Use http://gofccyourself.com to quickly leave a public comment regarding net neutrality.
Tangent: Why does so much modern political discourse resort to profane language, either overtly or with puns?
The edginess got your attention, did it?
Save Net Neutrality
31–40 of 43 posts
Re: Save Net Neutrality
#32We don't have a say in government policy, no matter how much noise we make in their comment section.
Even if we have no say, it is pivotal we make a record that we tried. Regardless of the circumstances.
Re: Save Net Neutrality
#33[deleted]
Re: Save Net Neutrality
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new admin is generally against regulations that restrict business. Net Neutrality is one of these. Whether you think that is legit is up to you. But don't fall into the trap of thinking the other side is disingenuous and evil.
Oh, but they are. Otherwise they wouldn't endanger lives with their health care shutdown while talking so much about pro-life, or threaten to shut down the legal marijuana business in the states that legalised it (which also serves as a convenient example to show how little they actually care about 'states' rights')
Both sides are pretty evil in their own special, burning snowflake kind of way.
Re: Save Net Neutrality
#35We don't have a say in government policy, no matter how much noise we make in their comment section.
It is this kind of thinking that will get us in trouble. Once you stop fighting they win. Make enough noise and they have to listen. They still don't listen make them hear with your votes. Never stop fighting for what you believe in!
Re: Save Net Neutrality
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right. It was 2011 when SOPA/PIPA were being considered. The internet is almost exactly the same as it was then. The biggest internet businesses and ISPs from then are the biggest that exist now. Other stuff related to the internet has happened in the interim (Snowden leaks, for example), but that's not super relevant in this context. The same companies that stand to profit from changes to net neutrality now a…
> As dire as the situation in Washington may seem now, democracy hasn't fallen. We as the citizenry haven't lost any power we had back then. If anything, we have more now given the surge in online activism (that also leads to real life activism more readily, at least from my perspective). Ehhh let's not assume the future is alright quite yet. The prez did just fire the guy investigating his campaign's links to a fore…
I'm not saying there aren't issues now, or that everything will be fine, but as it stands now it's not like we've lost any of our rights as citizens in the past 6 years. We can still protest, vote, conscientiously object to laws, so on.
Throwing up our hands and saying, "Welp, the world is different now. Nothing we can do," is exactly the mindset that will lead to the loss of our ability to have an impact on government.
Re: Save Net Neutrality
#37[deleted]
Re: Save Net Neutrality
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new admin is generally against regulations that restrict business. Net Neutrality is one of these. Whether you think that is legit is up to you. But don't fall into the trap of thinking the other side is disingenuous and evil.
Oh, but they are. Otherwise they wouldn't endanger lives with their health care shutdown while talking so much about pro-life, or threaten to shut down the legal marijuana business in the states that legalised it (which also serves as a convenient example to show how little they actually care about 'states' rights')
If you lack the intellectual capacity to consider the motives of the other side believing that a freer healthcare market is a superior means to save lives (a notion backed by history and economic theory), then you have completely discredited yourself with regards to speaking about political topics.
Re: Save Net Neutrality
#39https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-... Bots flooding the FCC comment section with the same text, different addresses. e.g all 'Brittany' posts
Re: Save Net Neutrality
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, but they are. Otherwise they wouldn't endanger lives with their health care shutdown while talking so much about pro-life, or threaten to shut down the legal marijuana business in the states that legalised it (which also serves as a convenient example to show how little they actually care about 'states' rights')
If you lack the intellectual capacity to consider the motives of the other side believing that a freer healthcare market is a superior means to save lives (a notion backed by history and economic theory), then you have completely discredited yourself with regards to speaking about political topics.
Just call me stupid and skip the intellectual hyperbole =) That aside, I'm pro Affordable Healthcare Act. It's getting better and smoothing out. Like any venture it has to work out some kinks, which takes time. In very specific instances, one party can claim superiority to the other, through the lens of history. Both parties, however, have very checkered and dubious pasts. Not recognizing that and judging an evolving political party based on a single issue may, in your words, prove my intellectual capacity but it also puts us in a situation like we see at this very time. I do not watch the news with a smile on my face, like the intellectually deficient subhuman creature you seem to profess me to be =) Now, I have to go play with my puzzle. It's a 14 piecer I haven't quite figured out yet, but I'm close. Only 8 pieces to go. I'm nearly 1/2 way there!