Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The issue with schools refusing kids who aren't vaccinated seems to be enforcement. Schools can't legally ask for medical background here and parents could lie. If you just refuse a kid based on the suspiscion you open yourself up to a discrimination lawsuit as a public school. I assume the hurdle is practically the same for schools in the US?
In Texas, you gave to show proof of immunization for many school districts and universities.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote: That's what the mid-term results will find out.
But anyway, if it's not enough, I don't think Trump has anything else to offer anyone except what he's already giving his core supporters. He's certainly doubling down on the main messages of "deep state", "fake media" and so on.
A lot of the rest of the Republican Party are only supporting him because they are scared of deselection by Trumpists in their constituencies. It's like the Tea Party on steroids. As soon as Republicans see they are more at danger of losing to Democrat candidates, the GOP tide will turn against Trump.
Like at the presidential election, this places the burden on the Democrats to mobilise maximum possible support.
You are forgetting something: 4.2%GDP growth.
You're forgetting that that is quarterly, its predicted to dive below the US average around election time (and keeps going down in 2019). Its the buildup before the tariffs hit
I work in construction estimating, and we are advising a 4 to 10% (depending) tariff premium on all projects. Given that some projects struggle to squeeze every last dollar out of the budget to get approval, this pointless, stupid tariff war will certainly stop some projects going forward.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
d-usa wrote: The article that started all this by assigning liberal vs conservative labels to sources has Infowars as “center-right”. If Infowars is “center-right”, everything becomes liberal by comparison.
Why are you assuming that the media is wrong and the people correct? What if the media isn't biased, but the people is?
It is not the medias job to be "right". It's job is to be objective give people information - that should also include not scaring people into a panic - providing references to give people perspective.
For example.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/sport/lebron-james-scary-police-son/index.html This story got a lot of hype. "OMG! Even the king of basketball is afraid his son is going to get shot by police! This is a serious issue"
https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2 He should actually be 10 times more concerned if his kid wants to ride motorcycles. Plus his son twice as likely to die choking eating food. This is what objective journalism would look like if it did exist. Gotta be real. The only place you are going to get this kind of info is by looking for it on your own. Or finding a news organization where offering this information is part of their agenda. Not saying it's any better on the right. There is just 10 times less of it coming from the right because they are 10% of what is out there i the news. This leads to a lot more left wing misinformation being released to the public than right wing misinformation. This is very bad.
Adress my point. Why do you assume that it's automatically the media at fault, rather than part of the population?
Are you suggesting the population has some sort of control over the media? Because it really works the other way around. People are susceptible to suggestion. Sure - people could just lose faith in the news media and watch something else AND THEY DO. This is where click bait media comes from. Large news organizations are doing whatever it takes to get peoples attention - this also includes exaggerated articles that feed off of peoples most baser instincts. Fear, prejudice, anger, ect. Problem is - is that is working pretty well for them. This happens on both sides. It is equally appalling that it is happening on ether side. It really seems reactionary on the right though IMO just out of my own personal experience.
So, is your argument that The Media has a left-wing bias that is out of whack with the larger US population, and your evidence for that argument is that The Media is heavily relying on stories that have a lowest common denominator wide appeal with the larger US population?
Wouldn't it have to be either that the media is not giving the masses what they want, and they are instead unfairly biased towards trying to convince the population of something they don't believe, OR that the media is giving the masses what they want and leaving the truth to the wayside?
How do you get both?
The media is giving people what they want. That is the problem. There is a reason we banned gladiator combat to the death. It is barbaric - however - people would most certainly watch it. People have a natural attraction to death and conflict.
I will quote the great James Maynard Kennan - Truly awesome song called Vicarious.
"We all feed on tragedy - It's like blood to a vampire. Vicariously I live - while the whole world dies."
Really the whole song is on this topic.
The thing is - this isn't all we want. We also like to hear happy stories. Stories about progress. Stories about hope. You don't see those anymore because they have less click bait success. Plus no one talks about them or comments on them so they make less money.
Okay. Wouldn't it then follow that the media has a negative bias, rather than a liberal bias? Because I entirely buy that, for all the reasons you list. People are drawn to negative stories, and when the government is entirely controlled by one party, and the media is primarily negative...you get negative stories centering around that political party.
It's not like the media doesn't report on things the democratic party would like to sweep under the rug, like all Hilary clinton's primary shenanigans, Anthony Weiner, Benghazi, etc.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
d-usa wrote: The article that started all this by assigning liberal vs conservative labels to sources has Infowars as “center-right”. If Infowars is “center-right”, everything becomes liberal by comparison.
Why are you assuming that the media is wrong and the people correct? What if the media isn't biased, but the people is?
It is not the medias job to be "right". It's job is to be objective give people information - that should also include not scaring people into a panic - providing references to give people perspective.
For example.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/sport/lebron-james-scary-police-son/index.html This story got a lot of hype. "OMG! Even the king of basketball is afraid his son is going to get shot by police! This is a serious issue"
https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2 He should actually be 10 times more concerned if his kid wants to ride motorcycles. Plus his son twice as likely to die choking eating food. This is what objective journalism would look like if it did exist. Gotta be real. The only place you are going to get this kind of info is by looking for it on your own. Or finding a news organization where offering this information is part of their agenda. Not saying it's any better on the right. There is just 10 times less of it coming from the right because they are 10% of what is out there i the news. This leads to a lot more left wing misinformation being released to the public than right wing misinformation. This is very bad.
Adress my point. Why do you assume that it's automatically the media at fault, rather than part of the population?
Are you suggesting the population has some sort of control over the media? Because it really works the other way around. People are susceptible to suggestion. Sure - people could just lose faith in the news media and watch something else AND THEY DO. This is where click bait media comes from. Large news organizations are doing whatever it takes to get peoples attention - this also includes exaggerated articles that feed off of peoples most baser instincts. Fear, prejudice, anger, ect. Problem is - is that is working pretty well for them. This happens on both sides. It is equally appalling that it is happening on ether side. It really seems reactionary on the right though IMO just out of my own personal experience.
So, is your argument that The Media has a left-wing bias that is out of whack with the larger US population, and your evidence for that argument is that The Media is heavily relying on stories that have a lowest common denominator wide appeal with the larger US population?
Wouldn't it have to be either that the media is not giving the masses what they want, and they are instead unfairly biased towards trying to convince the population of something they don't believe, OR that the media is giving the masses what they want and leaving the truth to the wayside?
How do you get both?
The media is giving people what they want. That is the problem. There is a reason we banned gladiator combat to the death. It is barbaric - however - people would most certainly watch it. People have a natural attraction to death and conflict.
I will quote the great James Maynard Kennan - Truly awesome song called Vicarious.
"We all feed on tragedy - It's like blood to a vampire. Vicariously I live - while the whole world dies."
Really the whole song is on this topic.
The thing is - this isn't all we want. We also like to hear happy stories. Stories about progress. Stories about hope. You don't see those anymore because they have less click bait success. Plus no one talks about them or comments on them so they make less money.
Just wanted to jump in and say you've earned an exalt for pulling in a Tool song.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Can I just say it’s hilarious that Trump is Constitutionally not allowed to block people on Twitter? Cause it’s pretty damn funny
Beyond hysterical.... and a little too disturbing at the same time.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The issue with schools refusing kids who aren't vaccinated seems to be enforcement. Schools can't legally ask for medical background here and parents could lie. If you just refuse a kid based on the suspiscion you open yourself up to a discrimination lawsuit as a public school. I assume the hurdle is practically the same for schools in the US?
In Texas, you gave to show proof of immunization for many school districts and universities.
In Missouri as well... including all private schools.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/29 17:49:07
d-usa wrote: The article that started all this by assigning liberal vs conservative labels to sources has Infowars as “center-right”. If Infowars is “center-right”, everything becomes liberal by comparison.
Why are you assuming that the media is wrong and the people correct? What if the media isn't biased, but the people is?
It is not the medias job to be "right". It's job is to be objective give people information - that should also include not scaring people into a panic - providing references to give people perspective.
For example.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/sport/lebron-james-scary-police-son/index.html This story got a lot of hype. "OMG! Even the king of basketball is afraid his son is going to get shot by police! This is a serious issue"
https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2 He should actually be 10 times more concerned if his kid wants to ride motorcycles. Plus his son twice as likely to die choking eating food. This is what objective journalism would look like if it did exist. Gotta be real. The only place you are going to get this kind of info is by looking for it on your own. Or finding a news organization where offering this information is part of their agenda. Not saying it's any better on the right. There is just 10 times less of it coming from the right because they are 10% of what is out there i the news. This leads to a lot more left wing misinformation being released to the public than right wing misinformation. This is very bad.
Adress my point. Why do you assume that it's automatically the media at fault, rather than part of the population?
Are you suggesting the population has some sort of control over the media? Because it really works the other way around. People are susceptible to suggestion. Sure - people could just lose faith in the news media and watch something else AND THEY DO. This is where click bait media comes from. Large news organizations are doing whatever it takes to get peoples attention - this also includes exaggerated articles that feed off of peoples most baser instincts. Fear, prejudice, anger, ect. Problem is - is that is working pretty well for them. This happens on both sides. It is equally appalling that it is happening on ether side. It really seems reactionary on the right though IMO just out of my own personal experience.
So, is your argument that The Media has a left-wing bias that is out of whack with the larger US population, and your evidence for that argument is that The Media is heavily relying on stories that have a lowest common denominator wide appeal with the larger US population?
Wouldn't it have to be either that the media is not giving the masses what they want, and they are instead unfairly biased towards trying to convince the population of something they don't believe, OR that the media is giving the masses what they want and leaving the truth to the wayside?
How do you get both?
The media is giving people what they want. That is the problem. There is a reason we banned gladiator combat to the death. It is barbaric - however - people would most certainly watch it. People have a natural attraction to death and conflict.
I will quote the great James Maynard Kennan - Truly awesome song called Vicarious.
"We all feed on tragedy - It's like blood to a vampire. Vicariously I live - while the whole world dies."
Really the whole song is on this topic.
The thing is - this isn't all we want. We also like to hear happy stories. Stories about progress. Stories about hope. You don't see those anymore because they have less click bait success. Plus no one talks about them or comments on them so they make less money.
Okay. Wouldn't it then follow that the media has a negative bias, rather than a liberal bias? Because I entirely buy that, for all the reasons you list. People are drawn to negative stories, and when the government is entirely controlled by one party, and the media is primarily negative...you get negative stories centering around that political party.
It's not like the media doesn't report on things the democratic party would like to sweep under the rug, like all Hilary clinton's primary shenanigans, Anthony Weiner, Benghazi, etc.
Two parts. All media has become more (click baity, negative, draws on instincts) and 90% of journalist identify as liberal. Both bias exist. Did you see the Politico article I posted earlier? Shows the leanings of each news organization?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Can I just say it’s hilarious that Trump is Constitutionally not allowed to block people on Twitter? Cause it’s pretty damn funny
Yeah you have to laugh at it. Trump can't block people but twitter can.
My personal opinion should be that nether have the ability to block. Once a social media platform reaches a certain level - it should have the same rules as any type of public communication. Imagine if Verizon banned a certain group of people from using their services? Why should twitter be treated any different?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/29 18:54:54
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Kilkrazy wrote: That's what the mid-term results will find out.
But anyway, if it's not enough, I don't think Trump has anything else to offer anyone except what he's already giving his core supporters. He's certainly doubling down on the main messages of "deep state", "fake media" and so on.
A lot of the rest of the Republican Party are only supporting him because they are scared of deselection by Trumpists in their constituencies. It's like the Tea Party on steroids. As soon as Republicans see they are more at danger of losing to Democrat candidates, the GOP tide will turn against Trump.
Like at the presidential election, this places the burden on the Democrats to mobilise maximum possible support.
You are forgetting something: 4.2%GDP growth.
"I don't believe that's the real number. I think that's a made up number and the real number is way lower."
Remember when under the Obama administration, every time the lower unemployment numbers would come in, you would say something like that, that the numbers were somehow faked?
Isn't that super annoying?
Food for thought
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 18:52:30
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
What’s wrong with that? Twitter is a private company, Trump is representing the office of the POTUS (I assume this is on the POTUS account and he could do what he wanted on his personal account). Not sure why it’s an issue that twitter can block people’s communication on their platform but the US government can’t stop people from communicating with them on a platform they have chosen to use.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Steve steveson wrote: (I assume this is on the POTUS account and he could do what he wanted on his personal account).
This is mostly correct. Trump can not block people while using twitter for official government business. It gets kind of awkward because, unlike everyone else, he has no concept of how government works and uses his personal account as the de facto POTUS account. So long as he refuses to maintain separation between the two uses the "official business" rules will apply to his personal account.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The ruling Judge’s decision is basically that Trump’s Twitter is official correspondence (as ruled in a prior case) and therefore Trump cannot block Americans from seeing it. The Judge did say that Trump can use the mute feature to hide replies from people who don’t kiss his ass but he can’t block since blocking prevents blocked users from seeing anything. There’s probably a censorship argument in there somewhere too but I don’t think anyone made it in court.
And yeah. Twitter is a private company. They can legally block anything they please but I’m glad to see Republican dedication to free speech and free market principals is as empty and shallow as everything else they espouse.
Edit: sorry bout that I apparently hit quote on the wrong post
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/29 19:11:59
Steve steveson wrote: (I assume this is on the POTUS account and he could do what he wanted on his personal account).
This is mostly correct. Trump can not block people while using twitter for official government business. It gets kind of awkward because, unlike everyone else, he has no concept of how government works and uses his personal account as the de facto POTUS account. So long as he refuses to maintain separation between the two uses the "official business" rules will apply to his personal account.
Edit: Trump apparently can't block on ether.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 19:21:57
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Steve steveson wrote: What’s wrong with that? Twitter is a private company, Trump is representing the office of the POTUS (I assume this is on the POTUS account and he could do what he wanted on his personal account). Not sure why it’s an issue that twitter can block people’s communication on their platform but the US government can’t stop people from communicating with them on a platform they have chosen to use.
it applies to his personal account as well since Spicer went off and called those tweets official statements of the president thus making his Twitter feed a public forum.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
It’s a case of not being able to have cake and eat it too. Trump has used his Twitter to announce new policies and appointments as well as to communicate as President with other officials. He can’t use his Twitter account for Presidential business and treat it as a personal resource. The original case ruled he either had to establish an official Presidential Twitter separate from his personal use or his Twitter would be treated as an official line of communication and thus subject to restrictions on what he can and can’t do on it.
I believe that case was about Trump deleting Twitter posts but I’d have to go back and check?
The ruling Judge’s decision is basically that Trump’s Twitter is official correspondence (as ruled in a prior case) and therefore Trump cannot block Americans from seeing it. The Judge did say that Trump can use the mute feature to hide replies from people who don’t kiss his ass but he can’t block since blocking prevents blocked users from seeing anything. There’s probably a censorship argument in there somewhere too but I don’t think anyone made it in court.
And yeah. Twitter is a private company. They can legally block anything they please but I’m glad to see Republican dedication to free speech and free market principals is as empty and shallow as everything else they espouse.
Edit: sorry bout that I apparently hit quote on the wrong post
You realize you are talking about twitter having the right to block speech? I totally agree that they currently have the right to block anyone they please. In reality though - we are talking about a massive worldwide communication network - how the heck are they going to regulate what they block and who makes those decisions?
I don't think verizon should be able to block people from using their services in the same way I don't think twitter should.
In the same way I don't think a renter should not be able to not rent to minorites.
In the same way I don't think a private school should be able to not accept black applicants.
These are all examples of private entities that are not allowed to discriminate by law. All social media should fall under the same umbrella.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/29 19:27:58
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
The ruling Judge’s decision is basically that Trump’s Twitter is official correspondence (as ruled in a prior case) and therefore Trump cannot block Americans from seeing it. The Judge did say that Trump can use the mute feature to hide replies from people who don’t kiss his ass but he can’t block since blocking prevents blocked users from seeing anything. There’s probably a censorship argument in there somewhere too but I don’t think anyone made it in court.
And yeah. Twitter is a private company. They can legally block anything they please but I’m glad to see Republican dedication to free speech and free market principals is as empty and shallow as everything else they espouse.
Edit: sorry bout that I apparently hit quote on the wrong post
You realize you are talking about twitter having the right to block speech? I totally agree that they currently have the right to block anyone they please. In reality though - we are talking about a massive worldwide communication network - how the heck are they going to regulate what they block and who makes those decisions?
I don't think verizon should be able to block people from using their services in the same way I don't think twitter should.
In the same way I don't think a renter should not be able to not rent to minorites.
In the same way I don't think a private school should be able to not accept black applicants.
These are all examples of private entities that are not allowed to discriminate by law. All social media should fall under the same umbrella.
There's a slight difference here. It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. as they're all protected classes, and Twitter cannot legally do so. "Being a raging douchebag" is not a protected class.
I’ll keep that in mind next time I’m temp banned for a rule one violation. How dare DakkaDakka regulate my speech as a privately hosted media platform! Clearly only the state should hold the power to regulate what I can and can’t say on the internet.
Of course lunacy like that is how I end up violating rule one in the first place because my capacity to not call self serving idiocy what it is is extremely limited.
Edit yeah some things are just to poignant not to post
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/29 19:31:02
Kilkrazy wrote: That's what the mid-term results will find out.
But anyway, if it's not enough, I don't think Trump has anything else to offer anyone except what he's already giving his core supporters. He's certainly doubling down on the main messages of "deep state", "fake media" and so on.
A lot of the rest of the Republican Party are only supporting him because they are scared of deselection by Trumpists in their constituencies. It's like the Tea Party on steroids. As soon as Republicans see they are more at danger of losing to Democrat candidates, the GOP tide will turn against Trump.
Like at the presidential election, this places the burden on the Democrats to mobilise maximum possible support.
You are forgetting something: 4.2%GDP growth.
"I don't believe that's the real number. I think that's a made up number and the real number is way lower."
Remember when under the Obama administration, every time the lower unemployment numbers would come in, you would say something like that, that the numbers were somehow faked?
Isn't that super annoying?
Food for thought
It’s democrats calculating these numbers, or else they wouldn’t work for the government. So it’s probably closer to 8%.
The ruling Judge’s decision is basically that Trump’s Twitter is official correspondence (as ruled in a prior case) and therefore Trump cannot block Americans from seeing it. The Judge did say that Trump can use the mute feature to hide replies from people who don’t kiss his ass but he can’t block since blocking prevents blocked users from seeing anything. There’s probably a censorship argument in there somewhere too but I don’t think anyone made it in court.
And yeah. Twitter is a private company. They can legally block anything they please but I’m glad to see Republican dedication to free speech and free market principals is as empty and shallow as everything else they espouse.
Edit: sorry bout that I apparently hit quote on the wrong post
You realize you are talking about twitter having the right to block speech? I totally agree that they currently have the right to block anyone they please. In reality though - we are talking about a massive worldwide communication network - how the heck are they going to regulate what they block and who makes those decisions?
I don't think verizon should be able to block people from using their services in the same way I don't think twitter should.
In the same way I don't think a renter should not be able to not rent to minorites.
In the same way I don't think a private school should be able to not accept black applicants.
These are all examples of private entities that are not allowed to discriminate by law. All social media should fall under the same umbrella.
There's a slight difference here. It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. as they're all protected classes, and Twitter cannot legally do so. "Being a raging douchebag" is not a protected class.
But that would undermine the "the right should have unlimited platforms and tolerance even as they espouse denying others the same" narrative
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
The ruling Judge’s decision is basically that Trump’s Twitter is official correspondence (as ruled in a prior case) and therefore Trump cannot block Americans from seeing it. The Judge did say that Trump can use the mute feature to hide replies from people who don’t kiss his ass but he can’t block since blocking prevents blocked users from seeing anything. There’s probably a censorship argument in there somewhere too but I don’t think anyone made it in court.
And yeah. Twitter is a private company. They can legally block anything they please but I’m glad to see Republican dedication to free speech and free market principals is as empty and shallow as everything else they espouse.
Edit: sorry bout that I apparently hit quote on the wrong post
You realize you are talking about twitter having the right to block speech? I totally agree that they currently have the right to block anyone they please. In reality though - we are talking about a massive worldwide communication network - how the heck are they going to regulate what they block and who makes those decisions?
I don't think verizon should be able to block people from using their services in the same way I don't think twitter should.
In the same way I don't think a renter should not be able to not rent to minorites.
In the same way I don't think a private school should be able to not accept black applicants.
These are all examples of private entities that are not allowed to discriminate by law. All social media should fall under the same umbrella.
There's a slight difference here. It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. as they're all protected classes, and Twitter cannot legally do so. "Being a raging douchebag" is not a protected class.
Being a raging D bag is a matter of opinion though. Who gets to make the distinction? Right now it's twitter. I think Congress needs to step in an set some guidelines here. Really - this is politically motivated. Being a raging D bag should be protected anyways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 19:31:35
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: You realize you are talking about twitter having the right to block speech?
Yes, that is how private property works. Aren't conservatives in favor of private property rights? Are you really going to argue for state annexation of private property to comply with conservative ideology?
how the heck are they going to regulate what they block and who makes those decisions?
However they want. That's how private property works.
I don't think verizon should be able to block people from using their services in the same way I don't think twitter should.
Twitter is not a common carrier and does not fall under the same regulations as Verizon.
In the same way I don't think a renter should not be able to not rent to minorites.
In the same way I don't think a private school should be able to not accept black applicants.
There is a huge difference between discrimination against a historically disadvantaged group in providing essential services and an entertainment company declining to publish content they do not agree with. And renters and private schools can refuse service to people for other reasons, as long as it isn't based on membership in a protected class. A renter is absolutely free to refuse to rent to Patriots fans (all of them the lowest of scum). Similarly, twitter can not ban someone because they are black but they absolutely can refuse to publish pro-Patriots material.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's what the mid-term results will find out.
But anyway, if it's not enough, I don't think Trump has anything else to offer anyone except what he's already giving his core supporters. He's certainly doubling down on the main messages of "deep state", "fake media" and so on.
A lot of the rest of the Republican Party are only supporting him because they are scared of deselection by Trumpists in their constituencies. It's like the Tea Party on steroids. As soon as Republicans see they are more at danger of losing to Democrat candidates, the GOP tide will turn against Trump.
Like at the presidential election, this places the burden on the Democrats to mobilise maximum possible support.
You are forgetting something: 4.2%GDP growth.
"I don't believe that's the real number. I think that's a made up number and the real number is way lower."
Remember when under the Obama administration, every time the lower unemployment numbers would come in, you would say something like that, that the numbers were somehow faked?
Isn't that super annoying?
Food for thought
It’s democrats calculating these numbers, or else they wouldn’t work for the government. So it’s probably closer to 8%.
Are you sure ya'll meant to say the Right's complaints to the unemployment numbers in Obama years?? That issue was due to the fact that the percentages is based on the # of people in the workplace. Which is a real misleading statistic as it doesn't count the folks who are able to work, but decided to "leave" the workforce.
Protected from what? You are free to rage all you want and the government will not imprison you. That doesn't mean that private citizens can't say "wow, you're a " and refuse to be your friend, and it doesn't mean that private businesses are obligated to publish your raging to the audience you want to yell at.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The ruling Judge’s decision is basically that Trump’s Twitter is official correspondence (as ruled in a prior case) and therefore Trump cannot block Americans from seeing it. The Judge did say that Trump can use the mute feature to hide replies from people who don’t kiss his ass but he can’t block since blocking prevents blocked users from seeing anything. There’s probably a censorship argument in there somewhere too but I don’t think anyone made it in court.
And yeah. Twitter is a private company. They can legally block anything they please but I’m glad to see Republican dedication to free speech and free market principals is as empty and shallow as everything else they espouse.
Edit: sorry bout that I apparently hit quote on the wrong post
You realize you are talking about twitter having the right to block speech? I totally agree that they currently have the right to block anyone they please. In reality though - we are talking about a massive worldwide communication network - how the heck are they going to regulate what they block and who makes those decisions?
I don't think verizon should be able to block people from using their services in the same way I don't think twitter should. In the same way I don't think a renter should not be able to not rent to minorites. In the same way I don't think a private school should be able to not accept black applicants.
These are all examples of private entities that are not allowed to discriminate by law. All social media should fall under the same umbrella.
There's a slight difference here. It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. as they're all protected classes, and Twitter cannot legally do so. "Being a raging douchebag" is not a protected class.
Being a raging D bag is a matter of opinion though. Who gets to make the distinction? Right now it's twitter. I think Congress needs to step in an set some guidelines here. Really - this is politically motivated. Being a raging D bag should be protected anyways.
Xeno: I wouldn't go that far. Twitter can do whatever the hell they want in this regard...and to me, the best conservative answer to Twitter's bias/censorship is to simpl7 not partake, or find alternatives.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 19:35:31
I'm so glad that people who were perfectly fine with corporations being able to exclude contraceptive coverage from their health insurance plans based on their personal feelings on contraception are now perfectly fine with twitter blocking people's access to their service based on personal feelings about the content of those people posts.
Wait, what do you mean they're okay with the former but not the latter?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 19:36:02
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I'm so glad that people who were perfectly fine with corporations being able to exclude contraceptive coverage from their health insurance plans based on their personal feelings on contraception are now perfectly fine with twitter blocking people's access to their service based on personal feelings about the content of those people posts.
Wait, what do you mean they're okay with the former but not the latter?
Corporation offering 'x' as compensation is not the same thing as a Corporation allowing bias/censorship to their participants.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I'm so glad that people who were perfectly fine with corporations being able to exclude contraceptive coverage from their health insurance plans based on their personal feelings on contraception are now perfectly fine with twitter blocking people's access to their service based on personal feelings about the content of those people posts.
Wait, what do you mean they're okay with the former but not the latter?
They will of course inform you that those two situations are not comparable at all, as one is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief and the other is just those damn Liberals ruining the country.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Kilkrazy wrote: That's what the mid-term results will find out.
But anyway, if it's not enough, I don't think Trump has anything else to offer anyone except what he's already giving his core supporters. He's certainly doubling down on the main messages of "deep state", "fake media" and so on.
A lot of the rest of the Republican Party are only supporting him because they are scared of deselection by Trumpists in their constituencies. It's like the Tea Party on steroids. As soon as Republicans see they are more at danger of losing to Democrat candidates, the GOP tide will turn against Trump.
Like at the presidential election, this places the burden on the Democrats to mobilise maximum possible support.
You are forgetting something: 4.2%GDP growth.
"I don't believe that's the real number. I think that's a made up number and the real number is way lower."
Remember when under the Obama administration, every time the lower unemployment numbers would come in, you would say something like that, that the numbers were somehow faked?
Isn't that super annoying?
Food for thought
It’s democrats calculating these numbers, or else they wouldn’t work for the government. So it’s probably closer to 8%.
Are you sure ya'll meant to say the Right's complaints to the unemployment numbers in Obama years?? That issue was due to the fact that the percentages is based on the # of people in the workplace. Which is a real misleading statistic as it doesn't count the folks who are able to work, but decided to "leave" the workforce.
The unemployment rate is just a poor stat for representing the overall state of the labor economy. It needs to be viewed in proper context with the underemployment rate and the workforce participation rate. It's like evaluating a pitcher based solely on his win/loss record. Going by wins and losses Gsellman is a better pitcher for the Mets this season than de Grom but when you look at K/9, WHIP, WAR and ERA it's clear that de Grom is arguably the best pitcher in the NL this year and Gsellman is average.
This is just another example of partisanship tinted glasses. The flaws of the unemployment rate being used as a metric of economic success are either highlighted or glossed over depending on whether or not it's a (R) or (D) administration in the white house and the politics of the person commenting.
There might be a leg to stand on on the services vs benefits front if the contraceptive cases wasn’t ruled on with a speech component and there’s an easy transition there that makes the issues legally very similar. In fact the services case is stronger since benefits have a lot more legalism around them than service restrictions and Twitter isn’t so significant that not using it will definitively impact your life in the same way that not taking employer health insurance will significantly impact your bank account.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 19:48:53
Xenomancers wrote: You realize you are talking about twitter having the right to block speech?
Yes, that is how private property works. Aren't conservatives in favor of private property rights? Are you really going to argue for state annexation of private property to comply with conservative ideology?
how the heck are they going to regulate what they block and who makes those decisions?
However they want. That's how private property works.
I don't think verizon should be able to block people from using their services in the same way I don't think twitter should.
Twitter is not a common carrier and does not fall under the same regulations as Verizon.
In the same way I don't think a renter should not be able to not rent to minorites.
In the same way I don't think a private school should be able to not accept black applicants.
There is a huge difference between discrimination against a historically disadvantaged group in providing essential services and an entertainment company declining to publish content they do not agree with. And renters and private schools can refuse service to people for other reasons, as long as it isn't based on membership in a protected class. A renter is absolutely free to refuse to rent to Patriots fans (all of them the lowest of scum). Similarly, twitter can not ban someone because they are black but they absolutely can refuse to publish pro-Patriots material.
These were all just my opinions. I see discrimination as being very black and white. We all know why info wars was banned. It wasn't because Alex Jones is anymore crazy than probably 100k equally crazy people who have twitter accounts and say crazy things. He was banned because he was a popular far right figure. I don't think that should be legal. There should be protections like the ones I described above - for everyone on social network platforms.
The thing is - this is going to have a negative consequence. I don't believe Alex believes anything he says anyways. If he does. His paranoia has been confirmed. This is about the most descrutive thing you can do to a paranoid person. He - and his entire following just got stronger. Congrats twitter. Remember Wako?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: I'm so glad that people who were perfectly fine with corporations being able to exclude contraceptive coverage from their health insurance plans based on their personal feelings on contraception are now perfectly fine with twitter blocking people's access to their service based on personal feelings about the content of those people posts.
Wait, what do you mean they're okay with the former but not the latter?
Personally - contraception is not health related in the sense that it is an optional life style. It should not be covered based on that alone. Another thing - no one forces you to work at a place that doesn't offer a particular benefit and so many people are uninsured arguing over contraception seems out of place. Ultimately though - I care so little about this issue that I don't mind it being covered in the least. Plus it has the added befit of preventing unwanted pregnancies for - me, and my other friends. I don't understand the push back on this issue.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/08/29 20:01:45
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: You realize you are talking about twitter having the right to block speech?
Yes, that is how private property works. Aren't conservatives in favor of private property rights? Are you really going to argue for state annexation of private property to comply with conservative ideology?
how the heck are they going to regulate what they block and who makes those decisions?
However they want. That's how private property works.
I don't think verizon should be able to block people from using their services in the same way I don't think twitter should.
Twitter is not a common carrier and does not fall under the same regulations as Verizon.
In the same way I don't think a renter should not be able to not rent to minorites.
In the same way I don't think a private school should be able to not accept black applicants.
There is a huge difference between discrimination against a historically disadvantaged group in providing essential services and an entertainment company declining to publish content they do not agree with. And renters and private schools can refuse service to people for other reasons, as long as it isn't based on membership in a protected class. A renter is absolutely free to refuse to rent to Patriots fans (all of them the lowest of scum). Similarly, twitter can not ban someone because they are black but they absolutely can refuse to publish pro-Patriots material.
These were all just my opinions. I see discrimination as being very black and white. We all know why info wars was banned. It wasn't because Alex Jones is anymore crazy than probably 100k equally crazy people who have twitter accounts and say crazy things. He was banned because he was a popular far right figure.
He was banned because he was engaged in libelous slander, direct harrassment, and direct incitement to violence.
If you want to claim those as being far right platforms, feel free, but I mean plenty of other far right personalities haven't been banned, basically none of them that aren't engaging in the above kinds of behaviors.
I don't think that should be legal. There should be protections like the ones I described above - for everyone on social network platforms.
Well, you are free to advocate for government regulation of private social media organization's handling of what users choose to post, but that would feel like a major overreach of government authority.
There's an argument that Google and Facebook own far too large a share of the internet right now, and that market power does bear scrutiny, but thats more a Trust thing than a speech thing.
The thing is - this is going to have a negative consequence. I don't believe Alex believes anything he says anyways. If he does. His paranoia has been confirmed. This is about the most descrutive thing you can do to a paranoid person. He - and his entire following just got stronger. Congrats twitter. Remember Wako?
So it's Twitters fault for a crazy person doing something crazy when they ban them for repeatedly and intentionally doing crazy things?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 20:10:26
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
" and refuse to be your friend, and it doesn't mean that private businesses are obligated to publish your raging to the audience you want to yell at.
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
