If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Da Geezer - The MAGA warriors storming the Capitol for your personal savior Donald Trump were storming it so they can discriminate. That's what it is all about, it's their country and not somebody else's! They were showing their strength and DT implored them to. They wanted to hang Mike Pence because he wasn't strong enough.
I honestly don't think hanging Mike Pence is a mainstream conservative position.
You still haven't answered my questions condemning the actions of fringe actors. Rs condemn theirs. Ds do not condemn theirs. That is a basic difference between the two parties.
There are people here who can make the "free markets" argument in favor of tech censorship of Republicans. If you have ever, in your life, voted Democrat, you are not one of them.
With that said, the "free market" logic itself is questionable. When social media companies publish written terms of service and then remove people who did not violate those terms of service, then that is a violation of an implied contract of the free market. This may not matter to individuals like me who do not pay to use the service, but people who have invested considerable time and money into building businesses on these platforms are economically damaged by them. A free market approach would say that these people are owed recompense by the damage that has been caused to them -- people like Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes and Stefan Molyneaux, three examples of men whose social media presences were destroyed completely without warning and without actually violating anyone's TOS.
Another reason why the "free markets" argument doesn't apply is because the Section 230 exemptions applied for these media as platforms, not publishers. But they are now publishers and should be treated as such. Repealing Section 230 doesn't directly force social media platforms to re-platform Republicans. It simply makes them liable for the content that they allow on their sites. Just like Fox News is liable for what Tucker Carlson says and CNN is liable for the slanderous lies that they told about Nick Sandmann. If Twitter wants to be exempt from such liability, then all that they have to do is remove editorializing from their platform. It's that simple. If they want to be an editorial platform, then let people sue them for the lies that they give airtime to.
At any rate, if you are a traditional Libertarian/Republican and you are swallowing the "free markets" idea from people who have always hated the free market, then stop being a gullible sucker. Our society accepted the intervention of the government into massive monopolies well over 100 years ago, and nobody but the most extremist of LIbertarians would argue that we should operate under the regulatory framework of 1880 in our country.
Employment of labor is not a free market. The minimum wage is not a free market. Banking is not a free market. Progressive taxation is not a free market. The stock market is not a free market. The growing and sale of food products is not a free market. Saving for your own retirement is not a free market. Health care is not a free market. Housing is not a free market. Energy is not a free market. The Green New Deal is not going to be a free market. Education is not a free market. Means tested wealth redisribution payments are not a free market. Covid-19 business shutdowns are not a free market. Covid-19 stimulus funds going to foreign countries is not a free market. The power of the state has been used to intervene in the free market repeatedly, and I guarantee you that if you are reading this, then most or maybe even all of those interventions have done you more harm than good. You're entitled, for once in your life, to demand that the government actually intervene on your behalf. I'll reiterate. Don't be a sucker and accept "free market" arguments from people who hate free markets. Free markets are a great tool, not a suicide pact that you are bound to follow.
Last edited by Hannibal; January 10, 2021, 02:43 PM.
Da Geezer - How many Republicans on your side have criticized your personal savior Donald Trump for his bad actor actions in trying to overturn the election on bullshit ? Part of your very ethical GOP caucus still went along with the election objection nonsense after the MAGA Army stormed the Capitol.
I just want to stress this one more time ....... "The Party" isn't going to "control everything." This morning I wrote that "socialism" isn't coming to America. I also wrote that a few ideas that spring from those holding what we might call liberal views, Democratic party members, might just be good ideas, like fix US health care delivery, fix immigration policy and the untenable situation it has created in the US, especially the southern boarder states.
This posturing over "The Party" taking over America and destroying the freedoms we cherish is silly.
Discussions over free speech and the potential of technocrats becoming miny governments with the power to silence dissent is a huge deal though. I can tolerate ranting about that.
BTW, Talent, after your rebuke of my position on social media platforms being regulated by the FTC - more specifically your view that I misapplied the decisions of SCOTUS in the two cases I sited - was fair. The solutions to not encroaching on 1A that arise in the context of social media platforms has more to do with regulating the size and reach of them than it does with curtailing the posting of lies and misinformation by a "board" of thought police. The discussions that followed set me straight on the risks of over-regulation of social media platforms potentially through legal liability if Section 230 were to be revoked or modified in any substantial way. OTH, I can see my way through ways to increase a platform's liability for certain well proscribed content.
This article appeared in my Sunday NYT's news feed. In typical NYT's fashion it does more to describe the immense power to influence political thought and actions social media platforms and their controlling boards wield using Donald Trump's rise to power and the events in DC last week as a precautionary example of the dangers than it does to offer reasonable solutions to avoid these dangers. It also fails to address 1A issues when it implies government ought to be doing something about this. No, it probably shouldn't.
The ability of a handful of people to control our public discourse has never been more obvious.
I also want to thank AlabamAlum for dropping back into ancient Rome and Greece to bring to our attention the absolute necessity to avoid at all costs curtailing any manner of lawful dissent. As I read the law on these matters, it pretty much covers that and gives rise to the duty and necessity of elected officials and police to enforce such laws - something missing this summer in Portland and Chicago and what now appears to be a woefully unprepared LE plan to stop what went down in DC last week. Jon, I get your point, but I think you missed the boat on that important aspect of democracy that AA made.
Good stuff, Jeff.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
I guess we'll do anything we can to justify a POTUS backed attempted coup ...
And yes. I am outraged. Fuck your false equivalency bullshit.
If I have this right, what outrages conservatives and I suppose if you want to, call them Republicans (not my Rs, however) is the huge difference between the left's reaction to the "BLM RIots" or, as has been repeatedly mocked, the "peaceful protests" that followed the Taylor/Floyd killings and the left's (the Ds) reactions to what went on in DC last week.
This summer's activities, ostensibly representing the BLM movement, were full-on, wide spread rioting, looting and destruction of both private and government property in several major cities. Government officials with the authority to do so, all of them duly elected Democrats as I recall, absolutely failed in their sworn duty to protect the peace and restore civil order. It was thought then and still is a purposeful neglect by these officials, for what purpose is still unclear to me but failure to act seems to me to have been a result of taking the attitude that this kind of shit is necessary to wake the fucking nation up. No it was not.
Lawlessness this summer, when the lawless were easily identified and could have been brought to justice and held accountable, went un-prosecuted. The scale of the official, prosecutorial and political inaction was outrageous and worse, attempts were made by the left to justify it as way of the underclasses (mostly blacks) protesting the injustices born by this group and meted out by the upper classes (mostly whites). Full-on class warfare shit or you people deserved this. It made me sick. Nobody deserved that and especially the black business owners in the black neighborhoods that saw the worst of the destruction and the lack of protection by police.
This time, in DC, law-breakers, again easily identified, are being hunted down like prey, not unjustifiably but in contrast to the summer's lawlessness a pretty startling and aggravating contrast. The millions who came to DC to protest what they thought was a stolen election, although misinformed, mislead and in some cases extreme, are being characterized as thugs. The President characterized as the chief instigator and acting like Adolph HItler (with some accuracy, IMO, except the Hitler shit, but that's another story).
Tolerating lawful dissent is exactly what AlabamaAlum pointed out with reference to the ancient's forms of governance. Allowing lawful dissent is essential to the preservation of democracy. The difference between the two events, both considered as protests, is one of preparation and response. This summer's protests were met with a purposeful lack of response. Rioting, looting and the rest ensued. Well, no shit. This is where I am agreement with AA and Mike, among others, that first POS coming through the door of my business or my property with an angry mob behind them gets a bullet center-mass and I'm locked and loaded for the next one if they should stupidly advance. That's a response that most will agree is a deterrent to lawlessness.
The official, LE response to the chaos in the Capital last week, was a result of incompetence in preparation of LE for a large gathering, in the millions if authorities had been paying attention, with a huge potential for rioting, looting and destruction of property if the fuse was lit by a match ..... turned out it was and IMO that was more the actions of planned provocateurs and extremists and less about PDJT's fanciful ego enjoying the throngs cheering him and his cause while he tweeted gleefully away. Yes, there were undertones of Nazi germany, the benefits of propaganda, the elevation of an authoritarian government because of lies and misinformation propagated through it and incitement to nefarious action but that's over-the-top rhetoric, certainly appealing to Ds and Trump opponents though.I think it was ancillary to what actually went on.
In contrast, the LE response to this summers riots was willful and purposeful neglect of a sworn duty and obligation to protect. In many cases, law enforcement was told to stand down or LE officials refused to enforce civil order in certain neighborhoods because government officials had hamstrung their ability to do their jobs. That shit was then justified by liberals and Ds and it continues to be justified today. Terrible. If you want to boil all of the discourse that's going on right now to one argument that is worth having, ask yourself then discuss why one side justifies it's outrageous behaviors this summer and then turns around and condemns the same sort of behavior from the other side albeit and to include on a much smaller scale? That's what enrages conservatives and if you want to include them, the Rs. Count me angry and upset. But I just can't rant about it, even here among intelligent people. Instead I'll be advocating for two things from Congress and the DOJ in the context of this discussion: (1) Preservation of 1A rights, especially when it comes to lawful dissent. (2) improvements to include an emphasis on equal protections under the law for all Americans and a thoughtful review of how laws are enforced by the public servants that are law enforcement. Do these things and we take a step forward in preventing what happened this summer across the nation and in DC last week.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
Tweet
Comment