Total posts: 2,799
-->
@Greyparrot
Well some cultures aren’t individualistic. Some idolize fentanyl addicts that rob pregnant women.
Neither of those are likely to be as successful aggregately in an (arguably) First World society such as the US’
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol no it isn't.People with the same intelligence with different cultural upbringing will have vastly different outcomes, regardless of ANY system.
Looking back, I should have said that differently because you’re right. The thread was about race so I used that example.
My point is, it gets blamed on some “systemic” issue assuming the difference isn’t inherent (biology), which is (somewhat) valid.
Culture, biology, parental income, number of siblings, maternal education, and other factors all affect your future success.
But when they say that certain cultures are disadvantaged in the US, I think there is merit to that. My response is just vastly different: assimilate or stfu. We shouldn’t have to change to accommodate everyone else’s culture, but semantically, I’d say it is true some cultures are worse off.
Created:
-->
@dfss9788
Whether or not the people of one race are, on average, genetically superior or inferior compared to the people of a different race is something which has no impact on policy making. It's a useless fact.
It absolutely would be useful. If they are exactly the same intelligence but have worse outcomes, then the problem is "systemic racism".
If they aren't the same intelligence, then a huge chunk of the difference would be a problem of biology.
So, if biology was the actual cause, any attempt at getting rid of biases would be a waste of time because that isn't what is causing the issue.
So it wouldn't be a useless fact to know. Knowing the cause of problems leads to the right policy solutions and efficient use of funding (ie. not throwing money at a potentially unsolvable problem).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which blacks are you talking about? The ones raised in Democrat urban dystopias or the Nigerian immigrants that earn far above the median household income?
There is such a selection bias with African immigrants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Cows and pigs are mammals...we eat them.
But their rights to not be abused while alive are above those of, say, chickens (birds). But again, I don't think this is even a good idea of how to apply rights to non-humans.
This has been addressed. Keep the analogy exactly the same with my injury being caused by you. ...I still have no right to your body. So the argument that being responsible for someone else's predicament means you forfeit your body to their needs is false.
We'll take this one step at a time. Let's say that I pushed you down the stairs. I now have an obligation to take care of your recovery, yes?
No. All rights carry equal weight because every one of them is necessary for protection of human dignity. For example, if all human life has the right to life but not the right to speech, then life is incomplete.
Then our lives are incomplete unless we can yell "fire" in crowded areas? Is that what you believe? Because, as I pointed out, this is a limit on speech, which you believe is one of our rights.
Pregnancy is analogous to punishment? Is that really where you want to go? Removal of rights occurs because an individual has established themselves to be a danger to society. Is being pregnant a danger to society?
No. Don't purposely misrepresent my argument. Rights can be removed because of actions, which you seem to agree to, yes?
The DNA of gametes is not identical to the parent DNA. Paternity tests are also a thing, so I don't see your point. Being unique doesn't mean we can't tell where it came from.
That's unrelated to my argument. We do have paternity tests. They show that your DNA partially came from said father. It doesn't matter where you came from. You are now a unique being.
You should be answering that question since you think making assumptions is a good way to determine rights. Do you think someone with a 50% chance of dying is dead?
No, I don't think that someone who has a fairly high chance of dying is dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of rights. We all have rights - my rights don't trump your rights and vice versa. I have a right to do what I want with my body, as do you.If I'm dying and can be saved with the help of your body, I don't automatically get what I need to survive and that doesn't mean my right to life has been denied. My right to life doesn't overule anyone else's rights.Besides that, a blastocyst has no rights. A zygote has no rights. An embryo has no rights. Individual rights are attached at birth.
Sorry it took so long to respond. I’ve been quite busy with moving.
Just because individual rights are assigned at birth under our current system doesn’t mean that that is the best system. Being the status quo is not an argument in the realm of abortion.
Furthermore, your analogy is not a direct comparison. You imply there is no relationship between your critical health condition and my actions, while that is not the case for abortion. Except for the rare exception of rape, that need for health assistance is a direct result of the woman’s actions (and father).
To say that your actions can affect what is recognized as your right is not controversial at all. Based on what crimes you commit under the status quo (something you appealed to in your argument), you can lose your “right” to vote because of a felony, you can lose your right to life (death penalty), right to freely move (being held captive by the state in a prison).
Many of those are things that many people consider rights. Many of them can be taken away. So to claim that the supposed right to bodily autonomy should be absolute would need a much more substantive argument to make me believe that is so. Why can’t creating a living being also be another valid basis for revocation of another right?
Finally, your rights can be weighed against others! Your right to free speech is of a lower rank than the right of safety for others. That is why you cannot shout “fire” in a crowded area. While your right to free speech is important, we generally recognize that the right of people to not be trampled is more important, hence why we allow controlling of speech instead of allowing it in that case.
Gametes are unique DNA unlike other DNA of the parent....
That’s quite simply untrue. Police use semen in their DNA tests and can trace it to who it belongs to.
Gametes share the DNA of the individual they come from. A child is a unique DNA created from the gametes of two separate adults. Hence, it is a separate person with its own set of rights.
Humans are related to all life on the planet, so 'because human DNA' is insufficient to disallow rights from animals.. in fact, this argument would demand more closely related organisms be granted more human rights.
That kinda seems to be how we do things. Mammals generally have more rights than other types of animals.
But regardless, I don’t understand where this argument is coming from. One reasonable theory COULD be to assign rights as you say, but then again, how would you choose which rights were applied at which percentage of relation to people? I simply deem it important that humans rights are applied to humans instead of applying human rights to non-humans. That seems to be the most reasonable thought process to me.
I think the odds are pretty close to 50/50 successful implantation will occur and less a 'walking, talking, eating,' thinking human will be the result. Assuming what will be isn't an argument for granting rights to what is.
Why aren’t assumptions considered? Do you think it is the same thing to “pull the plug” on someone who is entirely braindead as it is to stop life support for someone with a 50% chance of recovering from a coma?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Noun
a small garden ornament in the form of a bearded man with a pointed hat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you consider it "immoral" to "deport" the gnome ?
A gnome is an inanimate object. If an inanimate object is causing harm, then I don't care if you throw it out.
Since I only care about people, then assuming it could die, I wouldn't care because a gnome is non-human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Abortion thread is up. When I get a chance, I will respond there.
Splendid
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.
That's the status quo. But simply being the status quo is not an argument in favor of a law.
What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).
And if a unique life created through intercourse was the woman's body, then sure. But it isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You might as well ask why rights exist.
Yeah, but I'm too busy asking you why the right to live doesn't exist for those that have been alive for less than ~9 months.
If the bar for personhood is low enough to allow zygotes, for instance, then many other things - like cancer, gametes, or animals- will qualify for personhood as well.
Zygotes are unique DNA from either parent that wants to murder it. So, not like gametes.
It is human DNA, so it doesn't apply to animals.
It will grow to be a regular human, indistinguishable from others: walking, talking, eating. So it isn't like cancer.
In that case, my criticism of the typical Pro-lifer might not apply to you.Maybe we can/will discuss this again in a more appropriate time/place. Thanks for the conversation.
For sure. Feel free to copy over to that thread if it ever gets created.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine you find a tiny gnome growing in your house.This gnome has attached itself to your power mains and water pipes and is siphoning off an increasing amount of both.You also realize that if gnome thing keeps growing, it will permanently change the shape of your house.You also understand that forcibly removing the gnome will likely result in its demise.Do you believe you are obligated to provide life-support for an unwelcome guest ?Do you believe you are obligated to provide life-support for an illegal-alien-immigrant ?
These are not at all analogous. A tiny gnome just appearing out of thin air vs a life being born from the very act used to create human life.
And if the argument is that this should be based on "bodily autonomy", then your illegal immigrant analogy is also irrelevant because a country is not a body.
Created:
Posted in:
My nominations for users:
Whiteflame- potentially the best debater on the site. I have had the pleasure of discussing a great many issues with him over the years and gained a lot of insight from them. Busted my rear end in both of the great debates I had with him. I'm honestly surprised he isn't in the HoF yet- he deserves it.
Thett3- he's a cool fella, what can I say?
I don't feel super strong about any others at the moment, mainly because I haven't been as active lately and don't know enough about them. I'll reserve my third vote for the end to see how the votes are adding up.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is false; they fled PR's high taxes.
Isn't PR literally a tax haven?
It's a shithole because Puerto Ricans pay high taxes for nationalized services that are of poor quality.
Lots of countries with higher taxes have much better infrastructure than us. Clearly, that's not it.
My idea is to implement a 4 million person pop swap between the US and Puerto Rico.
Hmmm, importing crime and exporting productivity. I'll pass
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Before you go crazy with that, personhood is irrelevant to my position. Person or not, there is no right to use the body of another without consent.
Why is there no right to the use of the body of another? If you create a life through a consensual act, you have untaken an obligation for said life. Actions, as they say, have consequences.
like cancer, terratomas, dolphins, etc.
Why would dolphins and cancer be people?
Birth, childcare, healthcare, financial stress, poverty, crime, etc., are some of the natural consequences of disallowing abortion of unwanted pregnancies. Pro-life folks aren't known for considering anything after birth, though, and are generally loathe to support social programs. Its not a gotcha - it is a fair criticism pointing out the interest in seeing unwanted pregancies carried to term, but not the desire to prevent trajectory stealing potential it can inflict on the lives of everyone involved.
I can agree that the regular pro-life folks are also generally not in favor of government assistance for taking care of those kids. I'm not one of them.
...and for the record, being pro-choice and understanding rights cannot be absolute (and restrictions are necessary) is not a contradictory position.
That's a fair point that they don't have to be rights absolutists, but that goes back to why I believe the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" label should be exclusively for abortion. It would be entirely subjective as to whether or not something would cross the boundary of not respecting choice or life for other issues outside of absolutist positions. I think those labels are truly ineffective in other contexts. Saying that someone is in favor of choices for some issues and not for others, and others value life in some circumstances but not others seems more like an attempt at calling someone hypocritical than anything.
I believe @TheMorningStar is going to start a thread on abortion. Maybe we can move the discussion there rather than derailing this one with pure abortion talk.
Perhaps we will. However, this topic has been overdone and in my experience never goes anywhere. One of the issues where nobody will even budge an inch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Pro life folks do not advocate for people near as often as the moniker would suggest. First, there are no unborn "people", so the anti-abortion advocacy is for birth (certainly not life of people).
There really isn't any way to respond to that other than "you're wrong". There are "unborn people". Pro-Choice people attempt to rationalize their decision to have a more convenient life by saying they aren't killing "people". They, likely including you, use some arbitrary measure to say the "clump of cells" isn't a person such as pain or heartbeat or sentience or whatever else. There really is no consistent position other than if it is an innocent human (ie. won't kill the mother), its life matters.
Secondly, @TheUnderdog is not wrong to suggest those who claim to be Pro-Life might be expected to advocate for vaccinations to save lives. That is not happening, because, once again pro-lifers demonstrate life is not their focus.
I think what he is saying is definitely coming from a rational place. I'm just trying to make him understand why some people are hesitant to get a vaccine, let alone start telling other people to get it.
But as I told him, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not labels that are meant to extend beyond the abortion issue. Generally pro-life people are more likely to support the death penalty, while pro-choice people are more restrictive on speech and 2nd Amendment issues. It really just kills any discussion with trying to focus on 'gotchas'. "Can you believe pro-choice people don't want you to have the CHOICE to do this". "Can you believe that pro-life people supported executing a guy that shot and burned a Christian couple alive???"
So if there is something you'd like to discuss, I'd prefer we not waste time with gotchas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I’m still laughing at the idea that you can just flagrantly get away with crimes in rich suburbs. Drug crimes MAYBE. But violent crimes? Those wealthy McMansion neighborhoods are among the most boring places on earth, absolutely chock full of the type of housewives who will call the cops on teenagers playing pranks and police officers who are bored stupid and would love nothing more than to investigate a violent crime. If someone think it’s even remotely possible that there is any significant number of violent crimes going unreported there they are out of their mind.
People pay hundreds of thousands of extra dollars to live in places where violent crimes are super frequent and aren't investigated. Checks out!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ok that makes sense, but 60 years of reversing this and no relief? you cant blame it on racism forever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um, the actual STUDIES demonstrate this fact, black people are segregated and kept in poorer places of concentrated poverty, where over policing happens, this is empirically true.
What is "overpolicing"? Should we have less police in crime-ridden areas? I'd hope it is empirically true that we send a lot more police to poor, dangerous areas than we send to rich, safe areas lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The reason why vaccines take so long is because people are worried about long term side effects. However, I don't think there is any evidence that a mere vaccination produces a long term negative side effect. I might be wrong here, but I don't think people have to worry about long term side effects from the covid vaccine.
I’m confused. You say that we generally test vaccines to check for long-term side effects. We tested this one a lot less, but you think people don’t have to worry?
You think that their only concern is “owning the libs”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The covid vaccine took a little under a year to develop, it took quite some time to make. The companies making the vaccines have almost never had allergic reactions to the vaccine and far more have died of covid than the number that have died from the vaccine.
For some people, it is a good idea to take it such as morbidly obese people and the elderly.
And death isn't the only concern. Some people are getting heart damage. For young, healthy people, it isn't saving anyone else (because vaccinated people spread it), and their death rate is tiny, assuming they get COVID in the first place.
So why should young, healthy people purposely get a shot that also has a small chance of permanently harming them?
I don't care whether or not anyone gets vaccinated. I'm asking if you understand why people are apprehensive about getting it, especially if they are very unlikely to die in the event that they get COVID.
And it taking "less than a year" to develop is exactly my point. Most take multiple years, and sometimes even decades to develop and gain approval for use on people. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-it-took-to-develop-other-vaccines-in-history-2020-7
Also, this is, to my knowledge, the first mRNA vaccine ever approved for use on people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why not? I've seen it done before.
TMI, bro.
How so? Libetarians are mostly principled. There are a few areas where in my opinion they aren't, such as with nuclear power and the death penalty, but for the most part they are the principled ones.
Being "principled" is often quite foolish. You're enslaving yourself to some ideology. Pragmatism is much better. If a policy would be very beneficial, I don't care if Adam Smith says the invisible hand doesn't like that.
My guess is pro lifers are more hesitant to take the vaccine to "own the libs" since we live in very partisan times where if the democrats support something, the GOP automatically opposes it and vice versa.
No bro, they just don't trust it because it was developed very quickly, the companies can't be sued for vaccine-related issues, and it is only under emergency use authorization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would encourage vaccinations but not encourage people to stay at home to protect others because the economy would fail if you make everyone stay at home, whereas the economy wouldn't fail if everyone got vaccinated. Fortunately, nobody believes life is truly priceless, otherwise they would do whatever it takes to save one life. A little bit of risk acceptable if the economy needs the risk. I wouldn't necessarily kill 100 million Americans to bring the economy back, but 100 seems like a fair price to pay.
That's fine, you can encourage whatever you want. But why do you think that "pro-life" generally don't push vaccination? Do they want people to die?
This is also true; both parties suck horse penis.
They do much better than the Libertarian party. Republicans and Democrats must suck less horse penis than Libertarians.
I fail to see the issue with dry fucking (having consensual sex with clothes on) if it's okay to wet fuck. Now you don't have to worry about getting the girl pregnant, yet you can still feel her body through her clothes.
That doesn't work, never do that lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Also, one is directly killing (murdering babies) while the other is accidentally getting someone sick. Getting vaccinated isn't all you can do to protect other people. Telling people to never leave their house so they don't accidentally kill someone in a car crash or spread COVID is doing all you can do.
Why would you suggest that it is fine to subject others to risk in some circumstances but not others? Why do you draw an arbitrary line at vaccines? Is it fine to impose risks on the individuals getting vaccinated to maybe save other people?
If the vaccine protects the vaccinated, you'd figure pro lifers would want as many people to get vaccinated to save the most amount of lives. But the ones promoting vaccines are primarily pro choicers.
But why? Pro-Life people advocate for people who cannot speak for themselves. That doesn't mean they should pressure grown adults into making their own health decisions that only affect them.
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are just euphemisms for abortion positions. You can't just blindly apply them to everything. Pro-Choice people very often want to limit your choice of health insurance, guns/all self-defense tools, want to limit what you can choose to say, and many other things.
or by keeping your clothes on when you have sex.
Lmfao, what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The vaccine only protects the vaccinated, hence why the CDC is asking everyone to still wear masks indoors.
So it's not comparable. Unless you are forcing people to protect themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you think that murder and getting someone sick on accident who ends up dying is the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Me: will you stop strawmanning every position to play the "reasonable centrist"? Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is a talking point I hear constantly from the right; the idea that “the left”, or “the government” just wants to control our lives.
I don't believe it is controversial to say that power is a corrupting force. That being said, I think that most politicians aren't that power-hungry that their primary motivation for doing something is controlling others. Maybe it is just the cherry on top for some.
Most likely the main people that believe that are libertarians that think that the government telling people what to do is a bad thing all the time, and therefore it must be nefarious.
I mean, I support drug bans, and I don't get a hard-on thinking of all the junkies having a harder time finding heroin to shoot up lol. I just want less junkies overall.
Lefties will not too uncommonly say the same types of arguments when we propose abortion bans. They say that we just want to control women/hate women and that's why we do it, when the vast majority of people who oppose abortion do so because they think it is literal murder.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think that whether discrimination happens is a much less interesting conversation than "is discrimination inherently wrong".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
She's probably a Republican.
I'd probably become a Republican, too, if Biden gave me a purple nurple as a child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i even have some radical conservative views but they're so radical i'm not sure i should even be mentioning them. no joke.
#MeToo. Real life is way worse lmao
i make lots of gay jokes and black jokes and all that
Oh, do tell
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i'm a hard core moderate. not a lib. i do have a lib bias, but only cause reality has a lib bias. lolz. i get on my pedestal mostly about lib issues more often than not, but i have a lotta conservative views, even some strongly conservative views.
Fair enough
What "strongly conservative views" do you have???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you can't say that their smaller brains and lower IQ and test scores makes them less intelligent.
Never thought I'd see a race-realist lib lmao
which is why the study is looking at those that trace their lineage to west africa. when we're comparing the history of three branches of human evolution, africa, europe, and asia, we should reasonably expect to find differences.
Naturally, yes. I feel like your account was hacked
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
Language and culture are shaped by "societal forces," and the fact that "more blacks live in poverty" shapes their culture as well. Unless you are going to rely fully on biological determinism I don't know how you can get around the fact that "societal forces" contribute to social outcomes. Also I am not a liberal egalitarian, but I don't think liberals or egalitarians claim that "everybody and every group are exactly the same."
Language and culture are to some degree affected by "societal forces".
But blacks living in poverty doesn't determine their culture. You are being the polar opposite of a biological determinist. You think that societal factors are everything.
However, that is quite clearly false. While poor blacks and whites have a few similarities in culture, their overall cultures are quite distinct. Biology and group identity are big factors affecting culture.
And I don't care if egalitarians or liberals actually claim that "everybody and every group are exactly the same". They don't need to say that. It is apparent from what they say that this is what they believe. When any negative racial disparity for a non-white group is blamed on "white supremacy" or "structural racism" or whatever other jibberish term they choose to use, they are proving that they believe that all groups will achieve the same outcomes if there isn't some evil system preventing that from happening. If you blame "racism" (or whatever other mystical force you choose) without any reference to the impacts of group differences in culture or biology, then you by default believe that "all groups are exactly the same" since you don't consider any group difference as an explanatory factor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
I thought you were going in a good direction to start your post, but then took a very different direction than expected.
The issue is this liberal egalitarian fever dream that has infected most Western societies. If the idea is that everybody and every group are exactly the same or will succeed and do things at the same rates in the same societies, then every disparity must be blamed on somebody. If more women are nurses, it must be because some societal force is forcing them to do that. If more blacks live in poverty than Hispanics and Asians, it must be because of oppression, not any group difference in language, culture, etc.
When you have a multicultural (many different distinguishable groups) and your society is mired in this assumption that everyone is the same and has the same capabilities, then your society will die. It will try to solve unsolvable problems with lots of time and money, with less of our budget getting put towards solvable, "real" problems.
You simply cannot hope to live in a society in which race, gender, and class break down. People identify with their own groups, gender and sex are at the very least strongly correlated and sex is biological, and people are always envious of those that have more than them. (And we've seen how societies that try to make everyone have the same "class" have worked out).
I hardly think that egalitarian values are inherent to all nation-states, so what is happening cannot really be deemed natural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
How is it systematic racism that blacks deal drugs on street corners and are easier to prosecute than whites doing itnin their mother's basement behind closed doors?Are you joking? i cant tell. thats not an argument at all wtf.
Not necessarily. If there is a disparity in the methods through which they distribute drugs (on streets vs inside of houses) and differences in the areas that they use drugs (again, private vs public areas), you could expect them to get caught in the act at different rates.
I don't know if they have published statistics on race differences in settings of arrest, but it could be a valid point if that were true.
It could also even be that cops are in high-crime areas more and find them more, as high-crime areas are....well, ya know...
Created:
-->
@Aryanman
We should air-drop feminist literature into all of their cities. That'll show 'em. Nothing destroys a nation quicker than importation of our cancerous liberal-degenerate culture.
About the nukes.... it's going to happen sooner or later if it hasn't already (we have been fearmongering about it for a decade).
They want nukes so that we don't bully them and pull what we did to Saddam. They aren't going to use them the second they get one. Pakistan has had nukes for decades and has been fine.
I don't support global policing, so I'm not inclined to care.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's only a few edgelords willing to claim membership in the KKK.Most of them are wimpy neckbeards with temporary tattoos.
Most of them are feds lmao
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
I mean, it is kind of hard to tell you now. They aren't really an organization anymore as far as I know.
But when they used violence to intimidate people back in the day to not vote and when they bombed a church? Yeah, they should have been considered one at the time.
Any attempt to designate them that way is honestly a waste of time and just trying to look like you're fixing problems while not actually doing anything substantive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'd agree that the flow of accurate information is necessary for free and fair elections. Republicans have demonstrated a heedless disregard for accurate information in the age of Trump so I can't say I share your sense of urgency. Nor is it possible for those media goliaths to violate a citizen's FA rights. The Constitution constrains the government from infringing on free speech, not big tech. If big govt. were to force big tech to promote ideas that those giants consider harmful or anti-American that would be an infringement. Any Conservative American will know that while Republicans have been required to eject such principles.
I don't disagree that the FA is for constraining the government, but there is no prohibition on the government from forcing companies to be more lax on their restrictions of speech, as far as I know.
The government shouldn't force companies to promote certain ideas, and I believe that is quite different than forcing companies to not exclusively promote certain ideas.
Furthermore, I don't find a disregard for accurate information to be endemic to the GOP as you seem to imply.
What the GOP wants and ought to have is an at least one rival network- a Hearst to Facebook's Pulitzer, a Fox to YouTube's MSNBC. It doesn't need to be explicitly Republican (Hearst and Pulitzer were mostly on the same side politically), nor ought it be. The competition itself will ensure that unpopular opinion gets expressed. Any Capitalist American will count on that competition while again, Republicans are required to eject any principle that obstructs their path to power.
That's a fine idea, especially if you don't share my urgency, as you said. But if we had to wait a decade for a new rival platform to become truly competitive, that would mean we would have 5 federal elections/2 presidents elected while large firms repress ideas and stories that are unfavorable to what they believe in.
It doesn't really seem to be that far-fetched of an idea to say that: you're an American company, you should adhere to American values (support Free Speech). We already do that in some respects, such as how we have prohibitions on bribery in foreign countries.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What the heck????
Motto: E Plurbus Unum. Out of many one. Out of many ethnicities, one nationality. Out of many states, one nation.
You make a huge stretch there. It ONLY means colonies/states.
": out of many (states or colonies), one (nation) —used on the Great Seal of the U.S. and on several U.S. coins"
Don't believe me? Check out the immigration and naturalization policies we had over the first 150 years of existence. They did darn near everything they could to make it a European ethnostate.
Only superpower to have an actual libetarian party
Hard to argue that we do, considering they haven't had a member in Congress (since at least 1972) and have at their maximum received a little over 3% of the presidential vote.
This is why people want to move to America instead of ethnostates like Britain, France, or Germany.
Britain, France, and Germany are not ethnostates anymore. They have let in very many Middle Eastern and African immigrants/refugees.
Nobody is moving here because we killed less people hundreds of years ago. Nobody moving here probably even knows the libertarian party exists.
Most of them, and I'll go out on a limb here, move here exclusively because this is a richer country with more welfare and higher-paying jobs than wherever they came from- not because of some notion of "victimless freedoms". The only ones that MIGHT consider that a main factor are from already rich countries (which we get relatively few immigrants from).
Created:
Posted in:
*blocks people for disagreeing then calls them pussies*
🤔
Created:
Posted in:
RMM,
Considering a broken clock is right twice a day, that means there is a 1/43,200 chance you’re correct about them
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think I would focus on anti-trust legislation and fully justified Federal anti-trust interventions against a number of big tech giants- Amazon and Facebook are certainly anti-competitive monopolies- perhaps Twitter although I'd have to think that one through. Why change corporate rights to control private content with new law when hundred year old laws are clearly relevant and address the problem of lack of alternative venue much more directly? I know Conservatives despise anti-trust generally but using existing law is more Conservative in principle then designing new laws to achieve desired political outcomes.
I’m actually quite the champion of anti-trust laws. Republicans haven’t generally been in the last few decades, but good ol’ TR was quite the trust buster.
That is a possible good avenue that could fix the issue of their power over discourse. I suppose I discounted anti-trust prematurely.
I suppose my main concern is the urgency of the issue. If we could limit their power to crush competitors, there is still the concern that the competition needs to gain its own power. Facebook, Twitter, etc took well over a decade to get the reach they have.
Since the flow of information is necessary for elections, it might be better to force the companies with the existing infrastructure and audience to comply with 1st Amendment rules.
It could be messy (no option is perfect), but I’d be happy to hear what you think of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@Barney
Don’t listen to RMM.
You guys made the site better. Hope to see you both more active if/when your schedules clear up!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The site is not gonna turn into a Parlor just because a more conservative moderation is coming into place. I will discuss more when I have some time home later today
Good! I was hoping it would be more like Gab
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I see.
I’d agree that this lawsuit is unlikely to win. Seems to me that it is a waste of time, money, and political capital to try it.
Under the current laws, it is difficult to do anything about the censorship. Hence why my focus is on changing the laws and not on frivolous lawsuits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Oops, forgot my question. What lawsuit were you referring to in which he said he didn’t have to use the money on the lawsuit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Yes, Trump has little legal ground to stand on and seems to know it. The lawsuit seems to be just another way to re-up Trump income with another round of fundraisers that explicitly say that Trump is not obligated to spend donations on his lawsuit and on which we've already established he won't pay taxes. The GOP is complaining that Trump is now cutting deep into GOP fundraising for 2022 Congressional races but Trump, as ever, does not give a fuck.
His money-whoring is starting to piss me off.
He needs to endorse candidates/help them fundraise or gtfo of politics altogether.
Created: