841–850 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's good point. Now that the dems have the exec, house and senate, who are they going to blame for everything?
Pretty obviously "domestic terrorists" https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1348497645531226112 , who seeing what's happening will likely actually engage in some domestic terrorism, and thus the cycle will continue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does, "This won't make us any money, and could further result in the company going under or otherwise severely being hindered in the market due to the negative backlash and resulting decline in business." count as a subjective standard that you believe a private institution should not be applying? What are corporations allowed to do then, in your mind?
Allow me to dodge answering directly: If gigantic multinationals and infrastructure providers stop hosting anything that might be unpopular or generate bad PR, then we quickly approach a world where the tyranny of sheep logic[1] (not what people think, but what people think other people think) will dictate the very narrow range of what products, services, media, literature, and art are available. That world sucks and…
Wouldn't another definition of "sheep logic" just be "society", and don't we kind of all agree that society (though not without drawbacks) is vastly superior to no society?
This argument feels like frustration with the price we pay for allowing others to exist alongside us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are downvoted, but I think you are correct on the Russian story. It was made up or at least severely exaggerated to save face in an embarrassing election defeat. I cannot understand how people can still believe this. I asked what kind of messages the Russians used to influence people on large scale for the election - silence ensued. This is ridiculous, like in a cult. This is plainly US propaganda at its finest.
No it's not. Read the report.
I find some Russian espionage operations in the report. It was actually US Americans that told me to expect such things when their mass surveillance went public. I did not find anything too relevant.
I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…
You know, this whole not liking career politicians thing... isn't it kinda like not liking career doctors or lawyers? Why would we not want people who have spent their careers learning the ins and outs of the political landscape to represent us? Would we really rather have an amateur? How well did that work out when we elected one president?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those who called for the short-sighted defunding of police departments in cities with high crime (look up the uptick in shootings and murder in NYC after the city removed $1 billion from the police department) This is facilitating illegal insurrection? And NYC is your example... Surely this could have nothing to do with covid and the whatever else but a 112% increase in shootings must be the consequence of a budget…
It’s a good point, NYPD defunding itself can’t be tied directly to insurrection, but certain factions of the movement can be, as I detail in another response in the parent thread. To me, the crime is high due to the unfortunate realities of inner city gang culture. Yes, historical factors cannot be ignored, and yes, police misconduct also does exist. Police reform is necessary, but a $1 billion budget cut ignores the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"? I think it takes a particularly steelman interpretation to see the content of Giuliani's "trial by combat" speech as not insurrectionist. “So let’s have trial by combat! I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.” > last summer Sure…
First off, thank you for providing your sources. I wasn't aware of Giuliani's speech before you posted. Now, on to your points. > But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection. It's not just the reduction of the NYC police budget that I am referring to as insurrection. It's the post-George-Floyd rioting, and the extreme comments made by certain leaders of these movements…
1. The left is generally good; the right is generally evil.
2. The goal of leftists is equality and harmony for all. The goal of rightists is to eliminate Jews/blacks/LGBTQ/etc.
3. Leftist rhetoric must be taken at face value, or at least as innocuously as possible; rightist rhetoric must be treated as a secret coded dogwhistle message that actually calls for war, genocide, or other unspeakable horrors. When a rightists uses conflict-related metaphors they are certainly to be taken at face value, whereas a leftist going on about "slicey bois" is certainly not a threat.
4. Accordingly, leftist violence must be considered either the relatively harmless or completely justified actions of a single individual or relatively small group of individuals with no coordination larger than a single cell taking place ("antifa is not a group, it's an idea"). Rightist violence must be considered to be highly coordinated, with individual attacks receiving secret coded dogwhistle instructions, directly or indirectly, from the top thought leaders on the right including the POTUS if he be Republican. ("stochastic terrorism").
5. Therefore, leftist violence is to be grimly tolerated at worst -- hopefully actively supported and encouraged as an essential step toward a more just society. Rightist violence is to be met with swift punishment not just for the offender, but their family, pets, and anyone caught displaying any sympathy for them. Anyone questioning the narrative that these are terrorist operatives taking orders from the top are to be shunned and shut out of decent society by decent people, and certainly not allowed to communicate.
I make no statements as to the truth or falsity of the above.I think it's a bit more nuanced than the extremes of either side will care to admit. But these are the rhetorical rules you have to deal with because if you don't, louder voices will drown you out and eventually shun you.
I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…
I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left.
In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”.
dunk on the other tribe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An important distinction I've also noticed is that the burning down and looting done in riots this summer was an act of spontaneoud anger and rage, not a planned event in order to create fear. No one was planning the looting of a store three weeks in advance, and this is a really large difference being a riot representing the (unproductive) language of the unheard, and an insurrectionist plot.
> No one was planning the looting of a store three weeks in advance The nightly riots in Portland and other cities were planned and organized in advance through messaging and social apps as well as with physical posters. You can find the screen caps and photos online if you look. There were also several instances where groups of people were arrested after crossing state lines to attend riots. Both sides have bad acto…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allow me to dodge answering directly: If gigantic multinationals and infrastructure providers stop hosting anything that might be unpopular or generate bad PR, then we quickly approach a world where the tyranny of sheep logic[1] (not what people think, but what people think other people think) will dictate the very narrow range of what products, services, media, literature, and art are available. That world sucks and…
This implies there's better logic than sheep logic, and that some subset of humanity is privy to it, which feels like the source of the problem in the first place; people thinking that they're better than other people and reacting to that feeling. Wouldn't another definition of "sheep logic" just be "society", and don't we kind of all agree that society (though not without drawbacks) is vastly superior to no society?…
Having non-mainstream beliefs or opinions isn't illegal, and I don't think people should be losing their accounts and data for things that aren't illegal.
We already take that approach for public utilities; your water can't be shut off because of your political affiliation or membership in some unprotected class like BDSM practitioners.
Perhaps web and infrastructure hosting (app stores and communications systems (ie social media) included) should be approached in a similar fashion.
I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…
It's totally reasonable to be sad about this. It pattern matches to a loss of free speech, and when society sees free speech being violated, it should evoke strong emotions (hopefully even more severe than sadness). This is not, however, a violation of free speech, even if you believe in the general concept that a private company should allow dissenting opinions on its platform. This user has violated the "yelling fi…
To compromise is the reaction any troll by original definition aims for. And it didn't even work to achieve any goal.
So, you have banned some controversial users. What now?