Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Maznik doesn’t comment often at all, including towards opposition, so if that’s the plan, it’s not working.
Also, the Koby account hasn’t really been consistent opposition. They present opposition when it comes to §230 and applying the First Amendment to large social media companies like Twitter, but outside of that, they largely agree with Techdirt. Why would someone create a sockpuppet account that does that?
You also have yet to present any convincing reasons to suspect either Koby or Jay Fude of being sockpuppet accounts (actually, no reasons for Koby), nor have you provided any reasons to suspect Geigner specifically is running either of them or any sockpuppets at all.
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Setting aside the number of disagreements among the so-called “fanboys” on this site, why would you expect a lack of ideological uniformity among fanboys for a site like Techdirt?
And as for the long gaps in activity for a number of accounts, you have yet to explain what’s so strange about that. This is a fairly small site (so you’d expect less engagement from readers), the early articles were quite different in style, length, and depth 12+ years ago compared to now (so you’d expect different levels of engagement between then and now), not everyone who reads these articles feels the need to comment on them that often if at all, and most people have lives outside of this one website. So, again, nothing unusual is going on here.
Also, I just checked online for sample ballots. In a run-off election in Georgia, they do use paper ballots, yes, but you just fill in the bubbles, and there’s no option for writing in a candidate, so no, you can’t do a write-in vote for a runoff election in Georgia. Which makes sense: the point of a runoff is to limit the pool of candidates to those who did the best in the first go-around; allowing additional candidates to be written in would defeat the purpose. So if you don’t want to vote for the actual candidates in the runoff, you’re best off not voting at all.
Still, let’s just walk through some facts:
In the general election, one Republican candidate for the Senate got a plurality of votes but not enough to actually win, while the other Republican candidate for the Senate got a pretty similar number of votes as the Democratic candidate running against them.
According to the vote-counting machines and a hand-recount, Trump did not get a majority of votes in Georgia.
Votes will be tabulated the same way in the runoff as in the general election with the same equipment.
There will be no third-party or party-less candidates in the runoff election to split the votes. There will also be nothing else but the Senate elections on the ballot, so there will be no empty votes with no one marked for either race.
Now, let’s go through some logic:
It’s fairly safe to assume that most if not all people who voted for Trump in the general election also voted for both Republican Senate candidates in that election (or at least for the one who barely missed getting 50% of the vote).
Additionally, given how a majority of Republicans support Trump, it’s reasonable to assume that a sizable portion of the votes for each of the Republican Senate candidates also voted for Trump.
Now, let’s say that all of those Trump voters choose to not vote for either candidate in the runoff election. Since any edge either candidate had in the first election is certainly much, much smaller than the number of people who voted for Trump, even factoring in the fact that there’s no third-party candidate to take conservative/libertarian votes away from the Republican candidates, that means there’s a good chance that the Democratic candidates would win the runoff and the Democratic Party would have a majority in the Senate.
On top of all that, if write-ins were still allowed in the runoff, that would likely lead to a repeat of the general election with no winner given that, again, Trump lost the general election, and people who voted against Trump in the general election for President are not likely to vote for him for the Senate.
Now, let’s pretend that, somehow, Trump wins the presidency and gets another term. And let’s pretend that Trump also wins the runoff for senator from Georgia despite that being absurdly unlikely. That would mean another special election for the Senate seat because Trump can’t be both at once.
Finally, I’m pretty sure that you have to reside in a state in order to be a senator representing that state.
Now, I’m not trying to persuade you either way. It’s entirely possible that your endgame is to destroy the Republican Party. Just laying out the facts here.
Oh yeah, it’s real. Though a lot of Trumpers seem marginally smarter than that and are just planning on not showing up. They really want to self-destruct.
Yeah, I thought it was a joke. When I saw the “good safe space” vs. “bad safe space” thing, I thought that no one would be that lacking in self-awareness. I can’t blame others for thinking it was real given some of the actual comments that were intended to be taken seriously.
Re: Know what's worst about the "funniest, most insightful" week
I’m assuming you’re joking, but in case you aren’t, at the end of the year, people who’ve had lots of comments voted insightful or funny and those who received lots of insightful/funny votes overall get pointed out.
anyone can see a demented racist criminal commie owned by china can be trusted with our nuclear codes.
You mean Trump? He’s pretty demented, clearly racist (see for example the Muslim ban, the Wall, and his promise to keep suburbs white), plausibly a criminal, and is “great friends” with the heads of communist China and North Korea.
good job libtards.
Oh, then I guess you mean Biden, who seems quite intelligent, not at all racist, not a criminal, not communist, and not connected to China… You sure you don’t mean Trump?
The rest of us need to research all the great things that can be acco[]mplished with DRONES.
Did Trump actually stop the drones? I’m asking honestly. I also don’t recall him criticizing Obama for drone use.
There’s a lot wrong with what you said, but this part is ridiculous:
Dictators never, ever try to keep immigrants OUT of their countries.
Yes, yes they do. Russia is very strict about who comes or goes, as does Turkey.
Then there’s this:
Leftists in government, however, almost always have a totalitarian streak.
Nope. Look at Canada and France, both run by leftists, yet neither are totalitarian. There are two different extreme radical left-wings: communism and anarchy. Only one of those ever goes totalitarian. Furthermore, fascism is well established as the extreme right-wing of politics. Look at the nation during WWII: of the major totalitarian nations, only one (the Soviet Union) was leftist; Spain, Italy, Germany, and Japan were ultra-right-wing. (China, Vietnam, and North Korea didn’t become communist until after WWII). Meanwhile, the US, Britain, and France were democracies, the former run by a relative liberal, the other two with some socialist policies. And then there was Switzerland, a primarily socialist government that was and still is not totalitarian.
I think you’re confusing conservativism with libertarianism. Conservativism (in the US) favors order; libertarianism favors freedom; liberalism favors equality, then freedom.
Ultimately, the modern Republican Party combines small-government conservative, libertarian, evangelical, racist, sexist, pro-corporation/anti-Union, and fascist people in one party. This is why you have contradictory goals.
Finally, to briefly address this:
The Donald has no desire to be a "dictator."
He has openly admired dictators like Putin, the head of China, and Kim Jong Un for their power; he has openly defied Congress; he has tried to pressure the media and state officials into doing his bidding; he calls anything he doesn’t like “fake news”; he has tried to make the part of the government spreading free information across the world into a pro-Trump propaganda outlet; he has turned the AG into his personal lawyer; he has fired everyone who doesn’t immediately do what he wants when he wants; he is right now trying to overturn the results of an election because he lost. And remember the positions he’s taken over how powerful the president is. And yet you don’t think he wants to be a dictator? Give me a break.
For the record, I don’t think that organizations like the UN and WHO are incompatible with either states’ rights or a national identity.
The UN allows most nations a place where they can all engage in diplomacy together and discuss their issues to a global audience. Most if not all UN resolutions are nonbinding on member nations, so no rights are given up. It’s just a place to discuss issues and possibly work together to resolve them.
As for the WHO, again, it’s decisions aren’t really binding. It's basically a way for all the nations to get together to discuss global health issues like a pandemic and work out what the proper response would be. What is or isn’t healthy is or shouldn’t be political and applies everywhere; it’s all just facts and scientific inquiry. As such, broad determinations on the facts of large-scale health issues and recommendations for tackling them shouldn’t be dependent on any individual nation. That’s actually where the WHO went wrong here by being too dependent on China at the beginning and by ignoring Taiwan entirely. That doesn’t mean that the idea behind the WHO is intrinsically wrong, though.
If you believe in both states’ rights and a national identity, then you probably already recognize that some issues should be tackled by the larger-scale federal government rather than state or local governments. Things like international trade, interstate issues, basic human rights, diplomacy, currency, and war should be handled by a centralized federal government. Similarly, some issues are best handled or at least discussed by a global organization. The difference is that most global organizations are ultimately less powerful than individual national governments.
Also, out of curiosity, do you feel the same about NAFTA and the WTO?
Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
Techdirt censors out of sight. -- That's so obvious that isn't even denied! Not one fanboy nor re-writer has ever denied that Techdirt uses Admin tools to CENSOR out of sight. It's a serious charge for an alleged "Free Speech" advocate, but it's NEVER been denied.
Actually, it’s been denied multiple times, even ignoring the fact that that’s not “censorship”, nor is it a problem for a Free Speech advocate to moderate their own site. That you missed or ignored the denials doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Techdirt avoids stating facts of own beliefs / practices whenever can.
This whole site is about discussing the writers’ beliefs in relation to current events. As for practices, they’ve been stated multiple times. The only things we don’t know are the details of how exactly the spam filter works, but even then we know the basic gist and that the filter is completely automated.
It's a mystery, like how the "hiding" works.
It’s pretty simple: users can flag content they think should be hidden, and after a certain threshold is reached, the post gets hidden. There’s no real mystery here.
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Maznik doesn’t comment often at all, including towards opposition, so if that’s the plan, it’s not working.
Also, the Koby account hasn’t really been consistent opposition. They present opposition when it comes to §230 and applying the First Amendment to large social media companies like Twitter, but outside of that, they largely agree with Techdirt. Why would someone create a sockpuppet account that does that?
You also have yet to present any convincing reasons to suspect either Koby or Jay Fude of being sockpuppet accounts (actually, no reasons for Koby), nor have you provided any reasons to suspect Geigner specifically is running either of them or any sockpuppets at all.
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Setting aside the number of disagreements among the so-called “fanboys” on this site, why would you expect a lack of ideological uniformity among fanboys for a site like Techdirt?
And as for the long gaps in activity for a number of accounts, you have yet to explain what’s so strange about that. This is a fairly small site (so you’d expect less engagement from readers), the early articles were quite different in style, length, and depth 12+ years ago compared to now (so you’d expect different levels of engagement between then and now), not everyone who reads these articles feels the need to comment on them that often if at all, and most people have lives outside of this one website. So, again, nothing unusual is going on here.
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Which is a nonsensical theory that doesn’t get past Occam’s Razor. Also, why Tim Geigner specifically?
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Not terribly, I’d imagine. Commenting is just one form of engagement, after all, and this isn’t exactly a massive site.
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Why wouldn’t they? What is so strange about that?
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
Or… they have other things to do with their time. Also, 18 months isn’t that long.
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Or… they have other things to do with their time.
On the post: FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
Re: Re: Guns
Why does someone have to attack every article you dislike to be “real” opposition?
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
Also, I just checked online for sample ballots. In a run-off election in Georgia, they do use paper ballots, yes, but you just fill in the bubbles, and there’s no option for writing in a candidate, so no, you can’t do a write-in vote for a runoff election in Georgia. Which makes sense: the point of a runoff is to limit the pool of candidates to those who did the best in the first go-around; allowing additional candidates to be written in would defeat the purpose. So if you don’t want to vote for the actual candidates in the runoff, you’re best off not voting at all.
Still, let’s just walk through some facts:
In the general election, one Republican candidate for the Senate got a plurality of votes but not enough to actually win, while the other Republican candidate for the Senate got a pretty similar number of votes as the Democratic candidate running against them.
According to the vote-counting machines and a hand-recount, Trump did not get a majority of votes in Georgia.
Votes will be tabulated the same way in the runoff as in the general election with the same equipment.
Now, let’s go through some logic:
It’s fairly safe to assume that most if not all people who voted for Trump in the general election also voted for both Republican Senate candidates in that election (or at least for the one who barely missed getting 50% of the vote).
Additionally, given how a majority of Republicans support Trump, it’s reasonable to assume that a sizable portion of the votes for each of the Republican Senate candidates also voted for Trump.
Now, let’s say that all of those Trump voters choose to not vote for either candidate in the runoff election. Since any edge either candidate had in the first election is certainly much, much smaller than the number of people who voted for Trump, even factoring in the fact that there’s no third-party candidate to take conservative/libertarian votes away from the Republican candidates, that means there’s a good chance that the Democratic candidates would win the runoff and the Democratic Party would have a majority in the Senate.
On top of all that, if write-ins were still allowed in the runoff, that would likely lead to a repeat of the general election with no winner given that, again, Trump lost the general election, and people who voted against Trump in the general election for President are not likely to vote for him for the Senate.
Now, let’s pretend that, somehow, Trump wins the presidency and gets another term. And let’s pretend that Trump also wins the runoff for senator from Georgia despite that being absurdly unlikely. That would mean another special election for the Senate seat because Trump can’t be both at once.
Now, I’m not trying to persuade you either way. It’s entirely possible that your endgame is to destroy the Republican Party. Just laying out the facts here.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Wait, they were serious?!
Oh yeah, it’s real. Though a lot of Trumpers seem marginally smarter than that and are just planning on not showing up. They really want to self-destruct.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: rewarding a troll post
Yeah, I thought it was a joke. When I saw the “good safe space” vs. “bad safe space” thing, I thought that no one would be that lacking in self-awareness. I can’t blame others for thinking it was real given some of the actual comments that were intended to be taken seriously.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Know what's worst about the "funniest, most insightful" week
I’m assuming you’re joking, but in case you aren’t, at the end of the year, people who’ve had lots of comments voted insightful or funny and those who received lots of insightful/funny votes overall get pointed out.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: 'Well I say free speech, but I really mean MY speech...'
Same goes for Twitter and Facebook, which is the whole point of the article.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
There’s no “serious debate” by experts.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean Trump? He’s pretty demented, clearly racist (see for example the Muslim ban, the Wall, and his promise to keep suburbs white), plausibly a criminal, and is “great friends” with the heads of communist China and North Korea.
Oh, then I guess you mean Biden, who seems quite intelligent, not at all racist, not a criminal, not communist, and not connected to China… You sure you don’t mean Trump?
Did Trump actually stop the drones? I’m asking honestly. I also don’t recall him criticizing Obama for drone use.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There’s a lot wrong with what you said, but this part is ridiculous:
Yes, yes they do. Russia is very strict about who comes or goes, as does Turkey.
Then there’s this:
Nope. Look at Canada and France, both run by leftists, yet neither are totalitarian. There are two different extreme radical left-wings: communism and anarchy. Only one of those ever goes totalitarian. Furthermore, fascism is well established as the extreme right-wing of politics. Look at the nation during WWII: of the major totalitarian nations, only one (the Soviet Union) was leftist; Spain, Italy, Germany, and Japan were ultra-right-wing. (China, Vietnam, and North Korea didn’t become communist until after WWII). Meanwhile, the US, Britain, and France were democracies, the former run by a relative liberal, the other two with some socialist policies. And then there was Switzerland, a primarily socialist government that was and still is not totalitarian.
I think you’re confusing conservativism with libertarianism. Conservativism (in the US) favors order; libertarianism favors freedom; liberalism favors equality, then freedom.
Ultimately, the modern Republican Party combines small-government conservative, libertarian, evangelical, racist, sexist, pro-corporation/anti-Union, and fascist people in one party. This is why you have contradictory goals.
Finally, to briefly address this:
He has openly admired dictators like Putin, the head of China, and Kim Jong Un for their power; he has openly defied Congress; he has tried to pressure the media and state officials into doing his bidding; he calls anything he doesn’t like “fake news”; he has tried to make the part of the government spreading free information across the world into a pro-Trump propaganda outlet; he has turned the AG into his personal lawyer; he has fired everyone who doesn’t immediately do what he wants when he wants; he is right now trying to overturn the results of an election because he lost. And remember the positions he’s taken over how powerful the president is. And yet you don’t think he wants to be a dictator? Give me a break.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record, I don’t think that organizations like the UN and WHO are incompatible with either states’ rights or a national identity.
The UN allows most nations a place where they can all engage in diplomacy together and discuss their issues to a global audience. Most if not all UN resolutions are nonbinding on member nations, so no rights are given up. It’s just a place to discuss issues and possibly work together to resolve them.
As for the WHO, again, it’s decisions aren’t really binding. It's basically a way for all the nations to get together to discuss global health issues like a pandemic and work out what the proper response would be. What is or isn’t healthy is or shouldn’t be political and applies everywhere; it’s all just facts and scientific inquiry. As such, broad determinations on the facts of large-scale health issues and recommendations for tackling them shouldn’t be dependent on any individual nation. That’s actually where the WHO went wrong here by being too dependent on China at the beginning and by ignoring Taiwan entirely. That doesn’t mean that the idea behind the WHO is intrinsically wrong, though.
If you believe in both states’ rights and a national identity, then you probably already recognize that some issues should be tackled by the larger-scale federal government rather than state or local governments. Things like international trade, interstate issues, basic human rights, diplomacy, currency, and war should be handled by a centralized federal government. Similarly, some issues are best handled or at least discussed by a global organization. The difference is that most global organizations are ultimately less powerful than individual national governments.
Also, out of curiosity, do you feel the same about NAFTA and the WTO?
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
None of us are telling you to vote.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
You never asked a question.
Proof only that the community doesn’t find your contributions to be worth anything. It is not proof that Techdirt “censors out of sight”.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
Actually, it’s been denied multiple times, even ignoring the fact that that’s not “censorship”, nor is it a problem for a Free Speech advocate to moderate their own site. That you missed or ignored the denials doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
This whole site is about discussing the writers’ beliefs in relation to current events. As for practices, they’ve been stated multiple times. The only things we don’t know are the details of how exactly the spam filter works, but even then we know the basic gist and that the filter is completely automated.
It’s pretty simple: users can flag content they think should be hidden, and after a certain threshold is reached, the post gets hidden. There’s no real mystery here.
Next >>