The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2019
- Messages
- 17,888
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,688
@EOTFOFYL
Assuming you're responding to the part where he @'ed you, and assuming you agree with the tweet in your screenshot, why are you booing him? He's right. The part about religious freedom of expression was just the logical conclusion of the argument presented by glamdamnit's analogy in his tweet. (As stated previously in the thread, Twitter is more of a place for snappy clap-backs (I hate that word lol but that's what they are) than full deconstructions of claims, and is most often used as such. The point is that a private business choosing to not serve customers isn't the same as a massive speech platform inconsistently enforcing TOS. Although it's understandable that such a collation between the two would be made even in good faith, such an argument is faulty. Personally, I don't morally agree with a private cake shop not serving someone based on their sexuality (and it's turning away more sales too), but if a private business is legally allowed to turn away customers, then that's how it is.
@justforthelulz
Likely he just tagged you since you were then relevant to the conversation, even loosely/unopinionatedly.
Assuming you're responding to the part where he @'ed you, and assuming you agree with the tweet in your screenshot, why are you booing him? He's right. The part about religious freedom of expression was just the logical conclusion of the argument presented by glamdamnit's analogy in his tweet. (As stated previously in the thread, Twitter is more of a place for snappy clap-backs (I hate that word lol but that's what they are) than full deconstructions of claims, and is most often used as such. The point is that a private business choosing to not serve customers isn't the same as a massive speech platform inconsistently enforcing TOS. Although it's understandable that such a collation between the two would be made even in good faith, such an argument is faulty. Personally, I don't morally agree with a private cake shop not serving someone based on their sexuality (and it's turning away more sales too), but if a private business is legally allowed to turn away customers, then that's how it is.
@justforthelulz
Likely he just tagged you since you were then relevant to the conversation, even loosely/unopinionatedly.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2019
- Messages
- 3,047
@bigtiddyoneesan
Despite my activity here I do pull a Halo once in a while you know... More of a semi-random tack on to Cherokee's comment of:
Anyways....New manhunt, nicknamed 'Caveman'. Wanted for beating cop with flagpole.
https://www.twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1348371404048236545
Despite my activity here I do pull a Halo once in a while you know... More of a semi-random tack on to Cherokee's comment of:
Anyways....New manhunt, nicknamed 'Caveman'. Wanted for beating cop with flagpole.
https://www.twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1348371404048236545
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,688
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,336
@Teddy Many Americans being stereotypical Americans when it comes to politics. Their IQ drops by 50% when it comes to politics, but they love talking about politics, and see themselves as the leaders of the world, and love to lecture other countries but never want to look at the bullshits they do and clean up the mess they made.
I can't stop Twitter from banning anyone, since it really is their right. Just like the bakery's choice to not make gay cakes. But big tech companies working together to eliminate competition is quite... bizarre. I'm not really liking where this is going. You have no shortage of bakeries. But if the time comes when Google shuts down any sites that don't follow a certain ideology, or internet providers refuse to serve certain groups of people, it can be a big problem. It's a hypothetical situation. It might be possible. Or it might not be.
I can't stop Twitter from banning anyone, since it really is their right. Just like the bakery's choice to not make gay cakes. But big tech companies working together to eliminate competition is quite... bizarre. I'm not really liking where this is going. You have no shortage of bakeries. But if the time comes when Google shuts down any sites that don't follow a certain ideology, or internet providers refuse to serve certain groups of people, it can be a big problem. It's a hypothetical situation. It might be possible. Or it might not be.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2019
- Messages
- 3,047
@Teddy
This took place near one of the entrances, A riot police was dragged from the line down the stairs while being attacked before a few sane people finally stopped them from going too far.
'Caveman' could be seen in a video swinging a flagpole downward repeatedly.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/01/10/capitol-riot-officer-beating-trump-go-home-message-sot-vpx.cnn
This took place near one of the entrances, A riot police was dragged from the line down the stairs while being attacked before a few sane people finally stopped them from going too far.
'Caveman' could be seen in a video swinging a flagpole downward repeatedly.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/01/10/capitol-riot-officer-beating-trump-go-home-message-sot-vpx.cnn
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,688
Oh shit bros. It's happening.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2019
- Messages
- 11
@Mr_Detective
The thing is, Twitter and other Web 2.0 services have a bit of a special status (I think the English legal term was "public forum"?). To simplify, they aren't responsible for what people post - if somebody posted child porn, for example, twitter couldn't be taken down over it - but in return, they have to guarantee "free" speech (in the limits of law and TOS) on their platform.
Banning somebody for telling rioters to "go home" definitely goes against that. Though I'm pretty sure US courts are too cucked to do anything about it now that it's not about a lefty.
It isn't, though. Definitely not where I live (Germany, where there were multiple court decisions on the matter, most ending with the banned accounts having to be reinstated), and afaik not in the US either.
The thing is, Twitter and other Web 2.0 services have a bit of a special status (I think the English legal term was "public forum"?). To simplify, they aren't responsible for what people post - if somebody posted child porn, for example, twitter couldn't be taken down over it - but in return, they have to guarantee "free" speech (in the limits of law and TOS) on their platform.
Banning somebody for telling rioters to "go home" definitely goes against that. Though I'm pretty sure US courts are too cucked to do anything about it now that it's not about a lefty.
... unless I disagree with them.
Demonitize LGB videos = not okay
Demonitize people I don't like = very okay
Open your small business = NO!
Open your billion dollar business = Yassss
Censor "nazis" = good
Free speech = bad
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
🧐
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2019
- Messages
- 3,047
@theforgottenfox
A fire extinguisher was credited with the kill and allegedly this is not the same cop.
@Ulfhednar
1st Amendment only protects the people from the government and those connected to it, beyond that it's largely decided by the Supreme Court. Additionally, free speech does not cover all speeches.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Interesting thing to note is that hate speech is indeed protected by the 1st amendment.
Whether this is right or not is an entirely different animal in of itself and one I hold very little opinion on.
In retrospect the ban probably isn't a bad PR move given how royally screwed Parler is now; there have been calls to ban the president before, guess this was the final straw. Besides, the president has his own press room...he could uhhh....use it?
A fire extinguisher was credited with the kill and allegedly this is not the same cop.
@Ulfhednar
1st Amendment only protects the people from the government and those connected to it, beyond that it's largely decided by the Supreme Court. Additionally, free speech does not cover all speeches.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Interesting thing to note is that hate speech is indeed protected by the 1st amendment.
Whether this is right or not is an entirely different animal in of itself and one I hold very little opinion on.
In retrospect the ban probably isn't a bad PR move given how royally screwed Parler is now; there have been calls to ban the president before, guess this was the final straw. Besides, the president has his own press room...he could uhhh....use it?
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2020
- Messages
- 164
Can´t find a word for the capitol riot other than extremism. This behaviour actually seems kinda cult-like to me, maybe it´s just my bias, but these guys were rambling about a revolution and then interrupting a formal meeting out of pure devotion to one leader. The same thing happened in 1933. These people claimed it was a revolution but it was nowhere near that. Patriotism ain´t about the president, it´s about the country
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 531
@AstralLaine
I think that they have to fuckin A C C E L E R A T E. USA being a role model to all third countries through globalism and Hollywood makes me sick. Just doing a little following to USA politics makes you realize they have the same corrupt ruling class as everyone else, but worse because they dare to had the moral high ground.
Nah mate, they did what they did out of desperation because they fully know the consequences of having the left taking the decisions. The recent censorship is a little taste of what is coming to them. It's hard to believe but those crazy hillbillies are the rational ones.
Anyway, fuck democracy.
I think that they have to fuckin A C C E L E R A T E. USA being a role model to all third countries through globalism and Hollywood makes me sick. Just doing a little following to USA politics makes you realize they have the same corrupt ruling class as everyone else, but worse because they dare to had the moral high ground.
Nah mate, they did what they did out of desperation because they fully know the consequences of having the left taking the decisions. The recent censorship is a little taste of what is coming to them. It's hard to believe but those crazy hillbillies are the rational ones.
Anyway, fuck democracy.
@DeusNine
A moral coward I see. It would be quite hard for someone like you to understand what the thought process of (an admittedly retarded) moral hero would be then.
To be fair, I would also consider the actions of any election official who literally believed Trump was the second coming of Hitler working against letting Hitler take office as also being morally courageous.
Whether or not any election fraud took place, probably not, I don't care.
A moral coward I see. It would be quite hard for someone like you to understand what the thought process of (an admittedly retarded) moral hero would be then.
To be fair, I would also consider the actions of any election official who literally believed Trump was the second coming of Hitler working against letting Hitler take office as also being morally courageous.
Whether or not any election fraud took place, probably not, I don't care.
- Status
Similar threads
