921–930 of 1001 posts
The cynic in me can't help but notice that all these platforms are suddenly growing a backbone now that we know Democrats will control both the executive and legislative branches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's so sad that the poor fascists are being oppressed. They only tried to do a little coup and now everybody is being mean to them and hurting their feelings. Good job posting this under your real name.
You can't attack other users on HN like this, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules. Burning this place down is not an option. Edit: given that your recent comments have been this shockingly abusive: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25681577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25681549 ... I've banned your account un…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An unarmed protester was gunned down by police.
And yet, the mob continued to attack for another hour or two, while the DoD refused to send troops to help out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true at all. Censorship is any type of redaction or restriction, no matter who performs it. You are confusing censorship with a breach of the first amendment.
"Censorship" comes from the roman word, censor, which was an office of the Roman government in charge of regulating morality. IOW, censorship has always specifically meant government restrictions speech. It is only recently that censorship has been broadened to include no-governmental actors, and that broadening is not universally accepted.
If by 1946 you mean "only recently", then sure (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama).
The concept that no company be allowed to enclose the commons has existed ever since the concept of the commons existed; and the Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the government is, for the same reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about me for someone claiming I’m arguing in bad faith. Maybe you don’t know that the police officer who died, died as a result of a blood clot. Not as a direct result of any action by the protestors. Those police were doing crowd control. If they were not deployed there would have been no on-duty injuries. Was law enforcement deployed on the women’s March protestors?
> Those police were doing crowd control. If they were not deployed there would have been no on-duty injuries. "The Bank security guard would have never been hurt if they just let people steal the money and take hostages." > Maybe you don’t know that the police officer who died, died as a result of a blood clot. This is beyond bad faith, this is insulting. And i'm not going to participate anymore. I just hope people l…
can you explain this analogy? What are you assuming the protestors would have done if the police weren’t deployed?
> I just hope people like you die out before this country is irrevocably harmed, and your children don't carry your sickness to a new generation.
This is a pretty radical statement. I’m actually a center left liberal and you’re wishing that I die simply because of a fact I brought up that refutes your narrative. Can you substantiate your claims that I’m causing harm to this country by citing facts? How did you get this radicalized?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't need to be. It was justified and encouraged and enabled by nearly every major corporation, media company, and high-ranking official. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544
Me: > The end goal is cessation of real and specific incitements to violence against people and property You: > So are we just pretending that March-September 2020 didn't happen in dozens of major cities across the US. Apparently you are confused between "empathy" and "incitement". That "supercut" didn't have anyone inciting violent behavior. No-one saying "Go out, damage and destroy property. Hurt people". It didn't…
I was also raised by a convert narcissist and have experienced (and fortunately, overcome) the exact behavior being used to manipulate the population. It was used to manipulate me in the exact same way.
Deny reality all you want but none of what's happening right now is good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Censorship" comes from the roman word, censor, which was an office of the Roman government in charge of regulating morality. IOW, censorship has always specifically meant government restrictions speech. It is only recently that censorship has been broadened to include no-governmental actors, and that broadening is not universally accepted.
>It is only recently If by 1946 you mean "only recently", then sure (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama ). The concept that no company be allowed to enclose the commons has existed ever since the concept of the commons existed; and the Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the governme…
The ruling only applies to restrictions on public rights of way (in this case, meaning the public easements over otherwise private property).
Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the government is, for the same reasons.
No, they haven't. SCOTUS ruled that in limited circumstances, private property can be treated as a public commons if the property owner holds it out for general public use. Following the mall cases, many malls began restricting the acceptable uses on their properties, which is why you don't get harassed by political activists every time you go to the mall. (In a nutshell, open mall spaces are now designated as transit spaces rather than as general use spaces, and thus the entire lineage of SCOTUS cases no longer apply to privately held malls.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except what you’re saying is false. Democrats overwhelmingly condemned the riots and violence during the BLM protests. But most protests and protestors were peaceful and they supported those ones. If everyone is going to knowingly twist facts like your post does, there is no point in even trying to debate.
Snopes: Campaign staffers for U.S. Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden contributed to a bailout fund for protesters arrested after the police in-custody death of George Floyd. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-staffers-bailout-fun... Harris, a former California state attorney general, asked the public to bail out protesters https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/reviewing-the-facts-in-ant... Can you tal…
You do realize posting bail isn’t excusing the punishment?
And Biden repeatedly condemned violence and the rioters. He and the other prominent dems did not spend months encouraging them.
And that NPR article is some rando, not a Congress person or anyone else important. Why did you even bring up some rando? If that’s the most relevant person you can find then you’re providing strong evidence against your case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the local election officials wanted to convince me they ran the election fairly, they would have had to have allowed observers to do their job without imposing any restrictions on them that would impair their ability to observe. If that means equipping every worker and observer with personal safety equipment suitable for use in a lab that researches ebola, so be it. Outside observers are absolutely critical. That…
So literally nothing can change your mind at this point unless the results happened to show trump won, got it.
There is far too much opportunity for the election workers to cheat for me to trust them if they aren't closely observed, no matter what they say afterward. That's why observers were put there in the first place.
If the elections workers are not good at cheating, they may leave behind evidence, but a lack of evidence would not be convincing to me, because not all forms of election fraud will necessarily leave behind evidence, and there is too much opportunity for them to get rid of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can look up the stats yourself. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/thedonald.win Over the last 90 days it has gone from a global Alexa Rank of 6000, to 2400. And is apparent about 400 in the US. In my subjective opinion that is a large amount of growth.
you mean to tell me a well known place that crazy people congreate and organize to plan treason and insurrection in plain sight gets more traffic when the President calls for the overturning of a democratic election... who would have thought