641–650 of 763 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is one example of ZH’s accuracy?
follow this story posted on ZH today over the next few days https://www.zerohedge.com/political/youll-bury-everyone-invo... It may be incorrect &/or partisan but you are likely to read these sort of revelations on ZH first for better or worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being black and voting R is nuts -- same if you're gay. I'm not sure if its objectively "nuts" but almost 25% of LGBT voters supported Romney over Obama. That's accounting for the fact that openly LGBT voters are much younger than other voters: twice as likely to be 18-34 and half as likely to be 55+. Median age is about 35, versus 50 for the overall population. Romney won 37% of folks 18-29 and 51% of folks 45-64.…
Obviously all people have different kinds of policy opinions, and the "R" and "D" buckets are way too coarse to describe everyone. Someone who is gay can just as easily be a fiscal conservative (for example) as someone who is straight. But what I can't understand is how someone -- even if they agree with most of their chosen party's platform -- could vote for a party whose leadership largely wants to erase them. I ju…
Now, what do you mean by “erase?” Republicans don’t want to put gay people in concentration camps and forcibly re-educate them. But it has taken them longer to come around to accepting gay people than Democrats for predictable reasons that gay Republicans are presumably willing to put up with. Conservatism by its nature values the traditional family because they believe it is beneficial for society. The long-standing belief that being gay was a “lifestyle” along with 1970s rhetoric about disrupting the traditional family was predictably alarming. For liberals who had already abandoned the idea that society as a whole should pressure people to get married and have 2.1 kids, acceptance of same-sex relationships that wouldn’t necessarily follow the traditional path came much more easily. But attitudes towards same-sex relationships and marriage have evolved rapidly even among conservatives. In 1978, few people accepted that being gay was genetic. Today, 50% believe that. Acceptance of gay marriage very closely tracks rising understanding that being gay is innate. (Republicans aren’t as far along as Democrats in internalizing that. But even among Democrats only 61% believe that being gay is fully innate, so it’s not like gay Democrats can get totally away from such beliefs either: https://news.gallup.com/poll/234941/say-nature-nurture-expla....) Moreover, in this past decade studies have revealed that huge percentages of gay couples are already raising kids together. In the last decade, an image of gay people as being born that way, and being in committed relationships and raising kids no different than anyone else, has appeared. And it has enabled the reconciliation of conservatism and same-sex relationships to the point that half of Republicans already support same-sex marriage.
Gay Republicans presumably understand this thought process and are willing to work through it and let the process play out. Many, even agree with the general principle of social conservatism, even if they disagree about the specific case. It’s worth noting that gay conservatives played an important role in Obergefell. See: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-vot...
> In 1989, most Americans had never even heard of gay marriage, and certainly couldn’t conceive that it would one day be legalized by popular vote. That year, Andrew Sullivan wrote a landmark essay for the New Republic, “Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage.” Sullivan’s essay is one of the most important magazine articles of recent decades. His argument, which he went on to elaborate in his books Virtually Normal and Same-Sex Marriage and in later essays, is that marriage for gays would “foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence.” Sullivan’s conservative case would eventually become the intellectual and moral foundation of the campaigns to legalize gay marriage. Sullivan gave Slate permission to reprint his New Republic essay in full.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4Chan is light years ahead of ZH and the rest. There were posts that were so eerily accurate about the virus late Dec into the first couple of weeks of January it was freakish. People like to write off 4Chan for all the shit posting and racism, etc. But if you can ignore all that there are truly some amazing Gems to be found.
Source on the late December? Early January is irrelevant, but I would like to see the former if that is a true claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source on the late December? Early January is irrelevant, but I would like to see the former if that is a true claim.
You can check on 4plebs. I don't read 4chan, but the same is true of 8chan and far-right Telegram - extremist doomers tend to be good early warning system for incidents that seem to bear out their apocalyptic worldview.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it. I've been reading the Post off and on for the last 40 years, and you are correct that it is a rag. But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for re…
> It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it. Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. > But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter. Twitter is not a news…
And what causes it??
What if censorship itself causes hate speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Section 230 doesn't require a platform to be neutral. This is a common, but false, idea. Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service, a platform, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Verge has a good article that discusses this in more detail: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/22/20700099/section-230-comm...
Yes. Section 230 doesn't require a platform to be neutral. But Twitter insists it's neutral, so it MUST be neutral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
follow this story posted on ZH today over the next few days https://www.zerohedge.com/political/youll-bury-everyone-invo... It may be incorrect &/or partisan but you are likely to read these sort of revelations on ZH first for better or worse.
Did you read that link you sent me? It’s a collection of tweets and with a paragraph about QAnon at the end
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it means advocating for independent methods of verification that aren’t controlled by biased, unelected, unaccountable corporate entities.
Wouldn't decentralization just give people the option to choose from several different biased, unelected, unaccountable corporate entities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That should be illegal with few exceptions. And thus the right wing comes around to centralized government control of companies.
Not sure what it has to do with right/left wing. Free speech should exist regardless of your economic or social views and should be protected with the force of law.