sole divisor.
But I must humbly hold that the current GOP is most definitely not classic republicans. Nixon and McCarthy look like centrist-right democrats in comparison. Them taking power doesn't just mean the current political order burns down.
It's all very well to pin your hopes of something better eventually rising from the ashes but both postwar Germany and Bosnia can testify that that method of refitting your mode of government comes at a terrifying price no sane person would want to pay no matter the circumstances.
"But for the Sanders block it wasn’t that he wasn’t “given” the election but that the DNC literally made sure he could not get it. Not once but twice."
The problem with being an armchair historian is that certain patterns become bloody predictable after a while. The democrats are still reenacting Hindenburg in the Last Days of the Weimar because they're too stuck to realize that the next mob to come shouting for liberal blood is going to get it. Theirs, to be precise.
Unless they start delivering.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Jan 2022 @ 2:10am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Like it’s a good thing to silence someone you don’t like. Not just ignore it."
Context.
Neither in spirit nor letter does 1A apply to OAN. Not unless the state walks in to suppress them by making their right to speak illegal or unlawful.
This is the lifeguard finally removing the unpleasant asshole who saw fit to piss in the theme park pool on a regular basis while ranting about how the Kenyan Muslim ate his baby. Even if no one present was regularly swimming in that pool the fact that most people are happy that person is gone from that theme park isn't anything to lament.
Mike is free to express his personal approval. You are free to dislike that approval. But if you do we are of course similarly free to point out that your argument has its head up its own ass.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Jan 2022 @ 2:02am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And never would a champion of free speech says ‘finally dumps’."
Sorry, Lostin, but you are wrong. For two very relevant reasons.
1) To defend free speech doesn't mean to blindly defend grifters and liars. It means to defend opinions, sure. But there's a case to be made that public fraud has gone way beyond both spirit and letter of the principle. OAN would have been more respectable if they'd been more honest no matter how repugnant their opinions are.
2) When a private entity tosses someone out then how you feel about that is completely detached from any free speech considerations. If anything it's that private entity exercising their "right of association" under 1A.
With "free speech" not being a factor at all the only thing remaining is Mike Masnick exercising his personal opinion that "finally DirectTV threw those grifters out". Which is his exercise of free speech. And we applauding this is us exercising our 1A rights.
Nowhere in this situation does OAN get the benefit of 1A.
They shat on the floor one too many times and their landlord saw fit not to renew their lease.
So, with courtesy, kindly stop using as backing for your argument a right which does not apply in spirit or letter to the situation discussed.
It's as if the local bartender threw an unpleasant asshole out and when people cheer over not having to put up with that asshole anymore you suddenly pipe up and lament about how him no longer shitting on the floor is somehow a loss to the discourse at the bar for which everyone should properly mourn.
I mean...seriously?😟
"From what I have read it’s just a right wing version of MSNBC spewing out conspiracies and commentary with no real news coverage."
It's a bit worse that that. OAN tries to cater to the base which follows Tucker Carlson - the one who had to stand and tell a judge his show contained no facts to the point where no rational person could believe anything he said - except dialed up to 11.
They're like MSNBC in the same way Roy Bean is a "standard US judge".
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Jan 2022 @ 1:38am
Re: Re: Stunning
"DirecTV doesn't have a Techdirt channel. Are they censoring my speech?"
Of course not. You are a subversive dissident in direct violation of Umberto Eco's 4th defining characteristics of those Very Fine People; "Disagreement is treason."
The fine folk at OAN however, are clearly being censored since they keep bravely revealing everything about how the Kenyan Muslim and Killary sold american children to liberal cannibal sex traffickers after eating them and wearing their faces as masks.
/s because THAT is exactly the argument used in earnestness by the alt-right.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re:
"I dunno, rich motherfuckers like Bezos probably think of both groups in the exact same way..."
How much do you think it costs to replace a broken conveyor belt? As compared to replacing the worker attending that belt who finally walked because he was fed up with having to use an on-site bottle rather than take toilet breaks?
Answer; The worker costs a pittance to replace even if said replacement is due to said worker breaking.
A bad fit for the persistent imagery provided by US media which still blares out a message increasingly resembling the old USSR spiel of the "Worker's Utopia". Hell, with 1 in 10 americans on SNAP (food stamps), 40% of US households unable to cope with an unplanned $400 expense, and conditions worsening fast...it's at the point where you could argue the old soviet workers had it better.
From my own perspective that answer is a throwback to early 18th century where I live, because over here anything even resembling that would be a case of that warehouse shutting down. It's complete un-fscking-believable.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: millions will dump direct
"The likes of Clinton and Cheney who are top down pseudo-communists who wish to have sole control over money and dictate who gets what. The ones who are only there to get rich elsewhere."
Ok...take it from someone who is a leftist - Clinton and Cheney are about as "communist" as you and I are Martian. Given how both most democrats and all of the GOP have fed the US public a steady diet of lies where everything they don't like is "communist" or "socialist" I'm not surprised to discover that some horrifying misconceptions exist there.
I suggest a quick glance over at "The Political Compass" - google it. Cheney and Clinton - and most others close to that camp - are very hard right, by definition; They adhere to and push for retaining status quo. Honestly, I'd suggest you read up on marxism so you can at least identify what is a socialist or communist...and what is most definitely not. Spoiler alert - it won't be what you think it is.
Or, if you want an easier way than that, go to youtube and look for some guy named "Second Thought" - might be better to see how a genuine dyed-in-wool Marxist sees the world.
Another spoiler up front - the term "left" and "right" originated from the classic divide in parliaments where representatives of nobility sat on the right side and the proles on the left. The original meaning was meant to illustrate the struggle between progressive liberals and conservative feudal nobility. And it still is, I think. I don't see much of a difference between a US single mother locked to working three jobs on minimum wage and the indentured serf of the 15th century. Both have the choice of accepting horrible conditions or starving.
"The thing with Sanders was he really was after greed, not wealth. Which is why the party rigged the system to keep him out. "
Although there's a difference it's not as big as you'd think. The thing is that Sanders wanted actual change. Hence why the dems closed ranks to keep him out. Same as with Andrew Yang who was so successfully frozen out people forgot he was even standing. There are other examples.
Here's the thing I'm seeing. Your often expressed opinions are all over the place. As with Cheney and Clinton being "communist" I'm thinking the reason for that might be because as with every other american there's been a concerted effort pushed by both parties to make sure no one even knows the terminology of left-right ideologies or has any clue what those terms mean.
So i'm positing something of a challenge, if you have the time. There's a website called "The Political Compass". It has the charts of exactly where numerous politicians worldwide are on the right-left, liberal-authoritarian scale. And a test questionnaire which tells you exactly where your opinions land you. Take an hour's time and fill it out.
My suspicion is you'll end up leftwards of Bernie. If that's the case you might want to start reading up on why your opinions end up placing you where you end up.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Because as soon as you justify silencing something you can justify silencing anything. "
You really can't.
Would you tell a bunch of hollering kids to take it outside? Or tell a guest who just said something offensive to a present relative "Sir, thank you for coming. Now kindly git"? Would the spontaneous sigh of relief or applause by other people present be something you'd disparage?
It's incorrect - and disingenious - to claim that showing an asshole the door is to be considered as the same class of action as suppression of speech.
That being the case this boils down to mere opinion. And you are getting the feedback you're getting because your opinion - by extension - means people should extend private courtesy to asshats they are not prepared to give.
As I keep saying...free speech may be a worthy hill to die on. But you climbed Hill 937 instead.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stunning
"Well the closest thing I can think of is Cannibal Children."
For the US there should be a comprehensive list of movies where the DoD extended access to facilities and military material - and some troops as backdrop - against a "minor" say in adjusting dialogue and script.
Bit harder to find the USSR PR films but there's always "The Battlecruiser Potemkin"...and just about everything else produced by Mosfilm or directed by Sergey Eisenstein.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re:
"Part of my thought process in supporting a national monthly paid social security deposited minimum annual income, for every citizen, tax free, is it would give everyone an equal social starting point. "
The "citizen's salary". Yeah, that'd be Andrew Yang's platform. Personally I'd try to tie it to political engagement - as a citizen you've got That One Job. Educate yourself about candidates and Vote.
It probably says a lot how well that got pushed that even Democrats following the candidady for 2020 were often unaware that such a candidate existed.
The thing is, "citizen's salary" can even be posited as a centrist-right idea - of every citizen being a shareholder in the nation and earning dividends. Centrist-right by european measurements, of course. By the US current overton window it's so far left even moderate dems will holler about the Red Menace...
There are plenty of other side effects. If you are unemployed and on social security today, even in Sweden, most of your time will be spent hunting jobs, declaring that you're actively looking for a job to social services, spending hours every day dropping your CV at places which will never accept you just to fill your quota, etc. No time left over to start a business of your own or try to find something you actually want to do.
People who are already down and out on their luck, on the spectrum, in need of therapy or for various reasons just less able...often can't work full time straight off the bat - and fulfilling the requirements for social services are, more often than not, a harshly eroding experience in itself. At the end of which sure, the person in need gets money to live but often at the expense of their mental health. Better to just get them what they need to live up front and then get the person fixed.
We wouldn't treat machinery the way we treat broken people. Something has to change about that.
If I had to be a cynic I'd even make the call that just handing over the minimum subsistence amount would turn out not even to cost society that much - the administration around social services and determining who is in need are staggering. Most of it would be recouped by the fact that employers could remove the granted sum from salaries and hand it over in tax instead.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: Two points
"The right-wing playbook goes something like this: first, they say it's not a crime, then they say that if it was a crime, they should be able to get away with it, but then if they're arresed, then Trump will pardon them."
..and in none of the steps does it filter in that for Trump to finally pardon them other people have to believe he's still the president.
You know, I wish every malicious asshole was that casually self-destructive.
I'm thinking that if they do manage to take house and senate this year and finagle Trump into the white house in 24 the remaining 75% of the US not on their side won't know how to look at themselves in the mirror ever after. The nation will have been overthrown by a cadre of clown less attached to factual reality than Kim Jong-Un's cult.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That fanfare for the loss of another network."
You know how I keep saying you've got better hills to die on?
You're currently on Hill 937, trying to be a hamburger.
Imagine, if you will, that you've got a neighbor. In hos yard there's some person reenacting Orwell's "two minute hate sessions" all day long. You can barely hear him in the distance and for the last year every other neighbor of yours has complained about that guy.
Finally your neighbor tosses that guy out.
Among the loud cheering, do you really turn to the next guy cheering and tell him "His contribution is a loss to be mourned, not a gain to be celebrated!"?
If you do - the analogue of your input here right now - I predict that your remaining neighbors will all be giving you funny looks henceforth.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: millions will dump direct
"I’d explain the independent hatred of her, if you really don’t follow. But the fact is where it comes to some politicians—she’s one— we’d rather watch the world burn."
From what I get she's the perfect representative of the democrat side of political grift; strip away all the GOP rhetoric and red herrings and we're still left with Hillary being a repetitive liar openly changing her message to fit whatever desired narrative she thinks the public expects. That much became clear even abroad just following the high points of the 2016 campaign.
"A carefully crafted limited engagement campaign protected Biden from the public eye. Those that just wanted something else not the status quo didn’t get to see behind the curtain. "
I hate to have to tell you this but...the only reason this works is because almost every voting american is, uh, how to put this...unwilling to set aside ten minutes googling the history of the candidate. Even I know Biden's historical role, ever since he became Obama's VP - being the entrenched white old conservative moderate never making waves to counterbalance the dynamic young black man.
The problem with Biden is that although his positives count actually caring - he's empathic, acknowledged even by many of his enemies - he also has a history of Bad judgment calls and is most definitely a representative of the washington elites.
Unlike a lot of politicians this is the sort of guy you'd want as a neighbor. But probably not in charge of your city. Because his wide circle of friends include Wall Street. And he will do them favors which enable them to screw people.
I think the democrats were facing a watershed moment. Either to meaningfully embrace socialism to the point where meaningful change actually happens...or stand there surprised when recommending the US working class "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" produces a march on the Bastille rather than the usual response.
I don't know what to tell you. As bad as some democrats may be, the next republican candidate will be worse. It'll either be Trump or someone less inept. The world might not burn but the US you'll live in after a GOP victory in 22 and 24...is not going to be one where your national charter has any meaning anymore.
At the same time more democrat victories will just put you guys further on your knees unless by some miracle the 2024 DNC rolls out Bernie as the candidate and gives him both house and senate to play with. That would take for the democrats to realize that these next few elections are likely to be about their actual lives rather than their careers though, so I'm none too sanguine about that.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"‘It has finally come to pass’"
Because both the author of the OP and a great many people here are feeling a sense of relief that DirectTV no longer honors OANN with their business. If the guy who kept holding loud klan rallies in the next city block was finally evicted by his landlord I wager most of his neighbors would cheer over it. And no sane or sensible person would object to the outspoken opinion of the community. This is no different.
Implying that it is means you're making assumptions out of context. Sure, the headline does imply, very strongly, that Karl isn't exactly a fan of OAN. That, in my book, is just the author of the OP making his viewpoint visible from line one.
I don't have to respect the intolerant, liars, frauds, bigoted or racist. In fact, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is pretty explicit I must not. I don't have to encourage their ability to effectively spread their message. What I must do is to not tolerate government making it impossible for them to speak anywhere.
If a group has made itself so impossible that the only place left for them is to plant their soapbox in the wilderness where audience is scarce then that is just the consequence of their choice to be assholes.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It’s without real meaning if one’s defence stoops at what is generally acceptable."
It's not, really. Popper's Paradox of Tolerance applies to every principle.
Both the UN universal declaration of human rights and the US constitution set up a number of inalienable rights. Every such right has exceptions. And no right can be used to override a right held by another. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins.
You have the right to liberty...except that in daily life you are constrained from exercising that right in a thousand different ways, for instance. And you can be incarcerated which is, no doubt about it, an infringement of that right.
You have the right to be secure in your property. Except if public interest compels the state to confiscate said property; Two words, Civil Forfeiture. Ironically far harder to do to people in the far more socialist countries than it is in the US.
You have the right to speak. But the people you'd speak to have the right of association. If what you say is considered appalling by the majority they are not obligated to entertain you further in the places where they gather.
"But to do so with meaning, you must defend all speech. No matter how repugnant. "
And we do. Should Biden come out with a public order making OANN's blithering unlawful we would all react with extreme concern. Hell, I do live in a country where "hate speech" is a legal barrier and I'm having serious concerns about that, even if it's based on the principle that allowing someone to incite violence against a minority is an infringement on the rights if said minority. It's one of those balancing acts where the cure comes awfully close to the harm done by the disease.
However, and pay attention here, no one is obligated to applaud and encourage fiction, fraud or bigotry. For sane people to say "Thank Cthulhu those grifters are off the air" is only a negative assertion if the reason the grifters are off the air is because their presence was made illegal. In any other case that's just my opinion. Feel free to counter that with your own opinion - but if you do so leaning on the principles of Free Speech then I'm calling that Strawman Rhetoric.
"We have freedoms in literature because people fought for Canterbury Tales and Lady Chatterly."
If we want a real controversial there I still think Nabokov's "Lolita" stands out as the still very much valid balance between "Yeah, this is problematic" and "Um, Free Speech?".
There's a line in sand drawn here. If we absolutely must defend the right of all opinions to be heard where we gather then that is a principle which effectively renders it impossible to have an opinion. And that principle, if applied to human society, becomes the living argument of Popper's old Paradox.
"As you side on what you think is an acceptable limit… I remind you of the Blacklist of the Cold War. Be careful where you draw your lines. "
You mean the one where government, applying the violence monopoly saw fit to disincentivize the reading of certain books?
THAT has no relevance on the topic of "We don't say that here. Go elsewhere."
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stunning
"That would make a great movie!"
If that's your interest you can find some real gems on Youtube and various open archives around the world.
All the current near-peers have a few pretty decent 2 hour propaganda reels in the form of entertainment.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re:
"You mean something like 1% of people in a country owning more wealth than all of the remaining 99% combined?"
I mean exactly that.
There's an old joke that if you begin studying economics you may go in a capitalist but will emerge a socialist. It's not all that exaggerated because once you start looking at market economics you find they can only produce one end game unless seriously curbed.
At the same time there are no realistic alternatives if you want an economy at all - which is in any non-post scarcity society a no-brainer.
I kind of feel sorry for Karl Marx at times. He wrote one of the best summaries of market economics of all time - Das Kapital, still required or recommended reading in any economics class worldwide - looked at the end game (which the current US is approaching) and apparently went nuts in desperation and wrote The Communist Manifesto. Also a brilliant work except the assumptions it makes on the ability of humans to be perfect.
It's become a recurring theme. If you want a detailed and accurate description of why a US worker is worse off today than their parents and their parents were worse off than their grandparents, why the minimum wage today gets you far less than in times past and how a lot of people have to hold down three jobs to support themselves only when 50 years ago a single breadwinner could support a family of four with cash to spare...go see a genuine marxist. They know.
Unfortunately the solution they prescribe isn't functional until we've got Star Trek replicators...
On the post: UK Gov't: Encryption Endangers Kids. Also UK Gov't: No, Encryption *Protects* Kids
Re: Enough with the children
"Clearly the problem is that people in the UK are having children, and then failing to protect them."
Well, if they have too many children to properly protect them I have a Humble Proposal to posit...
On the post: UK Gov't: Encryption Endangers Kids. Also UK Gov't: No, Encryption *Protects* Kids
Re: Encrypted drives and Compliant Passive Citizens
"Anyone who says "I have nothing to hide"..."
I like the old example given by Rick Falkvinge, founder of the first Pirate Party; *"He who says he has nothing to hide, ask him if he'd object to using a toilet in a see-through cubicle on the town square".
On the post: UK Gov't: Encryption Endangers Kids. Also UK Gov't: No, Encryption *Protects* Kids
Re: Re: Sense of smell
[Edit]
Typo; "The same way some people have historically been "able to tell" someones criminal inclination by measuring the bumps on their skull or how they similarly "could tell" the actor with the hooked nose playing a moneychanger would turn out to be the villain."
On the post: UK Gov't: Encryption Endangers Kids. Also UK Gov't: No, Encryption *Protects* Kids
Re: Sense of smell
"Do you think they can smell child sex abuse from a car going the opposite direction at speed with the windows up?"
Sure they can. The same way you people have historically been "able to tell" someones criminal inclination by measuring the bumps on their skull or how they similarly "could tell" the actor with the hooked nose playing a moneychanger would turn out to be the villain.
Nothing to do with biased preconceptions at all.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: millions will dump direct
"Your not far off. But there’s also the group that would never vote for HRC. Ever! "
That explains a lot, really. I honestly don't get the hate for Hillary personally. The DNC candidate for president is almost invariably just a smartphone casing. Aside from the color and pattern there's no functional difference between the actual politics pursued by her, Biden, Buttigieg and Yang.
"But for the Sanders block it wasn’t that he wasn’t “given” the election but that the DNC literally made sure he could not get it. Not once but twice."
...because Bernie is a social democrat. Or at least that's what europeans would call it - and how actual US marxists refer to him, no matter that he's operating under a democratic socialist banner. Honestly I sometimes wonder if there's any clearly defined word in politics americans won't butcher and redefine just for the sheer hell of it.
I don't know what to tell you. I can see pretty clearly to which extent "classic" republicans end up marching in lockstep with democrats when it comes to blocking any actual progress, leaving the difference in rhetoric being the sole divisor.
But I must humbly hold that the current GOP is most definitely not classic republicans. Nixon and McCarthy look like centrist-right democrats in comparison. Them taking power doesn't just mean the current political order burns down.
It's all very well to pin your hopes of something better eventually rising from the ashes but both postwar Germany and Bosnia can testify that that method of refitting your mode of government comes at a terrifying price no sane person would want to pay no matter the circumstances.
"But for the Sanders block it wasn’t that he wasn’t “given” the election but that the DNC literally made sure he could not get it. Not once but twice."
The problem with being an armchair historian is that certain patterns become bloody predictable after a while. The democrats are still reenacting Hindenburg in the Last Days of the Weimar because they're too stuck to realize that the next mob to come shouting for liberal blood is going to get it. Theirs, to be precise.
Unless they start delivering.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Like it’s a good thing to silence someone you don’t like. Not just ignore it."
Context.
Neither in spirit nor letter does 1A apply to OAN. Not unless the state walks in to suppress them by making their right to speak illegal or unlawful.
This is the lifeguard finally removing the unpleasant asshole who saw fit to piss in the theme park pool on a regular basis while ranting about how the Kenyan Muslim ate his baby. Even if no one present was regularly swimming in that pool the fact that most people are happy that person is gone from that theme park isn't anything to lament.
Mike is free to express his personal approval. You are free to dislike that approval. But if you do we are of course similarly free to point out that your argument has its head up its own ass.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And never would a champion of free speech says ‘finally dumps’."
Sorry, Lostin, but you are wrong. For two very relevant reasons.
1) To defend free speech doesn't mean to blindly defend grifters and liars. It means to defend opinions, sure. But there's a case to be made that public fraud has gone way beyond both spirit and letter of the principle. OAN would have been more respectable if they'd been more honest no matter how repugnant their opinions are.
2) When a private entity tosses someone out then how you feel about that is completely detached from any free speech considerations. If anything it's that private entity exercising their "right of association" under 1A.
With "free speech" not being a factor at all the only thing remaining is Mike Masnick exercising his personal opinion that "finally DirectTV threw those grifters out". Which is his exercise of free speech. And we applauding this is us exercising our 1A rights.
Nowhere in this situation does OAN get the benefit of 1A.
They shat on the floor one too many times and their landlord saw fit not to renew their lease.
So, with courtesy, kindly stop using as backing for your argument a right which does not apply in spirit or letter to the situation discussed.
It's as if the local bartender threw an unpleasant asshole out and when people cheer over not having to put up with that asshole anymore you suddenly pipe up and lament about how him no longer shitting on the floor is somehow a loss to the discourse at the bar for which everyone should properly mourn.
I mean...seriously?😟
"From what I have read it’s just a right wing version of MSNBC spewing out conspiracies and commentary with no real news coverage."
It's a bit worse that that. OAN tries to cater to the base which follows Tucker Carlson - the one who had to stand and tell a judge his show contained no facts to the point where no rational person could believe anything he said - except dialed up to 11.
They're like MSNBC in the same way Roy Bean is a "standard US judge".
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Stunning
"DirecTV doesn't have a Techdirt channel. Are they censoring my speech?"
Of course not. You are a subversive dissident in direct violation of Umberto Eco's 4th defining characteristics of those Very Fine People; "Disagreement is treason."
The fine folk at OAN however, are clearly being censored since they keep bravely revealing everything about how the Kenyan Muslim and Killary sold american children to liberal cannibal sex traffickers after eating them and wearing their faces as masks.
/s because THAT is exactly the argument used in earnestness by the alt-right.
Next >>