201–210 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We've reached the point where the American left is afraid of the idea of free speech. Debating the merits and demerits of free speech surely has to fall within free speech. From what I've seen, free speech often gets raised as an unquestionable ideal and kills off sometimes uncomfortable discussion.
Karl Popper tells us about the paradox there...
Some of the screenshots seem objectionable, e.g. the one that wanted to burn down Pelosi's house while she was still inside, others seem like opinions, e.g. the one saying the protester shot by police was murdered, but none seem particularly bad, where "particularly bad" means "worse than content I'd find on Twitter". Seems inconsistent to me to ban Parler and not Twitter. Also seems undesirable for a phone manufactu…
> Many of Us will return ... carrying Our weapons. ... We will come in numbers that no standing army or police agency can match. However, the police are NOT our enemy, unless they choose to be!
> I hope the cop gets doxxed and murdered. That would be the only real justice.
> Federal swine most definitely. Dozens of them need to be eliminated.
>> All
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Further escalation beyond storming the capitol? Becuase that's what tolerance has resulted in.
Exactly. Remember when this was OK? https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1047935416182235136?s=19
They didn't damage property, either. Nor did they impede the democratic process which we all put so much stock in. There's just absolutely no equivalence between these two events. I don't know if that was your intent or not, but there's absolutely no comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're proposing to remove a very large, very alienated group's last public channel to express themselves peacefully. This risks further escalation. This is compounded with the stark contrast to how the protests were handled this summer.
people are straight up calling for murder on that website, it's insane. There's no negotiating. "Let me call for violence on the internet, or I'll go out and actually shoot someone" is nuts. That's not someone you negotiate with, that's a person that belongs into a mental ward. Authority does not need to back down because someone threatens terrorism. And yes before other events are invoked, that goes for all form of…
2020 - https://foxsportsradio.iheart.com/content/2020-11-23-nfl-pla...
2012 - https://www.nfl.com/news/david-akers-closes-twitter-account-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moving the discourse further away from the light won't help cure the divide in this country. We need more discussion, not less. We need to get both sides talking to each other not to themselves about each other.
you're making the incorrect assumption that both sides of the discourse have valid positions. 1. what is a non-racist person supposed to say to a racist person to change their views? 2. why is it the non-racist person's responsibility to talk to the racist person? in the words of office space, "why should I change? he's the one who sucks."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just mean I think we will start seeing more interest/investment in things like progressive web apps that aren’t beholden to centralized platforms but feel like native mobile apps.
...which will lead to nothing in this specific case because iOS is absolutely the main platform holding back PWAs.
But that's also true of telephony, postal letters and in person conversations. Uncountable murders have been organized through those channels!
Does that mean those means of communication should also at least be monitored, and maybe banned outright? If not, what is the difference?
Parler, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook were definitely used to storm Congress. Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook also were definitely used to burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA. Massive Big Tech conglomerates must be busted through antitrust enforcement and Section 230 must be updated to ban predatory algorithms which have inflamed 7 years of sectarian chaos. It's not a free speech issue:…
Absolutely. The only reason Parler is getting banned and Facebook isn't is because Facebook is too big to fail. Facebook and Twitter have the same amount of questionable content, just better PR and bigger clout.
2016-2020 is going to leave such a hangover for everyone who abandoned their convictions for free speech and open platforms. Pre-2016 San Francisco used to be full of people with HUGE distrust of the USA intelligence apparatus, distrust of mainstream news, and strong convictions about free speech and open platforms. And where are they now? "Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly up…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're proposing to remove a very large, very alienated group's last public channel to express themselves peacefully. This risks further escalation. This is compounded with the stark contrast to how the protests were handled this summer.
Further escalation beyond storming the capitol? Becuase that's what tolerance has resulted in.
And as someone who lives in one of those areas of the country constantly scorned, belittled, and caricatured, I can say with confidence that you do not want those people to act in kind to Antifa.
There's been a lot of living vicariously through Antifa/BLM lately with portions of society that want to "stand for something." It's the same mentality as people who wear Che Guevara t-shirts but complain when the wifi on their plane isn't available.
On the other side of that is a enormous, peaceful, patriotic section of U.S. society that is heavily armed and competent with those armaments.
If you make this segment of society feel as if they are the enemy of the country they love, it will be a disaster. If there is ever armed conflict between urban areas vs everyone else, "everyone else" in the U.S. will win overwhelmingly.