Total posts: 2,049
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Wylted
Lol I can't believe I'm responding to how fucking stupid this is. I thought everyone but Wylted was trolling tbh.
Parrot - An agency like the FBI cannot plead the 5th, nor did this woman plead the 5th individually. When you plead the 5th you cannot selectively refuse certain questions - you have to plead the fifth entirely. That is not what happened here considering she answered all of Cruz' other questions cut off from this video.
Obviously saying "I can't answer that" proves positively nothing. First off, she could legitimately not know the answer to how many informants were present on January 6 and therefore she would be unable to answer honestly. Second, if you ask me if one of my clients (investors) is Barack Obama, I would have to respond "I can't answer that" and my doing so would give you zero insight as to whether the answer is yes or no let alone qualify as evidence of any kind. You literally learned nothing by her answering that way, and the desire to find the answer incriminatory cannot be justified by logic; only bias. The whole organization (FBI) operates on secrecy. Why the FUCK would they answer questions about who their confidential informants are?
The only other "evidence" (and I use that term very loosely) referred to by Cruz is a video of Epps telling fellow protesters they should storm the Capitol, and ONE person chanting "Fed! Fed! Fed! Fed!" in response. Lol in what world does one random protester yelling "Fed" prove a single god damn fucking thing? Who is that guy? What evidence does he have that Epps is a Fed other than that one sentence Ray said for everyone in the crowd to hear? The guy essentially guessed he was a Fed with no proof.
People believe Ray Epps is a Fed because he was allegedly taken off the Wanted list. Even if that's true (I haven't looked into it at all) we know for a fact that some of the far-right wack jobs are cooperating with the Feds. How do we know this? Because the Feds were given access to all these encrypted chats and other things that incriminated the Oath Keepers et al. The government could not have had access to those things without informants or flippers, so clearly people have turned state's evidence. That's a legal term meaning someone gives information against one's partners in order to receive a less severe punishment. It's quite possible that Ray Epps is one of those FBI informants, which of course proves nothing (nothing) about the attack being a False Flag. And again, why the FUCK would the FBI answer questions about their informants and operations? The whole point of CI's is to play along and pretend to be one of the bad guys. God only knows how many have turned already once the charges started rolling in. The Oath Keepers should just change their name to the "Plea Takers" at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Btw the reference to ~6 years ago was just when gay marriage was legalized. Job discrimination for gays did not became illegal until 2020. The Supreme Court jumped through hoops to get to that ruling which I appreciated.
And yes social media is very toxic. It's not just the political stuff. All of it makes me cringe. At least when the metaverse comes it'll be obvious that all of it fake.
But human liberty does require some government intervention! Where to draw the line, IDK!
That's the million dollar question, isn't it :)
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's fine. But unless you can disprove the research, your feelings about the vaccine are just as uninteresting and useless to me as they are to everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The scenario you described about a Christian nation suppressing gay rights was literally the United States until like six years ago lol.
I understand your perspective that if something is not easily accessible that it might as well be non-existent. That's the argument liberals make about abortion clinics and the argument conservatives make about gun regulations. It applies to many things.
As a recovering libertarian (heh) I'm not too sympathetic to these points, because I'm conditioned to defer to the market in terms of addressing most of society's needs. I also recognize that limiting accessibility could be a tool for righteousness in society. Would you feel bad for those having a hard time finding stores that sell clothes with swastikas on them?
There is always going to be a population of people who feel there is some semblance of coercion going on in order to evoke a particular outcome. That's why the primary benchmark for not only constitutionality but often morality IMO is to what extent the government prohibits something or sanctions a true monopoly. Big Tech ain't that. Perhaps I would feel slightly more sympathetic if they really did stifle harmless speech, but that isn't happening. They've cracked down on "bullying" of all kinds and people can still spread disinformation.
All of conservative politics biggest stars have a huge social media presence. And again Parler was allowed back once they adhered to the violence aspect of Apple's TOS (but note conservatives didn't draw nearly as much attention to that as they did the ban, did they). It's just simply not true that Republicans are being silenced or deplatformed in a meaningful way; that's why I'm fairly apathetic about it and more concerned with protecting Section 230.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ahh here we go again, this is all about "rightwingBAD"Has nothing to do with 230. Carry on Ms Danielle.
My last post states that 1) Facebook does not want legal liability for what users write, and 2) people who think Facebook gives a flying fuck about censoring conservatives are stupid. It suggested nothing about a "rightwingBAD" narrative. You made that up.
I've explained ad nauseum why Section 230 ought not to be repealed. You responding with prolifically stupid posts that misrepresent what I said is how I know you agree with me :) Don't worry, I'm not going to make you say it outright. I'm just glad I was able to explain it to you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Studies showed it to be around 94-96% effective at preventing Covid symptoms. Sounds pretty useful to me.
Of course more recent studies show the vaccines aren't helping much with Omnicron which was always the fear with future variants. It's so funny to me that people are like "the scientists are lying!!!111!!!!111" while they continue to publish research that shows Covid vaccine efficacy declining over time. Those lying liars.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Correct, they do not want legal liability.
Facebook does not give a flying fuck about what people are posting on their site. They literally promoted right-wing, horse shit conspiracy theories and other hate speech (Nazism, KKK stuff, etc.) on purpose to increase people seeing those things via algorithms just to increase engagement and subsequently increase profit. That's why the people who are shrieking about Facebook's desire to silence conservatives sound stupid as fuck. Because they are. They have no idea what they're talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You haven't made the case why Face book is the unique exception for government involvement.
I don't know what you mean by "unique exception" or "government involvement." I explained why social media requires Section 230 protections.
You never did answer the question what you thought would happen to Facebook if 230 were to be repealed.
Well they'd have to litigate more lawsuits, so they'd become even more strict about what content they allow people to post (so lol @ the people who think repealing 230 will somehow "protect speech" for conservatives). What's more concerning is what will happen to sites other than Facebook.
Absolutely NOTHING. If you are trying to somehow say Facebook would become 4chan without 230, I would love to see the logic behind that given what we know of the legal resources at the disposal of the powerful large corporations.
If 230 were repealed, yes there would still be a burden showing that a tech company caused some specific harm -- but why should the companies have to spend money litigating and settling all those lawsuits in the first place? There would be millions of them.
Facebook is being sued right now for the death of an officer on January 6 despite having Section 230 protections. The argument is that Facebook is responsible not because of the speech made by users, but for using algorithms to intentionally rile up people that showed hostility (via engagement) to that content.
It's becoming more clear me to now what you're missing. You think Facebook doesn't want regulation. That's wrong. Facebook has been begging for regulation for a long time now. It would be great business for them if Congress imposed a bunch of regulatory compliance costs (for content policing) that Facebook could afford and other little start-up competitors could not; that's why they've been consistently saying regulation is a must and it should be equally applicable to all.
Facebook is fully expecting the repeal of 230 IMO, which is why they have changed their policies in how they use algorithms and have become extremely strict on what they allow people to post on their site . I am currently serving another 7 day ban for calling someone ignorant. Would DART be able to police content to the extent Facebook does? Would you want them to? Without Section 230 a site like DART might cease to exist. You keep saying that the law isn't important "given what we know of the legal resources at the disposal of the powerful large corporations," without acknowledging that said resources are not available for 99.99% of others. That's the point. ONLY large and powerful corps would be able to sustain that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i've switched my position on ANARCHY recently
For or against?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I got the early shots and told the boosters to fuck off after getting Delta immunity and seeing first hand how fucking useless Moderna was at keeping me healthy.
Google "survivorship bias"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
pro-VOLUNTARY-vaxx
I get that. But I feel like (after admittedly quick scrolling) I noticed some people saying ridiculous things about the Covid vax in general, election fraud, Bill Gates, etc. A lot of it may have been from Wylted. I like him so he gets a pass for saying batshit crazy things just like my grandma does, but others make me cringe.
I like the thread about inheritance. That's an interesting topic to consider since both populists and leftists are anti elite and anti corporatocracy. I discuss it often with friends offline and I always enjoy new perspectives. Are there any other subjects/current events you find interesting?
Created:
Posted in:
And it's not so much I want to "die on this hill" so much as the site is just completely void of intelligible discourse. I'm trying to think of topics (current events) to post about so it's not just anti vax simpletons lurking in the forums. Although I do feel pretty strongly about this topic. I like the internet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The internet changed the way publishing works. Let's say the New York Times printed defamatory information within its pages. If you accept the legitimacy of defamation law, then it's pretty reasonable to say the NYT is responsible for disseminating defamatory remarks. It would be less reasonable to say the newspaper stand on the corner is responsible for every word printed in every magazine it sells. Hence the distinction between "publisher" of some information and mere distributor or "platform" of that information. The internet has totally blurred this distinction. Once every random person with a phone connection has the ability to publish whatever they wanted for the whole world to see, courts had to revisit the question of liability regarding not just the poster of information, but the forum itself.
One court in particular concluded that the distinction between a publisher (who can be sued) and a platform (who can't) is whether the site attempts to moderate content at all. So if the site allows ALL content, then it's immune from suit. But once the site starts making an effort to police content, it becomes a "publisher" that is responsible for everything users say on it.
Obviously that would be hella problematic. People don't want every site to be 8chan. Section 230 resolves this problem by shielding internet sites from liability. Without it, social media could never have come to fruition in the first place.
So to answer your question about why Facebook needs special protections, it's because without it the choices would be 1) a free-for-all where all sites had to allow ALL content to be published with no restrictions, or 2) no user comments at all. That is not a world anyone wants to live in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly, the fact that you continue to bring up Cruz and Trump in this discussion makes me think this isn't actually about 230 at all and mostly about how much you hate right wing politicians.
Democrats are heavily in favor of regulating Big Tech and repealing Section 230. It's clear you don't know your ass from your elbow on this topic and have no idea what you're talking about, but for you to be unaware that this is a bipartisan issue is really weird. I thought everyone knew that. I'm happy to answer your questions so that you can develop a more informed perspective, although I'm sure you will adamantly cling to the totally uninformed position you've already taken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So why shouldn't facebook as a publisher be sued?
Because if you are able to sue a social site for what users post on it, then social media would not be workable at all.
Why does it need special protections unique to them in a free market?
Because if you are able to sue a social site for what users post on it, then social media would not be workable at all.
Didn't you make a thread about qualified immunity recently? Am I wrong for thinking you were against the idea?
Qualified immunity is about government actors being shielded from lawsuits. It couldn't possibly be more irrelevant to this topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
What do you make of the fact that misinformation is only censored in one direction? . . . I have never seen anyone censored for saying misinformation such as Covid being highly dangerous to children.
I think that's a great point and huge cause for concern. I do wish there was more fact checking in the other direction.
Do you find it at all concerning that, when it comes to Covid at least, the definition of “misinformation” was quite literally “things the government says are false”?
Absolutely, but I'm not sure that proves Twitter is an extension of government. After all Twitter has banned the accounts of a sitting President and Congresswoman, and they continuously fact checked Trump and acknowledged misinformation contained in his tweets. I think people at Twitter are making their own decisions separate from government even if they tend to show bias and favoritism toward particular politicians or points of view. It's not only Republicans attacking Big Tech. It's a bipartisan effort to try and exert more control over social sites. Democrats are fully on board with repealing Section 230.
At the end of the day I don’t really see that much of a distinction between being forced to shut up by he government or by a metacult that does the job of a censorious government for it. I certainly don’t feel like a free man, I can tell you that, and it isn’t just because of big tech.
I get that, but I still have to adamantly point out that social sites aren't even close to being monopolies. Your kids probably won't use Facebook - they'll have long moved on to something else.
And something isn't "unfair" just because it isn't equal. For instance yes Apple removed Parler from its app store, but that's because Parler violated Apple's TOS guidelines around violent content. They reinstated Parler once it obliged the TOS. But even if they didn't, the purpose of Parler was for people to congregate and talk about how much they hate Big Tech... yet they wanted Big Tech to host their app? Lol fuck that, I would delete it too! That's like saying as an employer I would have to sit around and let my employees talk shit about me. Um, no -- they are free to go elsewhere if they want to do that. It's not like there is anything (government) stopping them from finding a new host.
But let's pretend Facebook and Twitter are "monopolies" in practice -- what would that mean insofar as how government should respond? Should government be regulating content instead of Twitter? Do you think government should essentially just dissolve Twitter all together (constitutional issues aside) and implement their own state based social site like they would have in China?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And why does a venue such as Facebook need government shielding and say a private college does not?
I wish I could see who 'liked' your comment just because this question is so incredibly dumb lol.
A college doesn't need shielding because they're not propagating or publishing anything.
If a professor was spreading misinformation or libel in a book, then the professor could be sued, the publisher could be sued -- and if the college had a committee reviewing the book, then they could be sued as well. Otherwise someone saying something stupid in class (student or teacher) is not remotely analogous. There is no cause for a lawsuit in that scenario so a 230 protection would be futile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think I understood your question. Maybe I wasn't clear about what I was saying since it's 1 am and I'm multi tasking. In essence Section 230 is the only reason anyone can post anything on social media. Online platforms are within their 1A rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both. People like Rand Paul are trying to legislate a “neutrality” requirement for social sites, but that would be unconstitutional under the first amendment. Ted Cruz proposes repealing the immunity of liability that social media companies enjoy via 230 if they’re going to continue to be politically biased. He thinks this is defending free speech when in reality it would do the exact opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
The fact is many people have no idea what Section 230 says and have been lied to by politicians and the media about its purpose. Among the most common misconceptions is that Section 230 requires sites to choose between being a “platform” or a “publisher," that Section 230 requires sites to moderate content in a neutral fashion, that Section 230 is some sort of “gift” to the tech industry, and that sites lose Section 230 protections if they demonstrate a point of view. All of those takes are wrong, and I recall some Trump apologists on this site echoing that misinformed propaganda. I was wondering if people were still confused about why Section 230 is important. It's not a "scam" -- it's very important to how the internet works. It is essential to having sites that feature comments from users.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Asking "right?" is not asking for validation - it's asking for confirmation. I asked in the OP if people thought section 230 should be repealed. You made three posts without ever answering that question, so I was left to make an inference through context clues which is exactly what I did. And asking you whether or not I was right about my guess is, in fact, a yes or no question. Pretty simple stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
For some reason I always forget that you are incapable of answering a simple question with either a "yes" or a "no." You should make that a goal for yourself in 2022. Start small. Ask yourself something like am I thirsty, yes or no? Am I tired, yes or no? And then work your way up to more complex subjects like laws and politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It’s true that the government isn’t forcing these companies to ban anything that disagrees with the CDC, but if they do it by choice is there really that much of a difference?
Yes, there is a huge difference. The anti regulation crowd (which I have historically sided with on most things) have always said that "the market will regulate itself" when it comes to virtually all issues. For instance the government doesn't need to force a baker to bake a gay wedding cake or force companies to be more eco friendly. Rather, society at large will get pissed and boycott or protest an exclusive bakery, or rally around companies with green initiatives to indicate support. Well here Twitter is choosing to take a stand on something, and to the surprise of no one the "anti regulation" crowd is really upset about it and calling for government to intervene. But it's important for the government not to intervene for all the reasons laid out above and in Section 230.
At the end of the day people aren’t allowed to have important discussions.
Sure they can. We're having a discussion right now, and even if we weren't, doesn't mean Twitter has or even should allow all content to be shared on its site. It's not their responsibility to give everyone a platform to say whatever they want. It's not like they're funded by taxpayers. They have zero responsibility to society at large to ensure equal access. Their responsibility is to their shareholders, and if you want to make a moral case which I think is perfectly fine, then we also have to consider what kind of moral responsibility if any Twitter has to limit the spread of disinformation and its potentially harmful effects. For instance we know the capitol rioters were radicalized online, and we know some people have needlessly died of Covid over vaccine skepticism.
Do you know how many women I know that are pregnant or trying to get pregnant, and were scared to take the vaccine for exactly that reason Nikki brought up (fertility issues) which have so far been completely unproven? Note that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. I know women who have miscarried after getting the vaccine and suffered emotional distress because of bullshit posts like the ones made by Nikki that made them think they were at fault when there is no observed harm from the Covid vaccine. I think if Twitter wants to play a role in minimizing that kind of undue stress, it's their prerogative. And while I certainly do understand the importance of open discussion and dialog in society (even though almost no one is open to changing their mind) it's important to acknowledge that not all opinions are equally legitimate and deserve equal consideration or visibility.
Created:
Posted in:
The most important thing to remember about January 6th is this: As part of the deposition process, Giuliani was required to answer questions under oath regarding the claims he made about election fraud. He admitted that his source of information was social media. He conceded that he didn't actually speak to anyone who alleged witnessing fraud. He said he didn't have any information about the alleged witness' credibility, and he noted he didn't have the time to check whether or not any of the claims were reliable before sharing them with the public.
In other words, he made the whole fucking thing up (I understand that anyone with half a brain knows that already). He had no proof whatsoever, again which he testified to under oath, yet he asked a bunch of low-information low lives to engage in a "trial by combat" vs. the elected officials trying to carry out a peaceful transition of power. It's truly sick how unhinged that man has become and how little he cares about manipulating desperate people just to maintain some semblance of power. Trump et al. are psychotic narcissists who deserve to be shot , but the "anti elite" "freedom fighters" can't see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Congrats on all your new experiences, Supa. That's so awesome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you don't think Section 230 should be repealed, right ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The most important thing to remember is that cops are always, ALWAYS given the benefit of the doubt in any lawsuit. Whether it's ruled on by judge or jury, there is a demonstrated bias that presumes cops are telling the truth or acted in good faith. The media is more aware of cop abuses these days, but there's still a really good chance that people are going to be very understanding in most situations. And besides, it's like cops always say... don't break the law and you won't have any issues. Simple! Plus, if the cops truly made a "mistake" they would likely not be thrown in jail. Maybe instead they would lose their job, be moved to desk duty or something like that rather than given a slap on the wrist and paid vacation in response to doing something egregious.
And remember cops are not the only ones who get qualified immunity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Without qualified immunity, would we really hold cops responsible for violating constitutional rights when they acted in good faith?
We prosecute everyone else (non govt employees) regardless of whether they claim to be acting in good faith or not. See virtually all negligence cases.
Wouldn't a police officer who enforced those unconstitutional laws be made liable without qualified immunity?
Nope.
Wouldn't that mean you requiring police officers to be constituitional scholars when let's be honest most have an IQ that is barely 3 digits. That's an unfair burden on them I would think.
On the contrary, people who are given privileges that go above and beyond everyday citizens should be expected to know the laws they are paid to enforce. I can't think of a lower bar for police officers than knowing the basic elements of our civil rights. It takes like 3 months to become a cop in many places vs. 2-3 years to get a cosmetology license. That's nonsensical. I think NYC cops have the longest training - 6 months. Meanwhile it takes 4 years to get a bullshit administrative degree. But most importantly on this point, everyday citizens are expected to know the law and are penalized for breaking laws whether we were aware of them or not. It makes no sense to hold police officers to a lower bar in terms of following the law than everyone else in society.
Yeah, your examples are dumb.They are all pulled from reason also which has a clear libertarian bias and are twisting the actions almost as bad as liberals would.
Being pulled from Reason is obviously completely irrelevant unless you can demonstrate how the alleged bias makes the examples "dumb."
For example the raid by 24 cops of the wrong house. Why would the cops be individually responsible? . . . It's not their job to double check the warrant is for the correct address. . . Possibly the judge should be at fault also.
The article does not say that they are individually responsible. Perhaps it's not so much as the examples are dumb so much as you misunderstood them and/or did not read thoroughly. The article specifies one particular person that should be held responsible: Captain David Cody, who spearheaded the raid, because he should have known that it was unconstitutional to barge into someone's home without a warrant, destroy their property, and arrest them without knowing who they even are. It's not like it was an active shooter situation.
Created:
Posted in:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Section 230 states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. It is the law that says that if I post something defamatory on Twitter, the victim can sue me, but not Twitter.
A lot of people including Donald Trump and Joe Biden among other lawmakers have called to repeal Section 230. I'm firmly opposed. What say you?
Created:
Posted in:
Qualified immunity refers to a series of legal precedents that protect government officials (including police officers) accused of violating constitutional rights. The rationale for qualified immunity is that officials should be free from vacuous lawsuits and thus deserve to be put "on notice" as to what is and is not constitutional behavior. It is a standard that has seen government officials get off for assaulting and arresting a man for standing outside of his own home, for shooting and killing a man who had been sleeping in his car, for beating a man after pulling him over for broken lights, for leaving an innocent man's home in ruins after conducting a SWAT raid on the wrong house, and for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Without a prior ruling with identical facts, the victims in the above scenarios were not allowed to state their claims before a jury.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas — among the court's most liberal and most conservative members, respectively — have previously criticized qualified immunity. Congressional Democrats have made multiple attempts in recent years to limit qualified immunity, though none have been successful.
Do you support qualified immunity?
Created:
Posted in:
I think it's weird that people suddenly care about vaccine mandates. It used to just be far left hippies and far right bible thumpers who were opposed. If the opposition is against it now because Covid in particular is relatively harmless, then why did nobody say a word about the chicken pox vaccine mandate that went into effect a few years ago for NYC schools? Talk about harmless. Covid killed 600,000+ people in a year; the chicken pox kills, like, five newborns a year and that's it. Everyone else just gets itchy from it. So obviously the recent opposition is more about political posturing than actually believing in the value of bodily autonomy.
My initial thought was that of course a private business could mandate vaccination for employees and/or the public. However that of course leads to things like religious exemptions, and it's always bugged me that religious beliefs are categorized as a protected class as opposed to any other deeply held beliefs. But I'm okay with private businesses mandating proof of vaccination. I am not okay with the government mandating that private businesses require vaccination like they did in NYC.
As far as public workers (since this became a huge issue here) nobody has a right to work for the government, so if one does not want to adhere to city job requirements, it's their prerogative to work somewhere else. Vaccine mandates are nothing new. Soldiers are required to be vaccinated to join the armed forces, and again before last year nobody seemed to give a shit about anyone's right to choose (even in the military) outside of the tiny percentage of anti vaxxers that existed and the libertarians sympathetic to their cause. It's not even just the abortion issue where you can find hypocrisy -- covid anti vaxxers don't seem to have a problem with other vaccine mandates at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
34,000 Americans under Biden's administration Died from Covid and variants while being fully vaccinated in 2021.
The link doesn't say that. It does say the 2020 numbers were probably underreported.
At the time the 60 year old died from Omicron, Biden had let in 2 million untested invaders to flood Texas in the hopes of killing Americans.
He's being skewered by liberals and open border libertarians for his border policy. See Biden administration increases border deportations and prosecutions to deter migration or Biden Pushes Deterrent Border Policy After Promising ‘Humane’ Approach as some examples. But you're saying he purposefully wants to kill Americans just for the fun of it? That's cool. So he's like Hitler but less charismatic.
Original Covid was far more deadlier than Omicron, and yet fewer unvaccinated Americans died in 2020 than were killed in 2021.
That's because the most densely populated parts of the country spent a good portion of 2020 on lockdown, working remotely, not congregating in places with lots of people and socially distanced whenever they were finally able to see others. By 2021 that was all gone. I've noticed they don't wear masks or have any social distancing or anything like that the second you leave the border of a major city. Even in Long Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc. where you're so close to NYC they've had like no protocols in place at all outside of medical facilities for the entire year.
I mean this is like saying "Oh the flu just really disappeared in 2020 huh?! FISHY!" Yeah because everybody was staying away from each other, sanitizing the shit out of everything and washing their hands every 5 seconds. You gotta chill with the conspiracies. I mean Bill Gates? Really? Lol. Do you know who else made a ton of money during the pandemic? Every single other rich person who has a portfolio like his because they continuously compound wealth. They really don't need to crush Bettys' Nail Salon or Danny's Pizzeria to make another billion dollars, nor do they need to microchip you (though I can absolutely foresee that being a technology of the future people choose to utilize for convenience, like cell phones).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Does preventing the deaths of thousands of babies, mainly black ones, justify government restriction on abortion? I would agree yes.
At present there is no state interest I can think of with enough weight to override a woman's fundamental rights of privacy, bodily integrity and self-determination. If fertilized eggs and embryos are recognized as separate persons under the law, then every pregnant woman would be subject to others seeing her medical records or undergoing forced medical procedures against her will. Pregnant women would lose the freedom to determine their own lives; to choose things like what to eat, how to exercise or even where to go. Look at Alabama v. Jones. There is no point in pregnancy where a woman should ever lose her civil rights.
The main problem is that this should be a state issue, not a federal one.
Should slavery have been left up to the states too?
The justification for a federal limit on abortion is one grounded in mental gymnastics and frankly a non-scientific basis. Roe v Wade and PP v Casey is set on arbitrary terms that scientists don’t even agree on. Life either begins at conception or when the baby comes out of the mother, not at 20 weeks or wherever the limit is right now. There’s no middle ground. Which side do you want to be a part of?
Nobody disputes that life begins at conception. It's about determining the status of rights among the living at different stages of human development. Every single one of our rights designations is completely arbitrary. Why do people become legal adults with full citizenship rights at age 18? We literally just made that up. And we made up every single other qualification of legal rights and to whom they apply as well.
It makes sense to choose a benchmark for when fetal rights kick in just like we do with everything else. There is no exact science. Immigrants' rights don't kick in until certain conditions are met - proof that simply being human does not mean that everyone has the same legal status. Some logical proposals for when fetal rights begin include when it reaches a certain level of consciousness (~26 weeks) or when it can live by itself outside the womb (~ 22 weeks). To say that all humans should have the exact same rights and status at all times from the time they are conceived to the time they die is simply not a logical position.
Over time, new types of fetal surgery and other medical and scientific breakthroughs will raise more questions about the legality of abortion. For instance they're working on artificial wombs right now which is gonna make a ton of waves. There is no black and white when it comes to this issue. For instance if someone does IVF and discards the extra embryos (since they always retrieve and fertilize a bunch of eggs to send for genetic testing) does that mean the woman is a murderer? Obviously not, yet that's the position you would have to take to be consistent.
My body my choice doesn’t apply when your body isn’t in question. You have no right to harm the body of another distinct human being.
What about someone in a vegetative state or similar circumstance? That's another "arbitrary" designation where consciousness is used as a standard for when taking a human's life becomes a moral and/or legal option.
You have no right to dictate the medications or procedures that another person chooses to have done on their body whether they are pregnant or not. And if a fetus is a person, it should be entitled to things like child support, due process and citizenship. Arresting a pregnant woman would be a rights violation. After all it's illegal to detain someone without arraignment or trial. A fetus has not committed a crime and not been charged, so being a totally separate and distinct entity from the mother with rights of its own, it would be illegal to incarcerate a pregnant woman since doing so would confine a second person without due process. Right?
Anyway, I know you're aware that I started the baby making process. I've always been pro choice, but after some personal experiences this year I will say that I am now emphatically pro choice. Maybe we'll talk more about it some other time. I don't anticipate spending a lot of time on DART. I just feel really strongly about this topic.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
CNN paid a lot more than 100 k in lawyer fees before the settlement. Maybe even millions depending who they hired to saved their asses.
No, they have lawyers on retainer. It's possible they paid little to nothing outside of the settlement depending on the terms of the retainer contract. The lawsuit filed against them by Chris Cuomo will probs cost them.
Created:
Posted in:
Right, that's the point. If you don't like twitter then just leave twitter. Nobody has a "right" to be on twitter, not even the POTUS.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So why didn't you contact the CP5 and file a lawsuit then?
There were no damages done to me. The Central Park 5 did file a lawsuit against NYC and got like a $40 million settlement. You know how much I love when taxpayers foot the bill for government misconduct.
You could have made millions too in an undisclosed settlement
He did not get millions lol. He probably got like 50-100 K per settlement and then had to give his lawyers 1/3 of whatever he got after taxes.
Created:
Posted in:
Republicans are upset that Twitter banned the belligerent psychopath Marjorie Taylor Greene from their platform. Wah.
This is your friendly reminder that it is NOT a first amendment violation for a private website to remove or refuse to publish content that they don't want to host. It IS a first amendment violation to force private companies to host content they do not want to. The first amendment protects you from the government, not from Twitter. And it protects Twitter from being forced to platform the speech of politicians.
Side bar: I saw an article written by Rand Paul earlier with with the headline Today I take my first step toward denying my content to Big Tech. He says he's boycotting YouTube in favor of Rumble. Now the irony here is him choosing to post this on the website of the Washington Examiner - a platform which regularly refuses to publish things that people submit, and does not allow comments on its articles. Lol. But this announcement also proves that Big Tech social sites are not actually monopolies and you really can just go somewhere else. Beep beep, Randall.
There are so many copycat social sites where conservatives can circle jerk each other if they really wanted to. Gab, Parler, Gettr and others are basically just twitter where right wingers can congregate to commiserate over conspiracies. But those sites fail because 1) they're very unoriginal ideas and 2) half the fun of social media is triggering strangers. It doesn't work when the user base already agrees with you, but I digress.
A social media site that can't police content would be something like 8chan. That is not a world that most people, least of all conservatives, want to live in. There's a reason that certain types of people frequent those sectors of the internet, and there's a reason the rest of us do not. If you want to spend your days jerking off to Japanese furry porn or rotting your brain with the likes of whatever the fuck nonsense Marjorie Taylor Greene spouts off, there's a place for you out there for sure. It's just not twitter.
Created:
If you want to see real journalism, stick to Breitbart News, not the elites. Here's a gem from 4 days ago.
"Of the 15 agents who died in 2021, 13 died in the line of duty as a result of COVID-19. Two were killed in vehicle-related accidents."
Created:
-->
@thett3
I wish these media companies were severely punished for what they did to an innocent child
The reason his settlements were so small (I'm guessing like 100K each) is specifically because there were no damages and the information was corrected really quickly. If anything this bolstered his popularity and future earning potential. I'd venture to guess it was the best thing to ever happen to him.
Think about all the people who are falsely accused and/or imprisoned and actually have their lives ruined. They walk away with nothing but trauma if they're lucky enough to walk away. That's why people made a big deal over Trump taking out a full page ad in the New York Times to falsely accuse the Central Park 5 of murder. His supporters were like "meh" but think disparaging Nick Sandmann's name is just awful. Just the worst. Just unforgiveable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Hey thett, happy new year. I can play devil's advocate on this issue.
The moral argument from friends against inheritance is twofold: first, they prefer a society with more meritocracy, and second, they don't support inheritance under the status quo largely in part to it being predicated on a historically unequal system.
Inheritance was vested largely to perpetuate concentrated wealth among a select few. It significantly benefited white males, especially those connected to the monarchy. Later it benefitted more white males, but certain populations were legally excluded from wealth and wealth building. I have friends that would be okay with inheritance in the future, if somehow there could be some kind of societal "reset" that would account for widespread discrepancies today stemming from past injustices like slavery, Jim Crow, red lining, and other barriers which expressly gave certain populations significant advantages.
It's true that 22% of American households receive a wealth transfer through inheritance, and they can use that money to save, invest and/or pass on to their children. But the most common inheritance is only between $10 and $50,000... not exactly baller figures.
Meanwhile the very rich have a ton of money to leave behind. What would the world look like if they were not able to pass it on to their heirs? They would be compelled to spend their money rather than hoard it. Think of all the businesses Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos would build. Think about the technology they would invest in. Think about the sheer number of jobs that would create, helping others in society grow and generate wealth that actually gets spent and remains in circulation (taxed). Think about the projects that would come to fruition, the charities, nonprofits and all the other endeavors that rich people would be compelled to invest in knowing that their money would essentially disappear once they died.
They could still set up their heirs for success of course. The kids would still have a ton of privilege from attending the best schools to primo connections and job opportunities. They would certainly have an easier time than others building their own wealth, so it's not like generational wealth would cease to have advantages in a world without inheritance. That's not a world that I personally want to live in, but I can see why others do.
Created:
Posted in:
The focus on neck restraint is also moronic because Floyd's lungs couldn't expand as a result of being handcuffed in the prone position coupled with the weight of officers on top of him. Whether he was high as a kite on drugs and riddled with health issues still doesn't change the fact that Chauvin acted with excessive force according to policy, protocols, training and factoring in Floyd's lack of responsiveness which he can be heard acknowledging.
g2g
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The maneuver was legal as testified by the Prosecution Witness.
What a useless observation on your part considering 1) the state called many witnesses, including Chauvin's own superiors who ALL testified that the use of force was NOT justified and NOT permissible according to their standards; 2) the defense's witness arguing that it was legal was absolutely laughable in his credibility. He's a fucking douchebag hack who also testified that Jason VanDyke shooting Laquan McDonald was justified (VanDyke was found guilty) and the state got him to admit that the maneuver was NOT permissible in the jurisdiction to which Chauvin was responsible for following protocols.
Chauvin’s conduct was reasonable,
Only a sick fuck would believe that. There is no justification for continuing to kneel on someone's neck after acknowledging he HAD NO PULSE and showed no signs of consciousness. Someone that is not breathing, not conscious and has no pulse could not be considered a reasonable "threat" even to the biggest bootlickers on the planet.
the crowd who was extremely threatening
More nonsense lies. First of all there were like 14 people there, most of them women including multiple teenagers. They were filming and shouting at the officers which is not a threat. They said things like “You got him down — let him breathe" and “How long y’all going to hold him down?” to which Chauvin smirked in reply. At the very MOST (and this was embarrassing on the defense's part) they showed one guy being restrained by the arm... ohhhhh what a threat!!! How can multiple armed cops possibly deal with one guy being held back by a single arm?! The horror.
Secondly, the crowd complied with every single command to stay back and only got more tense as the defendant ignored their pleas and they watched him murder someone in real time knowing there was nothing they could do about it. The defense's witness even testified to that.
And most importantly on this idiotic talking point, you are NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE FORCE ON A SUSPECT BECAUSE OF A CROWD.
Chauvin’s knee didn’t play a significant factor in Floyd’s death which is proven by the enlarged heart, 70-90% blocked coronary arteries, deadly amounts of fentanyl and meth in his system, and CO poisoning, high amounts of adrenaline because of the resisting.
This is so false. The defense's medical expert testified that the cause of Floyd's death was inconclusive to create reasonable doubt. It was not remotely "proven" in any way that Chauvin's knee definitively played no part. Of course many other experts testified that the knee definitively did play a part.
All of these factors combined could’ve easily prevented Floyd from getting enough oxygen resulting in cardiac arrest.
Irrelevant to Chauvin's actions.
What if I told you that a white guy had in fact been in the same position and no one talks about it?
Irrelevant to Chauvin's actions (though I do think all police brutality and abuse of power should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law... not that convictions are likely).
Violent resisters have a history of faking stuff and there was evidence that Floyd was faking the ability not to breathe before he was put to the ground.
Irrelevant to Chauvin's actions. The suspect was restrained and not breathing which the officer's acknowledged, and Chauvin intentionally chose not to administer CPR or even turn him on his side. He chose to ignore all of his training and continue restraint which he was taught could be fatal.
It wasn’t murder. Listening to the one sided media wouldn’t tell you how nuanced this issue is. Actually listening to the trial will.
You allegedly listened to the trial and are still unabashedly wrong in your reimagination of the testimony. But see this is what the issue is really about: right-wing bootlickers whinging and bitching about "the media" and deciding Chauvin is innocent based on partisan tribesmanship and not the facts of the case. This cry baby victimhood mentality by conservatives lamenting "the media" fails to mention that right-wingers have plenty of their own media outlets as evidenced by your cherry picking commentary by idiots from those sites and spewing it out here as if it makes any sense at all.
Created:
Posted in:
An entitled red coat lecturing Americans on how they should think. We got rid of that a while back no?
Kinda like Americans touting their opinion on Brexit and the pitfalls of European "socialism."
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
70 pounds max force applied
You just made that up that number.
to keep him from hurting himself.
How was Floyd hurting himself or anyone else while the officer's acknowledged he was not breathing, had no pulse, and showed no signs of consciousness?
Floyd was probably going to die from the OD alone without serious intervention.
You made that up too. It's interesting that on one hand people want to portray Floyd as this big, strong guy who posed this massive threat to officers, and on the other hand want to make it sound like he was about to wither and die all on his own. Floyd was seen on video behaving normally and people testified that he showed no signs of overdosing or any health trouble until the officer's actions.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol @ bringing up Cuomo for no reason. I'm just saying China has a centrally planned economy and has been dominating for decades. That was the fastest way for them to mobilize capital and labor for industrialization. You seem to think they will continue to dominate even though they have far less freedom than us, so it's interesting that you think central planning leads to a guaranteed disaster while simultaneously praising China's outcomes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I want to take you seriously, but you're essentially comparing Chauvin and multiple other officers kneeling on someone's neck/back for 9 minutes while they are laying handcuffed in the prone position with "lightly tapping my neck" which is pretty ridiculous, and I think you know that.
It's like when Nelson said to one of the pulmonologists, “I could be laying by the pool in Florida, on my stomach in the prone position” and then on redirect, the prosecution was like “You were asked a number of questions that were to the effect that if we take the police subdual, restraint, and neck compression out of this, what would you conclude Mr. Floyd to have been. Aren’t those questions a lot like asking, ‘Mrs. Lincoln, if we take John Wilkes Booth out of this...’ ” which of course the judge cut off for being argumentative, but the point was received.
What's curious to me though is why you would be willing to see any evidence I have, but have no problem disregarding the experts who've already testified that your belief (neck damage is required) is wrong? I'm not a doctor. I can certainly google examples where people have asphyxiated and no neck damage was shown, because strangulation is not the only way to asphyxiate. You can also suffocate, and that's what the doctors have testified happened to Floyd -- that a combination of him being handcuffed and in the prone position coupled with the weight of multiple officers for a prolonged period of time is what caused his death, in conjunction with his other health issues.
The defense hasn't given any indication that Floyd would have had a heart attack or overdosed had it not been specifically for the actions of the police. That's like saying if someone shot me, but I have asthma, that I COULD HAVE died from an asthma attack that just-so-happened to coincide with the exact same moment that I got shot. It's nonsensical. And this time I really believe the jury will see that. I'm shocked that Pie thinks this is a slam dunk case for the defense because it most certainly is not. I do think a murder charge is warranted, but I believe Chauvin would see jail time and not "walk" for manslaughter so that's better than nothing.
The female cop case is tragic. So was the split second Chicago shooting of that 13 year old kid, Adam Toledo. Have you heard about that? My wife and I were arguing last night cuz I said the cop did nothing wrong. She disagreed cuz she said he should have told the kid to get down on the ground rather than put his hands in the air, and concluded he should be fired but not criminally charged. I agree with that. But in this climate he probably will be criminally charged, and I think examples like that (along with Daunte Wright) with people protesting tragic mistakes might take away credibility from cases like George Floyd in which he was clearly murdered in an unnecessarily egregious manner. Like Derek Chauvin literally made the intentional and calculated decision to continue kneeling on Floyd's neck while he lay vulnerable and unconscious. That seems like a depraved mind to me.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah, I was riding shotgun on the lynch bus for Chauvin right up until I saw the autopsy report with no evidence of any tissue damage AT ALL anywhere on his back or neck
The medical examiner and several pulmonologists testified that the lack of bruising on Floyd’s neck and back didn’t exclude asphyxia. Nobody the defense has called has said that lack of bruising did eliminate the possibility of asphyxia... so why does it matter so much to you that there's no bruising?
And even if Floyd did not asphyxiate, I'm sure you agree that Chauvin used excessive force according to the policies of his jurisdiction. That's a fact. He disregarded all his training, so why do you think he lacks culpability for not trying to save the victim's life (as is required by law when someone is in police custody) in refusing to turn the victim on his side or remove his knee even after NO PULSE was detected, and there was no observable signs of consciousness? He kept his knee on Floyd's neck for several minutes after acknowledging there was no pulse. You think that's okay???
Actually you can skip that question for now cuz I know you have a tendency to respond with useless one liners that disregard what I asked if I pose more than one question at a time. So I'll just ask again: why does the lack of bruising matter to you after multiple people testified that bruising is not required to indicate the possibility of asphyxia?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
a centrally planned dystopia.
You mean like China?
Created:
I g2g (possibly til next week) but does anyone else find it fascinating the way cucks-for-cops have done a complete 180 since May regarding Chauvin's very obvious guilt? The talking point from them back then was "Chauvin was completely wrong which nobody denies, but that doesn't justify looting!!!" Now, the narrative they're going with is that Chauvin is actually NOT GUILTY just because Floyd was on drugs when he was victimized which is crazy. We always knew he was on drugs - the cops at the scene were clear about that. So while the defense has to make that argument, I'm truly shook by all these lickspittles now parroting that excuse despite all evidence to the contrary. The desire to go against anything supported by people who they don't agree with politically has completely rotted their brains and depleted all sense of morality, common sense and justice. Sad.
Created: