Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You do know that congress, as well as the states, are all... government... right?
I never said the principal was contained within the first amendment. I am using the first amendment to show you that your conception of free speech is something entirely new and not some basic American value as you seem to think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I think there's three parts to this.
The first is that white people and black people have a very different relationship to the concept of racism so they're not even close when it comes to identifying it.
White people tend to think of racism along with visions of klan hoods and cross burnings. To most white people, racist is perhaps the worst and most insulting words you can call them. All of this makes sense when thought of in context, the only racism most white people ever experience is on TV.
Black people live with it on a daily basis, so to any black person racism is not some big deal of a topic. It's something that because of it's prevalence in their lives is talked about all the time, and like anything that's talked about and thought about frequently they get to knows it well to the point where there are terms to describe and differentiate even the most mundane things (i.e. microaggressions).
So right here we're already on different planets, if a black person tries to point out something racist a white person did the white person is likely to think they're entire character is being questioned. This is a huge reason why we talk past each other.
The second part is the difference between racism towards the individual vs racism towards the group. This is where the "I can't be racist cause I have black friends" thing comes in and has black people rolling their eyes. You can think highly of any individual black person but when most people identify racism it's normally in the form of an attitude about the black (or any minority) community. You can have all the black friends in the world, but if your attitude towards the community at large is that they're lazy, thugs, or whatever stereotype that's going to impact how you act to the black people you don't know. This is far more important because on a large scale this is what impacts their lives.
The third part is the difference between individual racism and systemic racism. To many people including many white people, believe that the system itself is racist (as in built to favor the cultural norms of white people leading to disproportionate treatment). This leads to charges of racism being taken as some kind of personal attack when it's merely the cumulative result of all our actions.
So I guess to summarize, it's complicated. I personally am more in line with racism defined as the second part as an attitude towards the group. I don't think it's helpful to focus on micro aggressions because they are by definition, micro, which means they can be explained in more ways than one, but the whole klan hood wearing n-word using concept also needs to go in the trash. We've come fast as a society so our ideas on these topics should reflect that progress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It is the concept I'm describing.
Complete and utter nonsense.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is entirely about the government restricting the rights of the citizenry. There is nothing about this which suggests that Twitter shouldn't be banning people it takes issues with.
The whole point of freedom of speech is not to protect every demented lunatic's right to have a platform, it's to protect us from becoming Russia - as in a place where the government decides what news we are allowed to hear and what light those stories are allowed to be portrayed in since such treatment will always result in corruption and authoritarianism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It does not, it is mentioned in the constitution. It predated the constitution and an equivalent principle and phrase existed before the English language existed. I recommend you listen to lectures concerning Athens during the greek golden age. It is perhaps the most important history to know.
I'm taking about the principal which has stood as the backbone of American life for over 200 years, which is where the term gets it's strength from. There is a reason "free speech" is such a powerful issue to Americans, and it's not because of the concept you are espousing. I consider this disingenuous and manipulative, you know that the connotation here is powerful and you have no issue trying to use it to your advantage despite it having nothing to do with your actual point of view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That may be your principle but it is not the principle of free speech.
The term "fredom of speech" comes from the constitution, not right wing talk radio.
You are free to make up whatever principals you want, but you don't get to hijack a term which carries significant weight because of it's historical usage and act liked that weight also applies to your made up principal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As others have pointed out an amendment of the constitution exists to protect agents such as this (non government from government). The principle of free speech has justifications far deeper than "cause some guys in the 18th century thought so".
Yes, the principal is about stopping elected officials from using the power of their office to control what information the citizenry can use to evaluate them. Which is why the government passing a law punishing a corporation from criticizing them is one of the simplest examples of the principal being violated one could imagine.
The made up principal much of the political right is propagating now is about the right to have a platform, which is not a right in any way nor is it logically tenable. The right to dissent is part of being able to speak freely, so when you take issue with individuals or companies dissenting by banning someone from their site or speaking out against someone for something they said you are not supporting the principal you espouse.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
how can you claim to support free thought if you dont think it's an idea non-government should espouse too? clearly, you dont support free thinking.
Free thinking includes the right to say "I don't want your trash on my site", or "I dont want someone with your trash ass views on my TV screen".
I don't agree with many instances of this, but if you believe in the free market and free thought then you'd believe in the principal here as well. What you're ultimately fighting for is not freedom of thought, you're fighting against the right to fight back against bullshit as it permeates throughout our society.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Expanding on that, if truth is truly defined by repetition rather than evidence and logic, then we no longer have a rational society anymore
Which is exactly how we ended up with a President Donald John Trump
For a Democrat that believes half of the country are idiots, it is very easy to understand why the left would be reflexively anti- free speech.
Setting aside the redefining of the term free speech into something that has nothing to do with the constitution or rights… yes, exactly.
It’s the same thing as when VA banned CRT or when Florida passed the don’t say gay bill. We all believe dangerous information should on some level be checked, the only difference is what we consider dangerous information to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If Disney is acting as a soldier in a tribe, and there is strong reason to believe it is, then attacking it is part of the same struggle where DJT was attacked.
That doesn’t make these two things even remotely identical.
Disney is a private sector corporation acting within the best interests of it’s shareholders. Freedom of speech exists to protect agents such as this.
DJT was president of the United States. Freedom of speech exists to protect agents of the free market from individuals in positions such as this.
Do you understand the distinction and why that distinction is relevant to this conversation?
Created:
-->
@thett3
I think it’s generally better to debunk conspiracies instead of censor them. Tons of people love getting clicks making fun of conspiracy idiots, there used to be a huge ecosystem of debunkers for that reason.
I think this right here is our difference. When I talk about the free market I am expressing faith in the idea that as long as the arena of ideas remains free from overlord intervention (aka the government), reality will always win out in the end. I think that’s the same basic idea you have towards it.
The difference is that you extend the overlord concept to the owners of those platforms while I don’t. I view companies like YouTube and Facebook as part of the debunking process - these platforms have an interest in shielding themselves from liability, legal or in the court of public opinion, so when dangerous content is purposefully left unchecked they are obligated to do something about it. To me that is part of how dangerous information gets checked.
I see things that way in part because I find your faith in the debunking process to be overblown. Any psychological study will show that it is easier to spread a lie than to correct it, so relying on better information to correct bad information is just not in line with human nature, at least not on a large scale. In fact many studies (and frankly common sense) have shown that the rise in conspiracy theories is directly tied to the rise of social media. There is no way to check this without the owners of these platforms taking some responsibility for what gets posted on their sites.
People believe what they hear, particularly when it’s repeated over and over. Your idea of just letting nonsense propagate until it’s defeated with reason is in today’s world a recipe for a failed society, and honestly even with these companies fighting back I fear it’s already too late.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When people get tribal they act collectively, people acting collectively to violate rights can't be fought the same way individuals are, to match their force and coordination you need to treat them like the collective they behave as. It's called war, and it's horrible; but defeat is not the noble way out.It’s a pretty self defeating approach to take on a debate site. If one isn’t here to defend their actual beliefs I have no idea why they are here.I don't see how this follows from my statement.
I assume your original post was an attempt at explaining why ILP5 and others here have such s as difficult time acknowledging such obvious and basic facts - basically because tribalism and war. My point was that whatever approach one feels is best in the political sphere, this is a debate site so that seems pretty irrelevant. No one is changing the world via DART.
If I misunderstood please feel free to clarify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
And yet again, I reposted what you wrote along with my paraphrasing of it. I then went sentence by sentence to show you how the two in my view line up precisely. Your response, rather than to show me which step I got wrong is to claim I’m the one not dealing in good faith.
That’s absurd. Have a good day.
Created:
-->
@thett3
So if someone supports the social media giants colluding to censor debate on, say, if the COVID-19 virus leaked from a lab or had a natural origin, or suppressing a major news story about a presidential candidate a few weeks before an election they don't really support free speech.
This is a strawman of what the majority of the left supports and a conflation of two different issues.
The fact that such a small handful of companies controls such a large portion of the country’s digital platform infrastructure is something we pretty much all agree is an issue. But that’s about monopolies and the outsized power they create, a totally different concept from free speech.
That said, the huge hole in your case is the answer to this question: who has the right to decide whether one can use a platform to spread their views?
No matter which way you answer this, it defeats your concept. If no one has a right then you are not advocating for free speech because you are against the right of the rest of society to express it’s dissent. If you say the owner has the right then you are advocating for the system we’re already have.
Again, you have the right to say whatever you want, and I have the right to criticize it. That’s what free speech means, that’s what those who agree with me support.
I'm going to tell you a story and I would appreciate your thoughts on it.
This isn’t a question regarding free speech, now you’re just criticizing what you view as dumb decisions to ban people for the hell of it. Most of those (like this one) I will agree with you on anecdotally, but if we’re talking about rights then anecdotes are irrelevant.
Question for you, do you agree with YouTube’s decision to ban all content propagating the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If only you knew some history.
I do. I am well aware of how fascists and autocrats gain power. The problem is, when this is your stated approach on a debate site you demonstrate that it is you who need not be taken seriously since your words have nothing to do with reason or logic or anything you believe to be true but rather are just your attempt to own the other side. It’s also why you’re still talking about your debate victory… two years later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When people get tribal they act collectively, people acting collectively to violate rights can't be fought the same way individuals are, to match their force and coordination you need to treat them like the collective they behave as. It's called war, and it's horrible; but defeat is not the noble way out.
It’s a pretty self defeating approach to take on a debate site. If one isn’t here to defend their actual beliefs I have no idea why they are here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I just don't take your thoughts on this matter seriously enough to expend the time to respond.
I went sentence by sentence to show you how your words were perfectly described by my characterization before asking you to show me where I went wrong. If you can’t respond to that then why bother chiming in at all?
Created:
-->
@thett3
That’s not how I define free speech as a principle.
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to use the term free speech in this way given the context of this discussion. Words have power given their historical usage, free speech is well known not only as a fundamental American right but perhaps the most fundamental right there is outside life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because of that the term tends to sneak in a connotation that isn’t earned given how you are using it. And it may not matter within this particular conversation, but at large I guarantee you that is manipulating a lot of people into taking a position they do not understand.
With that said, let’s continue based on your definition…
I don’t think most people actually support free speech, they openly celebrate when people they don’t like are forced to shut up through social pressure or a private entity censoring them and they say “but it’s not the government!” I wish people would just admit that they don’t support the principle of free speech
Most of us don’t because the principal is logically self defeating. If Person A uses Platform 1 to spread their ideas and the owner of Platform 1 stops it, that is the owner of Platform 1 using his freedom of speech. To be against that is to be against the very principal you are espousing.
Andwhen it comes to social pressure it’s even more logically contradictory. Social pressure is nothing more than people within a society each exercising their own right to free speech to criticize someone else. To be against that is to remove everyone’s right to free speech in favor of one individual.
What you are ultimately advocating for is not a right to free speech, it’s a right to shove your ideas down the throat of a society that does not want to hear you.
Does his stated intention to make the platform more pro free speech alleviate your anxiety or make it worse?
I have no anxiety about this, I don’t really care. I will be disappointed if he restores certain accounts like Trump’s because I agree with the decision to ban him, but I also think that might come back to hurt the political right. Not only because the man is such a buffoon he will create so much unhelpful attention, but also because of this is really what drives a lot of republican voters to the polls then they can stay home now. Same with abortion. I believe in a woman’s right to choose but I care about maintaining US democracy more. So I’m fine with giving them the victory here, we have more important issues to deal with.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Elon Musk kicking someone off Twitter because they criticize him is a violation of the principle of free speech
No, it’s not. The principal of free speech is that people in government positions are accountable to the people they serve, therefore the people have a right to express their views in order for the citizenry can make informed decisions regarding their representation. This creates a conflict of interest for any government official to decide whether someone can have a platform to speak.
If the person making that decision however is not an elected government official then they are a part of the citizenry, and the citizenry has the right to govern itself in this regard.
Or to simplify, free speech is there to stop us from becoming Russia, where one man gets to use government power to stop the citizenry from keeping itself informed.
The thing that concerns me about the Twitter move is that there is a legitimate debate regarding how large Twitter is and whether they have reached monopoly status in this regard, EM’s purchase elevates that problem because at least before these decisions were made by a CEO accountable to the shareholders, now it’s being made by one man accountable to no one.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
If Barnes and Noble decided to ban Joe Biden’s books I would disagree with their decision but not their right to make it. Banes and Noble is a private entity, so there is no mechanism to stop them other than to violate their right to free speech by telling them they are not allowed to express their dissent by banning him.
There is no principal violation here. If Biden had a book and people wanted it, someone else will sell it. The only way Biden would have no other place to go is if no significant portion of our society wanted it. That’s a consequence imposed by the free market. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
You claim this is stopping ideas from moving freely. It’s not. Ideas will always move freely in a free market provided that people want to hear them. Again, you have the right to express your ideas, you do not have the right to use other peoples platforms to do so. If your ideas are in demand someone will always be there to help you spread them, if no one wants to then that is nothing more than society exercising it’s right to not hear you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Can’t win if you don’t fight back
This is a debate site. The idea is you’re supposed to express and defend your view points, but you have no principals to stand on because to you this is all a game.
The problem there is twofold; if you cede on the principal for the sake of “fighting back” then not only have you lost on the principal you professed to defend since you are now joining the other side in attacking it, but you also cut your legs out from underneath you since your words no longer mean a thing.
If you’re ok with political retaliation in one instance, you no longer have a leg to stand on to criticize anyone else for retaliation, so your criticisms of the other side become null and void. In the end, all your left with is the other side not being wrong (because you believe in the same thing) and you being a hypocrite (because you professed one thing and your actions said the opposite).
I’m no political strategist, but that doesn’t seem like a way to win to me. But then again, everything I just said only matters to one who values things like reason and logic. If on the other hand all you care about is political power, then by all means carry on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Pretty sure he’s having flashbacks from when I did that to him in our debate.
Still talking about our debate?
You remind me if Al Bundy - a man in his fifties still bragging at every turn about how he scored 4 touchdowns in a high school football game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump was a beloved celebrity until he uttered those words. There are over 100 instances of documented government retaliation against Trump after those words were spoken vs the one against Disney.
First of all, politics is not a team sport, there is no 100-1 scorecard. If someone retaliates against Trump, that would be wrong and should be addressed. Just as what happened to Disney is wrong and needs to be addressed. Why is that so difficult?
But more importantly, you are now just calling every action adverse to Trump’s fortunes retaliation. That’s ridiculous and is not what retaliation means.
You are probably correct that had Trump not ran for president, the Manhattan DA would not have ended up investigating him. But the fact that you can connect those dots does not make it retaliation any more than you are guilty of homicide because someone read your text message while driving and took their eyes off the road.
Retaliation means the connection is direct. If on the day Trump announced his candidacy, the Manhattan DA said “hey we can’t have this, let’s find something to prosecute him for”, then you would have a case. But since you have absolutely zero evidence of this, your claim is just unsubstantiated BS.
The reality is that Trump running for office did what running for office does to every presidential candidate; it places everything they have done their entire lives under a microscope for the whole world to see.
Unfortunately for Trump, that means a lifetime of committing crimes suddenly became thrust into public knowledge, placing anyone in a position of law enforcement with an obligation to look into it. That’s how enforcing the law works. No, not every person who commits a crime will get caught. But person A flying under the radar for their crimes does not mean person B shouldn’t have to have consequences for what they got caught doing.
This is not remotely similar to what happened to Disney.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i still maintain that if we support the government facilitating free speech, we should support non-government entities promoting free speech for the same or similar reasons.
You are confusing the right free speech with the right to be heard. The latter is not a real thing and it shouldn’t be.
The reason we have free speech is so that the government cannot shield its citizens from reality thus allowing it to commit atrocities unchecked. This is exactly what’s happening in Russia right now. We all have a right to make informed decisions when electing our leaders. That’s what free speech protects.
What you’re arguing for is for private companies to provide platforms to anyone even if they abuse those platforms. The free market is a completely different animal, so it should be treated as such. If one platform bans you, go to another. If your ban is unwarranted, the free market will treat it accordingly because there is always somewhere else to go. If the government punishes you, there is no where else. So these are not remotely the same thing.
When you are banned from every prominent platform out there, you are probably the problem.
I agree 100% with what Facebook and Twitter have done. Free speech as you’re defining it is nice in theory, but when one uses those platforms to spread misinformation and foment violence, it would be incredibly irresponsible for those companies to not ban him.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech
Freedom of speech protects us from the government, it’s not something the government acts to protect us from. Government protection in this context simply means to not violate our rights.
So like S1 said, the idea of government getting involved in any way is not protection, it’s a violation. You cannot protect one’s right to use a platform without violating the right of those who wish for their platform to not be used.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As has been said before, Disney executives have not lost one iota of their power to speak freely, considering they own multiple media platforms not available to most people.
And if they use them to express their dissent against the Florida government they will suffer financial and/or legal repercussions, just like they did the first time.
Sorry to tell you but that’s not what free speech is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s not overtly wrong to say ideally I’d like free speech for everyone. Democrats clearly don’t support that. They’ve won all the social issues for the past couple of decades.
Free speech means the government cannot use its power to silence you, it does not mean you have a right to “win” on social issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yet you post to me unsolicited anyway.
Would you prefer to be written off as not worth the attempt at serious conversation?
They’re hardly hidden; you wear them on your sleeve, which is just fine other than you refuse to own up to them
Or… you are just not paying attention to what I’m actually saying because you’re so busy injecting caricatured motives into your assessment of what I wrote.
and I don’t focus on *you*; I focus on what you say— big difference
Yes it is. So let’s look at what you actually said so we can test that…
That the OP attempts to frame the whole 1A violation controversy as unique to DeSantis’ actions should be an insult to everyone’s intelligence in this forum.
That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. That is purely a statement about me or more specifically what I’m attempting to do here, clearly painting me as being deceptive.
So yes, you were focused on me.
Of course, the Democrats prioritize the 1A, but it’s not a central issue for them?
Correct. The only reason we are talking about the 1A is because the political right doesn't know what it means and keeps on claiming their free speech is being violated because society doesn’t like what they have to say. In other words, it’s a response to what the right has made a central political issue.
You can’t seriously think the left is driving this. How many people in these mid terms will vote based on concerns about free speech? Now tell me what percentage of that do you think we’ll be republican vote vs for democrats? It won’t even be close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
In fact I’ve said nothing about any other scenario.That’s the crux of what I’m saying about how you frame this as unique to the GOP.
This is a perfect example of why our conversations go no where.
Starting a thread saying “action X is bad, so can those who defend it please explain why” does not imply anything you’re suggesting. But that’s what you are hearing because you are not looking at what’s being said, you’re busy looking for hidden motivations so you can focus on me instead.
This really is simple, do you agree with what he did? If so why? And can you please square your position on this with your self professed principals?
That’s all.
Do you believe that the Democratic Party, in contrast, does not claim to prioritize the 1A?
Of course they do, but it’s not a central issue for them. Just watch 1 hour of cpac speeches and watch how many times free speech comes up. If there were a Democratic equivalent how many times do you think we would hear that? It wouldn’t even compare.
And, likewise, the political left defends its stances, hypocritical or not. It is as if you cannot comprehend human biases and are unaware of your own.
No, it’s because I recognize that two things can be true at the same time. If you’d like to start a thread on any of your perceived left wing hypocrisy’s I will be happy to chime in with my thoughts. Until then, we’re not talking about me or the political left. This thread is about Florida and Desantis. Let me know if you have any thoughts on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Easy. Democratic legislators used their power to ban Chick Fil A from operating in airports because of their “anti-LGBT” beliefs. Sounds like targeting to me.
The example you’re citing appears to be when the San Antonio city counsel voted a ban chic- fil-a from its airport. That’s an awfully benign comparison, even if it were valid. But it’s not.
It’s not retaliation to decide that you are not ok with companies discriminating against certain segments of the population. That’s a policy stance. Saying “I’m going to strip you of your status because you criticize me” is retaliation. Do you understand the difference, or shall I explain further?
Liberal are using scorched earth tactics with their social/cultural issues, while conservatives just dilly dally on the higher road.
Republicans have launched an all out assault on voting rights, are actively working to install public officials who will advocate for the governments right to decide the winner of the election instead of its own people, are gerrymandering the shit out of the house races, have two SC Justices on the bench because of the most brazen hypocrisy I’ve seen in my lifetime, and then there is the flagrant disregard for the very idea of civility or truth, like Kevin McCarthy standing in front of cameras telling the nation he didn’t say what we all just heard him say on tape, which he will pay absolutely no political price for. MTG and Lauren Bobert repeatedly say the dumbest and most offensive things about the Holocaust, again, no political price. The idea that conservatives take the high road is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard you say.
I would condemn them. But if nothing is done about, which let’s be honest, hasn’t, Democrats should have no concern about it happening with them.…It’s a simple question: how far does it have to go for you to say enough is enough?
I actually found this bit to be very revealing. You cannot claim you have principals when you are so easily willing to abandon them. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but this is why I take nothing you say seriously. Pretty much every exchange I read from you is in defense of something your “side” did that you are ok with because ‘other side bad’. There is nothing serious about that.
I’m sure you will levy the same criticism of me, but in my view what I do is very different. I will certainly attack what I see as hypocrisy and in many cases I refuse to engage with someone until they acknowledge their own hypocrisy, but I would never pretend that what my side did was ok because the other side did it too, with very few exceptions.
One of those exceptions would be that I support democrats never confirming another Republican appointed SC nominee. But that’s not a principal issue, it’s a process issue. Republicans have made it clear that this is their playbook, so democrats have no choice. But when it comes to matters of principal and integrity, that’s a completely different issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Your creative reimagination of what I said is not, and will never be, consistent with, implied by or otherwise acquiesced based on, what I said.
Ok, let’s go back and take a look…
What Ron DeSantis is doing is exactly what he should be doing. One power center is checking another.So to be clear, you are ok with government punishing corporations because their executives exercised their right to free speech?
So Ron Desantis according to you is doing what he is supposed to be doing.
What he actually did was target Disney corporation with a punitive law in direct response to Disney criticizing the new Florida law.
Whether you believe they should, currently, Corporations in America have freedom of speech.
Criticizing a law passed by the government is a basic expression of freedom of speech. In fact, it might be the most basic example of freedom of speech there is.
Therefore, a Government punishing a corporation for exercising their right to free speech is, according to you, what Ron Desantis should be doing.
Sounds like my characterization of your position as stated is perfectly fair and accurate.
So how about this, instead of going on a tirade about my alleged dishonesty, tell me where I am getting yourr position wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The amount of mental gymnastics you’re going through to paint me as an anti-constitutionalist is astonishing. My two beliefs are and can be mutually exclusive.Do I agree with abortion? No. Is abortion constitutional at the moment? Yes.
No where in our conversation was the question posed about Ron Desantis beliefs regarding what Disney said. We were talking about what he did. That’s not mental gymnastics, it’s context.
And no I never tried to paint you as an unconstitutionalist, I merely pointed out a contradiction in your professed principals and what you were saying here in this thread. The point is to make you position here. The only one of us painting the other is you trying to make it sound like I’m attacking you by pointing out the error in your statement.
The point here is hypocrisy. Rules for thee but not for me. When Democrats tell everyone to not buy Goya products because they support Trump, all is well. But when DeSantis calls out Disney for their shenanigans, there’s an uproar.
First of all, who is “democrats”? Because the conversion is not about Twitter warriors typing in all caps and spreading memes, we’re talking about government.
When democrats who wield actual government power pass a tax on Goya products for supporting Trump, then you can compare the situation to what Florida just did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
That the OP attempts to frame the whole 1A violation controversy as unique to DeSantis’ actions should be an insult to everyone’s intelligence in this forum. IMO, DeSantis is just demonstrating that two can play this game…
When you caricature someone else’s motivations, the resulting picture is often pretty damming.
I never said nor implied that this abuse of power was unique to Ron Desantis. In fact I’ve said nothing about any other scenario.
I started this thread out of the fascination of two things:
A) That in addition to being so blatantly wrong and unconstitutional, what he’s doing also goes against the core principals the political right has been professing to champion for at least the past two years
B) It’s the political right that is defending this
These two things are an obvious conflict so I turn to the place which, sadly, offers the best and most intelligent rationalization of the political right I can find anywhere. But this is the best I can find; deflections (but Disney shouldn’t have these privileges), whataboutisms (but the democrats), and just playing stupid (any law that affects someone is retaliation).
If anyone here has a better defense I’m all ears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And I also refuse to believe you do not understand that all tax exemptions are rewards and all removals of tax exemptions are retaliations.
My god dude, you cannot be serious.
Retaliation: to hurt someone or do something harmful to someone because they have done or said something harmful to you
Do you understand what the word because means and how it relates to this example where as it does not relate to any other accepted practice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So you don’t believe in the constitution? That’s quite a stunning admission.You clearly did not read what I said. Take a look again.
Ok…
Do I agree with DeSantis? Yes. Do I think it’s constitutional? No.
If you agree with what Desantis did while admitting it is unconstitutional, then you agree with someone violating the constitution. That by definition means you do not believe in the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Neither do the Democrats when they say they will tax the rich millions of times every campaign cycle.And yet, where are the retaliation lawsuits of the rich vs the government? Nonexistent largely.
Are you even being serious or just trolling? There is no way you do not understand what retaliation is by this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the abolishing a rule (which isn't an accurate term since tax loopholes are specific exceptions to an existing tax rule) allows for the confiscation of more funds, that makes government larger in scope and power. What kind of delusion would make you think more taxes means a smaller government?
Read what I actually wrote and try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That bar is set extremely high if you look at cases won in court for retaliation vs the number thrown out.
It is a high bar. Thankfully in this case we know why Dessantis did this because he told us so. In an email sent to donors Desantis stated:
“Disney and other woke corporations won’t get away with peddling their unchecked pressure campaigns any longer. If we want to keep the Democrat machine and their corporate lapdogs accountable, we have to stand together now”
And then when he signed the law he said:
“You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re gonna marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state, we view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that.”
This couldn’t be any more obvious, he wasn’t trying to hide it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It doesn’t really seem like a big government action to get rid of a preferential rule implemented by said government.By that definition, wouldn’t closing tax loopholes also be an act of big government?
If the government is getting rid of rule it itself implemented, that by itself would result in a smaller government. But the act of making that change as a result of the government’s disapproval of the entity in question’s free speech means that the government is now the arbiter of what is allowed to be said within the free market. That leaves us with a far bigger government than we started with.
And BTW, the change we’re talking about is the government telling Disney “you can’t govern your own property anymore, we’re going to do it”. So how you start this off with the notion that government was made smaller by this is beyond me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the metric of a free speech violation is any government seizure, then every government seizure is a constitutional violation.
I’ve explained this multiple times throughout this thread.
The metric has nothing to do with “any government seizure”. You made that up.
The metric is when the government retaliates against any individual or entity who has free speech as a direct result of their use of it.
Let’s try this another way:
1. Government passes Law X
2. ABC Corp criticizes the government for Law X
3. The government takes adverse action against ABC Corp because of its criticism of Law X
This is the classic example of a free speech violation. Do you understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That being said, it doesnt seem like Florida is violating any laws... there is no right to a self-governing status for businesses. Basically, Florida has removed a privileged status from Disney. Disney can still voice their opinion though.
If the government is taking away a privilege you have as a direct response to your criticisms of them then that is by definition, retaliation, which is by definition, a violation of your free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do I agree with DeSantis? Yes. Do I think it’s constitutional? No.
So you don’t believe in the constitution? That’s quite a stunning admission.
However, as a finance major, the Board of Directors is clearly not upholding its fiduciary duties to shareholders by engaging on this issue. I’d argue that shareholders have a better case for suing Disney just based on decisions by the BoD and through them, management. I agree with YYW’s claim that as a shareholder, I’d be furious.
If you’re starting off in the position that free speech is not a real thing and that governments have the right to retaliate against companies for criticizing them then I would agree that the shareholders should be furious. But since that has never been a thing in the US, I would point my fury at the government who plainly violated the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
So to be clear, you are ok with government punishing corporations because their executives exercised their right to free speech?To be clear, I spoke exactly as I intended.
So that’s a yes. Ok, so I’ll be sure to add big government, government retaliation, and anti free speech to my mental profile of you for future conversations.
Irony.
It’s actually not. The liberal push to tax the rich is about raising taxes on *all* rich people in order to raise money for programs that will help out “the forgotten man” that Trump was supposedly all about. Whatever you think about that, no liberals are suggesting the government punish any rich person who dares to criticize what it does.
Why do I have to explain that difference?
Created:
The video speaks for itself, your reimagination of it notwithstanding.
Yes, it does speak for itself, and your version of it is nonsense. I gave you a detailed breakdown of what he was doing, what he was not, and how that compares to what we would see if he were actually doing what you claimed. If you have an actual response to anything I said you’re welcome to provide it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Parents of the children they are trying to protect from sexual grooming also don't have a voice because the Left is strongly against choice in schools. Free speech would allow a parent to remove their child from teachers who groom.
The whole grooming thing is such a stupid talking point fueled by homophobia and bigotry. Homosexuals are no more likely to sexually “groom” children than heterosexuals, and teaching kids to respect others regardless of their sexual orientation, as inappropriately as that might be done by some at times, is not grooming.
As far as school choice goes, the left is against it because the solution to a failing school is to fix the school, not to have all of the parents well enough to place their kids elsewhere vacate. This whole thing about picking schools to keep their kids away from learning about racism or the LGBTQ community is new and I must say ironic since it’s all the same people calling others snowflakes who suddenly put all of their political might behind safe spaces for their kids to protect their feelings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
You may believe the Right is cracking down on freedom, but I think it was actually protecting it against Disney if you look at the context of the education bill.
We can debate what the bill actually aims to accomplish and does, but that’s irrelevant to this. Whether you believe corporations should have free speech is also irrelevant to this. Currently they do, so that’s the framework we are working within.
And within that framework, the Florida government reacted to a company’s condemnation of their actions by stripping them of privileges they have be granted for decades. In the dictionary there is a word for this, it’s called retaliation. Are you ok with this? Yes or no?
This is one of those times where I have become so fascinated but also exhausted. This is really simple stuff and if a Democratic Governor did this I suspect you would be ranting about this way louder than I, and if it happened in another country we would be shaking our heads together at how despicable and corrupt the world is. So why when it is a Republican does this all of a sudden become complicated?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's being argued as true or false is the interpretation of the picture. Imagine going to an art gallery and being told what the painting factually means by some truth authority.
Except we’re not looking at a a painting, it’s a video. Which means we can actually watch what happened from different angles and in context. But that’s for people who care about reality and want to know what actually happened.
Created:
-->
@thett3
This specific story might be completely made up (I don’t know and don’t care) but you’d my point is that you’d never be able to portray a young candidate like that.
There are other candidates about the same age including Bernie, Hillary, Warren, etc. whom it would not work on either. It’s not about age, it’s about branding. Like I said, Biden does have his moments, but that’s how propaganda works. No one will buy it if fails the basic sniff test, but if you can find one kernel of truth and you combine that with an entire media apparatus fixated on painting a specific caricature, people will believe it. This is just the latest example.
Created:
-->
@thett3
But you should question why it’s so easy to portray Biden this way, and why things like this keep happening.
It’s called propaganda.
Biden certainly has his moments, but they don’t justify the senile old man who doesn’t know where he is caricature Fox News and right wing media have been obsessively propagating since his candidacy took off. The fact that this latest made up story is so easily provably false and yet is still spreading like wild fire through right wing America headed by their leading trusted “news” sources perfectly demonstrates that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because Russia was the core of the USSR and locations rarely change ideology. It's why Dixieland is more conservative than the rest of the country today; because that was the case 50 years ago.
That does not address the question. How does someone supporting Putin align them with the political left?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
6) She supports Putin, the leader of the country that was the core of the USSR.
Please explain how this ties into the political left.
Created: