Page 382 of 383 FirstFirst ... 282332372380381382383 LastLast
Results 15,241 to 15,280 of 15282

Thread: Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!

  1. #15241
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Publicly traded means there are no restrictions on stock ownership. They are still private property.
    Of course, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C
    They sure AF are subsidized by governments. I donít know what you mean by subsidized by other corporations. Are you maybe referring to economic rents? Or do you just mean that other companies do business with them?
    Yeah, I was basically saying that they receive money from other corporations, which are often publicly traded as well. So since they are heavily reliant on these external groups, other than just their customers, they have to appease them as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C
    Protests and boycotts will sway any business that seeks to maximize its profit. This happens whether the business is a publicly traded corporation or a privately traded one.
    Of course but a private business has less vulnerability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C
    I do not consider this a ďthe problemĒ. The public is using its right to free speech to lobby companies that are doing unpopular things, or using their right of voluntary association to boycott them. The companies are doing the same, to decide whether to comply or not. This scenario will happen whenever people have freedom, whether you like it or not. As far as Iím concerned this is free speech and a market economy working correctly. If you donít like it, all it means is that you donít like free speech or markets as much as you think.
    Except in this case we are talking about effectively shutting down peoples ability to exercise their free speech. We can have a discussion about the first amendment and how it doesn't apply here but it also doesn't apply to the states but the Supreme Court rewrote that part of the constitution to make it so. In my opinion we are so extra-constitutional now it's almost dumb to argue about the constitutionality of anything. Unfortunately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C
    Socialism will not prevent this. Fascist or Stalinist dictatorships sure would, though!

    Pretty effiní typical that you think America has a slice of socialism just because you donít like what theyíre doing, gotta be honest.
    Well, you usually advocate destructive methods to achieve a socialism end so that's how I took your post. It was also sarcasm because I know you're not actually interested in solving a situation where conservatives are ostracized from social media.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  2. #15242
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    He did interview Gavin McInnes? Donít know if heís technically a neo-Nazi.
    Have you listened to Gavin McInnes? I can't imagine how he could be considered a neo-Nazi.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  3. #15243
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Except in this case we are talking about effectively shutting down peoples ability to exercise their free speech.
    These are private citizens using their freedoms as they will. Since you didnít answer I will ask again: Whose freedom would you take away to stop this?

    Well, you usually advocate destructive methods to achieve a socialism end so that's how I took your post. It was also sarcasm because I know you're not actually interested in solving a situation where conservatives are ostracized from social media.
    I advocate for beneficial tax policies for worker cooperatives, a right-of-first-refusal on the sale of private companies by the employees with support from repayable but dischargeable government funding, and rescinding limitation of liability for non-cooperative corporations. All of these are supremely wonkish and I donít suspect you are capable of understanding any of them, so Iím not surprised you think my suggestions are destructive. Iíd guess you think anything leftward of a totalitarian Republican dictatorship is destructive though.

  4. #15244
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Have you listened to Gavin McInnes? I can't imagine how he could be considered a neo-Nazi.
    Gavin McInnes advocates political violence against his adversaries and glorifies violence against leftists in particular, and founded an organization that is expressly neo-fascist (and just ďcoincidentallyĒ all of their members are also white supremacists). The man is a Nazi and if you canít recognize that it says an awful lot about your own character.

  5. #15245
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    These are private citizens using their freedoms as they will. Since you didn’t answer I will ask again: Whose freedom would you take away to stop this?
    Sure, I think people should be able to choose to do business with whom they want but we don't live in that world now, do we? You believe Christian bakers that don't want to participate in gay weddings should be put out of business. You posted that before but, of course, in a typically "witty" manner. I hope your not going to pretend you need me to find it. I won't look for it and you're much better at finding things like this than I am anyway. I don't think it's fair for publishers to deplatform it's users especially when they haven't broken the rules of the site they're using. I don't like it when it happens to a leftist either. I've stated here before that I think people should be free to expose themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Gavin McInnes advocates political violence against his adversaries and glorifies violence against leftists in particular, and founded an organization that is expressly neo-fascist (and just “coincidentally” all of their members are also white supremacists). The man is a Nazi and if you can’t recognize that it says an awful lot about your own character.
    I've listened to a fair amount of his content and that doesn't sound familiar at all. I know there's the Proud Boys thing but from what I heard that seems completely overblown but, regardless, I'm not really into that so I can't comment too much on that aspect but definitely the sorts of things I've heard McInnes say I wouldn't think would be too unpopular with many here.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  6. #15246
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Sure, I think people should be able to choose to do business with whom they want but we don't live in that world now, do we? You believe Christian bakers that don't want to participate in gay weddings should be put out of business.
    Yup Iím super ok with the government enjoining businesses from discriminating against customers and employees on the bases of race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political opinions, age, marital status. Iím ok with the government forcing businesses to make reasonable accommodations for disabilities. If individuals and business owners arenít comfortable with this, Iím also ok if they choose not to provide services to anybody.

    See, Iím saying this because thatís my answer to the question I asked you. Iím ok with the government stepping in and taking these kinds of freedoms away from private property owners. Unlike you Iím capable of providing this answer because Iím not a vacuous personal freedoms fundamentalist whoís ideologically incapable of reconciling the reality that, sometimes, freedoms are gonna interfere with each other.

    I don't think it's fair for publishers to deplatform it's users especially when they haven't broken the rules of the site they're using.
    Platforms have finite capacity. The dual of this problem is: if publishers arenít allowed to deplatform people, then who gets to decide who is platformed in the first place? Why should mainstream liberals and Nazis get a platform? I demand equal time for anarchosynicalism and for market socialism.

    I've listened to a fair amount of his content and that doesn't sound familiar at all. I know there's the Proud Boys thing but from what I heard that seems completely overblown but, regardless, I'm not really into that so I can't comment too much on that aspect but definitely the sorts of things I've heard McInnes say I wouldn't think would be too unpopular with many here.
    yeah I bet youíd admire him.

  7. #15247
    You misspelled Anarcho-Cynicism but I agree
    sniff

  8. #15248
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Also, by the way, all of the right-wingers whoíve been deplatformed so far have ultimately been banned under a terms of service. Mostly for inciting violence. They all should have lost service a long time earlier, but it turns out the so-called biased tech companies hadnít been enforcing their terms for violent conservatives at all until progressive activists held their feet to the fire. Weird. Itís almost like these radical liberal coastal elites are actually bending over backwards to find excuses to take violent right money even when their own service agreement says they wonít.

    Just letting you know that I did spot your hair splitting here, and that I think itís weak.

  9. #15249
    But the Christian Baker didn't refuse to serve the lesion couple because of their sexual orientation. They had served them previously. They believed they couldn't participate in the wedding due to their own religious beliefs.

    Now, there certainly are all sorts of people that have been kicked off of individual platform due to violating terms of service. I just actually doubt that many of these so-called alt-right personalities legitimately broke any. At least not to a degree that warrants being expunged from various sites.

    When I don't answer one of your questions it's not that I can't. It's normally that you haven't earned an answer.

  10. #15250
    I really don't know how we can apologize for the behavior of the liberal coasts when they de-platform honest and hardworking people who are just trying to put food on the table.

  11. #15251
    Likes Kittens. Eats Fluffies
    Posts
    11,968
    First they came for Milo's Twitter follower count :'-(

  12. #15252
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    I just actually doubt that many of these so-called alt-right personalities legitimately broke any.
    Gee I dunno, why donít you post one that you feel has been unfairly banned?

    When I don't answer one of your questions it's not that I can't. It's normally that you haven't earned an answer.
    Naaaah, itís because you canít. Nobody believes that. Usually itís not cognitive dissonance, though, so Iíll understand if you fight thinking about this one a bit more than normal.

  13. #15253
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    I really don't know how we can apologize for the behavior of the liberal coasts when they de-platform honest and hardworking people who are just trying to put food on the table.
    Maybe if Yiannopoulos didn’t want to get banned, he shouldn’t have called for people to murder journalists. Or advocate for statutory rape, lol.

    Gab is relentlessly hostile and full of teenagers hurling insults, you say??.

  14. #15254
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Hey Yiannopoulos

    Change your name and get a ****ing job, you loser.

  15. #15255
    Yes, but

    “I’m clinging on for dear life. And I’ll never give up,” said Yiannopoulos,
    Are you really telling me he might have to give up his career as a media troll and start washing dishes? Isn't that unkind?? Why should a right winger be expected to have to work for a living???

  16. #15256
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    I dunno, Iím still waiting for twitter to enforce their rules on president trump.

  17. #15257

  18. #15258
    And itís dumb.

  19. #15259
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    The most prominent defenses of liberalism today are either laundry lists of its past glories or misplaced attacks on “identity politics” and “political correctness,”
    Huh. I always thought of identity politics as peak neoliberal Democrat. Never saw attacking it as a defense of liberalism.

  20. #15260
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,789
    As Amartya Sen argued in a brilliant 1997 essay, many of the core principles we identify with liberalism today — religious toleration, popular sovereignty, equal freedom for all citizens — can be found in writings from pre-modern Europe, the ancient Buddhist tradition, and a 16th-century Indian king, among a range of sources. Liberalism has taken root in diverse societies across the globe today, from Japan to Uruguay to Namibia.

    Sen’s paper suggests that instead of defining liberalism by books written by dead white men, it makes more sense to treat it as a set of parts: a grouping of principles and animating ideas that, when combined, add up to an overarching framework for understanding political life.
    Haha uh, what? Just because other societies had some liberal ideas doesn't mean they were necessarily influential on the development of European parliamentarianism, nor are their ideas necessarily any good, or the ideas of 'dead white men' bad.

  21. #15261
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Haha uh, what? Just because other societies had some liberal ideas doesn't mean they were necessarily influential on the development of European parliamentarianism, nor are their ideas necessarily any good, or the ideas of 'dead white men' bad.
    Right? Even though thatís early on in the piece, you can tell where itís going to end up from that bit. Trying to justify the claim that liberalism is a universal ideology by claiming that it is reducible to some core tenets, and that those tenets have precedents in non-European societies, and therefore that even non-whites can wholeheartedly embrace liberalism, is quite suspect. Itís as if he thinks he has to counter the view that liberalism is the exclusive cultural patrimony of white people.

  22. #15262
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Huh. I always thought of identity politics as peak neoliberal Democrat. Never saw attacking it as a defense of liberalism.
    Yeah, itís a weaksauce treatment of Lilla and Chaitís critique, for a few reasons. I mean, the move he makes is effectively to say that, with woke politics, liberalism has already arrived at what it should be. Go figure that heíd be a vigorous supporter of the status quo.

  23. #15263
    Barf
    Last edited by Eversor; 09-09-2019 at 08:51 PM.

  24. #15264
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Itís as if he thinks he has to counter the view that liberalism is the exclusive cultural patrimony of white people.
    Liberalism is good because in nature half of the CEOs would be women of colour.

  25. #15265
    �� EQUAL ���� REPRESENTATION ���� AMONG ���� THE �������� OPPRESSING ���������� CLASS ����
    sniff

  26. #15266
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,789
    Their section on the left is interesting, because they claim the left is anti-liberal but then say this:

    Many of the sharpest left-wing critics of liberalism do not frame themselves as opponents of liberal democratic ideals. Rather, they argue that they’re the only people who can vindicate liberalism’s best promises.
    I guess that's pretty true, but I think it's interesting that someone can brand people who champion liberal ideas as anti-liberal. Their specific example was someone who thought the only way to attain liberal institutions was illiberal means.. which is actually kind of true in a way, at least historically, but even then I don't know if it's necessary.

  27. #15267
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Right? Even though that’s early on in the piece, you can tell where it’s going to end up from that bit. Trying to justify the claim that liberalism is a universal ideology by claiming that it is reducible to some core tenets, and that those tenets have precedents in non-European societies, and therefore that even non-whites can wholeheartedly embrace liberalism, is quite suspect. It’s as if he thinks he has to counter the view that liberalism is the exclusive cultural patrimony of white people.
    Yeah, there's some deep seated insecurities there. I'm completely fine telling others I think functioning liberal institutions and parliamentary governments are wayyy better than pretty much every other government that has yet to form. Because they are. I don't see why their point should be mentioned at all, other than in the process of trying to convince people to adopt liberal ideas who would otherwise cling to other codes (Islam comes to mind).

    If anything, the argument I'd have against liberalism right now is that 'the masses' are too easily subject to (inverse?) demagoguery. Propaganda is more prevalent than ever, but there's no good way to counter it other than your own counter-propaganda. Seems to be a core problem with liberal society that someone with resources and a goal can manipulate public perception on key issues to their advantage. Which, of course, has been happening for decades and is largely responsible for the crazy political beliefs today.
    Last edited by Reid; 09-10-2019 at 10:52 AM.

  28. #15268
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Their section on the left is interesting, because they claim the left is anti-liberal but then say this:

    I guess that's pretty true, but I think it's interesting that someone can brand people who champion liberal ideas as anti-liberal.
    Yeah, especially given that he presents the identity-left/woke-left (whatever you want to call it) as effectively the same thing: critics of liberalism who say that the problem with contemporary liberalism is that it doesnít live up to its own ideals. But I think he wants to say that identity politics is more liberal than the economic-left, despite their illiberal tactics (which he just wants to scoff off, I suppose).
    Last edited by Eversor; 09-10-2019 at 12:59 PM.

  29. #15269
    It also seems totally naive how he distinguishes the left and right wing critics of liberalism. The left is no less concerned with social solidarity and ďcommunityĒ than the reactionary Catholic right and the ďnational conservativesĒ, as they call themselves.

  30. #15270
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    If anything, the argument I'd have against liberalism right now is that 'the masses' are too easily subject to (inverse?) demagoguery. Propaganda is more prevalent than ever, but there's no good way to counter it other than your own counter-propaganda. Seems to be a core problem with liberal society that someone with resources and a goal can manipulate public perception on key issues to their advantage. Which, of course, has been happening for decades and is largely responsible for the crazy political beliefs today.
    Seems to me that the problem is 1. the people who represent the center-left/center-right have been discredited by decades of crises and declining quality of life and 2. they donít have a compelling vision for the future.

    I think itís quite telling that liberalism, which is generally a forward-looking ideology, is now enraptured by apocalyptic fears of climate change and that the future is something horrific, rather than something to be awaited with hopeful expectation. But I dunno.
    Last edited by Eversor; 09-10-2019 at 01:03 PM.

  31. #15271
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I think itís quite telling that liberalism, which is generally a forward-looking ideology, is now enraptured by apocalyptic fears of climate change and that the future is something horrific, rather than something to be awaited with hopeful expectation. But I dunno.
    A nightmare future that liberalism caused, and is ideologically incapable of preventing.

  32. #15272
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    If anything, the argument I'd have against liberalism right now is that 'the masses' are too easily subject to (inverse?) demagoguery. Propaganda is more prevalent than ever, but there's no good way to counter it other than your own counter-propaganda. Seems to be a core problem with liberal society that someone with resources and a goal can manipulate public perception on key issues to their advantage. Which, of course, has been happening for decades and is largely responsible for the crazy political beliefs today.
    Alex Jones made a career out of seditious libel. Keep in mind, we used to prosecute that even within the framework of a liberal democracy. What changed isnít society becoming too liberal, but our justice system switched to an expansionist/fundamentalist interpretation of free speech. Our conservatives and society would be better if we still prosecuted it and otherwise retained reasonable ďshouting fireĒ limitations on speech (especially paid speech).

    The argument Iíd have against liberalism is that itís ideologically incapable of prosecuting ďseditious business practicesĒ. Creating moral hazards? Commodities speculation or market manipulation? Sounds like youíre hurting your country to enrich yourself. Whatís the difference if China pays you to sabotage the national economy or if you pay yourself to do it? Both crimes should be equal.

  33. #15273
    We should bring back the Comstock Laws! Yaaaay

  34. #15274
    Is the problem really that the US justice system has shifted to a fundamentalist conception of free speech, or is it that new communication technology has produced a new set of social problems that the law and the principles behind it are ill-equipped to address? This isn't a new issue. We had crazed conspiracy theorists spewing **** on the radio waves in the 60s and 70s, too. It may have had less ability to find a mainstream audience, or have been less consequential, or something (always notable that the 60s and 70s were actually a time of greater instability than the 2010s), but Alex Jones is part of an American tradition that goes back for decades.

  35. #15275
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Alex Jones made a career out of seditious libel.
    just because I can't resist getting super pedantic about it... slander, not libel.

  36. #15276
    I miss the debates about hate crime laws in the 2000s/2010s. It's kind of like if you took all of today's culture war conflict and made it into a policy debate that could be subject to cost-benefit analysis.

  37. #15277
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    We should bring back the Comstock Laws! Yaaaay
    Restraining speech because itís morally offensive is materially different than restraining malicious lies about what the government is doing, told for the sole purpose of causing mass unrest. Pornography published with the consent of all involved is different from Sandy Hook government libel, and despite your alluded slippery slope argument, you donít need to prosecute both of them just because you prosecute one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Is the problem really that the US justice system has shifted to a fundamentalist conception of free speech, or is it that new communication technology has produced a new set of social problems that the law and the principles behind it are ill-equipped to address? This isn't a new issue. We had crazed conspiracy theorists spewing **** on the radio waves in the 60s and 70s, too. It may have had less ability to find a mainstream audience, or have been less consequential, or something (always notable that the 60s and 70s were actually a time of greater instability than the 2010s), but Alex Jones is part of an American tradition that goes back for decades.
    The United States didnít have laws about seditious libel per se, but inherited the assumption of criminality from Common Law. When it was codified in the late 1700s it was a prohibition on seditious speech (not libel). These laws were almost immediately weakened and effectively ended in the late 1960s, when the expansionist interpretations of the bill of rights took root (not only of the first amendment, but all others).

    I donít know whether the US would have prosecuted Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists before the 1960s. I donít think itís especially pertinent what the traditions of the 1960s have to say about what should be done today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    just because I can't resist getting super pedantic about it... slander, not libel.
    Libel is for any published work, regardless of medium.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I miss the debates about hate crime laws in the 2000s/2010s. It's kind of like if you took all of today's culture war conflict and made it into a policy debate that could be subject to cost-benefit analysis.
    Evaluating social problems in a financial framework is neoliberal AF.

  38. #15278
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    The United States didnít have laws about seditious libel per se, but inherited the assumption of criminality from Common Law. When it was codified in the late 1700s it was a prohibition on seditious speech (not libel). These laws were almost immediately weakened and effectively ended in the late 1960s, when the expansionist interpretations of the bill of rights took root (not only of the first amendment, but all others).
    Well, I think itís meaningful that what youíre calling the expansionist interpretation of the first amendment came out of the Warren court, rather than out of conservative jurisprudence. It helps me situate it in an ideological context.

    Iím curious if thereís a prominent contemporary center-left or leftist critique of the Warren courtís judicial activism. It seems like it opened up a can of worms by politicizing SCOTUS. (For example, Baker v. Carr, where the issue of judicial restraint on political issues was central.) Sure, judicial activism seems advantageous when you have a majority on the court. But what the GOP has been able to do might not have been worth it.

  39. #15279
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Restraining speech because itís morally offensive is materially different than restraining malicious lies about what the government is doing, told for the sole purpose of causing mass unrest. Pornography published with the consent of all involved is different from Sandy Hook government libel, and despite your alluded slippery slope argument, you donít need to prosecute both of them just because you prosecute one of them.
    There was a lot of ambiguity in my remark so I canít fault you for misinterpreting me, but I wasnít making a slippery slope argument. I wouldnít mind a public debate about setting lines on free speech (including obscenity).

  40. #15280
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,163
    Mid-century Democrats were the former champions of politicizing the US courts, for sure. The expansionary interpretation of the commerce clause that made the new deal legal (edit: until it wasnít) is a pretty solid argument that the US federal government has utterly unlimited powers.
    Last edited by Jon`C; 09-10-2019 at 09:46 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •