TRUMP TEARS THREAD - Page 3
Register

User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 199
  1. #101

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I did not make the claim that 'saying that someone's views are stupid' suppresses free speech. It depends on who says it.
    If Distorted says someone's views were stupid (assuming that someone were THERE, on the discord, and assuming that it was intended to reach that someone), it is pretty evidently made to stifle speech.
    If I say it? Who gives a shit? But it's a completely different matter when someone 'in charge' does it. Imagine if Justin Trudeau went ahead and said "oops is a retard and nobody should listen to him". How would you feel?

    Also, you're still talking about legal issues lol when I already agreed that from a legal standpoint you are totally in your right to ban someone from your site for being a Trump supporter. Just remember that when Slaol swung his admin dick around, he got demoted. For admin abuse. You or anyone, for that matter, hypothetically banning Trump supporters would fall in the same scenario for me.
    Sure, all of that makes sense.

  2. #102

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    Totally misread your comment and took it to mean that people are fired for NOT supporting Trump. My bad lol.

    And if you view free speech as a gradient then I guess you could say Europe (as well as the rest of the Anglosphere) has "less" free speech than the U.S. Personally, I view free speech as a binary. It either exists or it doesn't. As a Canadian if I, say, argue that gender dysphoria is a mental illness and that trans women are not real women (just a hypothetical, not saying that is my real view), then I could be put in jail. Saying something which was the common view of most of the population just a decade ago could now land you in jail. The laws aren't often enforced because they are ridiculous, but the fact that they exist at all is enough to stifle most people from saying what they really think and unwittingly committing a thoughtcrime.
    Viewing free speech as a binary is profoundly insane. You lump together Germany which has banned the drawing of swastika due to historical sensitivities with Iran which imprisons people for legitimately protesting a theocratic state and then you lump both of these with North Korea - the apex of authoritarian censorship, where every microscopic piece of information is tightly controlled.

    I urge you to reconsider such a black and white view of the world. Imagine you're a developing democracy in North Africa or the Middle East and you're told you have absolutely no freedom of speech if you maintain some speech barriers due to religious baggage? You're telling them to throw any effort out the window and be like North Korea. You're telling the world stage to treat them as equivalent to North Korea, and destabilize their attempts at serious government as we would with North Korea, because their free speech is indistinguishable. On the other end of the spectrum, you're simultaneously undermining criticism of these same countries for their their free speech limits because, hey, not even Germany or the UK truly has freedom of speech, right? Criticizing them for not attaining such a lofty principal seems hardly fair.

    I fear you only take such a hardline stance to justify to yourself why you care so much about anti-trans laws in Canada that noone has actually been imprisoned for. If they're anything like the hate speech laws here in the UK, I know they're all bark and have absolutely no serious bite.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  3. #103

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    You're also leaving out that free speech in the US has also historically been negotiable - like everywhere else it's a constant ongoing battle. During times of war or crisis or great fear, free speech has been tightly controlled in the USA, as it has everywhere else. I presume you've heard of Mccarthyism - when 1000s of people in academia, the media and politics were prosecuted in Kangaroo Courts or silently sternly warned for ALLEGED ties to socialism. That can hardly be regarded as the behaviour of a thriving bastion of free speech. I believe some limits on free speech were placed during the Patriot Act, but I may be confusing them with limits on the right to privacy.

    Furthermore, members of BDS, a Palestinian rights organization, are literally banned from entry to the US. They are not particularly violent, but I believe they are banned with the excuse of racism or anti-semitism. They've suppressed BDS activism in other ways I believe, but I don't want to say smth wrong. I can get back to you on that if you care.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...enied-entry-us
    Last edited by yzb25; November 13th, 2020 at 04:47 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  4. #104

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    You're also leaving out that free speech in the US has also historically been negotiable - like everywhere else it's a constant ongoing battle. During times of war or crisis or great fear, free speech has been tightly controlled in the USA, as it has everywhere else. I presume you've heard of Mccarthyism - when 1000s of people in academia, the media and politics were prosecuted in Kangaroo Courts or silently sternly warned for ALLEGED ties to socialism. That can hardly be regarded as the behaviour of a thriving bastion of free speech. I believe some limits on free speech were placed during the Patriot Act, but I may be confusing them with limits on the right to privacy.

    Furthermore, members of BDS, a Palestinian rights organization, is literally banned in several US states. They are not particularly violent, but I believe they are banned with the excuse of racism or anti-semitism. They've suppressed BDS activism in other ways I believe, but I don't want to say smth wrong. I can get back to you on that if you care.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...enied-entry-us
    This isn't to say the US doesn't have great freedom of speech. I'm merely making saying it has great free speech "with limitations" or "with caveats", much like Canada, the UK or Germany.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  5. #105

  6. #106

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    I welcome our dick swinging overlords
    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    deathworld's and RLVG's suicides made me lul. I take a lot of pleasure in knowing that I gave you an night action, and that you used it to kill yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    At least Mesk has lewdy lefty and raunchy righty. You're not even Canadian.
    Quote Originally Posted by Unknown1234 View Post
    BRO HUUUUUUMP!! That's so Mesk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    fucketh me in the ass

  7. #107

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Viewing free speech as a binary is profoundly insane. You lump together Germany which has banned the drawing of swastika due to historical sensitivities with Iran which imprisons people for legitimately protesting a theocratic state and then you lump both of these with North Korea - the apex of authoritarian censorship, where every microscopic piece of information is tightly controlled.

    I urge you to reconsider such a black and white view of the world. Imagine you're a developing democracy in North Africa or the Middle East and you're told you have absolutely no freedom of speech if you maintain some speech barriers due to religious baggage? You're telling them to throw any effort out the window and be like North Korea. You're telling the world stage to treat them as equivalent to North Korea, and destabilize their attempts at serious government as we would with North Korea, because their free speech is indistinguishable. On the other end of the spectrum, you're simultaneously undermining criticism of these same countries for their their free speech limits because, hey, not even Germany or the UK truly has freedom of speech, right? Criticizing them for not attaining such a lofty principal seems hardly fair.

    I fear you only take such a hardline stance to justify to yourself why you care so much about anti-trans laws in Canada that noone has actually been imprisoned for. If they're anything like the hate speech laws here in the UK, I know they're all bark and have absolutely no serious bite.
    You're damn right I would lump all of those countries in together, at least when it comes to free speeh. The UK and Canada may not have the same human rights abuses and oppressive regimes that prevail in Iran or North Korea. But when it comes to free speech we are not much better.

    The United States is just about the only country on earth with functionally absolute freedom of speech and expression. The president may not like it when Collin Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem. It is somewhat idiotic that someone would use the right to free speech guaranteed by their nation in order to disparage said nation. But ultimately neither the president nor anyone else in government can do jack shit about it, because the 1A very clearly protects free speech. Once you start adding too many politically motivated ifs ands or buts to your "free speech" protections in the way Canada, Germany, the UK, etc. do then you no longer have free speech. You have quasi-"""free""" speech with multiple asterisks and addendums.

    As to your second point, are you seriously arguing that hate speech laws are okay just because they are rarely enforced? That just seems like a "worst of both worlds" solution. People who want free speech will feel they are being oppressed just because the laws are in place, whereas totalitarians who want to limit what we can say will get mad because the thought police won't arrest that guy who said we need less immigrants.
    Quote Originally Posted by Necroplant View Post
    Mafia will be very interesting for the duration of this sentence, and lots of individuals' tummys will hurt from laughing so hard. I've had to fall out of my chair and lie on the ground before, as it was just too painful to laugh LOL.

  8. #108

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    You're also leaving out that free speech in the US has also historically been negotiable - like everywhere else it's a constant ongoing battle. During times of war or crisis or great fear, free speech has been tightly controlled in the USA, as it has everywhere else. I presume you've heard of Mccarthyism - when 1000s of people in academia, the media and politics were prosecuted in Kangaroo Courts or silently sternly warned for ALLEGED ties to socialism. That can hardly be regarded as the behaviour of a thriving bastion of free speech. I believe some limits on free speech were placed during the Patriot Act, but I may be confusing them with limits on the right to privacy.

    Furthermore, members of BDS, a Palestinian rights organization, are literally banned from entry to the US. They are not particularly violent, but I believe they are banned with the excuse of racism or anti-semitism. They've suppressed BDS activism in other ways I believe, but I don't want to say smth wrong. I can get back to you on that if you care.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...enied-entry-us
    I will agree on this point. Freedom of speech has at times been endangered in the United States. Before McCarthyism, you had the Alien and Sedition acts passed by the Federalists and supported by John Adams, the Comstock Laws, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Palmer Raids, etc.

    But these are the exceptions that prove the rule. And while you might argue that due to these exceptions free speech is a useless ideal to strive towards, I would argue the opposite. America needs a firm commitment to free speech more than ever. We are currently living through a second McCarthyism, only this time it is coming from the left. Right wing ideals are stifled and censored, or blamed on "Russian bots." Democrats in congress like AOC openly discuss creating blacklists of former Trump "collaborators and apologists." Tech giants and the legacy media blatantly tried to burry news stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's dealings in Ukraine. Now they are hiding all evidence of possible voter fraud without even doing their journalistic due diligence and investigating the claims themselves. The trends are not looking good for the last bastion of free speech on this earth.
    Last edited by thedougler; November 13th, 2020 at 05:41 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Necroplant View Post
    Mafia will be very interesting for the duration of this sentence, and lots of individuals' tummys will hurt from laughing so hard. I've had to fall out of my chair and lie on the ground before, as it was just too painful to laugh LOL.

  9. #109

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Spoiler : quotes :

    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    You're damn right I would lump all of those countries in together, at least when it comes to free speeh. The UK and Canada may not have the same human rights abuses and oppressive regimes that prevail in Iran or North Korea. But when it comes to free speech we are not much better.

    The United States is just about the only country on earth with functionally absolute freedom of speech and expression. The president may not like it when Collin Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem. It is somewhat idiotic that someone would use the right to free speech guaranteed by their nation in order to disparage said nation. But ultimately neither the president nor anyone else in government can do jack shit about it, because the 1A very clearly protects free speech. Once you start adding too many politically motivated ifs ands or buts to your "free speech" protections in the way Canada, Germany, the UK, etc. do then you no longer have free speech. You have quasi-"""free""" speech with multiple asterisks and addendums.

    As to your second point, are you seriously arguing that hate speech laws are okay just because they are rarely enforced? That just seems like a "worst of both worlds" solution. People who want free speech will feel they are being oppressed just because the laws are in place, whereas totalitarians who want to limit what we can say will get mad because the thought police won't arrest that guy who said we need less immigrants.
    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    I will agree on this point. Freedom of speech has at times been endangered in the United States. Before McCarthyism, you had the Alien and Sedition acts passed by the Federalists and supported by John Adams, the Comstock Laws, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Palmer Raids, etc.

    But these are the exceptions that prove the rule. And while you might argue that due to these exceptions free speech is a useless ideal to strive towards, I would argue the opposite. America needs a firm commitment to free speech more than ever. We are currently living through a second McCarthyism, only this time it is coming from the left. Right wing ideals are stifled and censored, or blamed on "Russian bots." Democrats in congress like AOC openly discuss creating blacklists of former Trump "collaborators and apologists." Tech giants and the legacy media blatantly tried to burry news stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's dealings in Ukraine. Now they are hiding all evidence of possible voter fraud without even doing their journalistic due diligence and investigating the claims themselves. The trends are not looking good for the last bastion of free speech on this earth.


    I don't normally get invested in arguments about definition. I just feel that, in this context, it's worth arguing about given how much power the phrase holds.

    It's interesting that you should bring up the term "human rights abuse", because I feel that is a phrase which has been made totally vapid and redundant over time, in exactly the same manner the phrase "violation of freedom of speech" is losing any sort of meaning. The issue is overreach - if you try to make your term include every minor infringement of human rights then, hey what do you know, suddenly almost every nation on earth has committed some violation of human rights in the last 20 years. in 2016, the UN human rights council passed a resolution declaring all citizens to have a right to internet access, declaring all of humanity to have been constantly oppressed up until the 1990s. Granted, it is true that authoritarian countries suppress internet and that should be acknowledged. However, this is the same human rights council that allowed Saudi Arabia to become Chair of the UNHRC Advisory Committee in 2015 (the panel that chooses people to write reports on violations). On what grounds was Saudi Arabia, one of the most perversely inhumane nations on earth, appointed to the position? Naturally, it was because all countries make human rights violations, and it's not our place to judge because we're not perfect either. It's a binary, after all. And if it's a binary, then we all get to be equal in our failure to live up to perfection. At this point, the term is solely a cudgel to beat countries you happen not to like this thursday morning.

    I don't mean to sound uncharitable, because you certainly don't think a failure to live up to an ideal renders all attempts futile. And I'm sure you can recognize when some countries are closer to the ideal than others. I'm just trying to illustrate how this way of defining terms has, is, and will be used to obfuscate the conversation by people acting in bad faith. While it is true that my attitude can and does open the door to notions of "quasi-free speech" and some of the impact of the term is lost, it is much better to bend and to retain something than to break and lose everything. Incrementalism is not very glamorous, but it is an important component of a healthy democracy.

    You can reply to the argument above if you like, but I probably wouldn't respond to that reply because I don't want to get too invested in an argument about the term, honestly.

    I resent the fact that many people on the left have started to rally for more authoritarianism or restrictions to free speech, particularly in the context of corporations firing people or in the context of social media sites using hard censorship like facebook taking down pages or softer censorship like when youtube fudges its algorithms to drown out dissenting voices. This will inevitably backfire when some of these lefties learn the hard way that these corporations don't like them very much either, and are merely using them and their ideals. This has already started to happen with anti-war pages getting taken down, for example. There is a gravitation on the left towards using authoritarianism to act as a shortcut to social progress, which should never be the case.

    In the short term, we can point out and criticize cases of it happening on the right or the left. But I think it's symptomatic of more systemic issues, such as the lack of accountability of these corporations and the media. When a company reaches a certain size, it should be subject to stricter labour laws and be unable to fire people for things like political views, ethnicity, sexuality etc. - such laws exist but are imperfect. "Major social media platforms" should be classified and subject to laws limiting their ability to "customize their algorithms for the user" and forced not to censor content aside from the obvious cases. Legacy media is awful and perhaps unsalvagable. It's not clear what the solution is there. Perhaps cooperative non-profit media organizations like the Associated Press should get more love and be encouraged, by stimulus packages or otherwise.

    The issue with America is that some people are so uneducated that conversations about freedom of speech become much harder. The country has a proud anti-intellectualist streak, too. We really shouldn't need to discuss whether people should be free to argue against evolution or for the flatness of the earth on prime-time TV. People should just know these things are wrong. An educated populate that can actually think is critical for a functional liberal democracy. It does not make sense to even talk about such a political system without a very well funded education system to back it up. That is a point that is often taken for granted.
    Last edited by yzb25; November 13th, 2020 at 07:16 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  10. #110

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    Based and redpilled.

    Seriously though, I agree with most of what Oberon has said. And if a backwater little internet forum like this with at most a few thousand users bans or censors someone that the administrators don't like, then it isn't that big a deal. The problems arise when forums which have become the de facto "digital commons" like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. start banning speech that the administrators don't like, all the while pretending that they aren't acting as publishers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. When enough of these big players adopt woke ideologies and speech codes, you can't just pack up and exercise your right to free speech elsewhere. There is no elsewhere. Those sites represent a giant chunk of the internet.

    If Facebook, Twitter, etc. don't want to be seen as publishers, then they should be forced to act as dumb pipes for the free speech of others, just as they wanted ISPs to act as "dumb pipes" for the transmission of data under net neutrality. Exceptions can be made for blatantly illegal content like CP and death threats, but as a general rule if speech would be permitted under the first amendment, then that speech should be permitted on most web platforms.
    If twitter and Facebook are the standard then I guess our site is a glorious bastion of free speech so people should stop bitching.

    Look watch this:
    Bitch nigger cuck fag

    I’d be like instantly banned on any of those sites.

    Food for thought to all the whiners who want sc2mafia to be their personal 8chan
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  11. #111

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Lastly, I really do wish people were actually capable of debating even to the slightest extent. You don’t tell others how much you hate their political beliefs when debating; you try attack their ideas directly. The fact that you hate their views is something that has to be internalized. All you’re doing is putting more fuel on the fire. And that will only make their convinctions stronger.
    Trumpkins: Light bonfire

    Anyone refuting a Trumpkin: why did u do dat

    Trumpkin: Y U ADDING MORE FUEL TO FIRE???

    yikes (!!!)

  12. #112

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    If twitter and Facebook are the standard then I guess our site is a glorious bastion of free speech so people should stop bitching.

    Look watch this:
    Bitch nigger cuck fag

    I’d be like instantly banned on any of those sites.

    Food for thought to all the whiners who want sc2mafia to be their personal 8chan
    Would you really be banned on those sites for saying that? I'm not convinced.

  13. #113

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    If twitter and Facebook are the standard then I guess our site is a glorious bastion of free speech so people should stop bitching.

    Look watch this:
    Bitch nigger cuck fag

    I’d be like instantly banned on any of those sites.

    Food for thought to all the whiners who want sc2mafia to be their personal 8chan
    Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits.

  14. #114

  15. #115

  16. #116

  17. #117

  18. #118

  19. #119

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    But it's on the internet which anyone from any country can just waltz in to.

    Would it be based on the jurisdiction where the server is hosted and "foreigners" only need to worry about the laws where the server is hosted?
    Would it be based on the jurisdiction of the individuals, where people mingling amongst each other have different rules they are all abiding by?

    Globalization is the only answer. We need to be united under one mega government to make this work efficiently.

  20. #120

  21. #121

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    With a hypothetical 'public' social media platform, what jurisdiction would it fall in?

    this is literally becoming the last free speech thread lol

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    First law of mega government is:

    Magoroth is banned from talking politics. A handler will be with him 24/7 ensuring he doesn't partake. If discovered to have made another political thread, he is to be immediately shot into the sun.
    nvm, we're finally making progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  22. #122

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    But it's on the internet which anyone from any country can just waltz in to.

    Would it be based on the jurisdiction where the server is hosted and "foreigners" only need to worry about the laws where the server is hosted?
    Would it be based on the jurisdiction of the individuals, where people mingling amongst each other have different rules they are all abiding by?

    Globalization is the only answer. We need to be united under one mega government to make this work efficiently.
    I am in favor of the new world order.

  23. #123

  24. #124

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    > We need to be united under one mega government to make this work efficiently.

    Imagine thinking government can micromanage the world when they can't even micromanage shit KEKW
    Under the rule of a plotato, it might work
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  25. #125

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    But it's on the internet which anyone from any country can just waltz in to.

    Would it be based on the jurisdiction where the server is hosted and "foreigners" only need to worry about the laws where the server is hosted?
    Would it be based on the jurisdiction of the individuals, where people mingling amongst each other have different rules they are all abiding by?

    Globalization is the only answer. We need to be united under one mega government to make this work efficiently.
    In my country, it’s only enforced against our citizens. On the giant social media platforms, e.g. Facebook & Twitter, accounts are usually tied to real world identity, so it’s possible to enforce.

    During this election, there was a large Facebook group (>300k members) called “Stop the Steal” in which US citizens were organising protests against election fraud. However, this was shut down by Facebook, prompting backlash from the group admins about how it’s unwarranted and against free speech.

    Since many here know that some of the election fraud accusations have been debunked as either false alarms, minor data entry mistakes or straight-up lies,
    What do you think of these troublemakers who refuse to listen to “facts and logic” and still want to organise protests? What if it escalated into riots and civil war?

    Isn’t it better to just shut them down early to prevent the situation from escalating?
    Having heard their arguments and looked into it, and answering their concerns, there should be no further need to discuss this further.

    Or are the Stop the Steal admins right, that shutting them down was wrong, and that they should’ve been allowed to protest?
    Last edited by Exeter350; November 13th, 2020 at 08:03 PM.


    Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.

  26. #126

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Ahh, so that's the fundamental point we differ on: the inherent trust in our government. I believe in some sort of "power corrupts" reality, for the simple reason that if people can do something that benefits them without getting in trouble for it, they will most likely go for it. Hence why democratic tradition is extremely important.

    For example, in the UK, since there is no unified written Constitution, the Parliament could (in theory) revoke laws that guarantee British citizens' freedom. Their extremely long-standing democratic tradition (under an extremely large meaning, it stems from as far as the Magna Carta (1215), putting limits encoded in laws to the absolute royal power) protects them from such a thing: it would never be accepted by the people, and the power in place would be overthrown. That is the power of democratic tradition: protecting from power abuse by the "power of the people", which would revolt if its rights were to be taken away; this, in turn, makes governments stop considering blatant authoritarianism as something even possible when the country's democratic tradition is strong.
    I see. Yes, I understand your concern.

    I don’t think we have any such failsafes in place here, in case things ever do hit the fan.

    It’s good food for thought.
    Last edited by Exeter350; November 13th, 2020 at 10:18 PM.


    Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.

  27. #127

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    In my country, it’s only enforced against our citizens. On the giant social media platforms, e.g. Facebook & Twitter, accounts are usually tied to real world identity, so it’s possible to enforce.

    During this election, there was a large Facebook group (>300k members) called “Stop the Steal” in which US citizens were organising protests against election fraud. However, this was shut down by Facebook, prompting backlash from the group admins about how it’s unwarranted and against free speech.

    Since many here know that some of the election fraud accusations have been debunked as either false alarms, minor data entry mistakes or straight-up lies,
    What do you think of these troublemakers who refuse to listen to “facts and logic” and still want to organise protests? What if it escalated into riots and civil war?

    Isn’t it better to just shut them down early to prevent the situation from escalating?
    Having heard their arguments and looked into it, and answering their concerns, there should be no further need to discuss this further.

    Or are the Stop the Steal admins right, that shutting them down was wrong, and that they should’ve been allowed to protest?
    Things have to be put in context first. Stop The Steal was deleted for inciting violence (literally having a #civilwar...). The movement crossed the line I talked about earlier: the line beyond which free speech does not protect you anymore. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/t...ook-group.html

    However, straight up shutting the movement down for contesting the official version of things would result in a "Streisand effect" strenghtened by the righteousness provided by the stifling of free speech the movement would be a victim of, as wrong as they may be. Therefore, Facebook was right to shut the page down, but it wouldn't have been if they hadn't incited violence.

    Just as a disclaimer I feel like I have to add, I'm not begging the question by supposing free speech is inherently good without explaining why: my last post about trust in governments and the importance of democratic tradition explains it.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  28. #128

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are arguably not private entities.
    B-but that's a far left view! FREE BUSINESS!!!!! /s

    They very much are private entities (even though they're very strong ones).
    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    First law of mega government is:

    Magoroth is banned from talking politics. A handler will be with him 24/7 ensuring he doesn't partake. If discovered to have made another political thread, he is to be immediately shot into the sun.
    You mean MAGA government
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  29. #129

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    As if Democrats never lie. Remember how Trump only won in 2016 because of Russian collusion? Heck I'm sure there are STILL democrats who are convinced that a few shitty Russian memes on facebook made all of the boomers vote for Trump. Couldn't possibly be because Hillary was an odious and blatantly two-faced candidate. What you're advocating for is selective censorship against only one side, which is extremely dangerous in a democracy. Censorship could be wielded against your political opponents today, and then against causes you support tomorrow. If you restrict someone's right to peaceably voice their opposition and enact change at the ballot box, then you make violence their only possible recourse.

    Strawman, literally nobody said that. I wasn't even coming close to hinting at this idea.

    Totally irrelevant to the discussion

    Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million fucking votes so this argument is garbage. The statement is true imo but the argument is garbage as fuck.

    Go back and read my post again. I'm advocating for calling people out on their bullshit when they demonstrably lie and saying I don't have a problem with people getting cut off when they purposely say untrue things to further their agenda. It has nothing to do with one side over another. Stop conflating everyone who disagrees with you


    Peaceably voicing their opposition is different from purposely stirring unrest. Inciting a riot is a crime, you know.
    FMX: fm Kevinpowers - Citizen (WIN)
    READ THIS THREAD RIGHT NAO

  30. #130

  31. #131

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Things have to be put in context first. Stop The Steal was deleted for inciting violence (literally having a #civilwar...). The movement crossed the line I talked about earlier: the line beyond which free speech does not protect you anymore. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/t...ook-group.html

    However, straight up shutting the movement down for contesting the official version of things would result in a "Streisand effect" strenghtened by the righteousness provided by the stifling of free speech the movement would be a victim of, as wrong as they may be. Therefore, Facebook was right to shut the page down, but it wouldn't have been if they hadn't incited violence.
    You’re right, Stop the Steal crossed the boundaries like you described earlier.

    In the case of violence, I think it’s pretty clear cut that it should be shut down.

    However, even before that stage, there are other negative outcomes that could be prevented.
    For instance, civil unrest, peaceful protests, strikes, social disharmony / divisiveness, etc.

    Isn’t it better to nip the problem in the bud, rather than wait for it to escalate to riots before saying “Ok, it’s time to stop”?
    Those other problems, while not as extreme as violence, can still have significant, far-reaching and subtle consequences on the country.

    And while I admire your willingness to let those Stop the Steal people propagate their ideas and protest as long as it isn’t violent, I wouldn’t do the same.

    If I analyse their arguments and conclude that their cause is misguided, based on misinformation / disinformation, I would not allow them to disrupt the peace. Whether violent or peaceful, their actions will impact others in society.

    There may be a chance that my conclusion is wrong, but letting the problem drag on forever is not the solution either. There has to be a cut-off time to make a decision. The protesters will not like it, because they think they’re right, but they have to accept the judgment of the authorities. Failing that, they have to be isolated where they cannot stir further unrest, i.e. imprisonment.

    All to avoid the consequences of civil unrest. Not just the violence, but the effects of discontent and disharmony.


    Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.

  32. #132

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    You’re right, Stop the Steal crossed the boundaries like you described earlier.

    In the case of violence, I think it’s pretty clear cut that it should be shut down.

    However, even before that stage, there are other negative outcomes that could be prevented.
    For instance, civil unrest, peaceful protests, strikes, social disharmony / divisiveness, etc.

    Isn’t it better to nip the problem in the bud, rather than wait for it to escalate to riots before saying “Ok, it’s time to stop”?
    Those other problems, while not as extreme as violence, can still have significant, far-reaching and subtle consequences on the country.

    And while I admire your willingness to let those Stop the Steal people propagate their ideas and protest as long as it isn’t violent, I wouldn’t do the same.

    If I analyse their arguments and conclude that their cause is misguided, based on misinformation / disinformation, I would not allow them to disrupt the peace. Whether violent or peaceful, their actions will impact others in society.

    There may be a chance that my conclusion is wrong, but letting the problem drag on forever is not the solution either. There has to be a cut-off time to make a decision. The protesters will not like it, because they think they’re right, but they have to accept the judgment of the authorities. Failing that, they have to be isolated where they cannot stir further unrest, i.e. imprisonment.

    All to avoid the consequences of civil unrest. Not just the violence, but the effects of discontent and disharmony.
    https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...ing-riots.html

    Inciting riots or violence is not legal. If people are only voicing their discontent peacefully, you have to defeat them by reason and not by prison... else, there is no democracy, and the lack of democracy leads to forms of power abuse I shouldn't have to talk about given how much history has given examples of this. This is even more important than attempting to protect some level of nation stability. The only exception I see to this is in a time of total or very important and large-scale war, during which the country's very integrity is threatened if its citizens are not strictly united (and it'd eventually lead to death of democracy anyway if such a war was to be lost).

    Plus, that's a lot of discontent people. Doing what you suggest would probably result in an actual civil war that would probably involve something like a third of the whole country on the Trumpist side (if half the country voted for Trump, I daresay there are some among those who are sane enough not to want Secession War 2.0). It's not like you can throw them all in jail and expect no resistance when they feel like they have to defend their liberties; doing this would just give them a halo of righteousness and morality.

    There's also a big thing you're missing... Trump himself isn't cooling things down at all. Should he be arrested too?
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  33. #133

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    If people are only voicing their discontent peacefully, you have to defeat them by reason and not by prison... else, there is no democracy, and the lack of democracy leads to forms of power abuse I shouldn't have to talk about given how much history has given examples of this.
    As I answered to doug, ideally arguments will be backed by “reason”, but in actuality, that may not be the case, as is happening in the US now.

    However, I understand your point about lack of democracy and power abuse. I suppose this goes back to your earlier point about needing a failsafe to authority to safeguard power of the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Plus, that's a lot of discontent people. Doing what you suggest would probably result in an actual civil war that would probably involve something like a third of the whole country on the Trumpist side (if half the country voted for Trump, I daresay there are some among those who are sane enough not to want Secession War 2.0). It's not like you can throw them all in jail and expect no resistance when they feel like they have to defend their liberties; doing this would just give them a halo of righteousness and morality.
    It would never have been allowed to get to that stage in the first place.

    The moment people started to make baseless accusations and inflammatory rhetoric, they would’ve been barred from running.

    i.e. Trump would’ve been ousted at the early stages in 2016 and the problem would never have become this big.

    As it is currently, the situation will need to managed delicately - Exactly how I cannot say. However to prevent such problems from arising in future, they should implement more stringent preventive measures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    There's also a big thing you're missing... Trump himself isn't cooling things down at all. Should he be arrested too?
    Unfortunately, no. He’s the authority, voted in by the public. He has should have the authority to imprison dissidents, not the other way around.

    However, as explained above, such a person would never have been allowed into office at all in the first place. He does not have what it takes to wield such authority.
    Last edited by Exeter350; November 15th, 2020 at 02:57 AM.


    Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.

  34. #134

  35. #135

  36. #136

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    As I answered to doug, ideally arguments will be backed by “reason”, but in actuality, that may not be the case, as is happening in the US now.

    However, I understand your point about lack of democracy and power abuse. I suppose this goes back to your earlier point about needing a failsafe to authority to safeguard power of the people.



    It would never have been allowed to get to that stage in the first place.

    The moment people started to make baseless accusations and inflammatory rhetoric, they would’ve been barred from running.

    i.e. Trump would’ve been ousted at the early stages in 2016 and the problem would never have become this big.

    As it is currently, the situation will need to managed delicately - Exactly how I cannot say. However to prevent such problems from arising in future, they should implement more stringent preventive measures.



    Unfortunately, no. He’s the authority, voted in by the public. He has should have the authority to imprison dissidents, not the other way around.

    However, as explained above, such a person would never have been allowed into office at all in the first place. He does not have what it takes to wield such authority.
    You're right. I never said we lived in a perfect world with perfect democracies though lol. We just should strive to cultivate the best world possible, and that indeed comes back to my point about the failsafe.

    It would indeed never have been allowed to get there in the first place, but then we would be talking about a completely different country.

    "Never having been allowed into office at all in the first place [when you're a crappy leader]" in this sense is an authoritarian utopia (and it being an utopia is the reason why authoritarianism is bad). If all authoritarian leaders were skilled and good-willed, authoritarianism would be amazing and superior to democracy (even a democracy with skilled and good-willed leaders). However, since most leaders are mediocre and since their goodwill is... debatable (especially when they want all the power for themselves), democracy is needed.
    Some examples of people who got into office in authoritarian regimes in different contexts: Hitler (elected and then basically self-proclaimed dictator), Stalin (not elected, under an authoritarian regime with great "political conformity", a bit like what you're advocating for), and, to take less universally hated people, Franco and Pinochet (through a coup d'état). As far as I know, none of these were amazing.
    And if you're going to say I picked highly authoritarian people instead of "soft" ones, well, you're right, but there is no such thing as a stable soft authoritarian regime. If someone has enough power to "imprison dissidents", as you say, he can and very likely will take over completely and establish a regime similar to the one Franco established government-wise.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  37. #137

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Exeter you are making a lot of assumptions lol. I didn’t even look at everything but the part where ‘Trump wouldn’t have been allowed to run due to the inflammatory comments’ piqued my interest. While I do not necessarily always condone hus comments, they are sometimes necessary and I fully agree and am 100% on board with him when they’re targeted at someone or something that deserves it. If he talks about far left anarchism and says they are thugs and paints the media as being their supporters I have absolutely no issue with this because this is sinething that needs to be said. The fact that the President is doing it is even better. His inflammatory comments were necessary to some extent.

    Also MM you’re atill paintig Exeter’s views in a very dim light that I do not agree with. Exeter is obviously not suggesting Stalinist style surveillance amd thought police; if you look at Freedom House’s ranking Singapore is ‘Partly Free’ overall and Unfree when it comes to press freedom. Please hold off with the Stalin comparisons.

    The fact of the matter is that Exeters countrys had the same government since the 60s and government corruption is very low. Do I expect this to last? No, but I can see why Exeter is heavily advocating for it.

  38. #138

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Google and Twitter are indeed private corporations but the way their interests align with the State’s so often nowadays really has me wondering whether they are in bed with them. There is no easy answer in my view to the problem of Big Tech companies overstepping their boundaries to such an extent. Nationalizing them gives the government the ability to control what censored and what doesn’t. Regulating them is another story that already comes with its own set if problems.

  39. #139

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    > We need to be united under one mega government to make this work efficiently.

    Imagine thinking government can micromanage the world when they can't even micromanage shit KEKW
    They could under me. I promise to carry out my 11 terms as President of the Planet with dignity and raspekt.

  40. #140

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    You're right. I never said we lived in a perfect world with perfect democracies though lol. We just should strive to cultivate the best world possible, and that indeed comes back to my point about the failsafe.

    "Never having been allowed into office at all in the first place [when you're a crappy leader]" in this sense is an authoritarian utopia (and it being an utopia is the reason why authoritarianism is bad). If all authoritarian leaders were skilled and good-willed, authoritarianism would be amazing and superior to democracy (even a democracy with skilled and good-willed leaders). However, since most leaders are mediocre and since their goodwill is... debatable (especially when they want all the power for themselves), democracy is needed.
    I hear you. It’s important to compare “ideal vs reality”.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Some examples of people who got into office in authoritarian regimes in different contexts: Hitler (elected and then basically self-proclaimed dictator), Stalin (not elected, under an authoritarian regime with great "political conformity", a bit like what you're advocating for), and, to take less universally hated people, Franco and Pinochet (through a coup d'état). As far as I know, none of these were amazing.

    And if you're going to say I picked highly authoritarian people instead of "soft" ones, well, you're right, but there is no such thing as a stable soft authoritarian regime. If someone has enough power to "imprison dissidents", as you say, he can and very likely will take over completely and establish a regime similar to the one Franco established government-wise.
    I have to disagree here. Those are extreme examples, and not all authoritarian governments devolve into such.

    However, I will say that it is less likely to occur with a full democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    The fact of the matter is that Exeters countrys had the same government since the 60s and government corruption is very low. Do I expect this to last? No, but I can see why Exeter is heavily advocating for it.
    I believe that without such authority, we would not have been able to come as far as we did.

    However, I understand MM’s point. And as you said, you don’t expect the current status quo to last.

    What happens when an incompetent / corrupt administration takes over and starts misusing / abusing their power?

    It’s interesting food for thought I guess.

    Well, there’s pros and cons to every governance style. Given my country’s past and current performance, I think it’s fine to maintain the status quo for now. They have accomplished a lot with the advantages of an authoritarian, and have not validated many of the risks.

    Whether or not this will continue to be the case remains to be seen.
    Last edited by Exeter350; November 15th, 2020 at 07:55 PM.


    Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.

  41. #141

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    MM you’re still painting Exeter’s views in a very dim light that I do not agree with. Exeter is obviously not suggesting Stalinist style surveillance amd thought police; if you look at Freedom House’s ranking Singapore is ‘Partly Free’ overall and Unfree when it comes to press freedom. Please hold off with the Stalin comparisons.
    "Still" painting? Also, I already addressed this point:

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    And if you're going to say I picked highly authoritarian people instead of "soft" ones, well, you're right, but there is no such thing as a stable soft authoritarian regime. If someone has enough power to "imprison dissidents", as you say, he can and very likely will take over completely and establish a regime similar to the one Franco established government-wise.
    You even agreed with my conclusion here by saying you didn't expect the kind of government in place there would last, so I think we are in agreement here? Unless we THUNDERDOME here
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  42. #142

  43. #143

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Google and Twitter are indeed private corporations but the way their interests align with the State’s so often nowadays really has me wondering whether they are in bed with them. There is no easy answer in my view to the problem of Big Tech companies overstepping their boundaries to such an extent. Nationalizing them gives the government the ability to control what censored and what doesn’t. Regulating them is another story that already comes with its own set if problems.
    I'm pretty sure the only reason Twitter doesn't ban Trump is because he's president so I guess you're (probably unintentionally) right that their interests align with the state there. Twitter played a huge role in helping Trump get elected. Facebook even moreso. Google not as much IMO.

    None of them are public entities in the slightest. Any moderation they do is to maintain public image in the name of profit. They couldn't give less of a fuck about improving society or any sort of social justice or anything.

  44. #144

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Google and Twitter are indeed private corporations but the way their interests align with the State’s so often nowadays really has me wondering whether they are in bed with them. There is no easy answer in my view to the problem of Big Tech companies overstepping their boundaries to such an extent. Nationalizing them gives the government the ability to control what censored and what doesn’t. Regulating them is another story that already comes with its own set if problems.
    You've really made me curious here. What are some examples of Google and Twitter or other electronic media giants having their interests "align with the state's" since it happens so often?
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Unfunny View Post
    How dare you send me another box of cereal
    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    congrats you're an inspiration to pedophiles everywhere
    Hopefully you'll get banned and hit by a truck.

  45. #145

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    You've really made me curious here. What are some examples of Google and Twitter or other electronic media giants having their interests "align with the state's" since it happens so often?
    The narratives they attempt to push all the time are the same as the ones major political parties are in favour of. Facebook and Twitter are heavily pro-lock down. I just can’t help but wonder if the people running those businesses aren’t somehow connected to influential politicians.

  46. #146

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Look up something on Google about Trump or the coronavirus and then look up the same thing on DuckDuckGo. You will get some verybdifferent results; it will be much easier to find something ‘centrist’ or conservative on DuckDuckGo than on Google.
    YouTubr has the same problem. People criticizing the lockdown have gotten censored.

  47. #147

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    If any of the tech companies are pro-lockdown then they are doing so out of financial self-interest. You perhaps have a point in that various web services might be pro-lockdown because they get a huge surge in users, so long as those users convert in a profitable way. But I don't think that's the conclusion you're trying to bring forward.

    Do you have a single piece of evidence of these companies conspiring with governments in this way? Could you provide a specific example of how DuckDuckGo gives less biased results than Google?

  48. #148

  49. #149

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    The narratives they attempt to push all the time are the same as the ones major political parties are in favour of. Facebook and Twitter are heavily pro-lock down. I just can’t help but wonder if the people running those businesses aren’t somehow connected to influential politicians.
    Yes, but can I have some specific examples of this? I'm asking you for sources of this, not additional generalization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Look up something on Google about Trump or the coronavirus and then look up the same thing on DuckDuckGo. You will get some verybdifferent results; it will be much easier to find something ‘centrist’ or conservative on DuckDuckGo than on Google.
    YouTubr has the same problem. People criticizing the lockdown have gotten censored.
    I have actually just done this because you've interested me. I picked "trump corona update" as my search term. In my extremely anecdotal searches I've come to the conclusion that google values recency higher than duckduckgo.

    Of the top 5 articles google offered me, 4 of them were made in the last week. Only one was from October. DuckDuckGo offered me more dated articles from a wider variety of sources. I don't pretend to understand how search engines work, but could this not potentially just be that the two algorithms are coded differently? It makes sense from a corporate perspective. Google is the most used search engine in the world, millions if not billions of people use it for research every day. Would it not be within your company's best interest to have the most up-to-date information be the most accessible, perhaps at the cost of it being less objective?
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Unfunny View Post
    How dare you send me another box of cereal
    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    congrats you're an inspiration to pedophiles everywhere
    Hopefully you'll get banned and hit by a truck.

  50. #150

    Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Honestly I tried searching a bunch of stuff on both DDG and Google, using a VPN with all tracking cleared, and I couldn't find a bias either way. If anything DDG was more likely to recommend news sources I'd see as much more sensationalist, like Vox and to a lesser extent Huffpo. Though notably DDG also had shittier results overall imo, Google showed me much more relevant and current stuff (searching "trump transition" on Google gave me results on the recent election, on DDG it gave me results of the Obama-Trump transition).

    I'd be curious to see specific examples of this so-called bias.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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