General politics discussion. Keep it civil.

[kingkilburn]

And back to the internet censorship topic...

https://www.krem.com/article/news/lo...6-8d800d2a03fb

An Idaho ISP is blocking Facebook and Twitter. I'm pretty sure that's not legal where as Twitter and Facebook removing content that goes against their TOS is perfectly legal.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Would be interesting to see their ToS and whether or not they reserve the right to block websites on certain grounds.

Then we can have a discussion on whether or not Internet access is a right in a time when most libraries are either closed or on restricted hours.

[kingkilburn]

I'd argue that highspeed internet access is a right and should be regulated as a utility.

[dizzariot]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

But conversations in the public sphere matter. The ability for people to converse gets creative juices flowing-provided the Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram algorithms don't just place the people in echo chambers. There should be no question about it: Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram all helped create the situations for genesis. They put like-minded people in rooms where the reading material was all war and no peace.

Now they're saying "omg this is bad" when culpability was being spoken of- and changing the direction of the narrative. Where were the heavy-handed ban hammers when it was obvious troll farms based outside the US were spreading rumor after rumor, making it impossible for simple people with a 9-to-5 to tell fact from fiction in the hour they gave themselves to cruise Facebook? Where was the civic-minded introspection when people were literally being radicalized in front of our faces?

+ 156,485,235.67

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Russia DID use Facebook and Twitter to steer the outcome of that election. There is no doubt. I hope the incoming administration and Congress lay it all out so there can be no doubt.

In 2020 there was no wide spread fraud or undue influence except that by Donald Trump. There is no equivalency here.

Again, the lessons social media learned from 2016 were put into practice. They didn't target Russia and Republicans. They targeted bots, smurf accounts, coordinated posting with no "source", and more, and Republicans and hyper conservative NGOs got caught AGAIN. They're doing their job decently well and if anything they delayed doing it until after the election to appear impartial when they should have been doing it the whole time.


BTW, we aren't talking about censorship in the town free speech zone. We're talking about curation on a privately owned physical literal bulletin board. I can and will curate my bulletin board how I see fit and I don't even have to tell you what that means. You have to get it out of your heads that social media is any different. If you don't like their policies and bias then make your own, and maybe do a better job of curtailing incitement than Parler did.

...I understand this. I said it a few times. My topic is basically the conundrum brought up by allowing these privately owned platforms to influence a generation of voters BECAUSE they have the right to curate. People will constantly compare Trump to a certain infamous German leader but controlling the narrative is also being done by these platforms. Like I said, you can sing their praises while it's in your favor but what happens when it isn't?

I guess this topic really has no 'end'. If you believe Twitter is doing a stellar job then that's cool. I don't use the platform anyway, and I only really discuss these things here with forum members. I just believe that entities that target FoS under ANY guise will end up trying to CONTROL speech as well. Right now it's easy to support. That might not be the case in the future.

[kingkilburn]

I'm not singing their praises in the slightest. You misunderstand.
They've been held to no standard but those imposed by shareholders and advertising partners. They dance a balance of mass engagement and staying under the radar.

Twitter is begging for regulation. Youtube desperately needs federal standards for copyright imposed on them to defend themselves from larger media companies. Only Facebook wants left to their own devices and to avoid antitrust at all costs.

They all need regulation that frees them from being the bad guys in public perception by requiring them to act. It's a complicated thing we have no precedence for.

[deolio]

People have been getting kicked off social media platforms since the invention of social media - the vast majority for offenses much less than what Trump has done. In my opinion, they gave him too long of a leash (much like the mods did with zombie/rebuild) in an effort to prevent backlash, which is understandable, but its really just delaying the inevitable and allowing the damage to be done in the meantime.

Clear, concise rules/laws/terms of service/community guidelines/etc that are enforced in a fair and unbiased manner is the only way for a social network/government/society/club/etc to operate in an effective and ethical manner. Shit is universal. It ain’t rocket science, but it seems like a reminder is good every now and then.

*looks at America* FUCK we’re FUCKED

[Future240]

My thing about Repubs getting riled up is this is literally what they championed for. A private company being able to deny service as they see fit if the person they are giving the service to does not fit their values.

But when its king trump now it is an issue. The hypocrisy in Washington is sickening at times.

A true conservative would be about small government, balanced budgets, personal freedom now throwing a hissy fit when you guys loses.

The gop needs to die and from the ashes a party arises with actual conservative values.

-no needles wars
-more aid into america and less foreign aid
-tax breaks across the board
-offset the tax breaks by legalizing marijuana and mushrooms nation wide
-getting rid of blue laws. (for those not familiar these are laws throughout the nation that are quasi bible based that restrict things. for instance in some states you cannot buy alcohol on sundays)
-stop the needless social wars. If two men want to marry, personal freedom up to them as government should not try to regulate what goes on people's bedroom between consenting adults. this applies to escorts as well
-since abortion is the law, educate teens about protected sex and stop the abstinence only bullshit. Revamp the adoption system to get more kids places with more loving families.
-revamp the prison system, stop incentivizing officers to do drug busts with federal money and have then focus on other crimes, like rape, murder with said federal money

Just some ideas off the top of my head.

[Future240]

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...e-militarized/

[KA24DESOneThree]

I don't know if you guys consider this important, but GoDaddy dropped AR15.com.

Arfcom was backed up, and is back up, but it's still interesting that they shut down a site with the primary purpose of discussing a popular rifle platform. I can only assume it's because of the non-firearm conversations among the heavily conservative users of the site, least of which was a dedicated QAnon subforum. It's been a while since I ventured into the Mos Eisley spaceport that is the non-firearm subforums and holy hell. These motherfuckers are wackadoo.

Ron Paul got banned from Facebook, likely because he's a dumbass when it comes to COVID.

But... conversations forced into the shadows create radicals. Expose a person to enough propaganda and they might start believing it, and each of these new platforms concentrates voices that might otherwise be drowned out.

We need more parties. Not just two, but twenty.

[brndck]

Originally Posted by Future240

-no needles wars
-more aid into america and less foreign aid
-tax breaks across the board
-offset the tax breaks by legalizing marijuana and mushrooms nation wide
-getting rid of blue laws. (for those not familiar these are laws throughout the nation that are quasi bible based that restrict things. for instance in some states you cannot buy alcohol on sundays)
-stop the needless social wars. If two men want to marry, personal freedom up to them as government should not try to regulate what goes on people's bedroom between consenting adults. this applies to escorts as well
-since abortion is the law, educate teens about protected sex and stop the abstinence only bullshit. Revamp the adoption system to get more kids places with more loving families.
-revamp the prison system, stop incentivizing officers to do drug busts with federal money and have then focus on other crimes, like rape, murder with said federal money

Just some ideas off the top of my head.

I'm pretty far on the left but i'm in favor of all the things you listed. Other than less foreign aid spending, I don't see any of those being very popular with todays conservatives.

[kingkilburn]

Serves to show that there is no such thing as political conservatism as most Americans imagine it. Either you want things to stay largely how they are or you want some level of major change. Social conservatism should have no bearing on politics. The whole political discourse is warped by the notion that modern Republicans even have a coherent policy platform. We never even get to actual policy talk when they behave as an opposition party even in power.
For instance; let's militarize the southern border, demonize brown immigrants, actively punish undocumented workers, but also shield the ownership and management trafficking these people and paying them under the table.




In other news, Pompeo says Cuba is funding terrorism in the western hemisphere and Al Qaeda is operating out of Iran. The desperation is palpable.

[kingkilburn]

That FBI DOJ press conference was so satisfying. He had me at public corruption strike force.

[Future240]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

I don't know if you guys consider this important, but GoDaddy dropped AR15.com.

Arfcom was backed up, and is back up, but it's still interesting that they shut down a site with the primary purpose of discussing a popular rifle platform. I can only assume it's because of the non-firearm conversations among the heavily conservative users of the site, least of which was a dedicated QAnon subforum. .

I think a better response would be been to do like reddit did and just ban the subforum instead of the entire site. There are gun owners all over the political spectrum. All of my family and friends who are hardcore gun owners are strong on the left.

Originally Posted by brndck

I'm pretty far on the left but i'm in favor of all the things you listed. Other than less foreign aid spending, I don't see any of those being very popular with todays conservatives.

That is the problem. Today's "conservatives" keep fighting yesterday's culture wars.

I understand the value of social institutions, promoting family, marriage etc. however, trying to define what family and marriage is IMO goes beyond conservatism and into something else. This is where a lot of voters get left.

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Serves to show that there is no such thing as political conservatism as most Americans imagine it. Either you want things to stay largely how they are or you want some level of major change. Social conservatism should have no bearing on politics. .

I agree partially and disagree partially. I think social conservatism has a part in politics.

For instance I think it is more socially conservative to recognize that the dreamers are apart of American society by no fault on their own. Having a clear path to citizenship should be a goal. We should then put stricter laws in place and enforce them against the people who hire illegals and cause the issue in the first place.

The problem with most social conservatives is they simply define it as preserving the past society while failing to see that society changes and therefore you need to change along with it but still maintain some core principles.

For instance

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[kingkilburn]

I think my simplest answer for that is that there is no past to preserve and no force seeking to remove their current lifestyles from them. The march of progress doesn't rob them of traditional marriage, church on Sunday, beers with the boys, etc... But their crusade for an ever more idealized conservative past that never existed does rob us of hard fought progress and removes entirely the prospects of further progress.

How is the social libertarian the one calling for government to mind it's own business? lol

For me, the role of government is to provide the best possible outcomes to the greatest number of people as possible. Who cares if healthcare is a right(it is); can we satisfactorily provide healthcare to every person in the country? Fuck yeah we can. Would it be in the interest of all citizens to make work visas fast and easy? Should the pathway to citizenship be treated as a "shall grant" rather than "can grant"? Fuck yes to both.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Originally Posted by Future240

I think a better response would be been to do like reddit did and just ban the subforum instead of the entire site. There are gun owners all over the political spectrum. All of my family and friends who are hardcore gun owners are strong on the left.

That absolutely would have been the better response, but there's virtue signaling to be done, dammit.

The Alphabet Agency (FBI, CIA, ATF, DOJ) response to violence on 1/6 and the (likely) violence on 1/20 will result in reduced freedom for all Americans. Biden would likely sign any revised USAPATRIOT-style bill that crossed his desk.

Increased government intrusion does not serve us well. Some legacy, Trump. 80 miles of border wall built over four years and armed troops on every corner in DC.

[dizzariot]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

But... conversations forced into the shadows create radicals. Expose a person to enough propaganda and they might start believing it, and each of these new platforms concentrates voices that might otherwise be drowned out.

Or (shocking) maybe the people that have been written off as 'whackos' can have a discussion with you and see the light of day. We are so fast to write people off.

Originally Posted by Future240

I think a better response would be been to do like reddit did and just ban the subforum instead of the entire site.

How do you feel about the Parler debacle, then?

[Future240]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

That absolutely would have been the better response, but there's virtue signaling to be done, dammit.

The Alphabet Agency (FBI, CIA, ATF, DOJ) response to violence on 1/6 and the (likely) violence on 1/20 will result in reduced freedom for all Americans. Biden would likely sign any revised USAPATRIOT-style bill that crossed his desk.

Increased government intrusion does not serve us well. Some legacy, Trump. 80 miles of border wall built over four years and armed troops on every corner in DC.

Exactly. He would do so in the name of freedom too. It would be called something like the USAFLYINGEAGLEFREEDOM ACT.

History tells in the face of fear politicians erode freedom to "protect" the masses.

Originally Posted by dizzariot

Or (shocking) maybe the people that have been written off as 'whackos' can have a discussion with you and see the light of day. We are so fast to write people off.



How do you feel about the Parler debacle, then?

This is an entire cluster.

One one hand we can clearly see its politically motivated as the tech companies want to be on the right side of the marketing dollars.

But said removal brings up the question, Should tech companies wield that kind of power to basically control what is viewed on the net? Related article below.

https://www.axios.com/trump-social-m...a3ff0096e.html



On the other hand by shoving the off them web, you force them into places that cannot be monitored by anyone which may in the future allow the communicate even better.

https://www.axios.com/the-online-far...40bf44fef.html

On yet another hand, the possible implications.

These people were planning a crime. Clearly illegal.

Lets change it and say people were planning to meet up and have a taste of all their home distilled liquor in a gathering. Also illegal since home distilling is illegal in all 50 states.

Who gets to decided where the cut off is.

Now granted the storm the capital shit they were talking about raping and kidnapping so clearly different but one can see it is not exactly a stretch.

[SimpleS14]

A small number of House Republicans are in favor of impeachment (notably the #3 in the caucus) and Mitch McConnell has signalled his support behind the effort to convict and ban him from holding office again. As I mentioned in another thread, now would be a good time for Trump to resign. Out of pure self interest, he can resign in exchange for a pardon from Pence and retain the former president benefits. He would get the legal protection he seeks from federal crimes and he would still get the lifetime secret service protection.

[deolio]

Originally Posted by SimpleS14

now would be a good time for Trump to resign

That would require him to admit defeat. It took a failed coup for him do that last time...

[KA24DESOneThree]

Originally Posted by dizzariot

Or (shocking) maybe the people that have been written off as 'whackos' can have a discussion with you and see the light of day. We are so fast to write people off.

Have you tried conversing with people for whom facts are fluid and dependent on the perceived bias of the informer? Have you tried to have conversations with people whose method of argumentation is the gish gallop?

It's nearly impossible. The goalposts move second by second. Whataboutism is the name of the game.

My brother and I have stopped talking politics with our dad specifically because it's impossible and everyone involved gets frustrated, then things get nasty.

[FaLKoN240]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

Have you tried conversing with people for whom facts are fluid and dependent on the perceived bias of the informer? Have you tried to have conversations with people whose method of argumentation is the gish gallop?

It's nearly impossible. The goalposts move second by second. Whataboutism is the name of the game.

My brother and I have stopped talking politics with our dad specifically because it's impossible and everyone involved gets frustrated, then things get nasty.

This is literally what the Trump 2020 thread was about with the most vocal members of the staunch right. It was impossible to make points as the goal posts were always moving or other topics were brought into conversation.

[kingkilburn]

Trump is officially the first President to be impeached TWICE. The House is back in session Friday and I fully expect to hear some resolution on section 3 of the 14th amendment.

[Future240]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...u-need-to-know

[dizzariot]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

Have you tried conversing with people for whom facts are fluid and dependent on the perceived bias of the informer? Have you tried to have conversations with people whose method of argumentation is the gish gallop?

It's nearly impossible. The goalposts move second by second. Whataboutism is the name of the game.

My brother and I have stopped talking politics with our dad specifically because it's impossible and everyone involved gets frustrated, then things get nasty.

Yes. I was forced to work with a lot of them in the military. You can't escape it.

...but by writing them off aren't we doing what these 'banhammers' are doing and forcing them underground?

I know it's not our job to change anyone's mind and it's fucking exhausting. I guess I'm all for keeping the dialogue going even if you 'hate' the person across the table from you. If you wanted to 'go to battle' with these people one day it would be a good thing to already be privy to their side of it so you can pick apart their argument at it's weak points and have counterarguments to their at that point 'anticipated') replies.

Meh. Maybe that's uncharacteristically idealistic of me.

[brndck]

Originally Posted by dizzariot

Meh. Maybe that's uncharacteristically idealistic of me.

Yep.

You can?t have a discussion with someone who refuses to accept logic, and will infinitely move goalposts, play the whataboutism game, etc.

Me: 2+2=4
Them: BUT WHAT ABOUT 5!!! TRUMP SAID ITS 5, YOU LIBTARD.
Me: facepalm.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by dizzariot

...but by writing them off aren't we doing what these 'banhammers' are doing and forcing them underground?

Fuck em? The majority of them will never change their mind. Even those with doubts are emotionally invested in their worldview. It reminds me of explaining institutional racism to people that don't want to hear it.

[mr.nismo.]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Fuck em? The majority of them will never change their mind. Even those with doubts are emotionally invested in their worldview. It reminds me of explaining institutional racism to people that don't want to hear it.

So you still aren't open to conversation?

Sent from my Note 20 Ultra using Tapatalk

[mr.nismo.]

Originally Posted by brndck

Yep.



You can?t have a discussion with someone who refuses to accept logic, and will infinitely move goalposts, play the whataboutism game, etc.



Me: 2+2=4

Them: BUT WHAT ABOUT 5!!! TRUMP SAID ITS 5, YOU LIBTARD.

Me: facepalm.

Anything blatantly obvious (like racism) should get uterly burried, but difference of of policy? That should be able to be discussed.

Sent from my Note 20 Ultra using Tapatalk

[mr.nismo.]

Originally Posted by dizzariot

Yes. I was forced to work with a lot of them in the military. You can't escape it.

...but by writing them off aren't we doing what these 'banhammers' are doing and forcing them underground?

I know it's not our job to change anyone's mind and it's fucking exhausting. I guess I'm all for keeping the dialogue going even if you 'hate' the person across the table from you. If you wanted to 'go to battle' with these people one day it would be a good thing to already be privy to their side of it so you can pick apart their argument at it's weak points and have counterarguments to their at that point 'anticipated') replies.

Meh. Maybe that's uncharacteristically idealistic of me.

I wish the dialogue to keep going. But it seems anyone who has any agreement with any policy that's right leaning are all being grouped in with racists and people like the fuck faces from last Wednesday.

Sent from my Note 20 Ultra using Tapatalk

[Future240]

Originally Posted by mr.nismo.

I wish the dialogue to keep going. But it seems anyone who has any agreement with any policy that's right leaning are all being grouped in with racists and people like the fuck faces from last Wednesday.

Sent from my Note 20 Ultra using Tapatalk

And here we have a major issue in todays politics. No one wants to talk about the issues on the left.

I got called a white supremacist on reddit for saying a white person donning dreads and painting their face to cosplay as a black character from a show they like is not the same thing as black face. I had to point out the fact I was black for them listen. Though several suggested I was a white guy posing as black.

Trans people are people. trans people should have rights. Yet the fringe left tries to convince us that men who trans into women are actual women instead of men who have transitioned into a faux woman.

Some of the left would have you believe all trump voters are racist.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ts/5312336002/

Are there racist trump voters? abso-fucking-lutely

Are all trump voter racist? abso-fucking-lutley not

This ignores that blacks and latinos both voted for trump too.


Stuff like this is why I do not subscribed to a single political ideology.

The fringe on both sides can get eat several dicks.